|
Pete's doctrine
Dear BOBT12;
There are many letters generated about frivolous tax returns on Hendrickson's filings. There may be two supposed results from these returns.
1) If the IMFIRS is organized enough to be communicating policies to the agent level, where they analyze and process returns, then there may be a percentage process where they say, "Allow a certain amounts of wins." Return some, refuse some. The intelligence I get is that none of these "frivolous returns" are met with the traditional $500 fine per filing. Also, a recent Hendrickson advocate was told by an agent over the phone that if he was not going to declare his income correctly then he should not file at all. The Treasury agent told this guy over the phone not to file. [Be very careful not to entertain any such agents over the phone. There is no culpability about what is said.]
2) The IMFIRS is not organized enough to be handling the Hendrickson 'phenomenon' over the broad agent interaction landscape. So many agents read a 'zero-income' return and just generate a "frivolous" return letter. Many agents do not want to deal with that discretionary authority so they pass these returns up the ladder where they get more professional legal attention and thus, a victory.
I am assuming this has to do with bisocioprolepsis, why you posted Pete Hendrickson here. And I have to admit that I have never read his book. For a long time I thought it was the same old "Cracking the Code" UCC/Redemption stuff by the same title. Being so out of the system, off the grid, I get by without the contract trappings. But it is important to most, even myself to be able to interface through commerce. And that is the heart of the matter.
The basic theory, and supported by the article above, is that taxation is only for government employees. This terminology and linguistic symbology goes back quite some time here. And the IMFIRS Treasury is facing a major confrontation with words of art that may directly effect the right of arrest.
The de facto Thirteenth Amendment is in abolishing slavery. Several suitors have tried exercising the right to take responsibility for making arrests through Rule C(3)(a)(ii)(B) only to be turned down by U.S. clerks who seem to say "plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney" means "U.S. Attorneys and federal judges". Upon close examination of the in rem arrest process we find that vessels in personam, people being treated like property and arrested, are exempt if the vessels are owned by the United States.
Examination of the de jure Thirteenth Amendment tells us that a man loses his United States citizenship if he accepts emoluments, gifts and Titles of Nobility from a foreign power. Something being in a free country makes no sense about that without words of art. Because in a free country we should be able to accept gifts and titles of nobility. The word of art is actually no word of art at all - citizen of the United States is a federal employee. Always has been. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals that people claiming the benefits of citizenship were state Citizens. The states in compact actually are designed to work as independent nations which share international trading rights with outsiders, who exclusively to outsiders see 'us' as the United States.
Now we can examine the de facto Fourteenth Amendment in a proper light. The Constitution prohibited the blacks from becoming proper state Citizens. But there was a certain privilege package given to those state Citizens who gave up that citizenry to serve in the U.S. government - citizens of the United States. That was what was awarded to the emancipated blacks; status of citizen of the United States - the same as federal employees. [Status: state of 'us' as in U.S. - the states in compact. By examining the bold type, you can start to see the numero-linguistics - the ties in substrate. Status is a relatively new word.]
Pete Hendrickson relies on a paragraph left off the back of the Notices of Levy and Lien; paragraph §6331 (a). Not that there is anything wrong with leaving irrelevant paragraphs off the back of a notice. The paragraph in the code says all government employees are subject to liens and levys. True. But the history (so I hear) of that paragraph is a true government employee importing liquors who argued that he was not subject to taxation on his income from such because he was a government employee. He lost and Congress added the paragraph. It does not even mean that non-government employees are exempt in itself!
Now we jump to an employer of mine who at first was behind my de-taxing or whatever and then got scared and fired me. She called up the IMF agent and was told point-blank when confronting about §6331 (a), "All citizens of the United States are federal employees." As explained above, this is true.
I am guiding you carefully into a perspective, a position where you can get a glimpse of the muddle words of art have put the Treasury in regarding Pete Hendrickson. Mainly for the purpose of hoping you will see what the restoration of the right of arrest to the common man will have in resolving bisocioprolepsis. Treating people chattel, indentured employees who pay for the privilege of working for the United States without good faith or knowledge they are employees of the State (United States). The IMFIRS Treasury is trapped by its own manipulation of wording. The options are not favorable.
1) Tell everyone that taxation on income is slavery. That by being citizens of the United States instead of state Citizens, they are federal employees and subject to levy and lien according to §6331 (a)
or
2) give them a full return for simply declaring "0" income. According to the law.
Option "1)" is clearly in violation of the de facto Thirteenth Amendment.
Over time the Treasury has slipped into some very cruel shoes.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|