Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

John; Doe, Sovereign American National

c/o 1234 Main Street, Santa Ana, California [92701]

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority


August, 2nd 2006 Mark Everson Commissioner Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20002 Scott Prentky Field Director, Compliance Service Internal Revenue Service Ogden, UT 84201-0030

Certified Mail # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Certified Mail # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

To Include: Any and All agents and/or employees of the IRS. PURPOSE: RE: Constructive Notice of Demand for Verification of authenticity of authority. Letter July 17, 2006 (LTR-3175C), originating with Scott Prentky, Field Director, Compliance Service response to alleged correspondence from John; Doeh on April 12th 2006. This Notice of Demand shall include Any and All past, present or future actions, criminal or civil, by ANY and ALL IRS agents or employees. Dear Mr. Everson and Mr. Prentky, This letter and affidavit is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights of the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments, and The Bill of Rights of the California Constitution, in particular, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 and 18, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity and specificity, by means of your own sworn and notarized affidavit, everything in this letter and affidavit, with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter and affidavit is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 1 of 29

Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. Also, see: United States v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. This a response to your letter dated July 17th 2006, which allegedly is supposed to be a response to my correspondence to the IRS from April 12 th 2006. However, I have not sent any such correspondence to the IRS on or, around that date. As a matter of fact, I have not sent any correspondence, whatsoever, to the IRS at any time in the year 2006. After reading your letter and after considerable review of the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, published Internal Revenue Service policy, Administrative Procedure Act requirements and Supreme Court decisions upholding these requirements, it is my conclusion that you are operating outside of the venue and subject matter jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service. Per Ryder v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, I am required to initiate a direct challenge to the authority of anyone representing himself or herself as a government officer or agent prior to the finality of any proceeding in order to avoid implications of de facto officer doctrine. When challenged, those posing as government officers and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages.

Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a gift endowed to every living man, woman and child by the Creator. This gift coming from the Creator, no man, woman, person, entity, agency or individual has a right to take that gift from another man or woman without explicit, fully informed, and willful consent by the one who is giving it up. That is reflected in the 13th Amendment to the Constitution to the united States of America, which states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. To become a taxpayer, a man has to voluntarily give up his gift of Sovereignty. If the man has no knowledge of this, if it is deceptively and unlawfully imposed upon him without his knowledge or his consent, it is not done voluntarily and with his full understanding of the consequences thereof; and, therefore, the man is put into involuntary servitude, and whoever has committed such an act has committed criminal violation of the Constitution for the united States of America. 1. In the United States the People are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to the People by taking away their citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967). The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829) Page 2 of 29

2.

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

3.

In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a statewhere it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud or bothIn America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon Compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the People. Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6. It is a Maxim {an established principle} of the Common Law that when an act of Parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such an act, though not named; but when a Statute is general, and any prerogative Right, title or interest would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound. The People vs. Herkimer, 15 Am. Dec. 379, 4 Cowen 345 (N.Y. 1825). There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the Government of the United States. In this Country, Sovereignty resides in the People. Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld. Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421. Here in America, Sovereignty rests with the People Chisholm. Exr. v. Georgia, 1 L. ed. (2Dall) 415, 472. The words People of the United States and citizens are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our Republican Institutions, form the sovereigntyThey are what we familiarly call the Sovereign People, and every citizen is one of this People, and a constituent member of this Sovereignty. Wong Kim Ark. Page 914, quoting Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 19 Howard 577. Under our system the People, who are there [in England] called subjects, are here the Sovereigns. Their Rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a Monarch. The citizen here [in America] knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield the Rights which the Law secures to him United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 208; While sovereign powers [i.e. ownership powers] are delegated to agencies of the government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. Yick Wo v. Hopkins & Woo Lee v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, states [through the sovereign people] possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward. Upon entering the Union they retained all their Original power and Sovereignty, except such as was surrendered to the government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States Constitution. Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249. S.P. & People v. Coleman, 60 D. 581. 11. Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme. It is only one of the organs of that absolute sovereignty which resides in the whole body of the People. And like other bodies of government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 3 of 29

to it, and when it steps beyond that boundary, its acts are utterly void. Billings v. Hall, 7 California 1.

Due Process
To claim ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disobey the law as written. It is the responsibility of every person to know what the law says and to stay within the limitations of said law. The courts have upheld this time and time again as these cases will show. 12. Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority. - Continental Casualty CO. v. United States, 113 F2d 284 (5th Cir. 1940): 13. Thus the guarantee was intended to secure equality of protection not only for all but against all similarly situated. Indeed, protection is not protection unless it does so. Immunity granted to a class however limited, having the effect to deprive another class however limited of a personal or property right, is just as dearly a denial of equal protection of the laws to the latter class as if the immunity were in favor of, or the deprivation of right permitted worked against, a larger class. - Truax v. Corrigan, 275 U.S. 312, 332 (1921) 14. It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for everyone's right to life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law. All men are equal before the law, This is a government of laws and not of men , No man is above the law, are all maxims showing the spirit in which Legislatures, executives and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws. - Truax v. Corrigan, 275 U.S. 312, 332 (1921) 15. The Supreme Court ruled: Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority. - Federal Corp Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 16. And again in the court ruled: It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. - Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Common of California, 271 U.S. 583 17. ...constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Pp. 542-544. - Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965) 18. In adopting the directive of December 27, 1972, defendants did not comply with even one of these mandatory requirements, despite the fact that the directive would have a substantial impact on those regulated, and hence is a rule as contemplated in the statute, Id., at 154. Inherent in these provisions is the concept that the public is entitled to be informed as to the procedures and practices of a government agency, so as to be
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 4 of 29

able to govern their actions accordingly. The termination of the emergency loan program was without any notice, and was in violation of the statute, Id., at 155. Berends v. Botz, 357 F. Supp. 144 (D. Minn. 1973). 19. All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174,176. Marbury v.

