PJ 16
CHAPTER 13
REC #2 HATONN
FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 1990 1:29 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 310
LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER
We are here to serve you in the best possible manner; however, to protect the writers, publishers, printers and all involved or who will have any portion in the publication of this document, we disclaim any responsibility or liability for any loss incurred as a consequence of the use and application, either directly or indirectly, of any portion of this book including any portion of the following letter to an employer. We are coming forth to bring you the facts. You live in a world of corrupt conspirators against your freedom and constitutional rights. If you handle your affairs with aptitude for perfection and understand that which you do, you will be fine.
The following sample letter is designed as a basic outline for the individual who is not a "taxpayer" as defined in the Internal Revenue book; it is not designed to provide any legal advice because legal advice can only be obtained from a knowledgeable professional in the practice of law who has a license to practice law. This is a massive protection of the lawyers of the world and who am I to override any such protectionism of rights to rid you of your money through injustice? I doubt you will find many who will know a thing about the subject.
We have found, within this very group, that the mention of the Constitution or any constitutional rights as even regards a right to a hearing is laughed at and that contempt of court is threatened or sanctioned by the judges and lawyers involved in the business of separating you from your assets and putting them into their pockets. When we get to the Journal dealing more with "Justice" we shall give a breakdown of the litigations involved right here in this place. Until you experience the system in all its full blown gore, you cannot truly appreciate the deterioration of anything remotely presumed to be "law".
I don't really know HOW you would go about suing me, at any rate, and my scribe is completely judgment proof. In addition, I am giving you nothing which is not already printed and public in some place. I honor with great gratitude ones who have not only written on these subjects but have most graciously allowed use of material. One such splendid friend is Howard Freeman who said, "Please, just use anything and everything I have--but please don't give my address for I am over my ears in cases and can handle no more". We will list some most dedicated and honored ones and I shall honor privacy.
We have carefully studied hundreds of volumes of information on this subject‑-we have chosen only valid, workable methods and information. Some authors have covered varying aspects of the subject material and others have connected some actions to others--we found NONE which presented it in fullness, so please understand WHY we could not simply send you to a library to obtain a given book. For instance, NO ONE outlays the use of corporations to "lose yourself". I have spoken of it at length in a separate Journal and following the July meeting in Las Vegas we shall link the chain together but we do not have access to choosing the proper speakers for the meeting and ones simply are not going to have the picture in total nor quite correctly put together--but we must begin somewhere. Further, we find if we pass 200 pages at the most, in a Journal--the readers are bogged and will not fully study the information. Bear with us through the months ahead and we will give you information and instructions for as long as we can function.
This sample letter is given in a small book called THE BEST KEPT SECRET, by Otto Skinner. It can be obtained through Liberty Library, or if you inquire, perhaps America West can make it available to you. I can only remind you that you must give credit and support to these authors who have researched and done the work in a most physically human manner, and it is only through physical confirmation will you ones come to accept the possibilities at hand. Ours is to integrate information and assist you in ways of proceeding with action which can allow you to regain your national stability. Ours is the privilege of "seeing both ends of the road"--we can advise you and we can assist you--YOU MUST DO IT!
Mr. Skinner has a very good suggestion. If you have any questions in your mind as to whether or not your job activities involve any revenue taxable activity, we suggest you obtain advice from a KNOWLEDGEABLE attorney. But make sure he is availed of all of this information for almost none of the lawyers practicing law today care a tinker's damn about the Constitution. Most come out of the cookie molds of legal academies and know only that which has been "told them to enforce" and how "to control the client and keep the time clock meter running". Be cautious indeed or you will lose more than you expected and still not have the truth of the constitutional law. IF HE BELIEVES THAT YOUR PARTICULAR ACTIVITY IS TAXABLE FOR REVENUE PURPOSES, HAVE HIM STATE WHICH AUTHORITY DETERMINED THAT PARTICULAR ACTIVITY TO BE TAXABLE FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.
For example, some cases have been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, as in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., that the business activities of private corporations were taxable for revenue purposes. That may or may not be factual or even lawful, but remember, at this point we are NOT dealing with corporations for they have ever so much better protection under current legal manipulations than do you as a private citizen.
Insist on that lawyer telling you WHICH, if any, of your activities are taxable for revenue purposes under the Constitution. Remember always, that the nature of a revenue taxable activity is such that it cannot be undertaken as a matter of constitutional right. Doesn't leave much except criminal activities does it?
Unfortunately, you will likely find very nearly all attorneys have not even read, let alone studied, the important landmark decisions in regard to taxation--especially THE TAX attorneys. They are there to get your money and taxes any way they can or seek shelters and other nonsense and miss the point entirely. Beware the so-called "tax" attorney.
Unless an attorney is thoroughly familiar with the court cases cited and many other related cases, he could hardly be considered competent to give advice on revenue taxable activities, and certainly not competent to give advice to an individual who has not been engaged in any revenue taxable activity.
By studying the court cases cited, you will be in a much better position to determine whether any particular attorney is really competent to give you advice and assistance of counsel in this particular field. It is also best that you get copies of these cases from a law library and do your own study and research. Even competent counsel would have a difficult time assisting an individual who doesn't even know the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax.
In view of the fact that one must be engaged in a revenue taxable activity before one is subject to any revenue tax, the employers will not have a legal leg to stand on when they try to justify the withholding of money from any individual who is not engaged in any identifiable revenue taxable activity, providing the issues are properly presented.
