Congress, IRS, DOJ, And Deception

[mnchicago]

Shoonra thinks the Sixteenth Amendment was a green light
for the "income" tax.

The 16th Amendment Did NOT Empower Taxation

The Sixteenth Amendment did not confer any new power
of taxation, nor did it extend any taxing power to
new “subjects.”

What it does say is that congress is prohibited from
taking income taxation out of the category of indirect
taxation to which it belonged.

“The contention that the amendment treats a tax on income
as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment
and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of
uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are
not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications
which have been recognized and enforced from the
beginning of the national government under the
constitution, is wholly without foundation…”
Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co, 240 US 1 (1916)

(Read the paragraph above bold type only, omitting
the words in between.)

“By the previous ruling it was settled that the Sixteenth
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but
simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary
power of income taxation possessed by Congress from
the beginning from being taken out of the category of
indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…”
Stanton v Baltic Mining Co, 240 US 103, 112 (1916)

Note: In the States of the Union United States,
Congress does not have complete and plenary power of
income taxation. Congress only enjoys plenary power in
the federal "United States," comprised of the District of
Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,
Guam, and Samoa.

By the way, the apportionment restrictions for a direct
tax have never been repealed.

[mnchicago]

I have several posts to make in this thread. Please refrain
from replying until you see a post that says "Finished,"
because I am still in the process of typing them up.

Thank you.

[mnchicago]

Exactly where is the determination by the IRS that it
has lawful force and effect, where the IRC of 1954 was
styled “an Act of Congress” “to revise the IR laws of
the ‘United States’,” when “an Act of Congress” is policy
and not law? See FRCP, Rule 54

FRCP = Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

“An Act of Congress” is only applicable in the
federal “United States” (aka the District of Columbia and
its territories). There is no reference to the 50 States
of the Union. (Check THAT out, AndyK!)

From an 1884 S C case:

“This statute is one of universal application within the
territorial limits of the “United States,” and is not
limited to those portions which are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national government,
such as the district of Columbia. Generally speaking,
within any state of the Union the preservation of the
peace and protection of people and property are the
functions of the state government, and are not part
of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws
of Congress in respect to those matters do not
extend into territorial limits of the states, but have
force only in the District of Columbia, and other
places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
national government.
Caha v United States, 152 US 211, 215 (1894)
[Emphasis added]

Again, nowhere in the 50 States of the Union does
Congress have exclusive jurisdiction. Congress does
have exclusive jurisdiction and plenary power in the
federal “United States,”composed of the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Guam and Samoa.

[mnchicago]

We know, or should know, that the Fifth Amendment
holds that all judicial proceedings must proceed by due
process. Due process requires that any cause of action
is filed by a Complaint. It must state what the alleged
defendant was legally required to do, or not do, a
specific act the alleged defendant did or did not
perform, as required.

The Supreme Court says:

The district court’s jurisdiction for revenue cases must
pertain to a law providing in its terms for revenue
which is directly traceable to the constitutional power
to lay and collect taxes.
United States v Hill, 123 US 681.

Anytime the DOJ presents an “indictment” “for willful
failure to file income tax returns,” using the phrase “as
required by law,” the challenge to the so-called
indictment is to ask, “What law?”

Fifth Amendment due process requirement says the IRS
has to state what specific law imposes a lawful
obligation to file a tax form for the so-called “income”
tax. Because few people, including lawyers, know that
the indictment has to be challenged before going to
court, this is where the “battle” is lost, in most cases;
the failure to challenge from the onset.

The “indictment” is lawfully infirm.

26 USC 7602 is the only statute authorizing the IRS to
issue a summons. “To summon the person liable for tax
or required to perform the act….”

Read that very carefully. To be the person mentioned
above, first, you must already be liable for the tax, or
already required to perform the act. If not so proven to
already be liable or required to perform, there can be no
indictment.

This is why the burden of proof is always placed on the
IRS to prove that you are lawfully obligated to pay any
tax. By requiring them to demonstrate that proof,
which they cannot prove, they can never proceed to
serving an indictment.

Now, if you are one who has been “voluntarily” sending
in a tax form, you have to notify the Secretary of the
Treasury that you are rescinding your signature from all
previously submitted tax forms. Otherwise, the IRS can
rightfully presume that past tax forms prove you are a
taxpayer, as defined by the code, and subject to their
jurisdiction.

