| Paul Leinthall's Reply to My Response |
|
Hi Chris,
I'll respond as before:
Paul,
Missing pieces? What missing pieces?
I have reused some of Mitchell's ideas in "The Great IRS Hoax", most notably in sections 4.7, 4.8.3 (which has the same Supreme Court Case that you cite about the term "United States"), 5.2.1, and especially 5.2.4.In particular, Paul Mitchell indicates that Frank Brushaber was a French immigrant and was NOT born in New York...
You're throwing me a curve here. HE says the OPPOSITE of what you just
said.
You might want to check your facts on this issue.
Maybe, but only after you notice what Paul Mitchell is actually saying
in this book. I'll use your own quote (which I verified at your site):
Here is what Mitchell said in Chapter 2 of his book:" The federal government has tried to confuse the implications of Frank Brushaber's status by asserting that he was a French immigrant.
Precisely! The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT tried to indicate that Brushaber was
a French immigrant. It's NOT Paul Mitchell saying it. Notice the next
sentence, calling the assertion "government propaganda...designed
to make us believe that Brushaber was...an alien because he was born
in France..."
This is government propaganda, pure and simple. This propaganda is designed to make us believe that Brushaber was found to be an alien because he was born in France, not because he declared himself to be a "citizen of the State of New York". Accordingly, the federal officials responsible for this propaganda are trying in vain to convince everyone that the 50 States are inside the federal zone, because they want us to conclude that Frank Brushaber would have been a "U.S.** resident" if he resided in New York, or a "U.S.** citizen" if he had been born in New York. It is fairly easy (and fun) to defeat this propaganda, because it is only make believe.
Amen!
To confirm that what I'm saying here, you'll notice the last sentence
of the next paragraph in your book, immediately following the one you
just quoted, which says (with capitalization mine for emphasis):
After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, the Treasury Department published a CRUCIAL Treasury Decision (T.D. 2313) which CLEARLY IDENTIFIED Frank Brushaber as a NONRESIDENT ALIEN (see page 2-5 below, and also Appendix C).
That is [THE COMPANY's] stand. You and I ARE (as was Frank Brushaber),
and we always were from BIRTH "nonresident aliens" in
relation to, and from the point of view of, the IRS. And the ONLY
income on which a nonresident alien can be liable for paying income
tax (either federal or State) is "U.S.** Source Income"
which means income paid DIRECTLY to the nonresident alien by the
federal Government, U.S. Treasury, or "income connected with a
trade or business in the United States**".
The simple reason Frank Brushaber LOST his case is because his
dividend income from Union Pacific Railroad was "connected with a
trade or business in the United States"; in other words, Union
Pacific Railroad was (and still is) a "domestic"
corporation, having been granted a FEDERAL charter while Utah was a
FEDERAL Territory. It is "domestic" from Washington's point
of view, because it exists under the sovereign jurisdiction of the
federal government. "Foreign" starts on the other side of
the Potomac River, not outside the borders of this country, when it
comes to these terms in the IR Code.
From our point of view, it's that simple, and once you get this
distinction in meanings (and stay consistent with them), which
meanings are quite faithfully expressed in Paul Mitchell's book,
you've tapped into the "secret" of [THE COMPANY's] 100%
success rate. You will also realize a different (and simpler) slant on
the Section 861 argument (a topic for another time).
Interestingly, Mitchell uses EXACTLY the same notation for the three types of United States as you do (the asterisks). Did you derive your materials from his?
I believe [THE COMPANY], who authored the booklet, "Do You Know
Your True IRS Tax Status? Are You Sure", got a lot from Mitch
Modelesky's book by the same name, and that name may have been a pen
name for Paul Mitchell - I don't know.