Do not let the employer off the hook, and you who are employers--you do not deserve to be off the hook until you understand the "law". The employer carries the burden of knowing whether or not you have been hired to engage in any revenue taxable activities. It is the employer who directs the activities of the employee. The employer holds a position of trust. It is assumed, as a matter of law, that the employer knows what he is doing.
Protecting and defending your constitutional rights is serious business and the only way "you the people" will regain control over your out of control government and your destiny. So be it and may you step out in front and lead the way for your less daring brothers--God and the Constitution are on YOUR side, my friends.
Mr. Skinner has placed this notation in his book: "Purchasers of this book may use any part or all of this letter for their own personal use". I urge you to support this man in his work so please honor that notation--and purchase his book. Research, writing, publishing and printing are expensive indeed and what any average citizen who follows these instructions will add to his private money supply is all but incredible. You do the arithmetic and then order his book, please. I would believe that the book would be about $10 and to preserve privacy I shall just ask you to go through America West who will instruct you or make the title available to you.
The following will be quoted but I shall save space by not showing it as "quotes".
* * * * *
Your name
Address
City, State & Zip
Date_____
Cert. Mail #_______
NOTICE
Director of Personnel
Your company's name
Address
City, State, Zip
Re:
DEMAND FOR FULL PAYMENT OF WAGES AND DEMAND EMPLOYER CEASE AND DESIST WITHHOLDING OF WAGES UNDER THE GUISE, PRETEXT, SHAM AND SUBTERFUGE OF WITHHOLDING TAXES FROM EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME OR OTHER REVENUE TAXES, AND PAYMENT OF ALL MONEYS UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD.
Dear________________:
Please take notice that I, (your name), hereby demand full payment of my contracted wages and demand that you cease and desist withholding any of my wages under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of withholding taxes.
You know full well that my job description does not involve any revenue taxable activity, event or incident, and you know that, as your employee, I have not incurred any tax liability, and therefore I am not subject to any revenue tax or tax withholding.
You know full well that the free exercise and enjoyment of the God-given and constitutionally secured right to lawfully acquire property or compensatory income, by lawfully contracting one's own labor in innocent and harmless activities, for lawful compensation, cannot be (and therefore has not been) taxed for revenue purposes.
You know that a constitutionally secured right is the antithesis of and must never be confused with revenue taxable activities such as doing business in a corporate capacity or the pursuing of certain occupations for profit or gain such as the practice of law.
You know full well that the Internal Revenue Code does not concern any person who is not involved in any revenue taxable activity, and therefore the code makes absolutely no reference and has no application of any kind whatsoever to anyone, except only those persons who are subject to revenue taxation as a result of their revenue taxable activities. You know that the United States courts have ruled:
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. THEY RELATE TO TAXPAYERS AND NOT TO NONTAXPAYERS. The latter are without their scope. NO PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR NONTAXPAYERS, and NO attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law".
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238. (1922)
Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589. (1972) (Emphasis added)
You know that the legal term "taxpayer" is very narrowly defined in the Internal Revenue Code at sections 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14).
(b) Notwithstanding section 7701(a)(14), the term "taxpayer" means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
26 U.S.C. 13130z) (Emphasis added)
and,
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-‑
(14) Taxpayer.--The term "taxpayer" means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
26 U.S.C.7701(a)(14) (Emphasis added)
You know that the term "taxpayer" clearly applies only to those persons who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.
You know that the "income tax" is an indirect, and not a direct, tax on incomes. You know, of course, that the U.S. Constitution makes a clear distinction between direct taxes and indirect taxes.
"In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes THE TWO great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition MUST be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises".
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,
157 U.S. 429, at 557. (1895); and
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.,
240 U.S. 1, at 13. (1916)
(Emphasis added)
You know, of course, that the Sixteenth Amendment was placed in our U.S. Constitution in 1913. The Sixteenth Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration". Sixteenth Amendment, Constitution, United States of America. (1913)
You know that the only class of tax that can be laid on incomes without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration, is an indirect tax. You know that it is the "without apportionment" language that confines an "income tax" to the class of indirect taxes.
You know, of course, that in the cases of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, the U.S. Supreme Court (1916) ruled the Sixteenth Amendment and the income tax act passed under it are constitutional because they only concern indirect taxes, and because the Amendment does NOT authorize the direct taxation of incomes or even confer any new power of taxation, nor does it in any way alter, change, enlarge or affect the taxing power originally conferred upon Congress by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
"(T)he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax...is...wholly without foundation...."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 u.s. 1, AT PAGE 18. (1916) (Emphasis added)
"(T)he Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at page 112. (1916) (Emphasis added)
"(T)he conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the CONTRARY recognized the FACT that taxation on income was in its nature an EXCISE entitled to be enforced as such...."
Brushaber, supra, at pages 16017.
(Emphasis added)
You know that the income tax, being in its nature an excise tax, is not actually on income as property, but on revenue taxable events, incidents or activities, from which the income is merely used for measuring the tax. Hence, the name "income tax". It is according to the income, and not upon the income itself. The class of taxes which are indirect include duties, imposts and excises, and such taxes are never upon any kind of property, but only upon revenue taxable activities, which include, but not limited to, the exercise of certain procured privileges, such as doing of business in a corporate capacity, where the measure of the amount of tax is typically income, sales, inventory, etc.
