|
Regarding tax "crime" defense
I found this case quote while perusing a bunch of my old stuff today and thought it may be pertinent to those of us who are battling the IRS. It is interesting to note that it talks about there having to be something that is written that identifies an offense, a number is insufficient. I do not know if this is still valid case law so before using it, you may want to Shepardize it. I plan on doing that soon, but can't get to it for a bit yet.
[The statute of offense must be identified by its proper
or common name. A number is insufficient. Today, a citizen may
stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of
statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders
(example: Colorado National Monument Superintentdent's Orders
regarding an unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail). If
a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new
and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error.
For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to
be a crime. Charges must negate any exception forming part of
the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-
applicability. In other words, any charge must affirmatively
negate any exception found in the law. Example of exception:
".... thereof to make a return (other than a return required
under authority of 6015).....Indictment or information is
defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie
case of guilt is stated. Assumption of element is not lawful.
Otherwise, accused will not be thoroughly informed. 26 USC 6012
is a necessary element of the offense. Since 6012 isn't cited,
the information is fatally defective. Additionally, information
did not negate the exception (other than required under authority
of section 6015)." After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that
7203 elements are:
A. Required to perform.
B. Failed to perform.
C. Failure was willful
you may wish to ask, "how often is a valid 7203 or other
information or indictment brought? How many citizens have been
convicted on a fatally defective process?
.8. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non-
prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of
average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable
preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the
offense complained of. The charge must not be described by
parroting the statute; not by the language of same. The naming
of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense whereas
the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of
offense. Facts must be stated. Conclusions cannot be considered
in the determination of probable cause.
9. The accuser must be named. He may be an officer or a
third party. Some positively identifiable person (human being)
must accuse. Some certain person must take responsibility for
the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution.
This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face
his accuser. Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make
the accusation. Hearsay evidence may not be provided. Anyone
else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does
not qualify as direct evidence.
10. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury.
If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation.
Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
11. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the
accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.
Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in
bringing the charge. This includes court-determined probable
cause, summons and notice procedure. If lawful process may be
abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may
be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom. All political
dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
12. Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the
court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The
burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The
court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.
Se McNutt v. GMAC, 298 US 178. The origins of this doctrine of
law may be found in Maxfield's Lessee v Levy, 4 US 308.
13.]
|
