40 votes

I'm being extorted, and I need protection.

A group of known murderers has made a false claim against me for about $10,000 due on April 15. If I don't pay, they claim the authority to kidnap me, and lock me in a cage, depriving you of the enjoyment of my company. If I resist the kidnapping, they say they'll kill me.

I will gladly pay $7,000 to any person, or group, that will protect me from this gang commonly called the "Internal Revenue Service." But I would certainly need assurances that the protection will be effective.

If your first thought was "Oh Peter, you're over-dramatizing your taxes, it's not that bad." Or anything along those lines, go fuck yourself! You have your own brain, use it. Why do you let other people hijack your own cognition? That's my question.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually legal protection fees are 100% tax deductable

if you choose to file. Actually its up to 2% personal or up to 30% as a corporation of the 'tax' liability.

I really don't understand why those in the liberty movement do not look to this more. We could all structure our finances in a specific way individually and legally divert 30% of all tax revenues into 'legal protection' which is related to pretty much everything in one's life if structured properly.

Just from the Ron Paul crowd alone we could probably easily divert $100 billion per year EVERY year into legal protection that would be a MAJOR force to be reckoned with.

There are so many more things we can do than what we are not doing now and this example here is just one.

So it's possible your $7,000 dollar payment for legal protection would even be 100% tax deductible if you chose to file in the first place.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

more...

"Dear Mr. "Revenue Officer,"
... I've been giving a lot of thought to your demanding tone that I bring in tax returns and other personal papers for you to review in your capacity as an agent for the IRS.
I am bothered, not only by the tone you used, but by the fact that your demand comes in conflict with the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... "

I do know that some authority has been granted to the Secretary of the Treasury, but I don't believe that he has been granted any authority to demand personal papers from me. Therefore, I don't believe, Mr. "Revenue Officer," that you have that authority; and, therefore, I will not be attending any meeting without first determining whether you have the authority to inquire into my personal affairs.

Now there is a possibility that I may be wrong; but if I am, you are going to have to show me. Therefore, I am requesting the following:
Copies of the statutes that impose upon me an obligation to produce personal papers to you.
Specific copies of the delegation orders from the Secretary down to the Commissioner, down to the District Director, and down to you.
Copies of any notices sent to me that informed me that I am required to keep records and papers for the Secretary or the IRS or you.
Copies of any determinations or decisions that show that I am liable to the United States of America or the IRS for any taxes.
Copies of any documents or decisions that show how I came within that taxing authority of the United States of America.
My authority for making this request is as follows:

"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he sho purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority... and this is so even though as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority." Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).
Without this specific documentation of authority I will presume that none exists and that any submission of information by me to you is totally voluntary and may well constitute a waiver of my fundamental right to privacy and the security of my personal papers and effects.

I will be awaiting your response. If you need additional time, please notify me. Absent that, I will expect to hear from you by October 8, 1989, with the documentation requested.

If I do not hear from you within that time, such lack of response will further support the presumption that you are without authority to make this inquiry into my personal affairs.

Sincerely, "Non Taxpayer"

Certified Mail # ____________"
Copy: District Director File

[Note: Mr. "Non Taxpayer" is not a "United States" citizen, but a citizen of the State of Indiana - See Report #16A: The Best Kept Secrets of the IRS, Q.3, on IRS/federal jurisdiction.]

The "Revenue Officer" responded on 9/20/89:
"Dear Sir,
This letter is in response to your letter and requests dated 9/11/89. With respect to your inquiries, please refer to Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6012, 6091(b), 6151 and 6201. If your intent is to question the legal basis for Income Tax I suggest you contact your elected Federal representatives, as the Internal Revenue Service only administers tax laws passed by the legislative branch.
Also, since I am not aware of any special exemption you possess for not being required to file a Federal Income Tax return, please be advised I am again requesting you filing of Federal forms 1040 for the years ended 2/31/84, 12/31/85, 12/31/86, 12/31/87 and 12/31/88. In the absence of such I will continue to determine your Federal Income Tax liability for the above years.