You know that in 1916, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment and the nature of an income tax, the court relied on the earlier ruling it had made in 1911 in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Flint that a tax measured by the income of corporations or insurance companies is not a tax directly on income as property, but an indirect, or excise, tax upon the business activity of corporations which is a lawful subject of taxation. The U.S. Supreme Court said:
"Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity...."
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S.
107, at 150. (1911) (Emphasis added)
and,
"We must remember, too, that the revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the States in order to support their local government".
Flint, supra, at 154.
(Emphasis added)
and,
"Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of a
private corporation ... the tax must be measured by some standard...".
Flint, supra, at 165. (Emphasis added)
and,
"It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income....".
Flint, supra, at 165
(Emphasis added)
You know very well that the free exercise of a constitutionally secured right is not a legitimate subject of taxation. You know that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution".
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113. (1943)
You know that the federal government and the state governments cannot, and therefore have not, taxed the free exercise of constitutionally secured rights.
You know that one who lawfully contracts his own labor to engage in innocent and harmless activities in exchange for lawful compensation cannot be taxed for revenue purposes, and therefore is not a "taxpayer" as defined by statute, and is therefore a NONTAXPAYER and is entitled to ALL the fruits of his labor.
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry".
U48 Am Jur 2d, Section 2, page 80.
(Emphasis added)
You know that an indirect tax is never a tax upon the tangible fruit, but rather upon the taxable event or activity.
"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax....".
Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, at 502.
(1930) (Emphasis added)
Knowing that the so-called income tax is an indirect tax and in its nature an excise, you know that an excise tax cannot be (and therefore has not been) imposed upon any individual or upon an individual's free exercise of a natural right secured by the U.S. Constitution.
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an EXCISE cannot be imposed".
Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813,
at 819. (1930) (Emphasis added)
You also know that in the landmark cases of Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, (1937), and Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security taxes are also indirect taxes, and that the Social Security Act lays a "special income tax upon employees". In Helvering v. Davis the court described title VIII of the Social Security Act as follows:
"Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an 'income tax on employees,' and 'an excise tax on employers'. The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. 801. The excise tax on employer is to be paid 'with respect to having individuals in his employ', and, like the tax on the employees, is measured by wages. _ 804... . The two taxes are at the same rate. 801, 804. . . . The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. 807(a)".
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 at 635.
(Emphasis added)
You know full well that the Internal Revenue Code sections 3102(a) and 3402(a) provide:
The tax imposed by section 3101 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer, by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.
26 U.S.C. 3102(a) (In part)
and,
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making
payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax...
26 U.S.C. 3402(a)( I) (In part)
refer only to the wages of persons (employees) who are "taxpayer(s)", that is, those who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue laws as a result of the revenue taxable activities.
You know full well that the legal criterion or standard by which your employees are to be determined as to whether or not they are employed in a revenue taxable activity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much wages or money they earn, but instead, is determined exclusively by the factual description and precise nature of their employment in terms of what they actually do or did and whether or not it involves any kind of activity which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. A revenue tax liability is not incurred by the free exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right, and therefore unlimited income derived from such activity is not taxable for revenue purposes. You know full well that a revenue tax has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of wages earned by the free exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You know full well that one incurs a tax liability in the same way any other kind of liability is incurred, that is, by doing something that affects the rights of others, or of the public, and as a result of which a duty arises to answer for damages. One answers according to the same duty which a witness has before a grand jury to answer, upon being granted immunity from criminal prosecution. (See Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648, at 652.) In other words, you will not be criminally prosecuted for being involved in a revenue taxable activity, provided you truthfully and timely report, or make a return, regarding your income from that activity, and computing the tax thereon. The amount of income which you have procured from that taxable activity is not directly taxable as such, but it is confiscable or seizable as a product of that taxable activity, and under the revenue law's taxing schedules or tables it is the basis for measuring or computing the amount of tax on such activities.
You also know that the legal status of your employees who are not subject to income taxation, which includes the Social Security tax, does not involve the declaring of exemptions or an exempt status on a W-4 form, since that form can only be legally used by those who are subject to the tax because of their revenue taxable activities, and who are legally defined in the Internal Revenue Code as "taxpayer(s)", and yet you have willfully and corruptly exerted undue influence and pressure upon your employees, who are not subject to revenue taxation, to fill out and sign W-4 forms, and to provide you with Social Security numbers.
You know that you cannot, as a condition of employment, compel or require an employee, especially one who is not employed in a revenue taxable activity, to submit a W-4 from. You know that a W-4 form, when signed by anyone who is not engaged in a revenue taxable activity, is NULL and VOID.
You also know that the law, namely Treasury Regulation 31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2) which has full force and effect of law, absolutely forbids an employer from sending any W-4 form to the Internal Revenue Service if such form has been signed by an individual who is not subject to any revenue tax.
"31.3402(f)(2)-1(g)(2) Exception. A copy of the certificate shall not be submitted under paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section if the employer reasonably expects, at the time the certificate is received, that the employee's wages (under chapter 24 of the Code) from that employer shall not then usually exceed $200 per week".
