Link between the IRS and Puerto Rico

IRS Identity & Principal of Interest

Alfred R Martin

In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau o Internal Revenue (T.O. No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials
have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC Sec. 1321, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In October, a criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico.

In November, criminal complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United
States district court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmandson, and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the
allegations in that instance (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Denney E Moore, et al, 95 cr-129C).

By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States Department of the
Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 FR.
849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577] and 37 ER. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.

Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate authority resides in or emanates from an office, which was not legitimately created
and/or ordained either by state or national constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United States v. Germane, 99 U.S.
508 (1897); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F2d 1006, 1009 (6th
Cir. 1943); where the state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979)

Another direct evidence of the fraud is found 27 CFR F, 1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the United States supreme

Court declared the Act unconstitutional. Administration of the Act was subsequently moved offshore to Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration and operation eventually merged with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue. Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Philippines, created, by the Philippines provisional government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31 USC
Section 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue collection relating
To opium, cocaine & citric wines). This line will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.

Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC Section 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table). In other words, no regulations have been
published in the Federal Register, extending authority to the several States and the population at large, (1) to establish revenue districts within the several States, (2) extending authority of the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3) giving authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants within the several
States, or (4) extending authority of any other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.

Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is convoluted in regulations, but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations pertaining to the Service and
applications of the Commissioner's authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR 0 601.101(a) provide a beginning-point: (a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed...

The fact that there are no regulations extending Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or Department of the Treasury authority to the several States (26 USC Section 7802(a)) has greater clarity in the light of the general merging of functions between IRS and other agencies presently attached to the Department of the Treasury. The commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations for the Code at 26 CFR
Section 301.7805-1, with approval of the Secretary, but there are no cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, or even statute cite. In other words, there is no actual or effective delegation which vests the
Commissioner with significant independent authority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATE Customs or any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or affecting the several
States and the population at large.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by free_martha

IRS Identity & Principal of Interest

Alfred R Martin

In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau o Internal Revenue (T.O. No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials
have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC Sec. 1321, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In October, a criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico.

In November, criminal complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United
States district court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmandson, and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the
allegations in that instance (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Denney E Moore, et al, 95 cr-129C).

By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States Department of the
Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 FR.
849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577] and 37 ER. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.

Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate authority resides in or emanates from an office, which was not legitimately created
and/or ordained either by state or national constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United States v. Germane, 99 U.S.
508 (1897); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F2d 1006, 1009 (6th
Cir. 1943); where the state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979)

Another direct evidence of the fraud is found 27 CFR F, 1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the United States supreme

Court declared the Act unconstitutional. Administration of the Act was subsequently moved offshore to Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration and operation eventually merged with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue. Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Philippines, created, by the Philippines provisional government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31 USC
Section 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue collection relating
To opium, cocaine & citric wines). This line will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.

Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC Section 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table). In other words, no regulations have been
published in the Federal Register, extending authority to the several States and the population at large, (1) to establish revenue districts within the several States, (2) extending authority of the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3) giving authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants within the several
States, or (4) extending authority of any other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.

Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is convoluted in regulations, but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations pertaining to the Service and
applications of the Commissioner's authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR 0 601.101(a) provide a beginning-point: (a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed...

The fact that there are no regulations extending Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or Department of the Treasury authority to the several States (26 USC Section 7802(a)) has greater clarity in the light of the general merging of functions between IRS and other agencies presently attached to the Department of the Treasury. The commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations for the Code at 26 CFR
Section 301.7805-1, with approval of the Secretary, but there are no cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, or even statute cite. In other words, there is no actual or effective delegation which vests the
Commissioner with significant independent authority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATE Customs or any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or affecting the several
States and the population at large.

Thanks Martha,

I have seen this before, but not for a long time. I wonder what AndyK would have to say about this. Of course whatever he would say he would not be able to rebut the facts contaned in your post. I appreciate you posting this.

This is just more proof of the gigantic fraud perpetrated on the American people. Of course the average American does not know about these facts because of the deceipt and corruption in "our" government. How anyone cannot see this as fraud is beyond me. How can IRS agents that know about this sleep at night knowing the harm they cause their fellow Americans.

[David Merrill]

The IMF (Individual Master File) on each taxpayer allegedly, when decoded, tells of the taxpayer being born on a federal enclave, typically Puerto Rico. However my most direct experience with this is a letter from the Treasury saying the Treasury is not subject to FOIA requests. [Basically only government agencies are subject to FOIA requests so there you have the tacit admission that the Treasury is not governmental. However that does not equate the IRS to be a Puerto Rican corporation.]