Sincerely, Revenue Officer"

On 9/29/89 Mr. "Non Taxpayer" responded:
"Dear Mr. "Revenue Officer,"
I am in receipt of your letter of 9/20/89 which is in response to my letter of 9/11/89.
As you suggested, I have, along with a friend, looked up and copied the sections of the Internal Revenue Code, that you requested I refer to in your letter. I would like to address each of those sections.

Section 6001 states in pertinent part, "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereto shall... "

Section 6012 states in pertinent part, "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income... "

Section 6091(b) states in pertinent part, "In the case of returns of tax required under part II of this subchapter... "

Section 6151 states in pertinent part, "... When a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall... "

Section 6201 states in pertinent part, "The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations and assessments of all taxes imposed by this title, ... which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1) The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title... "

In reference to Section 6011, I deny that I am liable or a person made liable for any tax imposed by this title or for the collection thereof. If you disagree, I am requesting that you refer me to the section of the Code that makes me liable. I am further requesting copies of any written decision by the Secretary or his properly delegated official who made that determination. I am also requesting a copy of that determination.

In reference to Section 6012, I deny that I have any obligation under Subtitle A. I further deny that I have a taxable year or that any section of Subtitle A makes me liable to pay or collect a tax. If you believe to the contrary, I request that you refer me to that section of Subtitle A that imposes a tax upon me that makes anything I receive in return for the exercise of my right to work, taxable income. Also please send me a copy of the decision by the Secretary or his properly delegated official that any funds I receive are taxable to the United States of America.

In reference to 6091(b), I deny that I am required to submit a return to the Secretary. If you disagree, please refer me to that section of the Code which imposes that requirement upon me.

In reference to Section 6151, I deny that I am a person required to submit a return and deny that I have any obligation to pay a tax to the Secretary or to the United States of America on anything I receive for the exercise of my right to exist. If you disagree, please refer me to that section of the Code which imposes that requirement. Also send to me a copy of the decision by the Secretary or his properly delegated official who made that determination.

In reference to Section 6201, I deny that the Secretary or his delegate has authority to make an assessment for income taxes in reference to me. If you disagree, I request that you send to me a copy of each and every delegation order issued by the Secretary in reference to a citizen of a state who exercises his right to work outside of any federal territorial jurisdiction.

So there is no misunderstanding, I am not challenging the legal basis of the income tax for those to whom it applies. I am just wanting to verify that you are not trying to apply sections of the U.S. income tax laws to one who does not come within the purview of those sections.

Until you can show me how, where and when those sections of the Code, that you referred to in your letter, apply to me, I cannot, out of fear that my voluntary action would be construed as a waiver of my fundamental rights, submit information to you. I want to see a statute, that is written in clear and easy-to-understand language, that makes me the person who is liable to submit a return or pay a tax to the United States.

The basis for my position is the Supreme Court decision of Guardian T & D Co. v. Fisher, decided in 1906 and cited as 26 S.Ct. 186, with the following quote at page 188:

"An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing and his failure to act creates no liability, but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do the particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it."
You state: "I will continue to attempt to determine your Federal Income Tax liability for the above years." That is totally up to you Mr. "Revenue Officer," but until you produce for me the documentation of your authority, and that of your agency, as I requested of you in my letter of September 11 and in this letter, I do not believe I have any obligation to waive my fundamental rights to privacy and the security of my papers and personal effects.

The basis for my requests is the same as in my letter of September 11, and that is my reliance upon the Supreme Court decision of Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).
Sincerely, "Non Taxpayer"
Certified Mail # _______________
Copy: District Director File"

The "Revenue Officer" must have passed all the above correspondence to the Chief, Collection Branch, who sent five "2358C" form letters - one for each "tax year" in question - to Mr. "Non Taxpayer," dated 11/29/89:

"... Correspondence Received Date: Nov. 22, 1989
Dear Taxpayer,
Based on the information you have provided, the account specified above is resolved. We may contact you in the future, if further issues arise requiring clarification. At present, no further response is needed on the above account.