Treas. Reg. 31.3402 (f)(2)-1(g)(2) (In part)
(Emphasis added)
You know full well that Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to those who are engaged in revenue taxable activities. You know full well that you have no reason to expect me to earn $200 per week from revenue taxable activities when I was not even hired to engage in any revenue taxable activity. You know full well that you cannot withhold a tax from one who is not subject to the tax. Only a "taxpayer" can have taxes withheld. The withholding of funds under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of collecting a tax is criminal conversion, extortion, an abuse of corporate privilege, and is depriving that individual of property without due process of law.
Knowing full well that the state and federal taxing agencies rely and depend upon employers, such as yourself, to know which, if any, of their employees are employed in revenue taxable activities and to truthfully identify and report the names of such employees, if any, to said taxing agencies for processing under the appropriate revenue laws, you have willfully and corruptly submitted my name as a misrepresentation of tax status to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Franchise Tax Board, as if I were employed in a revenue taxable activity and therefore subject to revenue taxation and tax withholding, which you knew and know to be false, regarding the true nature of my employment by you, and which you knew and know is not of a revenue taxable nature. You have at all times known that I would not, as a result of my employment, incur any revenue tax liability or become subject to any tax under any revenue law.
You know that by submitting to the federal and state tax collecting agencies the W-4 forms and Social Security numbers of your employees who are not subject to income taxation, you have willfully and corruptly made factual misrepresentation to said agencies, all in the furtherance of the unlawful scheme of procuring from said agencies fictitiously contrived and legally void tax withholding "orders" as your false color and pretense of legal authority for unlawfully depriving said employees of their full contracted wages.
It is assumed, as a matter of law, that you, acting in a fiduciary capacity, knew, and know, the above stated facts.
Despite your knowledge of the foregoing facts you, nevertheless, have corruptly and falsely represented to the federal and state taxing agencies that I am and was employed by you in a revenue taxable activity, and thereby incurred a revenue tax liability and became subject to the income tax. As a direct and proximate result of said misrepresentations, you willfully, corruptly and unlawfully procured false orders and instructions from said agencies to unlawfully withhold my wages as if I were employed in a revenue taxable activity and as if my job involved some revenue taxable event or incident and, as if I were therefore subject to a tax under a revenue law.
The fact that I supplied you with a Social Security number and the fact that I signed a W-4 form does not indemnify you from liability. The furnishing of numbers or the signing of forms does not change a non-taxable activity into a taxable activity. It is assumed, as a matter of law, that you know which, if any, of your employees are employed to engage in revenue taxable activities.
By your unlawful acts, you have violated our contract and you have violated my constitutional rights. I therefore demand of you the following:
1. Cease and desist withholding of wages under the sham, guise, pretext and subterfuge of withholding taxes, and
2. Make immediate payment to me of all moneys which you have unlawfully withheld from me, and
3. Pay to me an additional and reasonable amount of money, which will be determined either by negotiation between us or by adjudication in a court, to compensate me for the damages which you have done which are in the nature of exemplary, punitive, and other damages.
Sincerely,
your signature)
your name typewritten)
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing letter and know its contents, and to the best of my knowledge the statements therein are true and correct, except as to those matters upon which I rely on information and/or belief, and as to those matters I do believe them to be true and correct.
Dated:
/s/
(NOTARY PUBLIC'S JURAT)
* * * * *
Well, now you are all worked up and either want to do something or too full of fear to do anything. Worse, how can you ever get such a long letter typed, etc., etc. Perhaps I can get America West to make available blank copies of the letter so that all you have to do is order some and fill in the appropriate blanks. We will do anything we can to get you off your assets and into action.
Oh, well you are just too terrified? Let me give you a little backbone in the form of a case citation which has a very practical application of principles. Again, I am indebted to Mr. Skinner. In fact, to make sure you get his book, I am going to give you this information and for further information and photocopies of actual cases, references, documents, etc. you will have to get his book--and yes, you should have the backup information. You must go to the batting box with the bat in hand or you can expect to strike out.
THE SANOCKI CASE
Throughout this Journal, emphasis has been laid upon the fact that "income" taxes are restricted to the classification of indirect taxes, and upon the fact that indirect taxes are never upon any kind of property, money or otherwise, but only upon taxable activities in which the resulting income is merely used to measure the tax on those revenue taxable activities.
Additionally, emphasis has been laid upon the fact that anyone who has not engaged in any revenue taxable activity or event is not within the scope and purview of the revenue laws.
The Sanocki Case provides the reader with a demonstration in the practical application of these principles. Mr. Skinner has an Exhibit G in his book and it provides copies of selected pages from public records of the criminal case of U.S. v. Sanocki, CR 81-364, which were obtained from the clerk's office of the United States District Court, Central District of California, located at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California. (Better get the book!)
In this case, the "defendant" had been indicted on four charges of violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201 (Willful Attempt To Evade Income Taxes), and four charges of violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203 (Willful Failure To File Income Tax Returns).
The selected pages from "defendant's" document titled:
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO:
1) RECONSIDER, SET ASIDE AND VACATE ORDERS FOR PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION;
2) REPLACE COURT APPOINTED ADVISOR, MR. JOSEPH WALSH WITH COUNSEL WHO WILL GIVE DEFENDANT MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE;
3) STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER FOR PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION PENDING HEARING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER, SET ASIDE AND VACATE SAME.
will be found in Exhibit G of THE BEST KEPT SECRET, by Otto Skinner.
Some of the pages of the document have been purposely omitted from the exhibit in order to direct attention to "defendant's' jurisdictional challenge that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment does not charge an offense and because she is not a person within the purview of the Internal Revenue Code.