The Taxgate website and http://www.taxprotester.com website indicate there are flaws in the approaches advocated in "The Federal Zone". You can read about these at:http://www.deoxy.org/fz/cooked_goose.htmhttp://www.denialofdueprocess.com/tp/shame/snake_oil.htm
I'm quite familiar with Thurston Bell's arguments and the "TaxGate.com"
Site. From what I can see and from what I've heard from several of his
clients who are now clients of [THE COMPANY], he continues to engage
in never ending correspondence battles with the IRS. [THE COMPANY]
does not experience that problem. Perhaps the idea that there are
flaws in the "federal zone" material is, itself, flawed.
"SOMETHING" must account for the fact that the IRS NEVER
challenges the legal ground [THE COMPANY] uses in dealing with the IRS
at the administrative level. The IRS, themselves, say that EVERY
PROBLEM can be resolved at the administrative level. If there's a
problem with [THE COMPANY's] position in the revocation of election
process, why do they never, ever challenge it? You know they would
have to at least challenge it administratively before they could ever
move the challenge into the judicial arena.
In particular, they say about his work: ________________________________________ To really get to the root of the weakness of the Non Resident Alien/Federal Zone argument is that not only are Non Resident Aliens (which people using this argument claim to be) subject to the withholding of the income Tax under 26 U.S.C. § 1441,http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1441.htmlare required to be assigned a Social Security Number pursuant to Title 42 § 405(c)(2)(B), http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/405.htmland are taxed upon U.S. sources pursuant to 26 CFR§1.861-8(f)(1)(iv)http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE?&PART=1&SECTION?1-1&TYPE=TEXTand -8T(d)(2)(iii)(A),http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE?&PART=1&SECTION?1-8&TYPE=TEXT
Yes. If you will check these references, you will see, as I've already
indicated, that the only income on which a nonresident alien can be
taxed is "U.S.** Source income" or "income connected
with a trade or business in the United States**". ANY OTHER
income, no matter WHERE in the world it comes from, and no matter in
what amounts, is EXEMPT from State and federal income tax.
BUT - most people have signed their FIRST "Form 1040 U.S.
Individual Tax Return", under penalty of perjury, thus
voluntarily electing to join (adhesion) themselves to the federal
government for tax purposes and have the IRS view them AS
"resident aliens" rather than as the tax exempt nonresident
aliens they actually are. The reason the income tax is NOT
unconstitutional is because it WAS written for "U.S.**
citizens", which includes "resident aliens" and
"U.S.** individuals". But Private State Citizens
(nonresident aliens) signed their names, under penalty of perjury,
that EVERY STATEMENT (including the one at the top of the 1040 Form,
indicating they were a "U.S.** Individual") was TRUE and
CORRECT to the best of their belief and KNOWLEDGE - so they can't
"plead ignorance". Even if they try to plead ignorance, the
Supreme Court has ruled that "Ignorance is no excuse".
Whether we knew it, or not, at the time, we signed a contract (similar
to joining the voluntary military) wherein we surrendered certain
constitutional rights - not because we HAD to or were required by law
to do so, but because we voluntarily elected to do so. As you know,
the constitution itself will not impinge or impede any Private
Citizen's right to enter a contract, even if that contract contains
terms with which we don't agree. If we don't agree with the terms in
any contract, the time to disagree is before signing it. Once we sign
the contract, however, the other party has the right to pursue us in
the event of non-compliance with the contract terms.
For anyone to "argue" that no law requires him to file tax
returns or pay income taxes AFTER having freely elected to sign a
contract which specifically requires certain undesirable things as
part of the contract, would be similar to a person who signs for a
credit card, and then fails to fulfill the unpleasant terms of paying
for the debt he has incurred by his "charging", arguing in
his defense that there is no law requiring him to have a credit card.
AND THAT is the entire "secret" of the power of the IRS in
the lives of most Americans. A CONTRACT, empowered by the LAW
pertaining to contracts. And THAT is what the revocation of election
process effectively handles.
...they cannot claim the protections of the U.S. Citizen status...