20. A law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 312. 21. A law that improperly infringes on Constitutional Rights is void from its inception and no person can be obligated to obey such a law. 16A AmJur2d Constitutional Law, Section 203. 22. A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238. 23. Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. 16 Am. Jur. 2nd 177 late Am. Jur. 2nd, 256.

24. The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618. 25. The court has flatly rejected the imposition of a tax upon a right secured by the Bill of Rights. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943). 26. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. 27. That court proceedings must be within Constitutional provisions has been forcefully established by the Supreme Court. Smith v. United States, 360 US 1; Muskrat v. United States, 219 US 346. 28. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. United States, 230 F, 2d 286, 489. 29. Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748. 30. But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the fundamental law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it. Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S., 414 pg. 468. 31. The government of the United States does not come by inheritance, or succession into any judicial power, The government of the United States may, therefore, exercise all, but no more than all the judicial power provided for it by the constitution . if the party and the controversy, and the rule for deciding the merits of the controversy are, by the constitution, given to this Court; there can be no impediment to its action in this particular A judicial power means, therefore, a power to interpret, and not to make the laws State of Rhode Island v. COM. of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1838).
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 5 of 29

32. That which violates the spirit of the constitution is as much unconstitutional as one that violates its letter. Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700 dis op. 33. The court has insisted that the language Congress used provides an adequate warning as to what conduct falls under its ban..., United States v. Petrillo , 332 US 1 (1947). Where the record is wholly void of any necessary element of a crime, the case is constitutionally infirm. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 US 199. 34. Indeed, there may be a heavy presumption against validity where a right is explicitly secured by the constitution. Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1979); Capital Cities Media v. Toole, 463 US 1301 (1983). Under some circumstances, a constitutional challenge to a statute must be made during pleading. 35. Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism. Ex parte Milligan. 71 US 124 (1866). 36. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905). 37. A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void. World Wide Volkswagon v. Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980); National Bank v. Wiley, 195 US 257 (1904); Smith v. Uited States, 360 US 1 (1958); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 US 714. 38. If this requirement of the (Bill of Rights) is not complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeas corpus. Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 468 (1938)

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 6 of 29

39. ... the requirements of due process must be met before the court can properly assert in personam jurisdiction. Wells Fargo v. Wells Fargo, 556 F2d 406,416. 40. It is beyond question, of course, that a conviction based on a record lacking any relevant evidence as to a crucial element of the offense charged violates due process. Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 US 478. 41. A law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76; Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 312. 42. That court proceedings must be within Constitutional provisions has been forcefully established by the Supreme Court. Smith v. United States, 360 US 1; Muskrat v. United States, 219 US 346. 43. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. Connally v General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391 (1926) 44. The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618. 45. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. 46. A legislative act contrary to the. Constitution is not law. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238. 47. The court has had no problem in declaring a law must be clearly communicated to the citizen to be enforced: (A) statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391 (1926). 48. 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 U.S. 616. 49. Whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is obliged to dismiss the action. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37; U.S. v. Texas, 252 F. Supp 234, 254. 50. Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be done voluntarily, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748. 51. But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the fundamental law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it. Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S., 414 pg. 468. 52. Only by due process of law may courts acquire jurisdiction over parties. The legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum volume 16D, section 1150 on Constitutional Law 16D CJS Const. Law, 1150.

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 7 of 29

53. Due process is violated if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 105 (1934). 54. When the existence or the content of a law is called into question, the court must necessarily decide the question the same as it decides any other question of law. Walnut v Wade, 103 US 683, 689 (1880). 55. The prosecutor is not allowed to write, or assume, provisions in a statute to obtain a conviction. Rabe v. Washington, 405 US 313 (1972). (T)he record of his conviction should show distinctly, and not by inference merely, that every step involved in due process of law, and essential to a valid trial, was taken in the trial court; otherwise, the judgment will be erroneous. Crain v United States, 162 US 625, 645 (1896). 56. This court has repeatedly stated that criminal statutes which fail to give notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law. Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 US 223, 230 (1951). 57. It is beyond question, of course, that a conviction based on a record lacking any relevant evidence as to a crucial element of the offense charged violates due process. and reversed the conviction. Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 US 478 (1973). 58. 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 in all courts, state or federal. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged with a violation of 1, 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 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). 59. Defendant must be given adequate notice of the offense charged against him and for which he is to be tried. Smith v. OGrady, 312 US 329 (1941). 60. Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 US 353, 362. (1937). This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and it's agents and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS's own manual stating: 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.