Neither the commissioner of the IRS, or anyone under
him in the IRS, has the authority to determine who is, or
who is not, subject to any so-called “income” tax.

Of all the 80, or so, taxes enforced by the IRS, only
the “income” tax has no legal liability that is clearly
stated. If there were a law requiring anyone to file an
income tax form, trust me, the IRS would be using it like
a sledgehammer.

“If it is law, it will be found in the books; if it is not to
be found there, it is not law.”
Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 627.

[mnchicago]

The IRS likes to cite 26 USC 6011, 6012, and 6072 as
statutes that impose liability.

Well, if that be true, why aren’t those statutes ever
cited in a Complaint, as due process requires?

What is the best way to respond to any DOJ/IRS ‘indictment?”

File a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, failure to identify a lawful duty that you are
alleged to violate.

FRCP 7(c)(1) requires an indictment state “the statute,
rule, regulation, or other provision of law which the
defendant is alleged therein to violate.”

At the same time, move for a more definite statement,
per Rule 12(e).

There is also possible violation of the Sixth Amendment –
“to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation” of a crime.

No broken law, no jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court nullified the conviction of a crime
that was not charged in the indictment”

“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly
established than that notice of the specific charge,
and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues
raised by that charge, if desired, are among the
constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal
proceeding with all courts, state or federal. If, as
the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were
charged with a violation of 1 [and convicted of 2], it
is doubtful both that the information fairly informed
them of that charge and that they sought to defend
themselves against such a charge; it is certain that
they were not tried for or found guilty of it. It is as
much a violation of due process to send an accused
to prison following a conviction of a charge on which
he was never tried as it would be to convict him upon
a charge that was never made.
Cole v Arkansas, 333 US 196, 201 (1947) (Emphasis added).

“It is the responsibility of government to prove the
existence of a tax; a citizen is not required to prove the
nonexistence of a tax.”
Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397

[mnchicago]

Both take pride in pointing out the legitimacy of
Congress and the IMF’s collection arm, the IRS. Here is
the kind of “integrity” Andy and Shoonra stand for:

I have stated that both deal with symptoms, not
substance; with smoke and mirrors of
prima facie “evidence,” passing it off as lawful, as
their patriotic(?) duty requires, self-imposed or
otherwise.

How either can defend Congressional deception via the
creation of a legislative democracy within our
Constitutional Republic is beyond the pale.

Under the Constitution, Congress has limited powers as
so enumerated. Under the federal Government, Congress
has unlimited, plenary power to do whatever it wants.
However, that power pertains only to the federal “United
States,” consisting of the District of Columbia,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and
Samoa.

Through deception and manipulation, Congress, itself
deceived and manipulated by the international bankers
that now own us, has gutted sovereign rights and the
Common Law into Public Policy and statutory
strangulation. Further, we all know that Congress has
obligated all the States of the Union into an unholy
commercial pact with the federal “United States,” via
federal programs and the UCC.

The term “State” in the IRC means the District of
Columbia, and all of its territories. The IRS and the
courts would have us all believe that when we read the
word “State” in the code that it means one of the
States of the Union.

Not so.

7701(a)(4) State – the word “State” means five federal
States belonging to the “United
States.”

When states of the Union, counties, municipalities, etc,
require us to provide a SSN to obtain a driver’s license,
for example, they use as an authority:

42 USC 405 (2)(c)(i) “It is the policy (not law) of
the “United States” that any “State” may, in the
administration of any tax…..”

Any State?

Read a little further:

42 USC 405 (2)(c)(vi) defines “State” as “for
purposes of clause (i) of this subparagraph, the
term “state” includes (in the restrictive form) the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Commonwealth of
Northern Marianas, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands.

The entire IRC has been written for the “United States,”
as described above, but everyone else is led to believe
it applies to the States of the Union. Deception and
fraud on the largest scale imaginable.

28 USC 1603(a)(3) – which is neither a citizen of a
State of the “United States” as defined in section
1332(c) and (d) of this title.

Section 1332(d) – the word “States,” as used with
this section, includes the Territories, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

26 USC 7701 (a)(9) – United States. The term “United
States” when used in a geographical sense includes
only the “States” and the District of Columbia.