Sincerely yours, Chief, Collection Branch"

Mr. "Non Taxpayer" responded on 12/20/89:
"... Dear Chief...,
I am in receipt of five 2358C letters dated November 29, 1989, referencing my name, the years 1984 through 1988, and which state that, "Based on the information you have provided, the account specified above is resolved." These letters further allege that correspondence was received on November 22, 1989, on which you presumably based these letters.
I am not aware that I sent you any correspondence on or about November 22, 1989. Please identify the correspondence you referenced and how you obtained that correspondence.

These letters also reference an "account" that I allegedly have with you. I am not aware of any "account" and deny that I have any "account" for any of the five years your letters reference.

If you disagree with my determination, please send to me the documents showing that the "account" was opened, the type of "account," who opened it, and under whose authority it was or they were opened.

Furthermore, these letters reference the terms "taxpayer," "taxpayer identification number," "tax form," and "tax period" as having some application to me. I deny that these terms have any application to me.

If you disagree with my determination, please send to me the documents which substantiate your assumption that these terms are applicable to me.

Also, I would like to know what authority you have, as the Chief of the Collection Branch of a Department of the Treasury Service Center, to make such presumptions of fact and conclusions of law in reference to me. Please send to me the documents that specify this authority.

If you agree with my determination, please notify me of the actions you have taken to correct these errors.

I will expect your response to my request within thirty days. If you need additional time, please make your request in writing and it will be granted.

If I do not receive a response from you within that time, the presumption will be established that your assumptions are in error and are without basis in fact and law and that my determinations are correct.

I will appreciate your cooperation and earliest response to this matter.

Sincerely, "Non Taxpayer"
Certified Mail # _____________"

Notes:
You never have to deal with the "IRS monster." You always deal with individuals - bureaucrats with their weaknesses, fears, insecurities, and quotas to fill.
Many IRS bureaucrats know that legally they don't have a leg to stand on and that they are no match for the informed citizen armed with knowledge.
In the desire to fill their quotas, they will quickly drop any formidable opponent in order to pursue "easy pickings" - the ignorant individual, particularly those who rely on CPAs and attorneys who are part of the "system."
If an IRS agent phones you, then respond, "I want to cooperate with you. I'm somewhat deaf, but I see very well. Please write to me."
Anyone considering standing up for his or her rights, should take steps to secure his or her assets so they are effectively out of reach of looters, particularly government looters - use Trusts and alternative banking.
"The entire, increasingly rickety, structure is designed to preserve the secret of the "income tax"; which is that - as presently applied to working people - it has been perverted into a direct tax on the source without apportionment. Such a tax is as illegal today as it was when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. That is the secret our friends at I.R.S. are trying to hide."
- Alan Stang, 1988 (Taxscam)
"It is a proven fact: the men and women of the Internal Revenue Service can be beaten. If you remain, in spite of this revelation, fearful, it is your choice. This is not to say you should feel now the expert in tax matters. We have barely scratched the surface. But at the very least, you should have learned that the Bully has a soft belly, an Achilles heel, and is mentally and physically lazy. Not only a coward, he is a paper tiger."

- Donald W. MacPherson, 1989
(Tax Fraud & Evasion)

some stuff I've been collecting

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/irc7806.htm
Internal Revenue Code (Title 26, United States Code) is not Law
26 USC 7806
COMMENTS
26 USC 4161(a) says that a manufacturer must pay a 10% tax on artificial lures.
26 USC 7806(b) says that Title 26 is not the law. In other words, "No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..." N.B. "legislative construction" means "law."

26 USC 4161(a) says lures must be taxed. Nordby supply Co. applied 26 USC 7806(b) to invalidate the lure tax.

The Internal Revenue Code is not the law. It only defines a contract between the IRS and the individual.