Your attention is directed mainly to item 4 starting on page 10 of the document. Especially for the Patriot who has been searching for answers, it is suggested that item 4 be studied thoroughly. In this case, the "defendant" essentially challenged the opposition on the fact that the indictment did not state sufficient facts which would indicate that she had been involved in any revenue taxable activity or event. In absence of such showing, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hold anyone for trial.
Earlier, you were questioned. What do you believe will happen when people start demanding hearings to produce finding of facts and conclusions of law by the courts to determine whether or not they were actually involved in any revenue taxable activity or event? The Sanocki Case provides the answer. The "defendant" in this case was not about to let the "government" get by with their own mere conclusions of law that she had "gross income" or "taxable income", or was "obligated to pay", or was "required by law". Instead, she raised the issue that she was "entitled to a hearing" which would require the "government" to produce facts which would support their legal conclusions. In absence of a showing of such facts, the court had no subject matter jurisdiction to hold her for trial. The issue of jurisdiction, however, must be raised, which this "defendant" did.
It should be pointed out that the court's jurisdiction over the person must be challenged prior to trial, but the court's subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, because the court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by anyone. (See U.S. v. Kahl, 583 F.2d 1351, at 1356; Lott v. U.S., 280 F.2d 24; and U.S. v. Andreas, 458 F.2d 491. Also, in regard to a court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, see Giordenello v. U.S., 357 U.S. 480).
Notice how directly "defendant" Sanocki addressed the correct issues. The "defendant" did not present any complicated or frivolous arguments. An individual is either subject to this indirect tax which is in the nature of an excise imposed upon some activity or event which is taxable for revenue purposes, or he is not. An individual is either within the scope and purview of the revenue laws because of his revenue taxable activities, or he has not occasioned any revenue taxable activity or event and therefore is not within the scope and purview of the revenue laws. It is that simple.
As you read the Sanocki Case, you will see that some people, including some attorneys, will consider an individual "crazy" when the individual stands up for his God-given and constitutionally secured rights. However, you will also notice that some people in high places recognize the correct arguments. The "defendant's" document was filed in Los Angeles on Friday, December 11, 1981, and the DISMISSAL AND ORDER shown in that Exhibit G was filed in Los Angeles on Tuesday, December 29, 1981. This was all during the Christmas holiday period. Considering that the major decisions in these so-called "income tax" cases are made in Washington, D.C., and assuming that copies of the "defendants" documents were mailed to Washington, D.C. for review, it seems quite safe to say that the charges in this case were dropped like the proverbial "hot potato".
It is important to note that Sanocki and thousands of other American Patriots who are trying to stand up for their constitutionally secured rights are not "tax protestors' as they are often accused of being. It is one thing to protest a tax. It is entirely another thing to protest extortion which is committed under the guise, pretext, sham and subterfuge of collecting taxes.
Now what will you do? I hope you are encouraged, as hard working Americans, to learn to stand up for and protect your God-given and constitutionally secured rights to lawfully acquire property (income or other compensation) by lawfully contracting your own labor to engage in lawful, innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation, and to recognize the fact that such activities cannot be, and therefore have not been, taxed for revenue purposes.
I still urge you to hold off just a minute before acting without thinking. You can go on and carry this off if you please, but we are going to give you some more approaches to handle the IRS when they start writing you letters, etc. Because, obviously as a NONTAXPAYER, you will stop filling out forms of any sort dealing with "taxpayers".
You have reached serious problems in your government and police state and it will not be easy to regain your rights. However, you can if you will act in care, lawfully and above all--get off your assets, save your assets and get the assets back that they have stolen from you.
Samuel Adams, 1772:
"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or
give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end
of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to
freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave".
AMEN
PJ 16
CHAPTER 14
REC #1 HATONN
SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1990 5:00 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 311
UNLIMITED SHOCK
If you are not yet in total shock or stopped breathing; let us give you some more options. There is no need for you to feel foolish over not knowing these things regarding your government or the IRS--such as: the IRS is a PRIVATE CORPORATION just like the FEDERAL RESERVE. And to make you feel less alone, some 30 million people are not paying taxes this year and thus; the heat will be on for that Constitutional Convention whereby the government can legalize, by mandate, the police force harassment and remove your other freedoms. I am most serious indeed--you are within a hair's breadth of losing it all!
ARE YOU A UNITED STATES CITIZEN?
NO! You are a Citizen of the United States.
Now for more grammar examination: try the term "United States". Is it singular (one thing) or plural (more than one thing)? By the Constitution it is plural. You know that because the terms "their" and "them" were used as pronouns referring to the United States, i.e.: Treason against the "United States" is "adhering to their enemies"; "levying war against them". You probably memorized the names of the United States in fifth grade or so and how boring it was to have to remember ALL those names of states.
But the term "United States" is also used in the singular sense. It is one nation. A nation is a natural thin. Yours exists because of the boundaries of the states. It is never defined in other terms. The term "United States" is a geographical name--one thing, one nation. The United States are one "union"; the United States is one nation. Confused? No, you isn't? I are!
Because "United States" is a noun ending in "s" it can be either singular or plural. "Jones"' car could mean the car of one person (Mr. Jones) or many persons (Mr. and Mrs. Jones and the 20 kids.) But in either case, as you learned in about the fourth grade, the apostrophe must follow the "s".
Were you born in the United States? The preposition "in" shows that "United States" in that question is a place, a geographical place named "United States" and is singular and it refers to a natural place, a nation--a land.
When "United States" is plural it refers to the "union" of the states. Unions are things "Un-natural", and they are things, not places. Unions, as WE the People said, need to be perfected, nations can't be perfected. Unions, all unions, exist by agreement. Nations exist naturally. Oh yes, indeed, it makes a great difference so learn the definitions NOW and you'll make sense of it as we move on.
The only requisite for citizenship is "place" of birth. Every person is a natural citizen of some nation. Nature is so important to citizenship that persons wishing to change citizenship must be NATURALized. For those who appreciate 2000 year old terms, "naturalized" means born again. For instance, all of you who refer to yourselves as "born again" this or that, such as Christian--are simply "naturalized" Christians. But that is not so important except as definition and reference. Just remember that original citizenship exists because of places, not agreements.
If you were born in the United States (singular) you are automatically a citizen of the United States, the United States, one place, one nation. Would you also like to join the "Union", the United States (plural), "them"? Sorry, only states can join this Union, not "people".
AT LEAST THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS TO BE
In 1867, "United States": was either the name of a geographical place or the name of a union of states. In 1868 a new meaning was created--a third meaning. The fourteenth (14th) amendment accomplished this feat. It begins like this: "All persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".
The problem is that the amendment used the term "United States", first in the singular, geographic, national sense (in the United States) and then in the plural, union agreement sense (jurisdiction thereof). BUT, it didn't make the word "jurisdiction" plural. It should have read "jurisdiction's' thereof". But that would have been quite illogical, for places don't possess jurisdiction. The Union had jurisdiction over the states, but not over people and WE THE PEOPLE had jurisdiction over the Union--or so you said. Under 1867 definitions of the term "United States", the amendment made no sense.
Rather than admit to the foolishness of the amendment, a new meaning was given to the "United States". IT BECAME A TITLE. This meaning was unimagined by the Founders of the original constitution. They took great care in it to grant NO TITLE to the government. The constitution merely describes the government of the united states (states united). It used NO titles. The best example of that fact is that the "supreme" Court is described with a small "s". The constitution "entitled" nothing. "WE the People" is the only title used in the document! WE the People had had a fill of Kings and nobles of Kings and titles in general. You were going to be the only nobility of your nation. YOUR TITLE WAS YOUR BIRTHRIGHT, it was not granted by the government. It was not a privilege--IT WAS A RIGHT!
The foolish creation of this "title" did not eliminate or change the prior meanings of the term "United States" as it was used in the original constitution. Hence, since 1868 the term "United States" has three meanings: 1) the geographical name of a nation, 2) the name of a union of states, which in turn define the nation, and, 3) a title of nobility. The first is singular and natural; the second, plural and created by agreement; the third, singular and granted.
But wait. The government may grant no title of nobility! True? TRUE. The government of the United States may NOT, BUT YOU CAN!
As a nobleman you can grant title, only you. Plus you can abdicate your title; you can trade it for a new one. But you can only trade downward, the title you're born with is the highest. You can trade your high title for a low one; that's a right you possess. It's easy to do. Too easy.
All you do is claim that your new title is "United States Citizen" (no apostrophe (')). Do that and you'll instantly show that you are a person "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. You will use "United States" as a title preceding the word "citizen" and prove that you believe that the "United States" is something (someone) other than a geographical description, or the name of a union of states. In claiming that it has jurisdiction greater than your own, you grant it TITLE. A "person" who holds the highest title of a nation and subjects people to his jurisdiction is a KING.
Have you ever claimed the title "United States Citizen"? Do you have a Social Security card? YOU did it. How about a passport? Same title. Passports and social security are entitlements (en-TITLE-ments). They are granted by the "high noble", to the lesser nobles. Entitlements are granted by the "United States Citizens" (no apostrophe). This government is a government of title. It exists side-by-side with the constitutionally described "government of the united states (United States)".
Oh, so you want proof? Take a good look at anything possessed by this government. On the object you find a label or sign. It says: property of United States Government. It owns more property than any feudal king ever dreamed of possessing, but then it has more subjects than any feudal king.
As a person of low title under the United States Government, you are bound to obey, not only law, but a code as well. Remember how feudal knights had to obey a code--a code of chivalry? Well, the "code" a United States Citizen is bound to is called (entitled) "United States Code" (no apostrophe). Originally this was called "Code of Law of the United States (united stated. But it was quickly filled with so much non-law that the name was changed, so that persons claiming low title would know that it was for them to obey and NOT YOU WHO RETAINED YOUR ORIGINAL BIRTHRIGHT TITLE. Didn't you realize this? Well, perhaps you don't deserve such a wondrous and glorious title!
At the same time another problem arose. The courts described in the constitution had jurisdiction (judicial power) in matters arising under the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States, made under THEIR authority. Plural. "Union." If violators of the code were to be punished by the courts, or if the courts were to hear any matter under the "code", a new court system needed to be established. A court system for persons of low title; these would be Courts of Title.
The titles of the Courts? "United States District Court"; "United States Court of Appeals". The courts described by the constitution would be "district Courts of the united states (United States)"; "appeals Courts of the united states (United States)"; "supreme Court of the united states (United States)". It would appear, that since both titled courts and constitutional courts must now exist, the judges must sit in either. They hold two jobs.
