|
|
The U.S. Government does NOT have legislative,
i.e. taxing jurisdiction, inside the fifty states.
Therefore, the federal government cannot tax the income of
ordinary Americans.
Alcohol
Tobacco Firearms
- Admit that at Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue
officers with respect to enforcement of Subtitle E and
other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.
See 26 U.S.C. 7608(a)
Exhibit 018
- Admit that at Section 7608(b) of the Internal Revenue
Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue
officers with respect to enforcement of laws relating
to internal revenue other than Subtitle E.
See 26 U.S.C. 7608(b)
Exhibit 001, 018
- Admit that the term “person” as that term is used in Internal
Revenue Code Section 6001 and 6011 is defined at Section
7701(a)(1).
See 26 U.S.C. § 6001, 6011, and 7701(a)(1)
Exhibits 007, 008, 019
- Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(1) states:
“The term person shall be construed to mean and include
an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association,
company or corporation.”
See 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1)
Exhibit 019
- Admit that trusts, estates, partnerships, associations,
companies and corporations do not have arms and legs,
do not get married, do not eat, drink and sleep, and
are not otherwise included in what one not trained in
the law would recognize as a “person.”
(Common Knowledge)
- Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6012(a) states
that: “(a) General Rule. Returns with respect to
income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross
income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount or
more . . . .”
See 26 U.S.C. 6012(a)
Exhibit 020
- Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 1 imposes a tax
on the taxable income of certain “persons,” who are “individuals”
and “estates and trusts.”
See 26 U.S.C. § 1
Exhibit 002
- Admit that the “individual” mentioned in Internal Revenue
Code Section 6012 is the same individual as mentioned
in Internal Revenue Code Section 1.
See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 6012
Exhibits 002, 020
- Admit that the “individual” mentioned by Congress in Internal
Revenue Code Section 6012 and Internal Revenue Code Section
1 is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.
See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1.1 and 6012; Title 26,
United States Code, in its entirety
Exhibits 002, 020
- Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is the Treasury Regulation
that corresponds to Internal Revenue Code Section 1.
See 26 U.S.C. § 1;
26 C.F.R. 1.1-1
Exhibits 002, 021
- Admit that at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1), the individuals
identified at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code
are those individuals who are either citizens of the
United States, residents of the United States, or non-resident
aliens.
See 26 U.S.C. § 1.1;
26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a)(1)
Exhibits 002, 021
- Admit that the “residents” and “citizens” identified in
26 C.F.R. § 1.1- 1(a)(1) are mutually exclusive classes.
See 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1)
Exhibit 021
- Admit that as used in 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-1, the term “resident”
means an alien.
See 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1
Exhibit 021
- 46. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(c) states that: “Every
person born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen.”
See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)
Exhibit 021
- Admit that a person born or naturalized in the United
States but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a
citizen within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.
See 26 U.S.C. § 1.1-1
Exhibit 021
- Admit that on April 21, 1988, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division,
in the case of United States v. James I. Hall,
Case No. EV 87-20-CR, IRS Revenue Officer Patricia A.
Schaffner, testified under penalties of perjury that
the terms “subject to its jurisdiction” as used at 26
C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) meant being subject to the laws of the
country, and that meant the “legislative jurisdiction”
of the United States.
See “Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax,” Jeffrey
A. Dickstein, J.D., Custom Prints 1990, Appendix B, pp.
309-357
Exhibit 022
- Admit that in the same case, Patricia A. Schaffner testified
under oath the term “subject to its jurisdiction” could
have no other meaning than the “legislative jurisdiction”
of the United States.
See “Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax,” Jeffrey
A. Dickstein, J.D., Custom Prints 1990, Appendix B, pp.
309-357
Exhibit 022
- Admit that when Patricia A. Schaffner was asked to tell
the jury what facts made Mr. Hall subject to the “legislative
jurisdiction” of the United States, the prosecutor, Assistant
United States Attorney Larry Mackey objected, and the
court sustained the objection.
See “Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax,” Jeffrey
A. Dickstein, J.D., Custom Prints 1990, Appendix B, pp.
309-357
Exhibit 022
- Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is never required
by the Federal courts to prove facts to establish whether
one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
See “Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax,” Jeffrey
A. Dickstein, J.D., Custom Prints 1990, Appendix B, pp.
309-357
Exhibit 022
- Admit that the United States Department of Justice and
United States Attorneys, and their assistants, always
object when an alleged taxpayer demands the Government
prove that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, and the federal courts always sustain
those objections, which means that the federal courts
routinely prohibit the introduction of potentially exculpatory
evidence in tax crime trials.
Mr.
Benson Goes To Washington
He
Who Owns The Land Makes The Rules
IMF
Who Is The Master Of My File
How
The Game Is Played
- a. Admit that the IRS has been directed to maintain
a system of financial records on all federal judges,
all IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents,
and all U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed
by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act.
See Treasury/IRS46.002
Exhibit 023
- Admit that unless specifically provided for in the United
States Constitution, the federal government does not
have legislative jurisdiction in the states.
See United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)
Exhibit 024
Authority-States
Have It Feds Want It
- a. Admit that 40 U.S.C. §255 identifies the only method
by which the federal government may acquire legislative
jurisdiction over a geographic area within the outer
limits of a state of the Union, which is by state cession
in writing.
See 40 U.S.C. §255
Exhibit 024a
- Admit that on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental
committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the
Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell,
Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet,
named the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of
Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, and
charged with the duty of studying and reporting where
the United States had legal authority to make someone
subject to its jurisdiction.
See “Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the
States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for
the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the
States,” April 1956, hereinafter “the Report.”
Exhibit 025 (379 page document
869k)
- Admit that in June of 1957, the “Interdepartmental Committee
for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within
the States” issued Part II of its report entitled “Jurisdiction
Over Federal Areas Within the States.”
See Report, p. 197
Exhibit 025a
- Admit that the Report makes the following statements:
- “The Constitution gives express recognition
to but one means of Federal acquisition of
legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent
under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice
McLean suggested that the Constitution provided
the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction,
and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer
of jurisdiction can take place.”
See Report, p. 41
Exhibit 025b
- “It scarcely needs to be said that unless there
has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant
to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land
with State consent, or (2) by cession from
the State to the Federal Government, or unless
the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction
upon the admission of the State, the Federal
Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction
over any area within a State, such jurisdiction
being for exercise by the State, subject to
non- interference by the State with Federal
functions,”
See Report, p. 45
Exhibit 025c
- “The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral
action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction
over any area within the exterior boundaries
of a State,”
See Report, p. 46
Exhibit 025d
- “On the other hand, while the Federal Government
has power under various provisions of the Constitution
to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain
acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the
United States, it has no power to punish for
various other crimes, jurisdiction over which
is retained by the States under our Federal-State
system of government, unless such crime occurs
on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction
has been vested in the Federal Government.”
See Report, p.107
Exhibit 025e
- Admit that the phrase “subject to their jurisdiction”
as used in the Thirteenth Amendment means subject to
both the jurisdiction of the several states of the union
and the United States.
See U.S. Constitution Amendment 13
Exhibit 026
- Admit that the “subject to its jurisdiction” component
of the definition of citizen set out at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(c)
has a different meaning than the phrase “subject to their
jurisdiction” as used in the Thirteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.
See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c);
U.S. Constitution amend 13
Exhibits 021, 026
The
Domestic Agent
- a. Admit that the term "foreign" is nowhere defined
in the Internal Revenue Code.
- b. Admit that the term "foreign" means anything
outside of the legislative jurisdiction of the Congress,
which means anything outside of federal property ceded,
in most cases, to the federal government by the states
as required by 40 U.S.C. §255.
See 40 U.S.C. §255
Exhibit 024a
- Admit that a Treasury Regulation cannot create affirmative
duties not otherwise imposed by Congress in the underlying
statute. corresponding Internal Revenue Code section.
See C.I.R. v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 89
(1959); U.S. v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 358-359
(1957)
Exhibits 016, 017
Taxpayer
Taxpayer Who Is A Taxpayer
- Admit that Congress defined a “taxpayer” at Section 7701(a)(14)
of the Internal Revenue Code, as any person subject to
any Internal Revenue tax.
See 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14)
Exhibit 019
- Admit that one who is not a citizen, resident, or non-resident
alien, is not an individual subject to the tax imposed
by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
See 26 U.S.C. § 1;
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1
Exhibits 002, 021
- a. Admit that "subject to" is defined in Black's
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1425 as: "Liable,
subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed
or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for."
Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136
S.W.2d 289, 302
See Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page
1425
Exhibit 019a
- b. Admit that based on the above definition of "subject
to", use of the term "taxpayer" in describing anyone
creates a presumption of liability for tax on the part
of the person being referred to.
- c. Admit that the IRS uses the term "taxpayer"
to refer to everyone, including those not necessarily
subject to or liable for Subtitle A income taxes.
- d. Admit that in Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d.
504, 508 (1961), a federal court said:
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes
does not include vesting any tax official with absolute
power of assessment against individuals not specified
in the states as a person liable for the tax without
an opportunity for judicial review of this status before
the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and
their property is seized..."
See Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
Exhibit 019b
- e. Admit that, based on the above, it is a violation
of due process and a violation of delegated authority
for any IRS tax official to refer to any person as a
"taxpayer" who does not first identify him or herself
as such voluntarily.
- f. Admit that the federal courts, in the case of
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) stated at
238:
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation
of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers,
and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their
scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and
no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies
in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume
to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the
object of the revenue laws..." "The distinction
between persons and things within the scope of the revenue
laws and those without is vital."
See Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) at 238
Exhibit 019c
- Admit that an individual who is not subject to the tax
imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, is
not an individual required to make a return under the
Requirement of Internal Revenue Code Section 6012.
See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1.1
and 6012
Exhibits 002, 020
- a. Admit that the Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion
of Judge Harlan in the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182
U.S. 244 (1901), stated:
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found
expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this
country substantially two national governments; one to
be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its
restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress
outside the independently of that instrument, by exercising
such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth
are accustomed to…I take leave to say that, if the principles
thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a
majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change
in our system of government will result. We will, in
that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty
guarded and protected by a written constitution into
an era of legislative absolutism. It will be an evil
day for American liberty if the theory of a government
outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in
our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests
upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent
all violation of the principles of the Constitution."
See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
Exhibit 019d
- b. Admit that the jurisdiction that Honorable Justice
Harlan above was referring to where "legislative absolutism"
would or could reign was in areas subject to the legislative
jurisdiction of the U.S. government, which includes the
District of Columbia, federal enclaves within the states,
and U.S. territories and possessions.
- c. Admit that the Internal Revenue Manual says
the following, in section 4.10.7.2.9.8 (05-14-1999):
"Importance of Court Decisions
- Decisions made at various levels of the court
system are considered to be interpretations
of tax laws and may be used by either examiners
or taxpayers to support a position.
- Certain court cases lend more weight to a position
than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme
Court becomes the law of the land and takes
precedence over decisions of lower courts.
The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme
Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court
decisions have the same weight as the Code.
- Decisions made by lower courts, such as
Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court,
are binding on the Service only for the particular
taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions
of lower courts do not require the Service
to alter its position for other taxpayers."
(emphasis added)
- d. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service, in
its responsive letters to tax payers, routinely and chronically
violates the above requirements by citing cases below
the Supreme Court level, which do not apply to more than
the individual taxpayer in question according to the
above.
Jurisdiction
- Show Me Yours, I'll Show You Mine |