TITLE 26, UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE.
Section 7806. Construction of Title.
(a) Cross references. The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word "see" is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.
(b) Arrangement and classification. No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

CITATION
1. Location or grouping of section

Fact that 26 USCS Sec. 4161(a) is located in part of Code dealing with recreational equipment and sporting goods is of little significance in determining applicability of tax to lures used in commercial fishing since Sec. 7806 provides that nothing is to be inferred from grouping or indexing of any particular section. Nordby Supply Co. v United States (1978, CA9 Wash) 572 F2d 1377, cert den 439 US 861, 58 L Ed 2d 170, 99 S Ct 182.

TITLE 26, UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE.
Section 4161. Imposition of tax.
(a) Rods, creels, etc. There is hereby imposed upon the sale of fishing rods, creels, reels, and artificial lures, baits, and flies (including parts or accessories of such articles sold on or in connection therewith, or with the sale thereof) by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax equivalent to 10 percent of the price for which so sold.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/26usc7806/index.html
Cases related to 26 USC 7806:
Hall et al. vs. USA, 975 F.2d 722
Laing vs. US, 423 U.S. 161
U.S. vs. Reorganized CF, 518 U.S. 213
Juvenile Shoe Corporation vs. U.S.A., 99 F.3d 898
Motor Fuel Carriers, Inc. vs. U.S., 420 F.2d 702
Alcoa, Inc. vs. U.S.A., 509 F.3d 173
U.S. vs. Bisceglia, 420 U.S. 141
Natchez vs. U.S.A., 705 F.2d 671
Bank One Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket 5759-95
Patton vs. U.S.A., 305 F.2d 655
Security State Bank vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 214 F.3rd 1254
U.S.A. vs. Garland, 43 F.3d 1474
Nordby Supply company vs. U.S., 572 F2d 1377

Read the cases carefully. The gov't doesn't want the point to be really clear, and they use subtle wording to avoid that clarity. Nevertheless, if you understand the basic wording you can see that 26 USC is not law.

To whom it may concern,
I am in receipt of your form letter dated June 11, 2012. I must admit still some perplexity as to the nature of its contents.

First, your letter suggests that I am obligated in some way or may owe some unpaid ‘debt’ to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in the amount of $625. I am unaware of any valid, binding and subsisting instrument or contract bearing my signature that authorizes you to compel that performance of me. Nor am I aware of any such involuntary requirement imposed upon me by Positive Law. This letter is my response that I disagree and dispute the validity of this charged tax/debt.

Second, you state that this account has gone on for far too long and you have offered me your assistance, yet I continue to resist facing this overdue obligation and that I can decide to address and resolve this liability (voluntarily)? I do not need your assistance and your assertion is denied. I replied January 25, 2012 Certified Mail#____________________. I did not receive any response to the verification I requested within the 30 days allotted from any representative at (company) who has first hand personal knowledge regarding this (“debt, liability, obligation”). Thus correspondence from January 25, 2012 is null and void.

In case someone at (company) has ‘misplaced’ the questions and verification I need answered in my correspondence sent January 25, 2012 Certified Mail#______________ before I pay anything. Here they are:
1. All documents on which you base your position that a natural person such as myself has an obligation or liability to pay this type of tax/debt that you are imposing and/or trying to collect.
2. All documents that specifically identify all laws, statutes, regulations, and Supreme Court case cites that impose an obligation upon me for this type of tax/debt and that I am a ‘taxpayer’.
3. Copies of all determinations, signed with a penalty under perjury statement made by a real person at ______________________________, LLP and the Pennsylvania Revenue Dept with first hand personal knowledge that concluded that any obligation was imposed upon me, and which specifically determined the extent of this obligation.
4. Copies of all delegation of authority to make any determinations in reference to me regarding this tax/debt.
5. A Certified True Bill showing the exact amount I am supposed to owe to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue signed penalty under perjury by a real person at (company) and the Pennsylvania Revenue Dept with first hand personal knowledge of the facts.
6. An itemized statement of account showing all goods and/or services delivered to me by said entity upon my request or demand.
7. A Certified True Copy of the valid, binding and subsisting Instrument or Contract bearing my signature which authorizes this or any related collection activity.
8. A Certified True Copy of the mandatory Article VI (United States Constitution) Oath of Fidelity for each individual at (company) who is involved with this collection activity.
9. The policy number and name and address of the underwriter of the Bond(s) required by Law that insure said individuals in the handling of Public Funds.
10. Positive identification of all real parties of interest to any Valid Instrument or Contract which authorizes this collection activity, including all holders in due course on the instrument.

