For Those Who Decide To File A 1040...

[ezrhythm]

... or any other so called "required" form -

1914: Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383. Established that illegally obtained evidence may not be used by the court or admitted into evidence. This case is very useful in refuting the use by the IRS of income tax returns that were submitted involuntarily (note that these returns must say "submitted under compulsion in violation of 5th Amendment rights" or some such thing at the bottom.

[weishaupt1776]

Bad Idea

Here is a slight regugitation from another post

This could easily be construed as Frivolous Argument Number 10. They even have a code for it - LOL ! (5AMEND)

Fifth Amendment (5AMEND) - The individual makes an improper blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as a basis for not providing any financial information.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s18.html

THis then gets the ball rolling for a $5,000 penalty

Then, they proceed with trying to collect that penalty money via wage garnishments, etc . . .

You either file - straight up with no voodoo attached

or you don't - - - there is no DMZ

if you choose not to file, you better hope that you didn't get that job on the basis of an SSN.

If you did, then they will garnish the pants off of you until you

A. Quit
B. Get fired

[ezrhythm]

The point of the thread isn't for those who choose not to provide any financial information but for who decide to file the form and not be held accountable for the entries.
If one plans to not provide any financial information other routes are necessary.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

(note that these returns must say "submitted under compulsion in violation of 5th Amendment rights" or some such thing at the bottom.

I suggest you read what real judges say about this ploy:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht...rag8_user.html

[delawarejones]

There are many examples of case law that find that point indefensable.

I believe it stems from the fact that we are all US citizens and subject to the jursidiction of the corporation known and the US gov't.

Delawarejones

[Dane Bramage]

Originally Posted by delawarejones

I believe it stems from the fact that we are all US citizens and subject to the jursidiction of the corporation known and the US gov't.

Delawarejones

U.S. citizens? Even the IRS's own forms acknowledge U.S. nationals ("for tax purposes", lol)~>

For tax purposes, a U.S. national is an individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, but who is not a U.S. citizen (a citizen of American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by delawarejones

There are many examples of case law that find that point indefensable.

I believe it stems from the fact that we are all US citizens and subject to the jursidiction of the corporation known and the US gov't.

Delawarejones

Not everyone in the USA is a US citizen. For those who are or are here through grant of a visa, your post is correct.

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by delawarejones

There are many examples of case law that find that point indefensable.

I believe it stems from the fact that we are all US citizens and subject to the jursidiction of the corporation known and the US gov't.

Delawarejones

I am one that was born in the area known as California.(I can't even prove that because that is also hearsay)(But neither can they(The government) prove otherwise)
But I have never volunteered into the servitude of that club or society that you call citizen(ship)of either the state of California or the state known as the United States.(Yes I am a man without a See)
So how could I possibly be subject to the jurisdiction of either of those states? If I have not willingly, voluntarily being fully informed of all consequences and without threat duress or coercion given up my sovereignty?

Please show me how under article 1 section 6 of the California constitution and the 13th amendment of the constitution for the United states, your statement applies to me?

Before someone else steps in and tries to tell me that I have to file some documents that show that I am not a citizen of those states, Or that I need to resend some alleged citizen(ship).
Please tell me how can I resend that which I have not applied for?
It is not up to me to prove it one way or the other.
The burden of proof is upon them to show documentation that I have!

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by rentiap

Please tell me how can I resend that which I have not applied for?
It is not up to me to prove it one way or the other.
The burden of proof is upon them to show documentation that I have!

Sec 1 of the 14th Amndmt sets foth a rebuttable presumption

The burden is on you to rebut it

A rebuttal of a presumption is not a recission as you indicate

Once that is formally rebutted with proper points in law & sent to the right agencies, then the burden is on them

You really need to study rebuttable presummptions in the state & Fed evidence rules

[delawarejones]

Originally Posted by rentiap

Please show me how under article 1 section 6 of the California constitution and the 13th amendment of the constitution for the United states, your statement applies to me?

This info comes from the Red Amendmet published by LB Bork.

By being born in any of the several states or within the United States you are a US citizen. Sorry. You also by right of being born of parents (who I am assuming were US citizens) are also a US citizen.

You are assumed to be a US citizen by the US gov't, until you prove otherwise. Later I will post and break down the 14th Amendment proving such.

Let's say for the sake of argument your parents were foreigners, i.e. their political allegiance was to another country other than the US. By right of you being born in the US or any of the several states you are still a US citizen. HOwever, upon maturation, 18 years of age you could claim your fathers nationality.

If you receive any gov't benefit, any, or you vote locally or nationally, have a drivers license, SS#, student loans. . .and the list goes on, you have accepted gov't benefit and are therefore under its jurisdiction. Sorry, if you do not like the truth, but there it is.

If you say I am a citizen of California, you are still a US citizen.

You have to be able to prove that you are a national of California.

I am in Delaware, I do not know California constitution however the US Constitution gave to the fed gov't the ability to set the standards for nationalization.

Delawarejones