Ah! But which "U.S. citizen status" are you referring to
here? If (as [THE COMPANY] understands) every American born and
residing in one of the 50 States is a "nonresident alien"
(from the perspective of the IR Code), what do you mean we cannot
claim the protections of Citizens of the united States of America, as
granted by the Constitution? We ARE Private State Citizens - no one
can argue with where we were BORN - and if the Internal Revenue Code
and the IRS chooses to call us "nonresident aliens" who are
tax exempt, are you suggesting we should argue with this?? The ONLY
issue standing in the way is the CONTRACT we signed. Once we've
handled the revocation of our election into that, there is virtually
nothing else to handle.
...under these respective and other related laws which plainly show that U.S. Citizens do not have to be assigned a number and that they are only taxed and withheld from in accordance with § 911, ultimately.http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE?&PART=1&SECTION?1-1&TYPE=TEXT
First, the "trap" is not understanding the distinctions in
meanings of certain terms at law, and not staying consistent with
those meanings. The reasons the courts apply the statutes AGAINST a
person "claiming" nonresident alien status is because that
person is claiming something he "gave up" when he elected to
be seen by the IRS as a "Resident Alien" or "U.S.
Individual". That's why the proper procedural completion of the
revocation of election process is so crucial. That's also why, upon
completion of the process, the IRS never takes those people to court,
because they "SEE" that person as a "Legitimate"
nonresident alien. (He always WAS a nonresident alien; after the
process, the IRS again sees him as a "legitimate"
nonresident alien.
The "trap" is not in the work [THE COMPANY] performs, but in
the incorrect understanding of the law itself, which seems to be so
prevalent even among "tax protestors".
The answer to that question is very simple, as the U.S. Congress has specifically defined "gross income" as something that can be earned by anyone within the realm of its power and authority. Since the Congress has subject matter jurisdiction over "gross income" which almost every employer is reporting (truthfully or not) to the Federal government under penalty of perjury, it is not going to matter what you claim yourself to be when the government has a witness claiming that you made "gross income" subject to the Income Tax Act.
I've got to tell you Chris, when you've properly reclaimed your TRUE
status of nonresident alien (all the research of Thurston Bell to the
contrary), we don't even have to be concerned with "gross
income" or "taxable income" because, from our point of
view, income is what ever money comes in, by any means, and the only
income on which we "might" be liable for income taxes would
be income DIRECTLY from the federal government or from being connected
with a trade or business in the United States**. Even as is stated in
the above paragraph, "...gross income [for tax purposes] as
something that can be earned by ANYONE WITHIN THE REALM OF ITS POWER
AND AUTHORITY."
Precisely!. That's the whole point. Whereas, by virtue of the
UN-revoked contract, one IS "within the realm of it's power and
authority", upon completion of the revocation process, the person
is NO LONGER within that realm of either power or authority. Then,
from that basis in law, any income, from whatever source (other than
"U.S.source** income) anywhere in the world, (not just that
generated in the States), is EXEMPT from federal and State income
taxes in this country.
By slipping the "place where" (physical jurisdiction) gross income is earned into the definition and the laws setting forth the criteria of when a person, resident or not, citizen or not, receives gross income the mere fact of the employer making the legal presumption that the circumstances were all correct to claim that someone made "gross income" becomes the foundational statement supporting the information entered into the IRS computer, and then used by the IRS to support its claims against the person.
Except that AFTER the revocation of election process, the IRS
literally has no more jurisdiction over the person. When you're tax
exempt on ALL income, it doesn't matter what you call the income -
"gross" or otherwise.
Why do you suppose the Form W-4 allows for the possibility of being
"exempt", if in fact, no one can properly claim exempt. Once
a client of [THE COMPANY] has properly gone through the revocation of
election process, he can LEGITIMATELY write "exempt" on the
W-4. In fact, [THE COMPANY] prepares a new W-4 package for the
client's employer, whenever the client has an employer.
So, now you should be able to see that in personum jurisdiction (authority over the person) is completely determined by the testimony of the employer that "gross income" was paid, which evidences subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the government has the right to make a claim against the person and his property, and the nonresident alien U.S. Person...