Unless, within 30 days after the receipt of this notice there is a failure to respond to stated requests it will result in an estoppel, fraud by silence:

“Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel.” [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932]

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” [U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d.297]

Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 192 U.S. 397; 24 SCt 382 (1904)
“the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language”.

Higley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d 160 (1934)
“Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax. Merely imposing a tax does not establish liability to pay the tax. Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax.”

Bente v. Bugbee, 137 A. 552; 103 N.J. Law. 608 (1927)
“‘Tax’ is legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin, and liability to taxation must be read in statute or it does not exist.”

Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983)
“The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.”

11. All communication is only accepted in writing.
Respectfully,
=
heres two definitions of State from title 26, one dealing with a legal tax, and the other with income tax:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006103----...
(5) State
(A) In general
The term “State” means—
(i) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
NOW State defined for Income tax:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00007701----...
(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Why doesnt it include the 50 states?....because, Income tax can not be levied on people outside a federal zone (with few exceptions)
So, for the purposes of Income tax, if you live in the "United States", which includes the district of columbia (and not the 50 states) then an income tax can be imposed....this is how these things work.
The other way the work is by using a saving clause. These are found in ALL laws.
something to the effect of "no rights are affected by the provisions of this code"
If they make a new law tomorrow that says "Every person MUST have a license to go to church", does that mean it stands? No, because, in the beginning of the act it would have its saving clause....
see:http://law.onecle.com/california/fish/3.html
"This code shall not impair any privilege granted or right acquired under any of the laws of this
State prior to the date it takes effect."
or CVC 4
=
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE IRS HAS POWER OVER YOU? REALLY? hmmmmm
"It is no longer open to question that the general [federal] government [including its agents, the IRS], unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S. Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect to the internal affairs of the states, and emphatically not with regard to legislation". [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)]

Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"

The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 USC 255.
40 USCS § 255 says: "In view of 40 USCS § 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said
section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S Ct 1122." (plaintiff's emphasis). The IRS must establish jurisdiction or it will be sanctioning FRAUD: "Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932
=
http://www.notacitizen.com/index.php/articles/86-sample-docu...
=
USING THE CODE WITH THE IRS
If the IRS sends you a Notice of Deficiency, this is called a "presentment" in the Uniform Commercial Code. A "presentment" in the UCC is very similar to the Common Law. First we must understand just how this works in the Common Law.

Suppose I get a man's name from a phone book -- someone I have never met. And I send him a bill or invoice on nice letterhead which says, "For services rendered: $10,000". I send this by Certified Mail to him at the address taken from the phone book. The man has to sign for it before he can open it, so I get a receipt that he received it. When he opens it, he finds an invoice for $10,000 and the following statement: "If you have any questions concerning this bill or the services rendered, you have thirty days to make your questions or objections known."

Of course, he has never heard of me, so he just throws the bill away and assumes that I'm confused or crazy. At the end of thirty days, I go to court and get a default judgment against him. He received a bill for $10,000, was given thirty days to respond. He failed to object to it or ask any questions about it. Now he has defaulted on the bill and I can lawfully collect the $10,000.

That's Common Law. The UCC works on the same principle. The minute you get a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS, you return it immediately with a letter that says:

The presentment above is dishonored. (your name) has reserved all of his/her rights under the Uniform Commercial Code at UCC 1§308 (replaced 207.)

This should be all that is necessary, as there is nothing more that they can do. In fact, I recently helped someone in Arizona who received a Notice of Deficiency. The man sent a letter such as this, dishonoring the "presentment." The IRS wrote back that they could not make a determination at that office, but were turning it over to the Collections Department. A letter was attached from the Collections Department which said they were sorry for the inconvenience they had caused him and that the Notice of Deficiency had been withdrawn. So you can see that if it is handled properly, these things are easily resolved.