So I will look elsewhere (federal repository) for functional models.

Originally Posted by free_martha

However, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials
have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC Sec. 1321, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

Thank you for that. I will see if there is a connecting thread there.

I have gotten PMs about the Origin of Oaths thread I promised to start upon a Selden Society book about the Star Chamber cases. Please understand that I put the time here because I enjoy this forum. I am not here advertizing and all the suitors come by direct, non-internet referral. Skeptic62 and AndyK are on my Ignore List with the Mason-conditioned Shoonra and the Dishonorable (Bar registration # undisclosed) Judge Roy Bean on the way there quickly. In other words with the garbage I tracked back here from my research on the Quatloos Insultinator*, I am finding less and less enjoyment here, especially when I see people stirring up already decided arguments with AndyK. He is a troll. He is here to argue. I fail to be amused by anybody taking him up on the bait.

Since there is no benefit other than enjoyment sharing research here, it naturally takes its place in priority to the other pleasures in life. And of course suitors, proven courts of competent jurisdiction in pursuit of perfecting remedy in law.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* I have suspicions that Shoonra lied when she told me she had never heard of Quatloos. But without investigating I only have my suspicions about her. One thing for sure about her, her accreditation and performance reviews as a law librarian have all descended from a patriarchal and masonic/Knights Templar/Crown Templar Society/International Bar Association heirarchy. Albeit she is proficient at finding facts within the federal common law emanating from the subjected State corporations, she persistently spouts that is the final word when those tribunals are of extremely limited jurisdiction.

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by DavidMerrill

I am finding less and less enjoyment here, especially when I see people stirring up already decided arguments with AndyK. He is a troll. He is here to argue. I fail to be amused by anybody taking him up on the bait.

David, if you are referring to me, I am not trying to be amusing. I responded to Martha's post and made reference to AndyK. So what? So I am stirring up already decided arguments? Give me a freaking break!!

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freeindeed

David, if you are referring to me, I am not trying to be amusing. I responded to Martha's post and made reference to AndyK. So what? So I am stirring up already decided arguments? Give me a freaking break!!

It's not you; it's me. AndyK and I have a history.

[Ice]

I find it interesting that there hasn't yet been any rebuttal to free_martha's post.

Maybe some patience while they do the research?

[mnchicago]

There seems to be quite a lot of revelations about the
IRS being based in PR, a part of the BATF, none of the
code appearing in the Fed Register, etc, yet there
appears to be no meaningful traction that can/will
pragmatically serve anyone with any of that info.

I know nothing about the contents of the IMF
revealing that taxpayers are native to a federal enclave.
However, knowing the definition of a taxpayer per
the IRS code can be v helpful.

Unfortunately, I admit to not being smart enough to
cohesively put the many pieces of the puzzle together
to overturn any IRS standing in the mind of the public,
and more importantly, in the courts.

As evidenced by the number of my posts, I am still
learing about the players here. Reading Mr Merrill's
post, I never got an inkling that it was directed at
iamfreeru2, and thought iamfreeru2's volunteered
self defense was a little funny, in a Travis Bickle way.

"Are you talking to me?"

Mr Merrill, your sharing of research is much appreciated.

Thank you,

mnc

Ice, I would like to see, contained in the rebuttal where the following criminal complaints filed have been answered – perhaps as you suggest, we must allow them time while they compile their research. As Shoonra, AndyK et al have access to on-line legal documentation that we do not, it should not prove to be all that difficult.

In October, a criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico.

In November, criminal complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United States district court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmandson, and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Denney E Moore, et al, 95 cr-129C

[freeindeed]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

I never got an inkling that it was directed at iamfreeru2, and thought iamfreeru2's volunteered self defense was a little funny, in a Travis Bickle way.

Thanks for the complement calling me iamfreeru2. I do appreciate it.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am finding less and less enjoyment here, especially when I see people stirring up already decided arguments with AndyK. He is a troll. He is here to argue. I fail to be amused by anybody taking him up on the bait.

The above is what I thought was directed at me. If I was wrong I apologize to David for makinbg that assumption. It is an honest mistake especially when David's comment was made just after my post to Martha.

[mnchicago]

One would think posting accurately would be easy.

If I only had a brain!