[QUOTE=David Merrill;10977]Yes please. - Do sanitize the Doc and link it. I was about to broadcast it to the brain trust (suitors) and prefer you be comfortable with the Information shared on it. [QUOTE]
REDACTED DOCS.pdf Here they are again, extra sanitized.
Something I forgot to point out about the 4340 Assessment Record--on the final page, it is very clearly signed by someone other than the officer named on the signature line. The accompanying certificate of official record (not included in this file) bears the same signature and the same obviously different name for the certifying officer.
That reminds me of the Gail Sinocki tax evasion case in California in 1981, which Otto Skinner talks about in his books. Sinocki had representation forced on her by the Court. Sinocki challenged the indictment against her as lacking any factual allegations and consisting of mere legal conclusions. Soon after, Sinocki's forced representation moved the Court to send Sinocki for a psychological evaluation. Sinocki moved the court herself to provide other counsel. Sincoki's case was apparently dismissed. Skinner has in the appendix of his books Sinocki's Motion to be assigned alternate counsel, which tells the whole story. She seemed frightened by the psych evaluation tactic--claiming persecution for her unconventional views on income tax and comparing the whole scenario to a "star chamber".I have been pondering this lately. There is an operation of arraignment by attorney. If you reject the attorney, you reject arraignment and that leads the court to question traditionally if you are from another jurisdiction and incapable of understanding what is going on - touched by God ex visitation Dei. This of course evolved into psychological evaluation to determine whether or not you are fit for trial.
My understanding is that appearance by the attorney representing the defendant perfects the in personam jurisdiction of the court. A challenge to jurisdiction must be made by the defendant himself in special appearance. The Federal Court very strongly encourages representation. Otto Skinner gets into this in his book "If You Are the Defendant"--the 6th amendment guarantees the right to assistance of counsel (which does not require defendant to have the attorney actually represent him). The Court strongly discourages defendants in criminal cases from self-representation because of lack of competency in general of pro se litigants--but a defendant who wants to control his own case may (in theory) have the best of both worlds by employing counsel to assist with procedure in dealing with the Court.
Subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time--even years after the trial. I am not sure about this, but the tax prosecution is really all about the charges in the indictment against the res (thing) is it not? This would seem to make it appropriate to challenge subject matter jurisdiction if, like Hendrickson, a defendant had been unaware at the time of the nature and cause of the charges, and had unknowingly waived his common law right to work for a living in the private sector by failing to make his demand for lawful money. Realizing that later, it seems to me one could challenge the presumed waiver of rights that gives the Court jurisdiction over the res for purposes of the indictment for violation of IRC. No valid contract, no subject matter jurisdiction.
Reply With Quote