IRS AS PRIVATE CORPORATION

IRS AS PRIVATE CORPORATION
CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) [ Footnote 23 ] "There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced."
BURDEN PLACED ON PERSONS DEALING WITH AGENT
In Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, the Supreme Court ruled: "Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power #& Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 409; United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60, 70, and see generally 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 666." Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947).
Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1940): "Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority," 113 F.2d, at 286.
Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981): "Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation," 644 F.2d, at 1383.
> > > [See public servant questionnaire] < < <
Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981): "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large * * * [I]t is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government´s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority," 650 F.2d, at 1100.

They LOVE making examples of us.

There are easy ways to do business with the IRS. I know for some of you that is just too much to ask.

But really, think about it. If you want some advice on how to do it that takes about as much work as fighting these guys, and gets pretty much the same results, but without having to worry about loss of life, liberty, or property, please contact me.

Once you are already on their radar, it's too late. Act now!

Sincerely,
Ray Powell
Founder, Hacking For Change
Head Geek, Startbutton.com

send them a copy of this letter...

http://www.dailypaul.com/267690/letter-to-send-the-irs-and-a...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Oh, you need protection ...

... well, the gubmint is here to protect you, dontcha know?

LOL

Check out some of Jan Helfeld's interviews to see how much some of these a**holes think about protecting you:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jan+helfeld

Have a nice day. ;-)

That got me to rise

I'm not supposed to refuse a request for protection but I forget, I'm retired.

FORMER WARRIOR.

But as I recall I had a similar issue. One fine year the IRS decided that I made way more money than I did and they started sending letters and I just started throwing them away. The faster they sent them the faster I threw their crap in the garbage where it belonged.

Natch that I'm terminally ill and I thought by now for sure I'd be fertilizer and I was gonna have an IOU inscribed on my grave stone and I thought I had the perfect sneakout. Go ahead, try and collect on my stone cold dead corpse. Have my mail forwarded to heaven and I promise GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY WILL PAY MY TAB.

But somehow I keep living. I really have no idea why. That's a good thing right? But now I have to deal with these morons.

Thing is I haven't let them deprive me of choice yet and my choice has been "you don't exist" and I want to see if the almighty IRS has the power to effect us in afterlife.

I DOUBT IT. I VERY SINCERELY DOUBT IT.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

This world will benefit

For as long as a mind like yours contributes.

I will miss you, for sure. I wish the best for your situation.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

You guys bought me some miles.

I'll let you guys know. Heck I'll probably write you a novel by way of saying good bye.

There's potential good news on the horizon and I'm gonna ask everybody's advice. There's a cure! Miracle of miracles they have this new cure!

It's insanely expensive and the only way I'm getting it is to go on the government handout.

This is a real-life, real death example. There is NO WAY I can afford this so....

Does Smudge Pot live for another however long or die sooner?

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

The IRS is not about collecting money

The Federal Reserve Bank Digitizes unlimited amounts of money so its not about money collections.

Its about forcing a immoral situation upon humans, then the ones who submit are good to go, hey they will even help against the resistance, to defend their immoral cowardly submission.

IRS is about elimination of opposition. Those who do not submit to immoral extorted theft are the opposition and get eliminated.

So your not facing a extortion squad. Your facing a elimination of opposition squad. The charge for protection is much higher against the elimination squad I think than the extortion squad..

Until the Rothschild clan and their scum followers are out of control of the money this planet will continue to exist as a false debt slave planet of humans who exist to serve the Rothschild family. Its about power and control, opposition is eliminated through re education, prison, war/genocide, or individual hit.

sovereign

Maybe we need an "elimination of opposition" squad too...?

"A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a Free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

They are after me also

They are demanding $4,500 on top of the thousands I have already sent them.

I've tried resisting, but as long as you have to use FRNs in your life, they will be there. They will confiscate your paycheck, your bank account, your safe deposit box and your home. After they get all of that, then they will proceed to kidnap you and lock you up.