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 8 of 29

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) OMB Control Number


The 1040 is a tax form, therefore subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 61. In Section 3512 of the Act, entitled Public Protection, it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agencys collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number. 62. In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agencys administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding. 63. In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. In a recent action brought by the United States in the United States District Court, For The Central District of Illinois at Peoria, captioned United States of America v. Robert Lawrence, Case No. 06-10019, the Government moved to dismiss the case, with prejudice, due to the fact that Defendants attorney, Oscar Stilley, threatened exposure of the IRSs on-going efforts to defraud the public. Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number. 64. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America. 65. Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and of no force and effect. 66. Under the facts and circumstances of the last 26 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form 1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring false instruments. a. IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form.

b. Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA. c. The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding. Page 9 of 29

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

d. The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA. e. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit requirements of those statutes

67. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The section mandates that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of: i. ii. iii. iv. v. the reasons the information is being collected; the way such information is to be used; an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection; whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 1040 form unless it displays a valid control number (i.e., issued in accordance with the requirements of PRA).

68. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3507(a)(1)(C). The section mandates that the IRS shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information via a 1040 unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the proposed 1040 form along with copies of pertinent statutory authority and regulations authorizing the IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The clearance packages that the IRS submits to the OMB make no mention of IRC Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203 or any of the other sections federal judges alternately cite as the authority that authorizes IRS to collect information via the 1040. 69. The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 26 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB control number must expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a three year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS reviews the 1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a control number with an expiration date. 70. The IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3512 ("Public Protection"). This section prohibits the IRS from penalizing any person for failing to file a bootleg 1040. The 1040 form falls into the bootleg class if it does not display a valid OMB control number and the disclaimer that no response is required without such a control number. The 1995 amendments strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS victims can
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 10 of 29

invoke this protection in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto. In spite of this, the IRS routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing to file the 1040 tax return. Although required by law, IRS never informs people about the bootleg nature of the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims have no legal obligation to file such bootleg forms. 71. Section 3512 of the PRA, titled Public Protection reads as follows: a. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter [44 USCS 3501 et seq.] if--

b. the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS 3501 et seq.]; or c. the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

d. The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto. 72. The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the IRS must use in submitting its request for approval of the 1040 form and an OMB control number, require each agency to submit with the form a supporting statement which is to identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information. The supporting statement must also include information regarding the burden imposed upon the public as a result of the collection of information. 73. This issue, then, is whether the PRA allows the approval of a Form for 26 years utilizing the same approval number. The tenth Circuit also took this issue with this in Collins v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) wherein it stated that: Assuming arguendo, that the Paperwork Reduction Act mandates that all federal forms contain expiration dates, this requirement plainly would be satisfied by the dates provided on the 1040 forms at issue. On the other hand, the IRS 1040 forms at issue in the present case were explicitly designated as either 1982, 1983, or 1984 tax returns with their effective dates of coverage clearly denoted. 74. This means that the expiration date for the OMB control number appearing on a 1040 Form is the year of the form on the cover page. Since the OMB control number on the 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return in 1984 was 1545-0074. 75. Furthermore, in Collins v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) wherein it stated that: The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3501-20, requires that federal agencies submit all information collection requests to the Director of the Office of Management and
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 11 of 29

Budget (OMB) for review, 44 U.S.C. 3507. Typical information collection requests include tax forms, medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports and tax or business records. Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990) 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990). Once the OMB director approves the information collection requests, he must assign it a control number, 44 U.S.C. 3504. An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless the information collection request has been submitted to and approved by the Director, 44 U.S.C. 3506(a), and shall not engage in a collection of information without obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the information collection request, 44 U.S.C. 3507(f). Moreover, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is not subject to this chapter. [31] 44 U.S.C. 3512. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1989) (prosecution for failure to file a Plan of Operations with the Forest Service barred under 3512 of the Act because the filing requirement was imposed pursuant to an information collection request which lacked an OMB control number.) 76. In United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Circuit 1991) the Tenth Circuit stated: The 1040 form is the information collection request which arguably must comply with the PRA. It is through the 1040 form that the government obtains all of the tax information it requires. They are subsidiary to and mere administrative appendages of the tax form. They function only to aid the taxpayer in providing the information required by the 1040 form. As long as the 1040 form complies with the Act, nothing more is required. 77. The Supreme Court stated in Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990) that: The Act prohibits any federal agency from adopting regulations which impose paperwork requirements on the public unless the information is not available to the agency from another source within the Federal Government, and the agency must formulate a plan for tabulating the information in a useful manner. at 32-33 Dole further explained that: After an agency has satisfied itself that an instrument for collecting information - termed an information collection request - is needed, the agency must submit the request to OMB for approval. See: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. V). If OMB disapproves the request, the agency may not collect the information. See 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) at 33. Also: The Act applies to information collection requests by a federal agency which are defined as a written report form, application form, schedule, questionnaire, reporting or
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 12 of 29

recordkeeping requirement, collection of information requirement, or other similar method calling for the collection of information. 44 U.S.C. 3502(11) (1982 ed., Supp. V). Collection of information, in turn is defined as the obtaining or soliciting of facts or opinions by an agency through the use of written report forms, application forms, schedules, questionnaires, reporting or recordkeeping requirements, or other similar methods calling for either - Dole at 34. The Supreme Court went on to say that [W]hile the grammar of this text can be faulted, its meaning is clear: the public is protected under the Paperwork Reduction Act from paperwork regulations not issued in compliance with the Act, only when those regulations dictate that a person maintain information for an agency or provide information to an agency. Dole, 494 U.S. at 40 (1990)

Administrative Procedure Act


In reviewing the Administrative Procedure Act, it has come to my attention that the IRS does not publish all of their regulations in accordance with the Act. For instance, codification of Part 600, except 600.l (b) has been discontinued. This was published in the Federal Register in October, 1948 and reads: Federal register, 13 Fed. Reg. 7710: 1. The headnote of Subchapter F is amended to read Records and Procedure. 2. Codification of Part 600, except 600.1 (b), is discontinued. Future amendments to the statement of organization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will appear in the Notices section of the FEDERAL REGISTER. If you will consult [5.1] 11.9 of the Internal Revenue Manual, you will find the IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to execute Form 1040 (individual), 1041 (trust) & 1120 (corporation/business) substitute returns under provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6020(b). It follows that if IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to unilaterally execute these returns, Form 1040, 1041 and 1120 returns are not mandatory. Further investigation of assignment of OMB control numbers reveals for example, 26 C.F.R. 20.6091-1 (estate tax) was assigned control number 1545-0015, which is the number for estate tax Form 706. Number 1545-0020 was assigned to 26 C.F.R. 25.6091-1 and 25.6091-2 (gift tax); this is the number for gift tax Form 709. Clearly, the IRS cannot deny that it knows that any regulations implementing 6091 require the assignment of control numbers. Upon review of Form 1040 NR, 26 C.F.R 1.6091-3 (International) displays a control number, which is 1545-0089. However, Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return does not display a control number. So again, we must turn to the courts and see what rulings have been made on this issue. 78. However, the regulations are incomplete in this case without the forms, because the regulations do not set forth the information a traveler will be required to furnish on the
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 13 of 29

forms, specifically form 4790, Id. at 869. - United states v. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200.000) in Umted States Currency, 590 F. Supp, 866 (S. D. Fla. 1984) The Court found that the form itself constituted an agency rule and not law. 79. Interpretative rules are statements as to what the administrative officer thinks the statute or regulation means, ... whereas substantive rules, such as Form 4790, are issued by an agency pursuant to statutory authority which have the force and effect of law ... It is also apparent that Form 4790 is not a general statement of policy as would be exempted from the publication requirement under 5 U.S.C section 553(b). That Form 4790 is a legislative rule rather than an interpretive one or a general statement of policy is apparent from the fact that the form was clearly intended to implement the pertinent statute ... and the regulation ... ; section 551(4) of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) distinguishes agency statements designed to implement a law from these designed to interpret it, Id., at 870, 871. - United states v. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200.000) in Umted States Currency, 590 F. Supp, 866 (S. D. Fla. 1984) 80. Given the scope of the information which customs Form 4790 requires a traveler to furnish, as well as the Form's role as an implementing mechanism for the reporting regulations, Form 4790 is a substantive and implementing rule which falls within none of the acceptable exemptions under the APA and should have been published in the Federal Register, Id., at 871, 872. - United States v. Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200.000) in United States Currency, 590 F. Supp, 866 (S. D. Fla. 1984) You will find this ruling consistent with Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2D 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964) where the court ruled: 81. The command of the Administrative Procedure Act is not a mere formality. Those who are called upon by the government for a countless variety of goods and services are entitled to have notice of the standards and procedures which regulate these relationships. Neither appellants nor others similarly situated can turn to any official source for guidance as to what acts will precipitate a complaint of misconduct, how charges will be made, met or refuted, and what consequences will flow from misconduct if found, Id., at 578. - Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2D 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964) Considerations of basic fairness require administrative regulations establishing standards for debarment and procedures which will include notice of specific charges, opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witness, all culminating in administrative findings and conclusions based upon the record so made, Id., at 578 Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2D 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964) [W]e cannot agree that Congress intended to authorize such consequences without regulations establishing standards and procedures and without notice of charges, hearings, and findings pursuant hereto. Absent such procedural regulations and absent notice, hearing and findings in this case, the debarment is invalid, Id., at 579 - Gonzalez v. Freeman, 334 F.2D 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964) Again, the court again ruled:

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 14 of 29

82. The acts set up the procedure which must be followed in order for agency rulings to be given the force of law. Unless the prescribed procedures are complied with, the agency (or administrative) rule has not been legally issued, and consequently is ineffective. - in Hotch v. United States, 212 F.2D 280, 283 (9th Cir 1954) As well as 83. In adopting the directive of December 27, 1972, defendants did not comply with even one of these mandatory requirements, despite the fact that the directive would have a substantial impact on those regulated, and hence is a rule as contemplated in the statute, Id., at 154. -Berends v. Botz, 357 F. Supp. 144 (D. Minn. 1973). Inherent in these provisions is the concept that the public is entitled to be informed as to the procedures and practices of a government agency, so as to be able to govern their actions accordingly. The termination of the emergency loan program was without any notice, and was in violation of the statute, Id., at 155. - Berends v. Botz, 357 F. Supp. 144 (D. Minn. 1973). And yet again 84. The Supreme Court established that, inter alia, persons could be held accountable and liable in accordance to the long established practice of the common law. ... that when it came to tax law, because of the complexity of tax law, that the rights of such persons were different, were not the same as with the common law, but were gerater as to the right to know and understand the tax laws on a more through basis. - Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) 85. Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records. - Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990) 86. In United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Circuit 1991) the Tenth Circuit stated: The 1040 form is the information collection request which arguably must comply with the PRA. It is through the 1040 form that the government obtains all of the tax information it requires. They are subsidiary to and mere administrative appendages of the tax form. They function only to aid the taxpayer in providing the information required by the 1040 form. As long as the 1040 form complies with the Act, nothing more is required.

Constitution for the united States of America


87. The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the bureau of Internal Revenue, was not created by Congress, as required by Article I 8, clause 18 of the Constitution of the United States; so cannot legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United States in States of the Union. (See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg . 11572,1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100 through the 1997 edition)
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 15 of 29

88. Article I 8, clause 18 vests Congress with complete responsibility for facilitating power of Government of the United States via legislation: [The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." 89. In the historical statement, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue admitted that Congress did not create a Bureau of Internal Revenue via the 1862 act in which the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created, but alleged that Congress intended to create a bureau. In reality, the 1862 legislation created the offices of assessor and collector, in addition to the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Assessors and collectors were appointed for each revenue district somewhat as U.S. Attorneys are appointed today. Those appointed to these offices continued to collect internal revenue within States of the Union until the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was implemented The two offices were administratively abolished via Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to Internal Revenue Service via Treasury Order # 150-27, which was not published in the Federal Register in compliance with requirements of the Federal Register Act. (See 44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., particularly 1505(a)) 90. United States v. Germaine 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County. 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S. Ct 1131 (1886), and numerous other cases that reinforce the determination there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill. 91. The Internal Revenue Service operates in an ancillary or other secondary capacity under contract, memorandum of agreement or some comparable device to provide services under original authority delegated to the Treasury financial Management Service or some other bureau of the Department of the Treasury; the contracted or otherwise authorized services extend only to government employees and employers, as defined at 26 U.S.C. 3401(c) & (d). The authorization is essentially intragovemmental in nature; it does not extend to private sector enterprise in States of the Union. 92. The pocket Commission Handbook, located in Chapter 3 of Internal Revenue Manual 1.16.3 Authorized Pocket Commission Holders, lists IRS personnel who are authorized to have pocket commissions. By cross-referencing to the delegation of authority to issue summonses, it appears that all IRS personnel authorized to issue summonses are under the assistant Commissioner (International). If the authorities are accurate, your proposed examination would constitute a sham preceding under color of authority of the United States. To the best of my knowledge, I have never received income from sources and activities subject to jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International). 93. Further, if you will consult Part 14 of the Internal Revenue Manual, "International", at 114.1, Compliance and Customer Service Managers Handbook, you will find that examination, collection, criminal investigation and customer service functions are all categorized under the Assistant Commissioner (International). There is no corresponding categorization that might qualify as domestic operations.

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 16 of 29

94. If you will consult 26 CFR 601.101, you will find that IRS personnel have jurisdiction for examination and collection only within internal revenue districts; all other functions fall under jurisdiction of the foreign district director, now the Assistant Commissioner (International). The Secretary of the Treasury has never established internal revenue districts in States of the Union, as required-by 26 U.S.C. 7621 AND Executive Order #10289. Therefore, you must be operating under presumption of Assistant Commissioner (International) jurisdiction. 95. Federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers. But the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agencys field structure which affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register. The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wage earner living and working at home. However the IRS claims that the 16 th Amendment places a liability on my labor but continues to ignore the fact that I am not or have ever been a corporation, resident Alien, or working abroad. The courts settled the issue of the 16th Amendment as the cases below will show but again, the IRS refuses to follow it's own rules and abide by the courts rulings.

16th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America


In IRS Publication 2105 states in paragraph 1 The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, states The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States. However, IRS has deceptively omitted the full text of the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 which states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (emphasis added) Next in paragraph 2 is states: The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution , ratified on February 3, 1913, states, The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 96. However, close examination of the certified archival records of the 48 states (the number of states in the union in 1913 when the 16 th Amendment was proposed) shows that this is not true and that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America has not been lawfully ratified.

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 17 of 29

97. These archival records show that the necessary quota of two thirds of the states passing the Amendment as required by the Constitution for the united States of America was not there. 98. At best, 33 states may have passed the Amendment. Only three states have passed this Amendment without any controversy, errors, and alterations. 99. Both the Judicial branch of government and the Legislative branch of Government have refused to answer the question as to the ratification of the 16th Amendment by which the IRS has its purported authority to collect taxes on income. 100. The evidence collected by Bill Benson and others and submitted to the Federal Judges and United States Congress clearly shows that the 16 th Amendment was never ratified and the Certification by Philander Chase Knox that said the Amendment was ratified is based wholly on fraud. 101. If this belief is true, which I believe it is, the 16 th Amendment and the income tax is purely political in nature, deserving of political action by the people, i.e., a political process under the First Amendment, for the redress of grievance. 102. In the Stahl decision, not only did the Courts find the fraud behind the 16 th Amendment to be political in nature, but, additionally, after reviewing the evidence, the Court itself noted several states which did not ratify the 16th Amendment as alleged by Stahl. Footnote 1 on page 1439 of United States vs. Stahl. 103. Courts have declared the 16th Amendment, and the fraudulent ratification thereof, to be a political question. Congress refuses to entertain this political question because in their opinion, the Courts should decide the question. This is a chicken and the egg game played by the courts and legislators with the purpose of confusing and misinforming the Sovereign American People about the true nature of the income tax. However, courts have ruled that the 16th Amendment did not impose any new taxes, as shown in following rulings: 104. ... the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16 th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it... - Brushaber v. Union Pacific R Co., 240 US 1.11 (1916): 105. ... it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.. - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103, 112 (1916): 106. The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new su bject within the taxing power. Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.. 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 18 of 29

107. "The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, ... - Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165,173 (1918): 108. An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (The 16 th Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mer e conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations. - Doyle v. Mitchell Bros, 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918): 109. The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects ... - Elsner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205, 206 (1920): 110. Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say: It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before. - Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245,259 (1920):

Wages and Income


Just as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court decisions, the IRS chooses to look the other way. What the Supreme Court established in Evans v. Gore was that not only did the 16th Amendment NOT confer new taxing powers to Congress to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definition of INCOME as defined by the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 111. A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 corporation tax act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit and have a capital stock represented by shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges. - Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 144 (1911) 112. There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word income must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court - Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519 (1921) 113. Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed - Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 U.S. 170 (1926)
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 19 of 29

114. "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16 th Amendment. - Helvering v. Edison Brothers Stores, 8th Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943) 115. We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term gross income. Certainly the term income has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts . - Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918) 116. "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their birthright. It has been well said that the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. - Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1814)

Taxation
117. If there is no legal requirement for an individual to pay a tax, the citizen is free to do as he wishes. Flora v. United States, 362 US 145 (1959). 118. It is a well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397 (1904). 119. (I)t is elementary knowledge that one cardinal rule of the court of chancery is never to decree a discovery which might tend to convict the party of a crime, or to forfeit his property. And any compulsory discovery by extorting the partys oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom. Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 631-632 (1886). 120. A person who is not legally required by an unambiguous statute to pay a tax is not a taxpayer. Spreckles Sugar v. McClain (1904), 192 US 397; Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine, 284 US 498 (1931); Gould v. Gould, 245 US 151 (1917).
Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 20 of 29

121. Further, the IRS does not have authority over any individual who is not a taxpayer, or is claimed to be a taxpayer, or holds information on a putative taxpayer. Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F2d 504 (1961); Economy Plumbing v. US, 470 F2d 585 (1972). 122. Enforcement of a revenue summons is not (to be) in derogation of any constitutional right. US v. Euge, 444 US 707, 711, 718 (1980); Upjohn v US, 449 US 383, 398 (1980). A tax on the right to ones own property in his labor and the fruits thereof derogates this Constitutional Right. 123. In the opinion of Hassett v. Welch, 303 US 303 (1937): If doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer id. p314 (ref. 82 CJS Statutes 385). 124. It is a violation of due process to put the burden of proof on the individual to show exclusion from a tax. Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles, 357 US 545 (1957). There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III 2, U.S. Constitution, arising under clause). See Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U.S. (2002) The following elements are essential: 1. When challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record. Facts of the case must be established in record. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition or direct oral examination). The LAW of the case must affirmatively appear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See United States of America v. Menk, 260 F. Supp. 784 at 787 and United States of America v. Community TV. Inc., 327 F.2d 79 (10th Cir. 1964) The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts. The trial court, whether administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

As you have not complied with these elements, I am duty bound to demand that you now prove your Personal Authority as an authorized government agent.

Please rebut the following statements under penalty of perjury:


1. 2. 3. A free Sovereign live man is not a taxpayer. There is no factual time line as to when, where, why and how, I, the free, Sovereign live man became a taxpayer. I have never volunteered to give up my Sovereignty and accepted involuntary servitude. Page 21 of 29

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

4. 5.

To subject me to involuntary servitude is a violation of the 13 th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America. The 1040 individual return is a worksheet for tax form 2555, for Foreign Earned Income and applies to residents of the Virgin Islands, not to American Citizens or American Nationals. Please give proof based in facts and in certified records that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America was duly and lawfully ratified. The OMB number on the 1040 Personal Income Tax form is not valid. Cite the valid OMB number.

6. 7.

Please provide me with certified copies of the following:


1. 2. 3. Your precise title (revenue officer, revenue agent, appeals officer, special agent, etc.) and cite the section of the act of Congress that created the office you occupy; Your constitutional oath of office, as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution for the united States of America and 5 U.S.C. 3331; Your civil commission as agent or officer of Government of the United States, as required by Article II 3 of the Constitution for the united States of America and attending legislation; Your affidavit declaring that you did not pay for or otherwise make or promise consideration to secure the office (5 U.S.C. 3332); Your personal surety bond; and Documentation that establishes your complete line of delegated authority, including all intermediaries such as the Assistant Commissioner (International), beginning with the President of the United States.

4. 5. 6.

These documents should all be filed as public records. See 5 U.S.C. 2906 for requirements concerning filing oaths of office. In the event you do not have a personal surety bond, you may provide a copy of your financial statement, which you are required to file annually. Your financial statement will be construed as a private treaty surety bond in the event that you exceed lawful authority. Collateral issues other than the above requests intended to document your personal standing will be addressed separately from this request. You may provide the requested items within a reasonable period of twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of this request. See the Administrative Procedures act for deadlines. In the event you do not formally answer this demand, you may be considered a party to any past or subsequent adverse action. You may withdraw, in writing, any and all claims, demands and/or encumbrances issued directly or indirectly within the scope of your alleged administrative authority.

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 22 of 29

Failure to comply with this constructive notice of demand to verify authenticity of your authority will be an admission that all parties are willfully, with evil intent engaging in criminal activity against me. NOTICE: I reserve the right to enter this demand and all evidence attached within, to be preserved as evidence under Rule 902 (4), (5) , (8), (9) and (10) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, upon the records of such public recorder's office at such place or places as I alone determine, which as a matter of public record shall be subject to submission and use in any legal proceeding thereafter as utilized by any person having cause to rely thereupon for evidence purpose, under the aforesaid Federal Rules of Evidence, and as for any other reasons that a public record of debt may be used, accordingly. Record Notice Act: When an instrument of conveyance or a mortgage is recorded in the appropriate public office, it is constructive notice of its contents to the whole world. - Black's Law, Sixth Edition, Page 1275

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Page 23 of 29

Affidavit/Declaration of Truth
I, John Doe, a Sovereign American National, the undersigned, make this Affidavit of my own free will and hereby affirm, under my oath, and penalty of perjury, that the information contained in this Affidavit is true and correct and based in facts and law, and attest to the facts stated on the Constructive Notice of Demand for Direct Challenge to Personal Authority to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. This Affidavit of Truth is lawful notification to, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and any all agents thereof, pursuant to The Bill of Rights of the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments, and The Bill of Rights of the California Constitution, in particular, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 and 18, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Notice to agents is notice to principals; notice to principals is notice to agents. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, by your own sworn affidavit of truth, with particularity and specificity, everything in this sworn Affidavit of Truth, with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit of Truth is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is the first essential of due process of law. Also, see: United States v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. I, John Doe, the undersigned, hereby make the following statements of fact and law with the intent of stating and declaring my status for the purpose of clarifying my relationship in law with the state, United States government and Internal Revenue Service: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I am a lawful American National and free Sovereign Natural live man. Sovereignty was and is given to me by the Creator God/Goddess All That Is with the gift of life. I was born free and endowed with the inalienable Rights of free will, freedom, liberty, privacy and pursuit of happiness. My Law is the Law from God/Goddess All That Is. No authority exists, nor have I given authority to anybody, to impose upon my sovereignty or my life other than the Creator God/Goddess All That Is. I am not under explicit, implicit, known or unknown contracts, agreements with anybody, or any individual, or agency, or institution, or corporation, or government other than the Creator God/Goddess All That Is. I have not given my free will, my sovereignty, my loyalty, my Rights, my freedom, to anybody other than Creator God/Goddess All That Is. I do not belong to anybody else but to the Creator God/Goddess All That Is. I am not surety, or bond, or serf, or slave, or taxpayer to anybody or anything. Page 24 of 29

7. 8. 9.

Affidavit of Truth

10. I have not been informed by anybody that I have at any point in the past, present of future become a taxpayer. 11. I am temporarily sojourning on this Planet Earth as a free Sovereign man under the guidance and protection of the God/Goddess All That Is. 12. I have not volunteered or pledged myself, my possessions, my wealth, or fruits of my labor knowingly, or unknowingly to anybody or anything. 13. I am not a RESIDENT or CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES or of any of the federal enclaves or possessions or FEDERAL DISTRICTS, or FEDERAL STATES, or THE STATE. 14. I have filed Cancellatura of Foreign Instruments with proper authorities and gave notice of who I am and informed them of my status. This can be verified through the Iowa Secretary of State Apostille No. 06-041208. 15. My name is spelled as John (that is capital J then small o h n) and my family name is spelled Doe (that is capital D then small o e). Any other spelling is not my name, nor it is related to me in any way, shape or form. 16. I hereby assert and state that I will only handle, possess, or otherwise use Federal Reserve Notes as a Tender in Payment of Debts, under threat, duress and coercion, with all my unalienable and inalienable Rights including those enumerated above, reserved, and 17. This claim asserts the above limitations and Rights on the several States and the United States, their officers, agents, assigns, affiliates and counterparts whomever, according to my status as a Sovereign Natural live man, set out above, and 18. The Constitution of the united States of America is the highest and the Supreme Law of the land, namely this Nation, America. 19. Pursuant to the referenced Constitution, all lawful courts in the united States of America, must be conducted as judicial forums, under Article III, in any actions pertaining to American Nationals/Citizens. 20. No court, other then Article III court, is lawfully authorized to conduct any kind of judicial proceedings against an American National/Citizen. 21. All officers of a Court, including but not limited to, all officers and agents of the IRS, all government witnesses and prosecuting attorneys, and all government public officials/officers are required, pursuant to the Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, of referenced Constitution, to have sworn oaths to support the Constitution of the united States of America, bound by surety bond. 22. All aforementioned officers and agents are required to abide by their sworn and bound oaths in the performance of their official duties. 23. If any officers were to perjure their oaths, they will have invoked the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, vacate their offices and forfeit all salaries, pensions and benefits.
Affidavit of Truth

Page 25 of 29

24. Specific limited Constitutional authority is delegated to governments and the courts, but no Constitutional authority is delegated to the IRS or any of its officers/agents. 25. What is not specifically authorized by the Constitution is prohibited by the Constitution. 26. Limited Constitutional authority delegated, by and through the Sovereign People, to government and the courts can never supersede the powers of and the Rights of the Citizens guaranteed in the Constitution. 27. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land, all laws, rules, codes and procedures are subservient to and cannot supersede the Constitution. There exists no higher authority than the Constitution. 28. All public and government official are bound to honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by them, including the presiding judges and attending court officers, pursuant to the Constitution for the united States of America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and Constitutional requirements thereof. a. The American Nationals/Citizens, in the instant case, John Doeh, are Sovereign in this Nation, and the government officials serve the American Citizens/Nationals pursuant to:

b. limited powers delegated in the Constitution, which delegated powers are derived from the People; c. e. f. oaths taken to uphold the Constitution; powers authorized only by the Constitution or laws in full compliance therewith, specifically, the Bill of Rights, and lack of Constitutional authority precludes any action and voids any ruling by the Court. d. the Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights;

29. No court and no judge in any State has jurisdiction over or can issue a court order against an American Citizen/National if that court and/or judge fail to: a. c. provide due process of law; respect and uphold the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens/National, and in the instant action, the Rights of John Doeh, a Sovereign American National, pursuant to the Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions for the united States of America and the California Republic; honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers, pursuant to the Constitution for the united States of America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and the Constitution for the California Republic, Article 20, Section One; Page 26 of 29 b. provide equal protection under the law;

d. uphold the powers of the National and state Constitutions; e.

Affidavit of Truth

f.

provide due process of law, pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution for the united States of America, and pursuant to Article II, Sections 2, 4, 12 and 18 of the Constitution for the California Republic, and as required by the aforementioned oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers; provide equal protection under the law, as required by the National and state Constitutions and pursuant to the referenced oaths;

g.

h. respect, protect and uphold the Rights of John Doeh, an American National, in this matter, which Rights are guaranteed in the National and state Constitutions, pursuant to referenced oaths; i. acknowledge and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America as the Supreme Law of this court, in this matter, pursuant to the mandate, in Article II, Section One, of the Constitution for the California Republic, that the National Constitution is the Supreme Law of California; acknowledge and so rule that any court and/or judge which denies a American Citizen/National to present evidence in any hearing or trial in total support of his position fails due process, denies the Constitution, violates the Citizen/Nationals Rights and forfeits jurisdiction;

j.

k. read, consider, comprehend and rule upon all motions and pleadings filed with this Court, with Court rulings based only in and supported by laws, statutes and case law in agreement with, and not in opposition or contradiction to, the Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, also fails due process, denies the Rights guaranteed to the People in the Constitution, and forfeits jurisdiction; 30. The IRS has no Constitutional authority to exist, therefore, no authority over the American National/Citizen and no authority to issue summonses by which to violate the Peoples Constitutionally guaranteed Rights to privacy and security in their personal, private effects. 31. Title 26, which is a mirror image of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which was specifically created only to apply to government employees, was never voted into positive law by the Congress of the United States. Therefore, Title 26 has no lawful force or effect upon an American Nationals/Citizens and they are not subject to or liable to Title 26, or to any law not passed into positive law by Congress or not Constitutionally compliant. 32. No law exists which, was passed by Congress that makes the American National/Citizen subject to the so-called income tax. A law must be valid to exist and must exist to be enforced. No such valid law exists, and since it does not exist, it cannot be enforced. Thus, any procedures, rules and regulations of the IRS, with respect to collecting income taxes from the American National/Citizen, are invalid, fraudulent, without Constitutional or Congressional authority, as are administrative, third-party summonses issued by the IRS to banks.
Affidavit of Truth

Page 27 of 29

33. The IRS, as previously stated, has no Constitutional or Congressional, therefore, no lawful authority for the IRS to impose income taxes upon the American National/Citizen. Therefore, it follows that: a. there is no lawful or legitimate purpose for the IRS to conduct an investigation of an American National/Citizen;

b. no lawful or legitimate authority to make inquiries to the private bank accounts of American Nationals/Citizens; c. no lawful or legitimate authority for the IRS to acquire the summoned material from the bank accounts of American Nationals/Citizens;

d. thus, the administrative steps initiated by IRS are irrelevant and immaterial and unlawful; e. there is no lawful or legitimate authority for the IRS to have made a criminal referral of an American National/Citizen to the Department of Justice, since that American National/Citizen has violated no valid law; all legislative authority is vested ONLY in Congress, and the American People are only subject to and liable to those Constitutionally-compliant laws passed by Congress; as previously stated, Title 26, was never voted into positive law by Congress;

f.

g.

h. the IRS has never rebutted this statement or proven that Congress ever voted Title 26 into positive law. 34. Anything not given in this Affidavit cannot be assumed, presumed and is non-assumpsit. This Affidavit of Truth, fully based in fact, valid law and case law is true, correct, legal, lawful, and if not rebutted by Respondent, as stipulated, herein, is Respondents irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon Respondent in any competent court of law in America, without Respondents protest, objection or that of those who represent Respondent. If Respondent disagrees with any statement made in this Affidavit of Truth, then, Respondent must rebut, by sworn and notarized affidavit, that with which Respondent disagrees, with particularity and specificity, using valid fact, law and evidence to support Respondents rebuttal, within 30 days of Respondents receipt of this Affidavit of Truth. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America that to the best of knowledge foregoing is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), 18 U.S.C. 1621. Affiant further sayeth naught. All Rights Reserved ________________________________ John; Doe, Sovereign American National, Affiant (sui juris)
Affidavit of Truth

August 2nd 2006 _________________ Date

Page 28 of 29

In the California state, Orange county, I swear that on this 2nd day of August, 2006, the above named Affiant, John Doe, a Sovereign American National, appeared before me, and of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of Truth. ___________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires:______________ Seal:

Affidavit of Truth

Page 29 of 29