Movie Stars Can't Save Wesley Snipes From Prison

Wes' lawyers should read this

To whom it may concern,

It has been more than a year since I sent you the document below as a signed, sworn, and attested affidavit, and I have yet to receive any kind of response to the Lawful and Legally binding questions I have raised within it.

I have taken the liberty to modify some of the statements and questions that I sent before so that they would be more effectively communicative, I have also added some other information that more recent revelations have given rise to my personal concerns and I am resending it, again, as a signed, sworn, witnessed affidavit, sent certified to your Disclosure Office. I have accentuated specific words, phrases, and quotes so that there can be no misunderstanding as to their meaning or intent in hopes that doing so will bring a greater clarity to you, and I might actually get my questions answered after more than 15 years of trying.

Once again, you have been duly noticed and it is now, once again, your legal obligation to reply to me and answer all my questions which by law you have 30 working days to respond, 40 if you opt for the extension as you did last time, but then when you did respond you neglected to answer any of my questions.

I am not waiting for another computer at one of your offices to spit out yet another bogus request for my voluntary compliance or another one that threatens me with criminal prosecution or levy if I do not comply to requests which you refuse to validate with verifiable references to statutory laws.

Read what follows. Take notes. Answer EVERY question I have put to you and if, after doing so I am convinced that I have been in error I will comply to your past wishes.

To that end, in slightly modified form, I resubmit what I sent to you last year so that I will be able to keep a juries time to a minimum if it comes down to facing off against your organization in a court of law.

Dear IRS

I apologize for the untimeliness of my reply concerning my compliance to your "alleged" assessments. I underwent shoudler surgery at the VA in late January, suffered through a kidney stone, and now find myself as primary caregiver for my elderly Aunt who is home now from the nursing home she'd been in after suffering a fall and becoming injured - and I am still recuperating from my surgery and unable to

work.

Between the pain and the meds and the fact that I couldn't use my favorite arm and hand, it has taken me until now to transform what I was able to discern from having "hit the books" into the written word as I told the IRS agent I'd called (at my own expense and from my own home) in good faith in an effort to discuss the differences we seem to have in opinion of applicable laws. And in regard to that conversation I would like you to cite the "Law" that specifically states that I am forbidden to record a conversation "I" initiated on my own phone when it comes to speaking with one of your agents, (be specific in this if you don't mind, as I will want to reference it for use in court should the need arise). It seems to me that it lies well within the realm of probability that the agent is going to act not as a mediary between yourselves and myself, but has a vested interest in leaning everything in your direction so as to get maximum "voluntary compliance" as is referenced so often in your manuals, after all, it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary and promotions depends on him not understanding it, and given the scope and level of the IRS abuses I have assimilated to date it seems apparent to me that there is an atmosphere at or within your organization that allows for persons in your employ to be serial contrarians, therefore he could, conceiveably, either have lied to me or in some other way attempted to lead me to believe something that was not true and therefore violate my Constitutional Civil Rights.

Are you telling me then that I do not have the right to protect myself from what might be an overzealous agent whose salaries and promotions depends upon how well they are able to enforce voluntary compliance?

After having "hit the books" I am still unswayed in my contention that "Income Taxes" as you say they apply to me, do not. I fully believe in "good faith" that the "Income Tax" as you are attempting to apply it to me is not Constitutionally valid as it has to be written in as non-compulsory in order to retain said Constitutional validity.

So I have carefully studied what you seem to want to contend are "frivolous" arguments, and in some cases I could actually see your point, in others, however, and in good conscience, I could not, but putting that conflict completely aside I have sought out numerous sources to attempt to confirm or deny my original summations that have little, if anything, to do with the "frivolities" you mentioned earlier as I have no desire to waste mine, yours, a judge, or a juries' time.

To that end there are questions I have and statements I feel the need to make regarding my newer findings that I would like you to answer for me so that I might have a clearer understanding of what former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, once called a "disgrace to the human race" and what your own former Commissioner, Shirley Peterson, stated was "Incomprehensible, even to professionals in the field".

Or in more specific terms, your organization, the I.R.S. Hardly a wonder since the Tax Laws as they were written in 1913 contained a mere 11,400 words. As of 1999 it (the I.R.S. Manual) is more than 7,000,000 words.

By comparison, the King James Bible contains only 773,000 words. So can you tell me, for a certainty, that any single I.R.S. Agent fully comprehends the enormity of the IR Code as it is so vaguely and convolutedly written?

Given that understanding I would like, then, to state why I feel I am (still) NOT a "taxpayer" as set forth in the terms described in 26 U.S.C., and I would like to ask you a series of questions that I feel certain you will not find "frivolous".

Should you answer them satisfactorily I will be convinced of my "alleged" obligations and will comply without reservation as I am only trying to get to the truth of a matter that finds our entities in conflict.

Therefore, Sir or Madam, I trust that you will appreciably reply to my evidences and my doubts in a manner that will allow for what I am sure we both want amicably resolved.

Where to begin.

I shall try to be as concise and clear as I can, and I shall try to present them in an order that will make the most sense, but I only ever got a G.E.D. and I climb trees for a living when I am physically able, I'm not as well versed in these matters as a "professional in the field".

I suppose before I begin I would like to once again request anything that may be on file in the Secretaries Office that records any alleged tax liability under Section 6203 as what I received from Kenneth Wilder, Disclosure Specialist, in a letter from the Department Of The Treasury, dated August 1st, 2005, concerning request for same he states that "There are no Summary Records of Assessments on file that Identify either myself or any other taxpayer by name", but then I suppose that's why we have "Social Securitiy Numbers", so if you would, please have them look under my "Taxpayer Identification Number" so that we might clear this matter up once and for all.

Other than that he says they charge $17.00 an hour to search through what must be a mountain of information which, for all intents and purposes, should be at the touch of a button as long as he types my "ID" number in correctly, and for which, by law, they (you) are incumbent upon giving me at my request within a 30 day time frame given them (you) by your own Laws and Regulations (and without "charge").

What's more, in a letter signed by a different Disclosure Agent, a (Mr./Ms./Mrs.?) "C. Hardee", in a letter dated June 2, 2006, on page 8 under "Summary Record of Assessments", RACS report 006, Certificate Number 13320051006001, "Claims" that I "allegedly" owe $26,638,490,428.99 in unpaid "Income" taxes, $141,807,686.06 in "Penalties", and $60,101, 827.60 in "Interest" for a total of $26,840,399,942.65 (assessment date 01/01/2005). So am I to honestly believe I am in debt to the United States Government to the amount of nearly 30 Billion dollars?

I like a punchline as well as the next guy, but this one tops them all.

Is this debt true or is it a real son-of-a-glitch? And if "it's" a glitch, how then can I trust any other amounts you portend that I "Owe", especially given what I consider to be non-frivolous arguments I still intend to make - and reference?

On the following page (9), however, there is a "Copied" signature of what appears to be "Debra C. Hennessey", "Signature" (For Service Center Directors of Internal Revenue Service) that, after crunching all these ungodly numbers, goes on to state that the "Total" as is featured to the right of "Principal Taxpayers And Amounts Related To Jeopardy Assessments" is $0.00.

What's more, I can find no reference to either my name or my Social Security Number on the pages that show that nearly 30 billion dollar assessment. Why is this? And why, if it doesn't apply to me, was it included to begin with?

To say the least I find this confusing and would like to inquire directlyto Ms./Mrs. Hennessey, as is my 5th Amendment Right concerning full Disclosure, as to by what means and informations at her disposal did she come up with the figures she did, and then why they, on the next page, added up to $0.00.

Before I continue I would like to formally request (once again) a copy of my Individual Master File and full disclosure on the exact, step by step process that you have utilized in rendering your "assessments" against me so that said, required by Law, "Disclosure" is available to me as is directive in regards to the Disclosure Office who are "...responsible for providing any necessary information to counsel and securing testimony authorizations and providing guidance to subpoenaed empolyees" ("guidance" = "coaching"?).

As required in the condition precedent set by Shapiro Vs. Secretary Of State and as per your own procedural guidelines, by LAW, you are REQUIRED to send me form 17 or 17A if I (allegedly) "owe" a "Tax" that I have not paid. This, as you know, is the REQUIRED, OFFICIAL, and DULY DELEGATED "Form" specifically stating that it is a "Bill" for what is "Due and Owing" which I have never, to date, received.

I have received forms 5564, CP504, 806-A, 4549, 1040A (which, considering you have no ORIGINAL 1040A filed by myself you, by law, couldn't possibly be in possession of [will reference at a later time]), and 1040 (see last parentheticals), but I have yet to receive the requiste forms that specifically states that it is a "Bill" for what is "Due and Owing" as is REQUIRED by LAW. Just as I have yet to receive the necessary (mandatory...) "Disclosure" that would allow me the opportunity to prove either of our points (reference 26 CFR 601.103 (a) if this simplifies matters for you).