I feel your pain ...

and I also believe any right of self determination for inherently free people to not be raped, pillaged, or plundered without consent under any guise of authority is a cause worth living for and dying, if necessary.

Regarding any legalese responses below. Who really cares anymore? We know it is all bullshit and I do not really feel like arming myself with bullshit to defend against known groups of murderers.

Haha

Your last paragraph is very well put. Sad, but true.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

Aye ...

But if you have reached the point where you really do not care and want to give the IRS the finger ... here is some over the top BS which will convey the message. Pay your body for doing any labor necessary for First Middle Last to earn income:

1. First M Last receives a paycheck from an employer:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

2. Make a check out for cash to pay your body for doing the work:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

3. Complete IRS Schedule C to itemize payroll expenses to your body:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

4. Drive the point home on the 1099:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Haha

I'm not yet there, but at 26, I don't know how much longer I can go without saying "fuck it, I'm just not gonna pay them. Let them come after me."

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

IRS claims you owe them $10,000

Let me see if I have your statement, opinion, question or whatever that was, correct. You said a group of known murderers has made a false claim against you for about $10,000. If I may paraphrase, The "IRS" falsely says you must give it ten thousand "phony IOUs". I have some questions that make me wonder if you know to whom or what you refer. What is "IRS"? The short answer, (in my mind) is a collection service hired by the Federal Reserve System. Why is it a "false" claim? I assume it's because they did not lend you anything. So, if they did not lend, you cannot be in debt to it. Am I correct so far? I hope so, because I would not want to give you answers to questions that you really did not intend to ask. OK, so my next question is, to whom did they make this claim? Was it to you? If that is the case, why do you not tell them, "Since Federal Reserve System did not lend me anything, I can't possibly owe it anything." My reason for characterizing the things in question as "phony IOUs" is that, once upon a time, the Federal Reserve System said their IOUs were redeemable for lawful Dollars, i.e. a certain amount of silver. Then, later on, they said, "No, no, no. The written IOU actually "is" that certain amount of silver." Since paper is now silver (according to the Federal Reserve System) then your paper is also a certain amount of silver. How about you give "IRS" ten thousand "phony IOUs"? If that's what they gave, why do you not just give it back? I once paid a bill for $30 with a piece of paper with this written on it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. So, there it is. No charge. I sure as hell don't want a piece of paper from you with 7,000 $s written on it. Because I know that paper is paper and only silver is silver. I wrote this because I don't want you to let "other people to hijack your own cognition." You have a brain (and I believe you do) so please, use it. Because if you allow others to do your thinking for you, you will believe that $ is silver and who knows what else.

Happy thinking, Tom

Sorry to hear it.

You may not need to loose 7,000 federal reserve notes over it though. The information in this video may be pertinent...


http://youtu.be/kFGDSfw4Zls

Best of luck

The Absurdity of The "Opposition"

There are a group of angelic beings who call themselves Republicans and are trying to "expose" the lawlessness of Obama. However, at the same time, these "Godly" beings are hiding the fact that lawlessness was always an integral part of government. These "lawmakers" continue to sanction the existence of lawlessness. One of their main tools is to manipulate the perception of law.

Just look at the actual application of the following terms:

Def - "lawlessness" - not of the the law.
Def - "the law" - the opinions of government appointed judges that
become precedent, and therefore, they become "the
law".
Def - "lawyer" - a person who is sanctioned by the legal industry
to debate "the law" in front of the judges who have already
determined it's meaning.
Def - "politician" - a person who works with other politicians to
guide the courts on how to make "the law"
Def - "commissioner" - a person who serves at the whims of their
bosses regardless of the law.
Def - "Constitution" - An illusion of law called the supreme law.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Save yourself.

Defend yourself or get punked. Defend yourself to the death. Its the only thing bullys understand.

Is this effective? Its the only thing that is effective in this situation.

They only get away with this and continue acts of crime on others because they can.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

More will join, and have your back

When more exercise the responsibility of self-defense others will also come to the aid of one being bullied by tyrants and criminals.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson