Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 258

Thread: Exactly what does the IRS agent think?

  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    The insideous part of all that is the US Supreme Court has ruled there to be three viable definitions for the United States.

    Importing RIVERA's work here might be best with this warning, for what it is worth. I have not seen any results or delivery - but then because he is an attorney (or was before he was disbarred?) and three definitions for the US, I have not spent any time looking at his school and lesson plan.

    When he started telling people that Hawaii had Article III courts I inquired by email if they had ever terminated the Article I employees. He went silent and never answered, except that he did seem to quit preaching it...




    If he had been courteous enough to email me back with some kind of acknowledgement I might be more inclined to follow his work.


    Chapter 4:*
    The Three United States


    By 1945, the year of the first nuclear war on planet Earth, the U.S. Supreme Court had come to dispute Marshall's singular definition, but most people were too distracted to notice. The high Court confirmed that the term "United States" can and does mean three completely different things, depending on the context:




    The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign* occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states*** which are united by and under the Constitution.

    [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]
    [brackets, numbers and emphasis added]


    This same Court authority is cited by Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, in its definition of "United States":

    United States. This term has several meanings. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

    [brackets, numbers and emphasis added]

    In the first sense, the term "United States*" can refer to the nation, or the American empire, as Justice Marshall called it. The "United States*" is one member of the United Nations. When you are traveling overseas, you would go to the U.S.* embassy for help with passports and the like. In this instance, you would come under the jurisdiction of the President, through his agents in the U.S.* State Department, where "U.S.*" refers to the sovereign nation. The Informer summarizes Citizenship in this "United States*" as follows:

    1. I am a Citizen of the United States* like you are a Citizen of China. Here you have defined yourself as a National from a Nation with regard to another Nation. It is perfectly OK to call yourself a "Citizen of the United States*." This is what everybody thinks the tax statutes are inferring. But notice the capital "C" in Citizen and where it is placed. Please go back to basic English.
    [Which One Are You?, page 11]
    [emphasis added]


    Secondly, the term "United States**" can also refer to "the federal zone", which is a separate nation-state over which the Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction. (See Appendix Y for a brief history describing how this second meaning evolved.) In this sense, the term "United States**" is a singular phrase. It would be proper, for example, to say, "The United States** is ..." or "Its jurisdiction is ..." and so on. The Informer describes citizenship in this United States** as follows:



    2. I am a United States** citizen. Here you have defined yourself as a person residing in the District of Columbia, one of its Territories, or Federal enclaves (area within a Union State) or living abroad, which could be in one of the States of the Union or a foreign country. Therefore you are possessed by the entity United States** (Congress) because citizen is small case. Again go back to basic english [sic]. This is the "United States**" the tax statutes are referring to. Unless stated otherwise, such as 26 USC 6103(b)(5).
    [Which One Are You?, page 11]
    [emphasis added]


    Thirdly, the term "United States***" can refer to the 50 sovereign States which are united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America. In this third sense, the term "United States***" does not include the federal zone, because the Congress does not have exclusive legislative authority over any of the 50 sovereign States of the Union. In this sense, the term "United States***" is a plural, collective term. It would be proper therefore to say, "These United States***" or "The United States*** are ..." and so on. The Informer completes the trio by describing Citizenship in these "United States***" as follows:

    3. I am a Citizen of these United States***. Here you have defined yourself as a Citizen of all the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. You are not possessed by the Congress (United States**). In this way you have a national domicile, not a State or United States** domicile and are not subject to any instrumentality or subdivision of corporate governmental entities.
    [Which One Are You?, pages 11-12]
    [emphasis added]


    Author and scholar Lori Jacques summarizes these three separate governmental jurisdictions in the same sequence, as follows:

    It is noticeable that Possessions of the United States** and sovereign states of the United States*** of America are NOT joined under the title of "United States." The president represents the sovereign United States* in foreign affairs through treaties, Congress represents the sovereign United States** in Territories and Possessions with Rules and Regulations, and the state citizens are the sovereignty of the United States*** united by and under the Constitution .... After becoming familiar with these historical facts, it becomes clear that in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7701(a)(9), the term "United States**" is defined in the second of these senses as stated by the Supreme Court: it designates the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States** extends.

    [A Ticket to Liberty, Nov. 1990, pages 22-23]
    [emphasis added, italics in original]


    http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/pdf/chapter4.pdf



    You should explore this site at some point:
    http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

  2. #72
    Am I reading this right?? Do my eyes deceive me??? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign entity that operates in admiralty court under the guise of the legitimate government of these united states of America? Do I have that right?

  3. #73
    What fails to be typical about me (apparently) is that my perceptions and conclusions change in time by allowing my understanding of Rules of Evidence to process new information (once verified) into new perceptions. In other words please take note of the date I wrote that paper. It got Ron's money and recently I learned that the entire action seizing all those accounts was completely reversed, I think with Ron being about the only one who got any money back. That does not mean that everything I wrote in the paper is factual.