You determine which court by addressing your petition to one or the other. You pick. The titled courts are no place for a freeman, a citizen of the United States. The courts have a zillion rules (published in the "code"), right down to the kind of paper and the style of typewriter you must use. The courts of the united states are quite the opposite, having no published rules. These courts are OF LAW, FOR JUSTICE. Trivial things like paper and type style and fancy labels and front pages of certain face forms have no bearing on either.
If you are a United States Citizen you'll have to appear before a court of TITLE, at least in civil matters under the code. Jurisdiction in criminal matters is properly still left to "district Courts of the united states". Lucky the criminals, who can get into one of these courts that still assume their structure from the constitution. Thusly, counterfeiters and pirates fare far better than persons of low title! Well they should, for their court follows Law and Justice, while a United States District Court follows only "code".
Titled courts are harsh in their administration of the code, for they are bound to nothing else. These courts will gladly take the word of a United States Attorney over the word of a petty United States Citizen. IN COURTS OF TITLE--RANK CERTAINLY HAS ITS PRIVILEGES, MY FRIENDS. THESE COURTS OWE NO ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION, they need not rule by the Laws of the United States. They follow a Code, they obey their master, the United States Government. These courts function exactly as did the infamous Crown Courts of England, that you fought a revolution to rid yourselves of in the first place.
This "dual Court" system is probably the only reason for what, at first glance, appears to be a contradictory "case law". While a reasonable mind can understand the potential for divergent court holdings from state to state, the contradictions in "federal" court holding should be most troubling to you good citizens. Have you ever wondered how the "Supreme" Court can overturn itself? It very likely does not. But one can quickly see that the decisions of courts of title or "United States Courts", would oft times conflict with the rulings made by constitutional "courts of the united states". One would hear only matters brought by titled Citizens, the other by freemen. Since the decisions are published in one volume, with no distinction made between the courts, case law seems to contradict itself.
Should you find this "dual court" concept a bit far fetched, examine the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 7402(b) and 7604(a'. You'll find these sections grant the authority to two different courts to enforce summons. The sections are identical, word-for-word in every respect--EXCEPT ONE: One gives the authority to "United States District Courts", the other to "district courts of the united states".
BACK TO THE INCOME EXCISE TAXES!
Why both? Ah ha! Income taxes are excise taxes. They are an excise/occupation tax on a "privilege". The privilege is your TITLE, United States Citizen. A "first party" summons is made upon a titled person. But a "third party" summons might be made upon anyone, titled or not. Thus, one court must enforce the one; the other court must enforce the other. Do you still think "they" don't know exactly what "they" are doing?
Since a titled individual is required by code to keep books, records and papers, the court of title can demand the delivery of those documents, without particularly describing them, without describing the place to be searched, without the presentment of accusation by a party under oath or affirmation. Should a titled person fail to deliver up such documents he'll find himself in jail for contempt--NOT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT--contempt of code. A court of title may jail him for failing to produce records which no one has even claimed exist! He'll be released from jail when he "creates" the documents which a titled person is required to possess.
DUAL COURT MOST APPARENT IN TAX MATTERS
No where is the dual court/dual government system more apparent than in tax matters. At common law, titled individuals (BUT NOT THE KING) are bound by an oath of allegiance in order to be entitled. Thus, income tax forms must be signed only by persons under oath. You see, the form is to be signed by "United States Citizen".
HENCE, A SIGNED TAX FORM IS ALWAYS INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE IN A "CRIMINAL" TAX PROSECUTION TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS CLAIMED A TITLE!
Perhaps you've heard that tax deductions are granted by the "grace" of the United States Government. It is true. Grace is a favor or privilege. Kings dispense grace. Kings deny grace. What is given in grace, may be denied. IRS will often deny tax deductions. Look as we might, it is impossible to discover where in the constitution the government was authorized to dispense or deny "grace".
But the government of the united states (United States) doesn't dispense and deny grace, the United States Government does. It dispenses and denies grace to its subjects (remember the subject to), the United States Citizens. This king wears no crown, for it has no head. It can't be killed; it can't be harmed. It can't even be sued, unless it first "grants" its permission or grace. It's hardly the same government which you demanded would always allow you to petition for redress of grievances!
This government-king has existed for over a century. At first it was quite innocuous while all of you dozed and napped, for it had very few subjects. But when it tricked THE PEOPLE into signing away your birthright via reams of non-understandable forms, its powers became immense and WE THE PEOPLE just ASSUMED - - - ! Today this government of title is so powerful that the original, constitutional government of the united states has become totally "lost" in its shadow just as 'they" planned it to work.
There are still two governments. One asks that you should serve it; the other only seeks to serve you. The government of title will entice you with promises of grants and entitlements: welfare, social security, low interest loans, grants of exemption, grants of deductions. But it is like Satan--it cannot "give" you anything. It exists only by YOUR authority. It can't give you anything that you didn't already possess. Try as it might to deceive you, it exists by your grace--not the other way around!
YOU COULD DO YOURSELF AND YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS A GREAT FAVOR; WITHDRAW AND DENY YOUR GRACE. BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AGAIN. Stop trying to serve two masters; you can't do it. Stop pretending that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You won't be unless you choose to be. Even the greatest king is only a king by the consent of his subjects. Stop being a subject. Be a free man!