I have been advised to formally request AINS/AMDIS printout (I found the copy of my Individual Master File and was able to decipher the code that effectively claims I have no filing requirement, but I did not receive this other printout and, literally, none of the questions I asked were ever addressed, I just got excuses and then, once again, I was ignored), I will expect it to be included (this time) along with a copy of my next Individual Master File documentation and any other information I shall make requests for that fall within my rights to ask for under the Freedom Of Information Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. As of yet I have only a cursory understanding of the need for this (AINS/AMDIS), but am still in the process of assimilating and extrapolating all of the newer informations I have uncovered that seem to not be "frivolous" as you have seem to have deemed by (unsupported) case law, as I do not intend to waste any more of your time as well as my own, much less a judge and/or a juries. I would also like any and all disclosures due to me under the Freedom Of Information Act regarding wherein, exactly, does my "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement" might be fully and completely outlined in clear and unequivocal language. I have read the Code with more than due diligence and have yet to be satisfied with any reference I could find, therefore if you could expressly clarify this I would be most appreciative.

I am told I can request a local jury trial if necessary since what you contend I owe falls under a category that allows for same to be conducted here if it boils down to that (unless you think I really DO owe nearly 30 Billion dollars...) and that would be why I filed for no "Appeal", as I still consider your attempts to attempt to collect monies from me as unlawful, as I shall continue to attempt to point out to our mutual satisfaction, but, please, feel free to truthfully and effectively answer all of my questions in the event you can make sense to me of the "alleged" liability and filing requirement you say I have, for if you can do so effectively, in good faith, then I, in good faith, shall file and pay as you suggest I do, and inasmuch as filing said "Appeal" (such as you offered to me at an earlier date), to me, would be akin to lending creedence to what I still consider to be an illegal act which I feel is completely unlawful at its heart, so I therefore opted out of your offered "option" as I felt that to conform to it would deny me my Constitutional Right to continue to seek a solution/redress in the manner that should, by my reckoning and understanding of the LAW, as it is expressly written, be available to me through you, especially considering the evidences I still intend to relate to you and what I consider to be your obvious ommissions regarding what I consider to be a blatant misuse of Code Sections that cannot possibly apply to me.

So, once again, and so there can be no misconception, can you show me, specifically, so we can both have a mutual understanding, which provision/statute within the I.R.S. Code that creates my "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement" as an American? I am aware that you lost your case against Vernice Kuglin on those very grounds, and I have numerous certified return mail receipts, just as she did, to show that I have answered every letter ever sent to me by your organization essentially seeking the same answers that Ms. Kuglin sought, so it is therefore most incumbent upon you to provide me with said provision(s) so as to prevent what her assessment agent, apparently, had not been prepared for, and I would prefer that, if such a provision/provisions/statute exists, that you make it immediately known to me for Full "Disclosure" purposes as is supposed to be guaranteed to me by the Constitution so I can make a carefully considered decision regarding your contentions that I "Owe" the I.R.S. and then file and pay if I deem your informations to be lawful and correct and mine have somehow been in error.

In an Internal Revenue Investigation, Hearings before a Sub-Committee of the Commission of Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, 1st session, on the administration of the Internal Revenue Laws, Part "A", states in relevant part that "Your Income Tax is a 100% Voluntary Tax and your Liquor Tax is 100% enforced, now the situation is as different as day and night", tesimony given by Dwight E. Avis, then HEAD of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division (see also the Supreme Court decision in Flora vs. the United States where the justices declared that your "...income taxes are 100% voluntary and not based upon distraint" - meaning "not" mandatory).

I find this to be in complete contradiction to your allegations that I have both a "Filing Requirement" and a "Tax Liability" under the "Title" you say I am "Required" under which you claim to be Mandatory, and since he would be higher up in the I.R.S. food chain (and also taking into consideration the Supreme Court decision I just quoted) I would think he'd quite likely have a greater understanding of the true nature of things which, to most, are "Incomprehensible", and which makes me wonder about and, essentially, doubt your "assessments" since they appear to me to have been rendered due to a willfull (or otherwise) and gross misapplication of existing Laws and Regulations.

But wait, there's more. I'm just getting started.

Jerome Kurtz, in his Internal Revenue Annual Report, circa 1980, states that the I.R.S.'s PRIMARY task is to collect taxes under "Voluntary Compliance System".

Therefore if, as you say, my compliance is "Compulsory", I would appreciate knowing which Provision/Code Section makes it so and I would also like to know the exact nature, as outlined within the confines of the Code, of what "Voluntary Compliance" means because to the average person the word "Voluntary" means exactly that, "Voluntary" (not BASED upon DISTRAINT), meaning you have a choice as to whether you wish to volunteer or not, whether it be for military service such as I have done, or for taxes, which I had also done, at least until I learned what I consider to be the true nature of the tax as it applies to the average American.

From what I have been able to gather and understand if an American wishes to not "volunteer" his or her taxes that there is an IRS Code that allows for them to do exactly that. IRS Code 3402(n), which an employee must file annually with their employer and which states, in relevant part, that they had no tax liability for the previous year and that they expect no tax liability for the coming year and once submitted to the employer as a witnessed document they, the employer, are no longer liable to withhold said taxes.

True or false?

And why would such a provision be written into the code if it were not meant to be utilized by those who feel that it applies to their particular situation? Could it be that it is there so that the taxes you are attempting to collect are not abhorrent to the taxing clauses of the Constitution? Or is the "Constitution", as George W. Bush stated in 2005 "...just a Goddamn piece of paper."?

True or False, "Income" is specifically defined within the Internal Revenue Code?

If True, please provide me with where said specific definition lies as I cannot seem to find it anywhere within the confines of the Code. Simple question, one you should be able to answer rather easily provided that the Code posesses same and provided it is not "incomprehensible" to you.

Thus far I have been consistently denied "Due Process" by numerous agents and/or employees at your agency in regard to my 5th Constitutional Right regarding the hows, whys, and wherefores of how your "assessments" against me have come into being. I have NEVER been served with the "REQUIRED" forms demanding payment for what is "Due and Owing", I therefore formally request that all aforementioned informations be furnished to me for further study and evaluation so that I can make a carefully informed determination of what you continue to "allege" that I "owe", or that you immediately abandon your attempts to collect from me taxes I cannot/have not been allowed to fully examine or comprehend and which are in extremely serious doubt to me given what I have thus far presented and which I still intend to present to you.

Spreckles Sugar Refining Company v. McClain, 192 US 397 (pg. 416) ruled, in relevant part, that a citizen is EXEMPT from taxation unless same is imposed by CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE" (see "Shirley Peterson" as quoted above and then see if you can tell me in that "clear and unequivocal language" wherein lies my "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement", as I have asked for numerous times within the context of this communication so that there might be no possible miscommunication concerning my request for same, do so and I will happily comply to your requests).

Robert and Valerie McKee, 9th Circuit Court in San Fransisco won their case against the IRS and were repaid monies, plus interest, after your organization illegally siezed over $39,000.00 from their bank account, and they won their case on the sole arguement that the tax code is so convolutedly written that the average person cannot comprehend it.

It seems, then, that there is at least one precedent, therefore, for my assertions that the Code, as Shirley Peterson herself claimed, is "incomprehensible".

However, if you can make sense of it for me, seeing as it seems to fall within your job description to do so, I would find it immensely helpful in gaining a better understanding of what I just cannot come to grips with insofar as your assertions are concerned as you are seeming to me to be making them without the lawful and binding references that fully substantiate your "alleged" claims.

One thing you regarded as "Frivolous" that I do have an issue with is best described in a Supreme Court Decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 US 1, wherein their decision effectively ruled that the 16th amendment "...did not amend the Constitution, but established the Income Tax as an indirect excise tax", meaning that said "taxation on Income was, in its nature, an Excise Tax and "Entitled" to be enforced as such and that the whole purpose of the amendment was to "relieve" all Incomes Taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the Income was derived", in other words, completely contrary to the way it is currently being "Imposed" by your organization today where most Americans are concerned. Therefore I would like all the particulars of the laws that have made this High Courts' decision null and void as well as whichever ones actually created the "Income Tax" as it is supposed to be lawful and within the parameters outlined by the Constitution today and as they apply to the average American, as it will take both for me to fully ascertain the liability you say, but do not seem to wish to prove to me that I "have", and which informations are my Constitutional Right to have under the 5th Amendment Due Process Laws.

Merchants Loan and Trust Company vs. Smietanka, 255 US 509, (1921, pgs. 518, 519), (yet another Supreme Court Decision) states in relevant part that "Income" has the same meaning as the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909", which is why, to my understanding, my "Taxes", per se, fall under Sub-Title "C", "Employment Taxes and Collections of Taxes at their Source" (aka, "Voluntary" taxes), and not Sub-Title "A" as you would seem to have me, and the rest of America, want to believe.

If this is not so please explain all the particulars to me so that I might garner a greater understanding of the "incomprehensible" nature of the Tax and the assessments you seem to have rendered against me utilizing a "Mandatory" Sub-Title rather than the "Voluntary" nature to which I believe MY alleged "Taxes" should apply.

Your "assesments" detail that Section 6020 (b) was utilized to determine my "Tax Deficiency", yet the preceding aspect of said Section was, for some reason, deliberately ommitted from the information that you provided, so I looked it up. It (Section 6020 (a)) states, in relevant part, that "Preparation of a return by the Secretary if any person shall fail to make a return required by this Title as by regulations prescribed thereunder but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may (not "must", as a matter of LAW) prepare such return being signed by such person may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person." (and what, exactly, makes me, as an American, fall under the distinction of those that are "REQUIRED" by this title?).

Therefore any "Return" prepared by the I.R.S. can contain absolutely no information whatsoever from which any "Tax" could be determined (see U.S v. Verkuilen and Schiff v. Commissioner U.S.T.C., 1984-223) unless the "Taxpayer" has filed an "Original" return, which I have not done (as I still continue to hold that I have neither a "Tax Liability nor a "Filing Requirement"), neither have I given my written (or otherwise implied) "Consent" in any way, shape, or form (no pun intended...), therefore your organization cannot possibly have the required information necessary, by Law, to render any kind of assessment against me under the letter of said Law.

Therefore, since we both know that I have filed no return because I, in good faith, believe that I am not subject to the "Tax" as you suppose it is applied to me, so, therefore, Code Section 6020 (b) cannot be lawfully enforced since there was no "Original" return filed by myself from which a lawful determination could have been made, and that, in no small way, is no small part of the underlying reason as to why I feel I am NOT subject to your "Jurisdiction", your "Tax" or your "Revenue Laws" as they apply to Sub-Title "A", as you attempt to apply them to me, and which, to my understanding, applies ONLY to Foreign corporations, non-resident aliens, and whomever draws a federal paycheck, such as yourselves.

None of what was mentioned above can possibly apply to me and that is why I must contest your, apparently, unlawful/illegal allegations that I "Owe" anything to the I.R.S., and especially not what amounts to nearly 30 Billion dollars.

Puhleeeeze...

Bill Gates makes more in a day than I will in my lifetime, but I doubt you'd even try to hand him such a "Bill" (but then since it's not the "Requisite" form "Required" by Law then it's not really a "Bill" at all, and 6020 (b) can't possibly apply to my situation given the express nature of its preceding clause so I can only surmise that it has been grossly misapplied in your "alleged" assessment which you seem to have illegally rendered against me - AGAIN).

Section 6011 only applies when persons are "Required" to make "Returns/Statements pursuant to certain regulations prescribed by the Secretary", and yet that "Section" fails, in specificity, by not directly identifying ANY of those specific "Regulations".

If this is not so please advise me as to where I can find such references so that I may be better able to determine the true nature of the assessments you have rendered against me (by, apparently, misusing/misapplying Code Section 6020 (b)).

I can find nowhere in Sections 6001 or 6011 where it specifically states that the "Taxes" imposed in Section 1 shall (which, by LAW, can be construed as "May", [Reference Fort Howard Paper Company v. Fox River Heights Sanitary district, 26 NW 2nd 661, also see Cairo and Fulton R.R. Company v. Hect, 95 US 170]...) be paid on the basis of a "Return", such as is specified in Code Sections dealing with

Alcohol/Tobacco and Firearms (Mandatory "Taxes"). Note that said Section does not contain any specific/particular reference to "Income". Will you please explain this discrepancy in full detail? I am sure that if you were to effectively do so you could better establish your position that I am in violation of the law, and, if I am, it is certainly something I would like to know so that I might conform to the letter of same and make everyone happy that this event is behind us.

"Dummy" returns, as arbitrarily created by agents of your organization and not unlike the ones in which you are likely trying to use against me at this time, according to "Phillips v. C.I.R., 1986, TC 433", the Court specifically ruled that such "Dummy" returns do NOT (emphasis mine...) have the status of a return".

Lynn Poll, one time Chief Correspondence Secretary to the I.R.S. stated in a letter to a taxpayer who requested a record of their assessment that "A record of assessment for the years cannot be determined until such a time as you file your Income Tax Returns and any subsequent examinations of the tax years are made".

So, according to this person, I MUST have had to have filed a return for you to have created a lawful assessment against me. Since I filed no return, in good faith that I am under no specific obligation to do so, and since no one in your organization seems to want to provide me with the provision(s)/statute that fully creates that lawful obligation in clear, concise, and unequivocal terms , then I am led to believe that no such tax liability or filing requirement exists on my part and therefore I choose to continue to not volunteer my "alleged" taxes until such a time as it has been made crystal clear to me exactly where that "tax liability" and "filing requirement" lies within the confines of the Code. Therefore, and to that end, I ask, again, if your records show whether a "Lawful" assessment has been made against me pursuant to Code Section 6201, and, also, are you, specifically, authorized by LAW, to determine a "Tax Deficiency" before you have proven a "Tax Liability" as provided for within the confines of that Section?

Section 6203 provides and requires that the Secretary, upon request from the "Taxpayer", shall (not to be construed as "May" in this concern) furnish said taxpayer with a copy of any records of assessment within 30 days of said request. As you'll see I have provided copies of numerous certified mail receipts wherein I have made numerous 6203 requests over the years after receiving what I can only consider to be "bogus" "Notice and Demands" that were never the "Required" forms, and, in all but one situation, my requests were completely and totally ignored.

But the one response I DID get states I "Owe" nearly 30 Billion dollars in unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest, but then somehow totals $0.00 on the following page.

Very confusing.

And it would be funny if it weren't so truly tragic.

I think I can say with a certainty that I do not owe the Federal Government nearly 30 Billion dollars, so something isn't just rotten in Denmark and the smell seems to be coming from your office.

Can you tell me what Section of the I.R. Code authorizes you to determine a tax deficiency before you even determine a tax, record the liability, and notify the "Taxpayer" as provided for and required by Sections 6201, 6202, and 6203?

Please be specific in this answer and detail exactly what provisions of law allow you to do as you seem to have done, as I can find none that allow you to do so which is yet another reason why I am led to believe that my assertions are correct and yours are still in error.

Prove to me that I am incorrect and I shall alter my belief system accordingly and then adhere to what you can prove to me is the nature of the given LAWS.

Where, exactly, in Section 6020 does it state that there are "Penalties" if a "Taxpayer" does not consent (volunteer) to disclose informations? This would prove most helpful in allowing me to determine the validity of what seems to me to be an unlawfully and illegally perpetrated claim against me. Has 6020 (a) been revoked or amended?

These are extremely pertinent (non-frivolous) questions to the issues at hand, therefore I wholeheartedly request that you provide answers to all these questions in an effort to allow me to more fully understand and appreciate the full/complete nature of the claims you seem (to me) to have illegally rendered against me through what I can't help but consider to be a gross misapplication of the existing Codes/Laws.

Note that I said "Laws" and not "regulations", as by now we both know that "regulations" cannot narrow, broaden, nor extend the laws to which they are meant to be applied, true or false?

Has the Secretary of the Treasury (whose agent says I "Owe" nearly 30 Billion dollars...) been given authority by Congress other than to ENCOURAGE voluntary compliance with I.R.S. Laws and Regulations?

Please be specific in this answer.

If this is so can you be wholly specific as to where said authority/delegation lies so that I might investigate same for Disclosure purposes as I try to, pro se, create my own defense against your allegations regarding the "Taxes" you claim that I "allegedly" "owe"?

Can you provide me with any Section of the law that says there are interest/fraud penalties if a "Taxpayer" does not consent (volunteer) to give the I.R.S. information from which a tax can be computed? And would not providing said information conflict with my 5th amendment rights by doing so? And does not the I.R.S. Handbook for Special Agents specifically state in Section 342.12 that "An individual may

refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the grounds that compelling him to do so violates his rights against possible self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment" (and constitutes an illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment)?

Could you take the time, as I have, in an effort to bring clarification to you, to enlighten me as to where the lines are drawn in this immense sand of "Incomprehensible" Law that we seem to be quagmired in?

Do so to my satisfaction and I will happily comply with your requests.

Are you aware that Title 18 USC 241 and Section 6214 (a) (1) and (2) makes it a crime for you to knowingly demand of me a sum (such as nearly 30 Billion dollars...) which is greater than is authorized by law?

To that end I pray that you examine and answer all of my questions very carefully, as I have no qualms against Prosecution of the Law and the suing of yourself and your agency for what essentially amounts to a "Reckless Collection" action that former President Bill Clinton, noting out-of-control I.R.S. abuses signed into law a

specification allowing the raising of the amount a "Taxpayer" can sue the Federal Government for from $100,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 in an effort to reign in your well publicized abuses of the time.

To date I cannot begin to quantify the hours I have spent researching and assimilating and extrapolating the informations at my disposal, which I have only begun to present, and which have given me migraines as I try, pro se, to construct, with my limited resources, a defense in regard to your claims which has been made even more difficult for me since absolutely no one in any of your offices seem willing to share with me the formal/lawful requests which I have repeatedly made over the last 15+ years in an effort to prepare said, pro se, defense.

Numerous courts have ruled that attempts, such as you are attempting to perpetrate upon me now, constitutes a violation of my (once again...) Constitutional Right to Due Process and is also compounded by the fact that you are willfully denying me Full Disclosure in regard to exactly wherein my alleged "Tax Liability" and "Filing Requirement" are concerned and which is mine by rights of Law for the asking - and which is in serious question to me now that I have had, once again, to point out to you that you have apparently used Section 6020 (b) against me illegally and in direct opposition to the provisions and requirements of that Section as is found/referenced in the preceding clause outlined in 6020 (a).

True or False, "Notice and Demand" for tax shall (which we now know can be construed as "May" by the letter of the law) be given to taxpayer via 6303 (a) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code as was made applicable to the 1939 Internal Revenue Code by Section 7581 (a)(6)(B) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code?

Please be specific in this answer.

As a rule, for you to convict me of any kind of "willful evasion" under the burden of proof, and as per Rule 301, you will have to prove, incontrovertibly, that I have purposefully acted in "bad faith" to elude or defeat this allegedy "Mandatory" tax (is this "tax" "Mandatory", as you seem to want to suggest/purport and would have me believe, and if so, what makes it so for me, considering what I have presented to you so far and which no one at your organization has ever taken the time to effectively answer?).

I have, in good faith, responded to every single letter/correspondence I have ever received from your organization, but my Lawful requests for specific answers have been (willfully?) "ommitted" or downright ignored after writing letters such as this one I am writing, in good faith, to you now in an effort to seek the answers I must have to make a more informed decision as to the particulars of the arguments you are attempting to utilize in what appears to me to be a flagrant misuse of authority due to the (intentional/unintentional?) misuse of Code Sections that cannot possibly apply to me given the express language of the Sections I have quoted and which you have never replied to with any type of response whatsoever. I, therefore, omit paying and filing regarding this "allegedly" "Mandatory Tax" because my current understanding in regards to it leads me to believe that "I" fall under Sub-Title "C" ("Voluntary" taxes), not "A", as you seem to want to attest.

Furthermore due to it's convoluted, "difficult to understand/comprehend" status and because of its often misleading Publications, Laws, and Regulations (which, as I have already pointed out, cannot narrow, broaden or extend the Law itself), then, for all intents and purposes, it should be "Void for Vaugeness", which is also a matter of "Law" as I am certain you are aware.

True or False?

There are no Regulations under 26 USC Section 7621 which "specifically" authorizes the President of the United States to "establish" revenue districts, so, by law there are no "districts" for the States of the Union, but only apply, by law, to it's outlying Territories, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, et al?

It is now my understanding that the I.R.S. relies upon cases like Collins, Becraft, Barcroft and Ward in an attempt to refute this arguement, but what interests me is that in each case the Agency relies solely on a Courts' unsupported statement instead of a proper legal reference, which is, of course, what the illegitimate

jurisdiction arguement is based upon.

Therefore can you explain why there are no specific legal references cited within the confines of these cases?

What's more, a U.S. Attorney in a 1993 civil case in Idaho "Denies that the Internal Revenue is an Agency of the United States Government". Add to this that the Internal Revenue Service was initially created as a Puerto Rican Agency, which, apparently, supports the contention that there is a significant distinction in Law between the "Federal" United States, and the Constitutional United States of America.

This seems to also support the facts that Sub-Title "A" which, by law, applies to non-resident aliens, foreign corporations and those who specifically draw a Federal paycheck, would be in force within these parameters and do not extend toward "Americans" as you have attempted to apply towards myself and God knows how many other unsuspecting, uninformed others whose lives have been ruined, whose monies, properties and livliehoods have been illegally siezed and which have resulted in suicides, murder, and even homegrown terrorist attacks such as the unfathomable Oaklahoma tragedy.

To that end, as a freedom loving American, I cannot, in good conscience, deny the facts as I feel I have come to understand them when a portion of my meager livelyhood seems to be being demanded from me by means of "authoritative" chicanery and downright illegal demands as well as threats of criminal prosecution when I, in good faith, fully and completely believe I have committed no "crime".

Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 92, the I.R.S. is trained under the direction of the Division of Human Resources United Nations (U.N.) and the Commissioner (International) by the Office of Personnel Management, yes, or no?.

In the 1979 edition of 22 USCA 278 ("The United Nations") you will find Executive Order 10422, which states, in relevant part, that the Office of Personnel Management is under the direction of the Secretary of the United Nations and, pursuant to Delegation Order 91, the "I.R.S." entered into a "Service Agreement" with the US Treasury Department (see public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967 Re-

Organization (BANKRUPTCY) plan No. 26) and the "Agency for International Development".

This "Agency" is, therefore, an International Parlimentary Operation and, according to the Department of the Army Field Manual (1969) 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sections 1-7 (b) and 1-6, Sections 1-10 (7) (c) (1), and 22 USCA 284 and includes such activities as assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area, as well as being an agency/member of a 169 Nation Pact

called the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) which can be determined by 22 USCA 263a.

Rather than continue verbatim as to what I could continue to quote chapter and verse on, I think it safe to summarize by saying that under Article 30 of the Interpol Constitution that I.R.S. Agents, essentially, are Agents of a "Foreign Principle" within the meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938" and since

you, by law, must expatriate yourselves from the United States in order to be effectualized as an employee of the I.R.S., you aren't even an American, per se, and you don't "lawfully" collect "Taxes" from "true" Americans as you only seem to have the power to do so as they apply to territories, commonwealths, and outlying areas, and not the "States of the Union" as they apply to "America", true or false? And please be specific in any and all references you submit so I can investigate further in a good faith effort to determine if I am incorrect in ANY of my assertions.

So, the "Federal Reserve Bank" and the "I.R.S. Collection Agency" are both "Privately Owned" and operate under "Private" statutes, yes or no?

Therefore, provided my investigation as to these determinations are correct, the "I.R.S." operates under public policy not Constitutional Law, and more in the interest of our Nations Foreign Creditors and NOT the "American People", true or false? Also in specificity, if you please.

True or False?

The Constitution only permits Congress to lay and collect taxes, it does not authorize Congress to delegate the "Tax Collection 'Power'" to a "Private Corporation" (such as yours) for a Private Bank (the Federal Reserve) who then deposits it into the Treasury of the "International Monetary Fund"? It seems, then, to me, that "American" "Income Taxes" don't even stay in this country and aren't utilized for "American" interests at all, but rather for foreign ones. This information can be had as a matter of public record so I would strongly suggest you answer truthfully because I intend to send this to you as an attested affidavit and I also intend to share this information (my letter to you as I write it now), along with your nearly 30 Billion dollar assessment against me with local and national newspapers, who will also be given copies of my return receipts should they think it newsworthy, so look for whatever press coverage I can muster, because failing to answer my questions, which I have a Legal Right to have, will, if I can help it, create a media circus in which I seriously doubt I will be perceived as the "clown".

I tire of being ignored, I tire of having to write, rewrite and send your organization the same information over and over again because no one within your organization seems willing to comply to my legally binding and lawful requests which are my Right to make under the 5th Amendment and in regards to the Freedom Of Information Act.

True or False?

The I.R.S. is not allowed to state that they collect taxes for the United States Treasury. They only ever "refer" to "The Treasury".

Therefore, not some, but quite literally all monies paid, by "Americans", go out of the country to do whatever the International Monetary Fund deems appropriate, yes, or no? For the record, I know I am repeating myself, I do so in an effort to show that there can be no question as to the questions I have asked.

Be reminded that these are all issues I intend to get answers for from as many judges and juries as it takes if necessary, even if it means taking it to the highest court in this great land. I am tired of this 15 year game of letter tag that I have been playing with your agency, I have a Right to make demands of you that you, by Law, must comply with. To date no one within your organization has ever complied to the letter of that law.

Why?

Furthermore, since 1995 (I believe), and with cooperation of the OMB, the I.R.S. has knowingly violated the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act by failing to obtain and print valid OMB control numbers on Form 1040 and other Forms.

The I.R.S. follows the policy of unlawfully prosecuting, penalizing, and prosecuting individuals for failing to file 1040, rather than admitting that the 1040 serves as a "bootleg" form due to its violation of Federal Law by not bearing a valid OMB control number.

Examples of I.R.S. violations of the PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii), the "Section" that "Mandates" that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:

(I) The reasons the information that is being collected;

(II) The way such information is to be used;

(III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection;

(IV) Whether the responses of the collection of information are "voluntary", "required to obtain a benefit", are "mandatory", and;

(V) 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.

(Yes or no? Simple question)...

That being issued in accordance with the REQUIREMENTS of the PRA.

Do I need to extrapolate upon other violations by the I.R.S. pursuant to 3507(a)(1)(C), or that the clearance packages that the I.R.S. submits to the OMB makes absolutely no mention of I.R.C. Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203, or any of the other "Sections" that Federal Judges alternately cite as "The" Authority that authorizes the I.R.S. to collect information via the 1040?

Then there's PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1), and let's not forget 3512, titled "Public Protection", which I am certain you are either familiar with or can effetively become so with the click of a button thanks to these marvelous computers that store, catalog and collate information so it is, quite literally, at your fingertips. I suggest it as recommended reading before you attempt to further your collection attempts against me.

The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the I.R.S. must use in submitting its request for approval of the 1040 Form and an OMB Control Number, requires each agency to submit with the form a "Supporting Statement" which is also to "Identify any Legal or Administrative Requirements that necessitates 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".

Interesting, no?

Interesting, yes...

To date I can honestly say that, by Law, I have never seen a "Legal/Lawful" 1040/1040A Form in my life given the information I have just provided. In this instance I would like clear and concise answers as all your claims against me hinge on this technicality.

If I am in error, prove it. Take the time, as I have, in trying to mount a defense against what I can only perceive as a purposefully perpetrated injustice committed under the color of law.

If my "assessments" are in error, then please cite, Chapter and Verse (as I have been doing for you) where and how I am incorrect in any of my discernations so as to allow for a mutual understanding/aggreement between ourselves so that this unfortunate incident might be clarified and the situation finally resolved.

Reminder: Section 3512, as authorized by Congress, provides protection pursuant to this Section that may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agencies administrative process (such as an I.R.S. Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a "Judicial" proceeding.

So I must therefore find that I agree with the summations of Devvy Kidd, who, through extensive personal and professional research, has more than adequately determined that the I.R.S. has never been created by any discernable "Act" of Congress and therefore has no power to "lawfully" lay any "Taxes" upon the "American Peoples" as it is an entity specifically designed to operate "Outside" of the "Union" we have come to know as the United States of America (not the "Federal States of Ameica").

"I" believe that the Law should be plain and easily understood by the people to whom it applies. I also believe that the Government itself must obey and not be above the Laws according to such intent as is clearly expressed by the Framers of the Law -- the Representatives of the "We The People".

To allow Government agencies to just "do what it takes", in spite of the clear intent of the Law or because the Law itself has been made "Incomprehensible", is to abandon honesty, to act cowardly, and to betray future generations into a State of helplessness and hopelessness at the mercy of an unrestrained government and a system of "Law" which is arbitrary, "Incomprehensible", and largely misapplied or

downright/willfully ignored.

I have been "dismissed" by agents of your organization in the past as for wanting to "Debate" the Law, yet I merely present the facts as I have come to understand them.

This is where the "true" "evasion" occurs, by personnel at your agency who totally/completely deny me my "guaranteed" 5th Amendment Rights to FULL DISCLOSURE.

Other cases I intend to quote should we come to court together are that of Lloyd Long, Ray and Dixie Powell, the Hardy brothers, Danny Hashimoto, Franklin Sanders, Gabe Scott, and a huge case involving 17 people in Tennessee, among others...

Did you know that a careful study and comparison of 26 USC 441(a) & (b), 6012(a)(1), and 7701(a)(14) will easily reveal that without a specific "Law" which would make a "Person" "Subject to" or "Liable for the Payment of" a particular Internal Revenue Tax, it is virtually "Impossible" to be a "Taxpayer", have a "Taxable Income" or a "Taxable Year"?

Is this something you were aware of before you "assessed" against me?

Based upon your recent activities in wrongfully/unlawfully assessing a "Tax" against me through apparent misuse/misapplication of the Codes and Regulations of which you are supposed to be fully aware, and also upon which your salary depends, it appears to me that you are acting upon the "Assumption" that I am a "Taxpayer" who has "Delinquent Tax Liabilities", therefore I would suggest that you make a careful study of the facts as I have taken the time and effort to present them to you since you seem to be unaware of what has been written into the "Incomprehensible".

To that end I hereby formally request, yet again, and for the umpteenth time, that you provide me with a complete legal basis as allegedly derived from "Title" 26, United States Code and its implementing regulations for this "assumption" on your part. Absence of such a legal basis throws the legality of your attempts at collection under no small amount of doubt, and is little more than extortion under the color of Law -- Indeed, a flagrant violation of 26 USC 7214. If you are unmoved by this line of thought and the incontrovertible evidences I have carefully researched, considered and presented, then would you please explain to me how you justify your behavior before the letter of the Law, before God, and perhaps even your own conscience?

During my intensive study of the tax code (preciptated by what I consider to be false/illegal assumptions on your part and the parts of others) I find that I can only find the word "Liable" used clearly and specifically in Sections 4401(c), 5505(a), and 1461 which create unmistakeable liabilities for wagering tax, distilled spirits tax,

tobacco tax, and "income" tax, respectively. Section 1461 is the ONLY Section in the Internal Revenue Code specifically "Imposing" a "Liability" for "Income" tax.

That Section applies toward "withholding agents" only (those "required" by 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments of "Income" owed to foreign persons), therefore it is incumbent upon you to administer the Laws as the Laws specifically apply and not as you "assume" that they do.

Are you a "Criminal Investigator"? Yes or no?

If so I would refer you to Internal Revenue Manual 1132.75 (12-21- 87). According to this Section of the Internal Revenue Manual the Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute...

...involving United States Citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to income tax filing requirements...".

This being so, how, then, do you justify what you are attempting to do to me now and what you are continuing to do to millions of unsuspecting Americans everywhere?

26 USC 7214(a) clearly imposes substantial penalties upon any Revenue Officer who is guilty of willful oppression under the color of Law, who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by Law (like the nearly 30 Billion dollars I "allegedly" owe according to a letter I received from the Treasury Department), or attempts to

collect... ...except as expressly authorized/delegated by Law to do so. These are very strict and legal constraints that you must carefully consider before any further attempts on your part to assert your, apparently, unfounded "assumtions" wherein you seem to have arbitrarily concluded that "I" have a "Tax Liability" and a "Filing Requirement".

For the record I want to say that I take umbrage at the label you have likely hung me with, such as a "Tax Protestor". I do not "Protest" the "Tax", per se. I "Protest" your attempts at the apparently misguided/unlawful attempts to collect same from me as I have neither a tax liability nor a filing requirement as you purport to understand them under the "Law" where these "alleged" (assumed) "taxes" are concerned. Show me the inherant law, in specificity, or admit that no "Law" exists.

Given what I have come to understand I find I can only rely upon my own, extensive and comprehensive study of the "Tax Laws and Codes" (especially since no one within your organization is willing comply to my Lawful requests for Full Disclosure of informations that are my Right, by Law, to have).

This "Study" has been ongoing for me since 1984, when I first opted out of filing and paying federal income taxes, so I now have 24+ years worth of searching and assimilating the available information.

To that end I feel I can safely say that I am most certainly NOT a "Taxpayer" as that term is defined in "26 USC", and the "alleged" liabilities which you are trying to collect from me have been concocted through gross misapplications of Internal Revenue Laws and/or regulations.

Title 5 CFR 293.311, I believe, will allow me to ascertain the information regarding your status within the bureau, and I am fully aware that an I.R.S. Agent cannot be "served" a "summons/subpoena" at "work", therefore, since you seem to have no reluctance towards what is apparent to me to be a blatant misuse of your "alleged" authority, it is therefore incumbent upon myself to know your home mailing address so that you might be duly served should the situation come down to that. Since I have made you aware of my knowledge that I know you cannot be served at work and you seem intent on denying me my Guaranteed Constitutional Rights, it is incumbent upon you to provide same for Full Disclosure purposes as well since you seem intent on violating my Civil Rights and denying me the information I require to assess the legality of what you have assessed against me.

I am also aware that your organization allows for "aliases" to be used, purportedly for fear of retribution for perceived wrongdoings. Therefore, for full disclosure purposes, I would like to know that I have never been contacted by an agent utilizing a psuedonym.

Now, with regard to your investigating me and my personal affairs I would refer you to 26 USC 7608(a). It is CLEAR from this Section that Revenue Enforcement Officers have authority for enforcement of Sub-Title "E", and other Laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.

Is it, therefore, your contention that I have a "Tax Liability" under this Section?

Inasmuch as your recent "Notices of Levy" that I received I believe I pointed out that there was a complete disregard for 26 UCS 6331(a), I felt the need to reiterate this as it seems to continue to pertain to the "Scope" of which you are mandated by Law to follow. And what would you "Levy" anyway, my food stamps?

As I am still in recovery and still in need of another surgery so I don't see how such levies (which I recently discovered have to be renewed monthly to be lawfully in effect - and which have to be actual levies, not notices of "Intent to Levy") can possibly be effectual even if they were based in legality, which, of course, they are not.

26 CFR, 601.103(a) is the only place that tells us who is "Required" to file a return, provided that person has been duly/properly "Noticed" by the District Director to KEEP RECORDS AND THEN NOTICED THAT HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO FILE". It states, "In general, each taxpayer (or person required to collect and pay over the taxes) is required to file a prescribed form of return". As stated before, I have NEVER been duly/legally "Noticed", therefore what you contend applies to me cannot possibly apply to me, hence my continued contention that "I" do NOT have any "Tax Liability" or "Filing Requirement" which you seem determined to tell me (but NOT PROVE to me) I have.

So, to date, I have NEVER received such a "Notice" from any "District Director", so if you would be so kind as to forward my information to him/her so that he/she can effectively do so and therefore lawfully establish the tax and the filing requirements you seem intent on alleging I have, then I am sure we can come to a mutual understanding and this issue will be resolved without any further conflicts.

Apparently, and according to my recent findings where "Tax" Laws are concerned, we are only "subject" to the laws of JURISDICTION which we "Volunteer" to accept. In the "Law" governing "Income" tax, "Income" is defined as foreign earned income, offshore oil well, or windfall and war profits.

I fall under none of these and therefore cannot possibly be a "Taxpayer" as defined in the specifications of the Law mentioned above.

Be advised that, if taken to trial, I shall (not to be construed as "May") take the necessary steps to ensure that the Federal Register is admitted into evidence.

Rule 44 CFR states that every regulation or rule must be published in the Federal Register. It also states that every regulation or rule MUST be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. If there is no "regulation" (which cannot broaden, extend, or narrow any provisions of any "Laws") there is no implementation of said "Law".

There is NO REGULATION governing "Failure to file a return". There is no "computer Code" for "Failure to file". The ONLY thing I could find was a requirement stating "where to file" an income tax return. It can be found in 26 CFR, Section 1.6091-3, which states that, "Income tax returns 'required to be filed' with the 'Director' of 'INTERNATIONAL' Operations" (takes us back to that whole United Nations/Interpol thing again, doesn't it? You remember, the one that continuously sends all "American" "Income Tax" dollars to other countries as directed by the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund...).

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY: NO ONE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO

ANYTHING UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SPECIFIC, WRITTEN AUTHORITY, OR

SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY WITHIN THE "LAW", GIVES THAT

PERSON A DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDER SPELLING OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER THAT SPECIFIC ORDER.

IRC Sec.7401; AUTHORIZATION. “No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the secretary (of the Treasury) authorizes the proceedings and the attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced” .

To that end I ask from whence you, specifically, have derived your "Duly Delegated Authority" to threaten to "levy" and "assess" to my detriment and provide me with the pertinent information regarding same forthwith so that I might better understand/appreciate your position of authority or see to your potential prosecution for what you have "assumed" to be my alleged liabilities in what I can only perceive as a reckless collection attempt.

Delegation Order Number 115 (Rev. 5) of May 12, 1986 is the ONLY delegation of "authority" to conduct an "audit" that I could find after several months of searching. It states that the I.R.S. and the B.A.T.F. can ONLY audit themselves and only for the amount of $750.00 or less. Any amount above that amount MUST BE AUDITED BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL according to Title 31 USC. No other authority to audit, by my reckoning, exists (so therefore you cannot have "Legally" "Audited" me).

No I.R.S. or B.A.T.F. agent, or representative seems to be able/willing to furnish any Law, Rule, or Regulation which gives them the "specific" authority to audit anyone other than themselves. Order Number 191 states that they can levy on Property, but ONLY if that Property is in the hands of third parties.

So since I not only, quite literally, have nothing you could "Levy" to begin with, I, especially, don't have anything in the hands of any "Third Parties", so you might want to reconsider any attempt at such an enforcement, not just because it is "Illegal" on its face, because it will be a huge waste of your time and some foreign

countries' ("American") money.

If this is incorrect or if I have "copied and pasted" incorrectly or in any way have misinterpreted the Law, then I would appreciate any actions/informations on your part that will help to clarify this "Incomprehensible", convoluted, misused/misapplied/misleading array of gobbledygook that I am getting migraines over as I attempt to wade through the facts and fallacies that is the seven million words of Infernal Revenue Code.

I have heard that there may be proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures before Congress. Can you tell me if there have been any changes made to said rule or is the letter of its' "Law" still, effectively, in place as it was during the trial of Former Criminal Investigator for the Internal Revenue, Joe Banister, who was, essentially, forced to quit the I.R.S. after coming to a personal revelation that it (the I.R.S.) was crooked to its core and he could no longer, in good conscience, continue to "work" for same and after submitting a 95 page report to his superiors after a personal, two year investigation into the illegal activities being perpetrated by unwitting I.R.S lackeys and which showed that "Americans" DO NOT have a "Tax Liability or a Filing requirement"?

Therefore I would like, also, to have a copy of his report, should you not provide same I am certain I can contact him through his website and obtain same to be included in any proceeding you may wish to involve me in.

It can be said that the I.R.S. has a moral responsibility, however, in reality, there is a difference between a moral responsibility, and a legal obligation. Therefore, ethical questions may be reduced to the actual "intent" or the "frame of mind" of any given agent who mistakenly exercises such authority. Certainly, the I.R.S. Agent has

a moral responsibility to refrain from misusing authority, but if he or she is unaware of the limitations (remember "Incomprehensible"?) of that authority or has been misled as to the reaches of that authority by their superiors, then technically, that actual legal obligation to make a correct dertermination and accept that authority (if appropriate) or not accept that authority (if inappropriate) remains that of the third party.

Would you please comment on this for me?

It is equally important to understand that despite this ethical "loophole " which would seem to exonerate and provide an escape for an Agent "errantly" exercising a "presumed " authority, there are other provisions that do hold them responsible for its

administration. Specifically, these provisions deal with what is called, once again, "delegation orders ", because no Agent may administer a provision of Law without a proper order "Duly Delegating" such "Authority" (Rule 44 of the Civil Procedures Gude, the same one that provides and requires that any warrants your organization serves bear an attestation endorsement [before it can be "legal and binding"] thereby showing/acknowledging that it is an attested copy of an original warrant kept on file in the Secretaries office).

The authority to "administer" the provisions of 6331, regardless of its applicability, is further restricted by national and local "delegation orders" designed to ensure Agency compliance with the limited applications of the law.

The "limited applications of the law". I think we both know what that

means now.

As long as there is an "Illusion" of "Authority" it is easy for an I.R.S. Agent to justify (in his/her own mind) that certain "actions" are within the "scope" of their "presumed" authority, and as mentioned previously the "delegation orders" do list another "authority". Specifically the "IR Manual". But now that new research has revealed that at least six courts have ruled that the "Manual" does NOT have the force of Law then it stands to reason that these rogue agents are going to be forced to swallow yet another "wake-up" pill, or as I like to put it, John Q. Public is now finally getting what they need to open up a can of "Act Right" where it comes to the reckless I.R.S. abuses and the organizations overzealous and/or downright ignorant agents (like the one that assessed a nearly 30 Billion dollar debt against me...).

Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F2d 360 (4th Circuit, 1962); "The courts have correctly ruled that the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are only "directory in nature" and NOT "Mandatory" (if this has been changed or overturned please advise me as to the specific "case law" to which said changes may have occurred).

I could go on, but I have to just open the door for the submission of these kinds of cases in court before fully presenting them to you via witnessed/certified and attested mail, I just want to drive the point home that while you think "I" am "Chum" swimming with Sharks, you are, in fact, swimming with a growing number of informed Orcas, so it boils down to a simple choice. Prosecute me for what you contend I am

guilty of, or recheck your data, acknowledge your limitations, and adhere to the letter and the true intent of the Law and then act accordingly.

It is my hope that my discernations will finally prove to you that I am (now) more than just "aware" of the Laws and Regulations as they apply to me, that I am completely aware of the "Limitations" placed upon you by that "Law", and that I am in no way in violation of any "Laws", but the same, I am afraid, cannot be said for you and I will most certainly prosecute you and your organization to the fullest extent of the Law should you continue in your illegal and unwarranted harassments of my person by telling me I am "Liable" for what I am clearly not "Liable" for, and by sending me any more of your "alleged" "Deficiency" letters or threats of "Levy" ever again.

Inasmuch as these are concerned, you can either provide me with the Full Disclosure I seek and which is mine by Rights of Due Process under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of these United States or you will "Cease and Desist" from any further contact regarding my person in any way, shape, or form or I will unquestionably and immediately initiate proceedings against you and your organization in a true Court of Law.

In regard to your "Notice and Demand" which you feel you have sent to me (but is not the "required" form 17 or 17A - set as a "condition precedent" in "Shapiro v. Secretary of State" - the "non-judicial" collection authority is wholly dependent on a statute (Section 6321) which provides for a lien to automatically arise when a taxpayer fails to make a payment of a tax that is demanded via a "Notice and Demand" under Section 6303. If such "Demand" is not or cannot be made then a lien cannot automatically arise and subsequent collection activity cannot occur. All of the available Case Law confirms this. In Linwood Blackstone et.al., v. United States of America, (778 F.Supp 244 [D. Md. 1991]), the Court held that "The general rule is

that no tax lien arises until the I.R.S. makes a (lawful) Demand for payment", and "Without a VALID "Notice and Demand " there can be no tax lien; without a tax lien, the I.R.S. cannot levy against the taxpayers property... ...this court concludes, consistent with the views found in Berman, Marvel, and Chila that the appropriate "sanction" against the I.R.S. for its' failure to comply with the 6303(a) notice and demand requirement is to take away its awesome non-judicial collection powers". Think about that.

I have...

I take that to mean that legal actions pursuant to Section 7403 cannot be enforced without said "Notice and Demand ". Would that assertion be correct?

Said "Notice and Demand", as mentioned earlier, and pursuant to your own procedural guidelines to be within force of the law being forms 17/17A, 69, and 21 respectively, yes?

Full disclosure of every step of how you prepared your "assessments" against me are mine by Right of the Disclosure Laws as Guaranteed to me by the 5th Amendment of these United States for the asking, and as a citizen of the great State of Indiana, known to be a part of that marvelous Union, so I hereby formally request all information, interrogotories and admissions and, yet again, I hereby make another official, "formal" 6203 request that (I'm hoping) might reflect something other than the nearly 30 Billion dollar debt I "allegedly" owe, which, to me, is nothing more than a tragic punchline to an even more tragic misapplication of the Law and/or (willfull?) abuse of power and authority. Perhaps it will finally reflect my "actual" "debt" where it comes to the "Tax Laws" as they apply to me. $0.00...

I tire of this lengthy game of "letter tag". I "qualify" for a "Local Jury trial" (infinitely preferable), and while it may seem that you intend to take "me" to court, I assure you it is the other way around.

At this point it is like a game of Texas Holdem. I have graciously put most of my cards on the table, in fact, I have tipped most of my "hand". I don't know your "hold" cards and you don't know mine, so the question becomes "are you ready to ante up, or not"?

And as we are not allowed to "surprise" each other in a court of Law it is incumbent upon you to make those full dislosures that are mine for the asking anyway...

The reason I don't know your "hold" cards is obvious, even though I should be privvy to them for the asking (under F.O.I.A. and the P.R.A.), no one within your organization seems willing to share anything with me even though I have made legal, lawfully binding requests to your organization on multiple occasions via certified mail and which have all been duly ignored.

Why is that?

I have, in good faith, replied to, literally, every letter I have ever received by your organization and have largely been ignored or been treated rudely or as an incompetent or a debater, and not worth the agents "time" to speak to me as the "frivolity" of my arguements are, allegedly, numerous and not worth their time to effectively want to answer.

That is why you are receiving this as an attested and "witnessed" document.

To that end I hereby swear and/or affirm that I, in good faith, fully and completely believe that the tax laws as they are written and as you are attempting to apply them to me DO NOT apply to me and I feel I have submitted more than enough information to clear this "question" up forever.

However, if you continue to unlawfully harass me and give me the kind of headaches I have experienced in assimilating and extrapolating the information I have spent countless hours in preparation of, then I will no longer be gracious, and will bring suit against every agent whose name and identification numbers appear on every letter I have ever received from your organization.

I am not a "Taxpayer" as defined under the letter and the meaning of the Law as it applies to the average American. I have neither a "Tax Liability" nor a "Filing Requirement". I feel I have proven this beyond all doubt, not just a "reasonable" one.

I have made Legal and Lawful requests for information it is my Legal Right to have and which, by Law, you cannot deny me, yet that is what you have done for years and it is what you and those within your organization continue to do despite the fact that I have quoted laws, chapter and verse, to you for more than 15 years..

Now, I fully expect YOUR compliance where these issues are concerned and I wait with bated breath for your answers concerning same. I have made requests of you that are binding, that are incumbent upon you to effectively answer in specificity as you cite references to Code Sections that you claim create both my tax liability and filing requirement.

You now have the "30 days" as Mandated to you by your own Regulations to adequately report and fully respond to all of my Lawful requests for the Full Disclosure information regarding all the "hows, whys, and wherefores" concerning my "alleged" "Tax Liabilities" and "Filing Requirments".

If you continue to ignore my "lawful" requests for "Full Disclosure" and if I have not received anything from you within the 30 day time frame stipulated above and mandated by your own regulations I will presume that that I have neither a "Tax Liability" nor a "Filing Requirement" and I shall fully expect to never hear from anyone from your organization ever again.

If I do hear from anyone in your organization again, in any way, shape, or form, after that time frame has expired I shall immediately file against you in a District Court and seek the kind of damages allowed to me by Law for "Reckless Collection" attempts and I will drag you and your UNLAWFUL policies down Main Street USA for all to see and hear.

I am a Patriot. I served my Country. I am one step away from being homeless and you purport to want to take what I don't even have and seem to also think I am indebted to you to the tune of nearly 30 Billion dollars for "Taxes, Penalties, and Interest", all which seem to have been applied in complete disregard of Section 6501(c)(3) (which states, in relevant part that the IRS MUST sue an alleged taxpayer in a district court - not a "tax" court - and must win BEFORE penalties and interests can be applied), and, for all intents and purposes, will seem like the ultimate "punchline" to a Jury of MY Peers - another "Entitlement" that is mine for the asking.

I have studied, in-depth, and carefully considered all informations I have presented to you as well as that which you have (in a highly "limited" and "Incomprehensible" way) presented to me.

If I am incorrect in any of my assertions you now have 30 days with which you can adequately inform me of said "incorrectness" in an effort to get me to change my stance and PROVE your assertions.

Failure to do so within the specified time frame and I win by default. If I am wrong and you can, effectively, PROVE that, then by all means, do so and I will be happy to comply.

And as this "Document" has been "Attested", it and all it's information contained herein is a duly signed and sworn affidavit and is therefore admissible in any court and, more importantly, can now be made available to that aforementioned Jury of my Peers.

Also, for your information and in regards to your hollow threats to levy, pleased be informed of Supreme Court Decisions that support my legal position. In United States v. O’Dell, the court stated that, “mere notice of intent to levy is insufficient.” In United States v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., D.C. Conn, 1942, 146 F. Supp.30, 37, in which Judge Hincks observed that he could “find no statute which says that a mere notice shall constitute a ‘levy’”. In Given v. Cripe, 7 Cir. 1951, 1987, F2d. 225 and United States v. O’Dell, supra, the courts found “that a warrant for distraint is necessary to constitute a levy.” The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit state in its opinion, 221 F2d at page 642, “…require that a levy….be accompanied by warrants of distraint [issued by a judge in a legal proceeding].”(Exhibit A, page 4 of 6). A copy of 26 USC, section 6331(a) that clearly states who may be levied, exhibit A, page 3 of 6. Tax law is not law by implication, it is written law. In Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) the court found, “In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.” In Botha v. Scanlon, 288 F2d. 504,(1961) the court found, “Moreover, even the collection of taxes should be exacted only from persons upon whom a tax liability is imposed by some statute.”

Show me the "statute".

Furthermore:

No corporation is required to abide by any unlawful order, especially, one from an unlawful, fraudulent agency, acting under color of law. Further, as stated above, since the IRS has absolutely NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY, because its actual status is that of a rogue, private collection agency, acting for the financial interests of the private Federal Reserve Bank. The IRS is not authorized, as a lawful federal agency, by congress, nor did congress ever vote Titles 26 and 27 into positive law, thus, it can convey no lawful authority, under, color of those titles, to any entity, to act against me, my property or that of any other American Citizen. In fact, pursuant to 1 USCS § 204, “United States Code is not enacted as statute, nor can it be construed as such, it being only prima facie statement of statute law.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1947, CA 5 Fla) 160 F 2d 787. “Official source for United States laws is Statutes at Large and United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws.” Royer’s v. United States (1959, CA 3 Pa.) 265 F 2d 615, 59-1 USTC § 9371, 3 AFTR 2d 1137. Title 26 and Title 27 have not been enacted into positive law, therefore, have no force or effect of law upon me as a private American Citizen. Furthermore, 1 USC § 112 further confirms that the United States Statutes at Large shall be legal evidence of laws. In addition, “Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, that title is only ‘prima facie’ evidence of the law.” Preston v. Heckler, 734 F 2d 1359, (1984, CA 9 Alaska). “…that the Code establishes ‘prima facie’ the laws of the United States, the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ being that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423 (1943); United States v. Welden, 377 U.S. 95 (1964). Therefore, reference must be made to the Statutes at Large, and the Statutes at Large only allow liens or levies on the excise taxable activities involving cotton or distilled spirits. Therefore, any presumed authority which the IRS assumes by quoting section 6321, 6331, 6332 through 34, has no lawful force or effect upon me, a private American Citizen, who is not now nor ever has been involved in any excise taxable activity, the fact of which I have informed the IRS in all previous correspondence between the IRS and myself.

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: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

Your organizations silence where my legal and lawful requests are concerned have spoken volumes to me, therefore I submit that due to your silence on these matters, and due to the fact that I have continually been denied Due Process and Full Disclosure that your assertions are illegal and are equated with the aforementioned fraud as was specified in the decisions mentioned above.

Two more things before I close and send this as an attested affidavit yet again, something I have been made recently aware of and something that I believe that anyone who ever serves on a jury should be made fully aware of as a matter of law.

1) Copied below is an excerpt from an email from the "We The People" foundation, a grassroots organization that is determined to create an atmosphere within the government that will cause the government to be accountable for both its actions and its inactions.

"To successfully battle the federal leviathan, it is clear we must commit to employing the profound, but little-known "capstone" Right articulated by our Founders as Supreme Law in the words of the First Amendment -- i.e., the Right to secure Redress for our Petitions regarding Constitutional Grievances and the Right to WITHHOLD our allegiance, our support and our tax money from the Government until such Redress is secured."

To that effect and due to the fact that I have for more than 15 years been willfully denied my rights wherein I have repeatedly petitioned your organization time and time again for information and answers to questions that are legally binding and lawful and are, by Law, mine for the asking, I shall continue to, via Code Section 3402(n), choose to not volunteer my "alleged" taxes until such a time as your organization fully complies to my requests and answers, truthfully, all of the good faith inquiries I have made.

2) I include the following information now as I am fully aware that I may submit a duly signed and sworn affidavit to a jury for consideration and it is my intent that they, the jury, be fully informed of their rights as a jury and to the full length of the powers they possess as such.

An inherant "Right" given to them by the Law itself.

Nullification: The People's "Veto" Power

When you serve as a juror, you can veto bad laws ~ or "good laws" if you feel that those laws have been misapplied in the case before you.

You have the authority to render a verdict based on conscience. In many states, the court employees, including the judges, will tell you that you do not have this authority. You do.

(If this is NOT so please quote the LAW, chapter and verse, that has taken this right away from the American Jury system).

The juror's authority to veto bad laws is the final check and balance that We, the People, have to keep our government under our control.

The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from bad laws imposed by a power-hungry, corrupt, and greedy government, or a governments' representatives, whether that government is a king, a dictator, an elected president, another politician, or even a local mayor.

Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case.

The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain their human right to resist, and when serving as a juror, retain the unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws, and more than ever, would be morally compelled to exercise this final veto.

Jurors, as the representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial ~ and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers - and the forensic investigators in most cases - are all a part of and receive their paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.

The primary role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous government laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Our country's founders planned and expected that We The People would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Jurors are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.

FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) works to restore and protect the role of the juror, and the institution of Trial by Jury. Join with us to educate every potential juror in our nation about this final veto power held by We, the People: jury nullification.

Furthermore;

Jury Nullification

Why you should know what it is

By Russ Emal (with a little assistance from the Internet)

Is it true or false that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your own conscience. "True", you say, but then why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" and that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision?

In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities. But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right, starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with any specific law. In fact, if you have doubts about the fairness of a law, you have the right and obligation to find someone innocent even though they have actually broken the law! John Adams, our second president, had this to say about the juror: "It is not only his right but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." It was normal procedure in the early days of our country to inform juries of their right to judge the law and the defendant. And if the judge didn't tell them, the defense attorney very often would. The nation's Founders understood that trials by juries of ordinary citizens, fully informed of their powers as jurors, would confine the government to its proper role as the servant, not the master, of the people.

It was our Constitution that gave us the foundation that enables us to remain a democracy. The Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power Ñ representatives, senate, executive, judges and jury. Before a law gains the power to punish that law must first pass the test of each constitutionally guaranteed authority.

"Jury nullification of law", as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Four decades before Jefferson spoke these words, a jury had established freedom of the press in the colonies by finding John Peter Zenger not guilty of seditious libel. He had been arrested and charged for printing critical Ñ but true Ñ news stories about the Governor of New York Colony. "Truth is no defense", the court told the jury! But the jury decided to reject bad law, and acquitted.

Why? Because defense attorney Andrew Hamilton informed the jury of its rights: he related the story of William Penn's trial Ñ of the courageous London jury which refused to find him guilty of preaching Quaker religious doctrine (at that time an illegal religion). His jurors stood by their verdict even though held without food, water, or toilet facilities for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned for refusing to convict William Penn Ñ until England's highest court acknowledged their right to reject both law and fact and to find a verdict according to conscience. It was exercise of that right in Penn's trial which eventually led to recognition of free speech, freedom of religion, and of peaceable assembly as individual rights.

American colonial juries regularly thwarted bad law sent over from mother England. Britain then retaliated by restricting both trial by jury and other rights which juries had won or protected. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution!

Afterwards, to forever protect all the individual rights they'd fought for from future attacks by government, the Founders of these United States in three places included trial by jury Ñ meaning tough, fully informed juries Ñ in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

"Bad law" Ñ special-interest legislation which tramples our rights Ñ is no longer sent here from Britain. But our own legislatures keep us well supplied...That is why today, more than ever, we need juries to protect us!

Even though it was once the written law, would you vote to convict an escaped slave from the south, return him to his "Master" and to then be punished, maybe by inflecting torture and disfigurement to that escaped slave? Your answer is hopefully "NO!" But, at one time that was the law. How about burning a witch? Once too that was the law, a bad law and one that should not to be acted upon by our juries. If these laws were again passed today, how should you vote if on that trial's jury?

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267).

Fewer incidence of jury veto actions occurred as time increased after the courts began concealing jurors' rights from American citizens and falsely instructing them that they may consider only the facts as admitted by the court. Researchers in 1966 found that jury nullification occurred only 8.8 percent of the time between 1954 and 1958, and suggested that "one reason why the jury exercises its very real power [to nullify] so sparingly is because it is officially told it has none." (California's charge to the jury in criminal cases is typical: "It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you ... You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial and the law as stated to you by me.") Today no officer of the court is allowed to tell the jury of their veto power (Why? What new provision of LAW disenables juries to be told of their inherant Right to act within the boundaries of the precepts given to us by the Founding Fathers of this country?).

To better explain to prospective jurors their rights, an explanation that is not forthcoming from our courts judges, an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association has been established. "FIJA" is a national jury-education organization which both educates juries and promotes laws to require that judges resume telling trial jurors "the whole truth" about their rights, or at least to allow lawyers to tell them. FIJA believes "liberty and justice for all" won't return to America until the citizens are again fully informed of their power as jurors, and routinely put it to good use.

About 18 months ago, armed with a number of pamphlets explaining the importance to each of us in having the courts fully inform juries of their rights, I stood in the Mendocino County Courthouse. I had been talking about this issue, with courthouse visitors when I was "invited" into Judge James Luther's courtroom by two of his bailiffs. Judge Luther, showed me how in general our courts have eroded. I was told to stop talking to my fellow citizens about their constitutional rights. Their right to understand a jury's role in the court procedure. I was told to stop or be arrested for jury tampering.

We can only speculate on why there is a general distrust by judges. A distrust of our citizen jurys to decide on the fairness of laws that are often enacted by self-serving legislators? Disrespect for the idea of government "of, by, and for the people"? Unwillingness to part with their power? Ignorance of all the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it? How can people get fair trials if the jurors are told they can't use their consciences?

If jurors were supposed to judge "only the facts", their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases.

Why is so little known about what is now called "jury nullification"? In the late 1800's, a number of powerful special-interest groups (not unlike many we have with us today) inspired a series of judicial decisions which tried to limit jury rights. While no court has yet dared to deny that juries can "nullify" or "veto" a law, or can bring in a "general verdict", they have held that jurors need not be told about these rights!

However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113).

Today thousands of harmless citizens are in prison only because their trial juries were not fully informed, and the U.S. now leads the world in percent of population behind bars! More prisons are being built than ever before for those whose "crime" effects no one but themselves.

We need to be wary and/or critical of any proposals to "streamline" the jury system, or to create jurisdictions or regulations which "do not require" trial by jury (two of the means by which your power as a juror is stolen!) We now hear about plans to allow a court to find a person guilty of a crime with less then a 12-0 vote.

To find out more about jury nullification and FIJA call 800-TEL-JURY and record your name and address. Or call FIJA National at (406) 793-5550.

Copyright Mendocino College Eagle 1995 for (most of) the above information.

There. I beleive I have done and continue to do my civic duty. I have asked you, once again, for the information that is mine simply for the asking and yours, by matter of written and enacted law to respond to in a timely fashion. I will be ready should you decide to prosecute me for your illegal assessments and I also believe, given what I have discovered to be within the parameters of the Law, that since a signed, sworn, and lawful affidavit that does not misrepresent the facts is submissable to a jury of my peers and I will be prepared to face off against a corrupt agency that erroneously concludes that I am a "Taxpayer" under the Law and that tries to tell me but fails/neglects to "prove" to me that I, indeed, have a tax liability and a filing requirement under the given Law when I feel I have proved incontrovertibly that I most certainly do not.

Good day to you.

Check.

Your move.

Michael K. Walker

Michael K Walker of IN @ Jul 09, 2008 19:23:07 PM