    Many of the assertions might just be my perceptions at the time. Ron being restored of his life savings does not prove that all my perceptions were factual.

  4. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by BAMAJiPS View Post
    Am I reading this right?? Do my eyes deceive me??? UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign entity that operates in admiralty court under the guise of the legitimate government of these united states of America? Do I have that right?
    The United States of America is an association composed of States only.
    The government of the United States is a public corporation.
    The government of the United States is private international law.

    Government of the United States is foreign to the several (individual States).

    Government of the United States operates on Roman Civil Law.
    The law of the District of Columbia is Lex Fori.

  5. #75

  6. #76
    Excellent find! Thank you.

  7. #77
    Why must the form be made under penalties of perjury? Why cant it just be a declaration. If the information matches the record what is the need to 'ceremonialize' it to such an extent? Is it because you have to 'risk' something to make the return 'valid'?

    In the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure is the following section:

    § 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.

    Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

    (1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

    (Signature)".

    (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

    (Signature)".

    (Added Pub.L. 94-550, § 1(a), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.)
    Last edited by allodial; 02-09-13 at 01:40 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #78
    My theory of the week is that swearing subjegates one to government - which government can take on many different forms in life. It is the means to become a government servant. Jesus was awarded upon birth (gold) funds for the family tomb, starting with his generation and also a scholarship, giving him access to all the mystery schools in Egypt, Israel and Babylon. Jesus never, in other words swore in to the government of any Lodge.



    There is more to this though. There was a mountain man living in leathers (in exile). The King of Israel had been in exile for over twenty years - his name was Archelaus HEROD. The HEROD who took John's head (after John spoke out against him as ruler) was Antipater HEROD and was never King - but remained Tetrarch. There was another brother Philip HEROD but that was in another province so he never really got into the Bible Story. Archelaus was exiled in about 6 AD or when Jesus was about ten.

    Upon Archelaus dying the title had a Vacancy and finally Jesus took an oath of office. The dunking in the Jordan really has very little explanation so please accept that Planet Merrill abhors a void. This fits so nicely.

    However the Gospels carry two firm admonishions against swearing at all. - Not by heaven or earth.

    When you are sworn in even to testify are you not giving that Lodge permission to punish you for perjury? Does this bring you into position as a party in interest to the court? How about the 1040 Form? What about anything you swear to?
    Last edited by David Merrill; 02-09-13 at 05:06 AM.

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Chex View Post
    Chex;

    Thank you again - the brain trust offers insight too about how the IRS agent/attorneys think!


    Crosstalk: Did anyone else besides me notice the glaring typo in the closing sentence of this document?
    We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.



    That sentence is missing the “not” in the final clause!
    The last sentence says the opposite of the court opinion being talked about in the IRS memorandum - instructing the IRS agents to consider the Return invalid. This might be sleezy attorney artistry. But writing about it here brings some insight for the brain trust! (Echo chamber return.)

    The IRS attorneys may be instructing the IRS agents that while they cannot charge a frivolous fine - when the taxpayer declares the signature under protest, the Return is indeed invalid because it is "unvoluntary".

    Furthermore notice how the IRS attorneys filed an immediate Notice of Appeal into the Second Circuit. The USCA was notified - meaning the United States Code Annotated and quickly the IRS decided they did not want the justices opining about this at all so it was withdrawn.

    Chex;

    Please show us your search engine path leading you to this memorandum. Are there other memos that I am missing for this thread?
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Attached Files Attached Files

  10. #80
    P.S. Some more Crosstalk:

    While relaying this to the members and readers on StSC it struck me that it is not a typo. – An echo chamber Return if you will.

    We now agree with the court that adding the words "under protest" without modifying the words of the jurat does not cast doubt on the validity of the jurat and, accordingly, does invalidate the document as a return.
    This sentence in the context of an internal memorandum to IRS agents might mean exactly what it says. Although the IRS agent cannot call it frivolous, the “under protest” does indeed invalidate the tax return because it is no longer voluntary compliance.

    The main reason that this struck me as significant at all is that it opens up the availability to us, should we be compelled to submit IRS forms at all, to put the Non-Endorsement stamp on our Jurat, or Signature Line. The USDC NY is saying that any alterations do not affect the validity of the document so long as the taxpayer does not affect the validity of swearing and the IRS attorneys say that for the internal purposes of the Form, they do indeed have to listen to the additions/stipulations to the Signature itself, on the Signature Line.

    Meaning that a tax return for a full refund of withholdings should also include the Redeeming Lawful Money stamp on the signature line and that the IRS has to recognize that stipulation added to the signature itself.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •