There are 9 key points discussed in this piece. I am only sharing 2 of the 9 points. You can click the link I have provided to read in its entirety.
Public Notice
written by Dan Meador
This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. A true and correct copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the newspaper responsible for publishing the instrument as legal notice. The memorandum addresses the character of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies of the Department of the Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code.
1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest
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 of 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 § 1321), and as will be demonstrated, 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 Edmondson, 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. Kenney F. 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 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 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 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 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 at 27 CFR § 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 § 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 §§ 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 application of the Commissioner’s authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR § 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 § 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 § 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, BATF, 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.
The link between IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant as the tie with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, is through this door. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1940, Section 2, made the following change:
§ 2. Federal Alcohol Administration
The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the members thereof, and the office of the Administrator are abolished, and their function shall be administered under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury.
Again, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was declared unconstitutional in 1935, and the operation thereafter transferred off shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service in 1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division of the Internal Revenue Service, was seemingly separated from IRS (T.O. 120-01, June 6, 1972). In relevant part, the order reads as follows:
1. The purpose of this order is to transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under law relating to Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal Revenue Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein after referred to as the Bureau which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein referred to as the Director…
2. The Director shall perform the functions, exercise the powers and carry out the duties of the Secretary and the administration and the enforcement of the following provisions of law:
A. Chapters 51 and 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as they relate to the commodity subject to tax under such chapters.
B. Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52, 53. (emphasis added)
Transfer of functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important where the instant matter is concerned as the only regulations published in the Federal Register applicable to the several States are under 27 CFR, Part 70 and other parts of this title relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms matters. However, the charade doesn’t end there. In Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC § 903), the original Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress in 1895, was abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury.
In a Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the Treasury used something of a slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, “The term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has been replaced with the term Internal Revenue Service.”
Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing when it comes to administrative responsibility. However, the order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely operating with interchangeable hats. Therefore, definitions and designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.
In definitions at 27 CFR § 250.11, the following provisions are found:
Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.
Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part.
In the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents, the Secretary, or the Department of the Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to all IRS and BATF departments, functions and personnel. In fact, it will be found that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to United States territorial jurisdiction exclusive of the several States and to imported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to firearms, munitions, etc., produced outside the several States and the first sale of imports.
The two delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus far located tend to reinforce conclusions set out above. Treasury Department Order No. 150-42, dated July 27, 1956, appearing in at 21 Fed. Reg. 5852, specifies the following:
The Commissioner shall, to the extent of the authority vested in him, provide for the administration of United States internal revenue laws in the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
On February 27, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 9571), Treasury Department Order No. 150-01 specified the following:
The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.
To date only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as currently amended, have been located that specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States (District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.): 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to imported distilled spirits for governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions, and the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the United States and the several States. None of the three statutes extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within the several States.
IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for International Development, and case law demonstrates that the true principals of interest are the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242; see 22 USCA § 286, et seq.). In other words, IRS seemingly provides collection services for undisclosed foreign principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the benefit of constitutional United States government operation. To date, IRS principals have failed to dispute the published Cooper/Bentson allegation that the agency, via these foreign principals, funded the enormous tank and military truck factory on the Kama River, Russia.
The Internal Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect to the several States, is not registered to do business in the several States.
2. Preservation of Due Process Rights
The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by statutory courts both of the United States and the several States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted uniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the several States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress’ Article IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate private international law under exclusively United States treaties on private international law, and both operate in the framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority of Department of Justice as representative of the “Central Authority” established by U.S. treaties on private international law at 28 CFR § 0.49; also, “conflict of law” as a subcategory to “statutes” in American Jurisprudence). However, this house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism, known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United States appellate courts and in public forum.
In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:
[Sec. 7804(b)]
(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.– Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law.The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Code. Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the general population or the legal profession. The statute set out above is easier to comprehend when references are consolidated. Further, the dependent clause “including trial by jury” relates to a constitutionally-assured right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location in the sentence. Finally, the matter of venue is important as “existing law” is constitutional and common law indigenous to the several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which extends to the several States, those who operate under color of law, engage in oppression, extortion, etc., are subject to the foundation law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of legislative jurisdiction.Citing “including trial by jury” preserves the full slate of due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several States. The example represents the class.Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus assessments as well as collections, and (2) § 7804(b), unlike § 7433, does not presume that the complaining party is a “taxpayer”. Finally, there is 26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support for § 7804 where there are no regulations published in the Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations). Therefore, § 7804(b) preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for remedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable portions of § 7804(b) read as follows:Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered to impair any right, [including trial by jury], or remedy, [***], to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected … The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law.
The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC § 2463, which stipulates that any seizure under United States revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject solely to disposition of courts of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment, seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment citizen-subject of the United States or a Citizen principal of one of the several States. Due process assurances in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate — administrative seizures without due process can be equated only to tyranny and barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1).
(1) Rule I. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.
Even officers, agents and employees of United States agencies are assured due process where garnishment is concerned (5 USC § 5520a), so the notion that IRS has authority to execute garnishment and other seizures via the private sector without due process is clearly absurd. In the English-American lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury under rules of the common law indigenous to the several States; the de jure people of America are not subject to admiralty or administrative tribunals.
Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process as the Handbook for Revenue Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following:
During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person of the taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass, assault and battery, conversion, etc.
The provision acknowledges the Supreme Court decision in Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. 337 U.S. 682 (1949).
In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.
*********
Summary & Conclusion
This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely sufficient to support causes set out separately. The most conspicuous conclusions of law are that Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the predecessor of the Internal Revenue Service; Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code prescribe excise taxes, mandatory only for employees of United States Government agencies; the Internal Revenue Service, within the geographical United States where the Service appears to have colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to seizing or encumbering assets; and the law demonstrates that people of the several States, defined as nonresident aliens of the self-interested United States in the Internal Revenue Code, cannot legitimately elect to be taxed or treated as citizens or residents of the United States. If a Citizen of one of the several States works for an agency of the United States or receives income from a United States “trade or business” or otherwise effectively connected with the United States, the employer or other third party responsible for payment is made liable for withholding taxes at the rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification, and is thus “the person liable” and may be subject to Internal Revenue Service initiatives, with administrative initiatives, where seizure and/or encumbrance actions are concerned, subject to judicial determinations by courts of competent jurisdiction.
Under penalties of perjury, per 28 USC § 1746(1), I attest that to the best of my knowledge and understanding, all matters of law and fact presented herein are accurate and true.
No comments:
Post a Comment