When Congress wants to include the 50 States of the Union, they specifically do:

26 USC 4612 (a)(4)(A) In general, the term “United
States” means the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any
possessions of the “United States,” the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

[mnchicago]

What happened to Alaska and Hawaii when they were
admitted as States of the Union and were no longer part
of the federal “States?”

When Alaska became a State of the Union, Congress
made some “changes:”

(g) section 7701 (a)(9) of the IRC of 1954 (relating to
the definition of “United States”) is amended by
striking out “the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii,
and inserting in lieu thereof “the Territory of
Hawaii.”

(h) section 7701(a)(10) of the IRC of 1954 (relating to
the definition of “State”) is amended by striking
out “Territories” and inserting in lieu
thereof “Territory of Hawaii.”

(b) Section 4262 clause (1) of IRC of 1954 (definition
of “Continental United States”) is amended to read
as follows: (1) Continental United States – the
term means the District of Columbia, and
the “States” other than Alaska.

Hawaii was still defined as a “State,” but Alaska was no
longer a “State” since it had been admitted into the
States of the Union. In Public Law 86-70 under the
Social Security Act at page 149:

(d)(1) Paragraph (1) of section 1101(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 USC Supp V)
section 1301(a)(1), relating to definition of State,
is amended by striking out “Alaska, Hawaii,” and
inserting in lieu thereof “Hawaii.”

(2) Paragraph (2) of such section (42 USC 1301(a)
(2)), relating to definition of “United States,” is
amended by striking out “Alaska.”

What changes do you suppose Congress made when
Hawaii became one of the States of the Union?

(I) Section 7701(a)(9) of the IRC of 1954 (relating to
definition of “United States”) is amended by striking
out “the Territory of Hawaii.”

(J) Section 7701(a)(10) of the IRC of 1954
(relating to definition of “State”) is amended by striking
out “the Territory of Hawaii and,”


and for Social Security:

(d)(1) clause (1) of subsection (a) of section 1101 of
such Act, relating to definition of “State,” is
amended by striking out “Hawaii.”

(2) Paragraph (2) such subsection, as amended,
relating to definition of “United States,: is amended
by striking out “Hawaii.”

IR Section 18(a)4262 clause (1) Continental United
States – the term “Continental United States” means
the District of Columbia, and the “States” other than
Alaska and Hawaii.

Curious how Alaska and Hawaii were called “States”
before admission to the Union, but not after being
admitted.

Once Alaska and Hawaii became States of the Union,
there were only five federal “States” remaining that
pertained to the IRC.


I asked for substance, not the statutory tripe that
continues to be served up by Andy and Shoonra in the
Congressional game of conning people, especially Andy
and Shoonra, who continue to be willing dupes and shills.

Sadly, there are still many more examples, but even this
can become too repetitious.

I still see no comebacks about my own victories against
the hapless IRS. Are they on the record anywhere?

Of course not. The IRS ain’t stupid. They only go after
those who don’t know any better, who don’t know how
to fight their bogus “indictments.”

Point to as many “wins” as the two of you can find. It’s
only one side of the coin.

Oh, one more thing. Did either of you know that there
are still no published orders in the Federal Registry from
the Secretary of the Treasury giving the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue the requisite authority to enforce the
IRC within the 50 States of the Union!?

[mnchicago]

Is Illinois one of the “States” referred to in the code?

Is Massachusetts one of the “States” referred to in the code?

I have asked the IRS, but never received an answer.

It seems like such a simple Q.

[mnchicago]

26 CFR 1,911-2(9)
The term “United States” when used in a
geographical sense includes any territory
under the sovereignty of the “United States.” It
includes the “states,” the District of Columbia, the
possessions and territories of the “United States,”
the territorial waters of the “United States,” the air
space over the “United States,” and the seabed
and subsoil of those submarine areas which are
adjacent to the territorial waters of the
“United States,” and over which the “United States”
has exclusive rights in accordance with
international law, with respect to the exploration and
exploitation of natural resources.



Note: The “United States” has….used in the
singular, aka the federal corporation.
The States of the Union have…


Continuing after “has” is “exclusive rights…”
Nowhere does Congress have
“exclusive rights” over any of the 50 States of
the Union, just in DC and its “states” possessions.


Once you know what to look for, it seems so obvious,
except to some.

Cheers, all!


Finished!

[David Merrill]

Thank you MnChicago;


I had not realized there is such a compilation of information from you here.