Refuse to claim that you are a "United States Citizen". Deny jurisdiction to titled courts. And by all means, stop calling this king by his title--"United States Government".
IS THE IRS A FOREIGN CORPORATION?
Further, how is it that the budget for the operation of the IRS (which IS a private corporation and NOT A GOVERNMENTAL BRANCH) is included in the budget of the U.S. Government which is voted into existence by Congress?
Furthermore, it is the extravagant spending by Congress in excess of revenue received which is the primary cause of inflation, not some esoteric convolution of the IRS.
Yes, Congress does fund the "Internal Revenue Service". The FIRST occurred in 1954. Until then there was no mention in statutes of "IRS". Until the 1940s the term 'internal revenue' was reserved to taxes paid on commodities, paid via stamp. Until 1954, "IRS" was a semi-slang term describing, NOT DEFINING, persons who collected EXCISE taxes. "IRS" was a term like "G‑man" or 'T-man". While oft used by the public, it had no function whatsoever at law.
In 1954, with the FIRST use of the term, Congress showed that IRS had become an entity. Who is IRS? That remains unanswered, for Congress has yet to address the matter in positive terms. It can be speculated that IRS may be a foreign corporation or federation. One cannot speculate that IRS is an agency for that would be a matter of public record--a matter at law. Speculation would be quite unnecessary in that instance.
In 1982 Congress enacted a codified version of Title 31. This title begins with a list of Treasury agencies. From the House Report which accompanied the bill and the encoder's notes in U.S.C., YOU WILL FIND THIS LIST IS COMPLETE, both the Report and the encoder thrice calling it such.
IRS IS NOT IN THIS COMPLETE LIST! So, while Congress has failed to tell you what is IRS, they have clearly told you what the IRS is NOT. IRS is NOT a Treasury agency. Title 26 says that taxes may be collected ONLY BYTREASURY OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENCIES. Too bad; IRS may NOT collect tax.
A few years ago Congress simply said, 'The Emperor has NO clothes". Yes, they are still paying the swindlers (a deal is a deal). Surely they take great consolation in knowing that the money comes from people like you, people who defy logic, viewing their king as robed in the finest attire--a fabric of such noble weave that even Congressmen are unable to discern its substance! Or, perhaps the three-martini lunches have blurred vision. Perhaps what Congress does see is best left unspoken at law; your king, lacking a mother's advice, has worn the same underwear for 30 plus years. Look again and laugh lest the last laugh truly be on you for they, in Congress, laugh at you hysterically every day of the year while they squander your hard-earned property in every heinous manner conceivable unto man.
The U.S. Code does NOT contain an enabling act which established the IRS; therefore, it is quite proper that the finding was noted that the new Title 31, chapter 3, contains a "complete list" of all Treasury agencies, and this "complete list" has nothing in reference to the establishment of the IRS.
I PROMISE YOU THAT IF YOU ALLOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO TAKE PLACE THAT LITTLE ERROR WILL BE REMEDIED. IT IS UP TO YOU WHETHER YOU ALLOW OF IT TO HAPPEN OR DO NOT.
It is clearly obvious that the IRS is not governmental, but private. If you study a biography of the infamous PHILANDER KNOX (Secretary of State when the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared ratified), you can learn that he conducted foreign affairs via a doctrine known as "dollar diplomacy". KNOX WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN LOANS BEING MADE BY THE BIG NEW YORK BANKS TO PANAMA AND CHINA. THE BANKS, TO SECURE THESE LOANS, RECEIVED ASSIGNMENTS OF TAX REVENUES, AND EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO ESTABLISH AN AGENCY IN PANAMA TO COLLECT THIS DEBT.
OH BY GOLLY---***---I FINALLY GOT YOUR ATTENTION!!! AND WHO DO YOU THINK OWNED, THEN AND NOW, THOSE BANKS AND WHY MIGHT IT BE NICE TO "INVADE PANAMA" TO GET TOTAL CONTROL OF THAT MESS?
There are many other proofs that private companies collect the national revenue. It certainly is not a novel idea that a national tax collecting service could be a private organization--in fact, for the money greedy grubbers it is highly likely!
OK, little lambs, take note: The INTERNAL REVENUE TAX & AUDIT SERVICE, INC. was birthed as a corporation in the State of Delaware. The incorporation took place on July 12 1933...Three minutes on the telephone with the Secretary of State's office in Delaware can inform you (with giggles of humor from their end of the line) that yes, the Articles of Incorporation were filed on July 12, 1933, and then they were voided on April 6, 1936 for failure to pay State Franchise Taxes! Oh OH! Watch it! Worse--that corporation was a corporation set up as an equivalent to what is now recognized about your lands (especially in April) as H.& R. BLOCK! But why would such a service even be under consideration at that time? One of the best ways to "lose a trail" in incorporations is to move a viable company out of the country and allow the original to go defunct.
Chelas, I realize this is all mind boggling to you. You feel the fool; duped; raped, pillaged, ravaged and plundered. So be it, for it is all a working, smoothly laid plan for the World Order to take control by year 2000 at the latest. "Global Plan 2000" is right on schedule and you sleep on. Oh yes, there is everything that you can do about it and we'll give you more at the next writing.
We have a very weary scribe and you must remember, she too, is in a state of aggravated and furious shock. So be it, and I now leave you to ponder it. Until next time, this is your friendly tattle-tale signing off - - - - -
Hatonn
Tags, 상세검색