When you understand the proper distinctions in law regarding these
terms, "nonresident alien" and "U.S. person" are
antithetical. A person can not BE both. He/she IS one or the other.
For people born in the States, this issue is determined by BIRTH and
cannot be changed for tax purposes, except by choosing to RESIDE in
federal territory OR by voluntarily electing to be SEEN as something
one IS NOT (a "resident" alien) - and when you voluntarily
ELECT to sign the contract, now the LAW pertaining to contracts is
what governs.
Sorry. The nonresident alien never actually BECAME a "U.S.
Person"; he only elected to be SEEN that way, and provided the
evidence of his contractual agreement via his signature, under penalty
of perjury, on the Form 1040. After the revocation of election process
is complete, the IRS has no ground, evidence, or jurisdiction to call
the client a "U.S. Person" or "U.S. Individual" or
"U.S. citizen" or "resident alien" for tax
purposes.
While there are many "contracts' - adhesion contracts - into
which the average Private State Citizen has entered, the adhesion
contract with the IRS has NOTHING to do with other contracts, like
drivers license, marriage license, hunting license, gun license or
social security. (I realize this, too, is contrary to what many in the
tax protesting community believe; but our results prove differently).
For example, clients of [THE COMPANY] have no problem using their
social security number, and as long as they have qualified by having
paid into social security for the required 40 quarters, they do NOT
lose any social security benefits. In the meantime, they are EXEMPT
from income taxes on social security income; they are exempt from
taxes on military retirement income, too, because, upon retirement,
their income no longer comes DIRECTLY from the federal government.
They also don't have to try to hide their money in offshore bank
accounts, or trusts or other entities for fear of the IRS.
..is scrambling around in his mind trying to figure out how the Judge is justifying his ignoring the person's argument that he is a Non resident of the U.S. and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
As I said, until the person properly completes the revocation of
election process, he can NOT simply claim or argue that he is a
nonresident alien for tax purposes, since he "surrendered"
that natural "status" by voluntary election. He did not
change who he IS, but he volunteered to be viewed by the IRS in a tax
status that does not "naturally" belong to him. He can't
simply "claim" tax exempt status any more than the person
who voluntarily elected to join the military can try to just
"un-volunteer". In the military, it's called going AWOL, and
the "punishment" for going "AWOL" on the IRS
contract can often be seen as quite similar to going AWOL from the
military contract. (In other words, they throw you in the
"brig"). That's why tax protestors, who think they can
simply stop filing tax returns, while they're still under contract
(from the IRS' viewpoint) are charged with "Willful Failure to
File a Tax Return" or are charged with "Filing Fraudulent
Returns" - depending on the "protestor" method they
used to supposedly "drop out", without properly completing
the correct procedures involved in the revocation of election process.
The problem really is easy to see, the person cut off his only method of escape through the protection of the statutes and regulations which would give him an argument with legal and statutory merit, and is left with nothing concrete to argue and win with, other than some case law which he has not bothered to personally Shepherdize (discover if it is still standing) nor read to see if the positions of the case were applicable to his case.
Not only do clients of [THE COMPANY] never receive a challenge from
the IRS, administrative or judicial, but even if they did, they would
STILL have "denial of due process" as an
"argument" for their defense. I fail to see how a
"Constitutionally Correct" nonresident alien, Private State
Citizen would have "cut off his only method of escape" when,
in fact, via the revocation of election process, he has already
successfully escaped!? We don't have to get involved with
"bothering" to Shepherdize cases; but even if we did, are
you saying that avenue is not open to State Citizens?
I wonder how people sleep at night knowing that they wrote and sold a book with such off-point information in it, which some poor inexperienced and unstudied soul is going to implement years from now. "
As I said, we don't sell books, tapes, courses, seminars or newsletter
subscriptions. We sell only guaranteed results where [THE COMPANY]
does all the work.
There are TWO ways, or two arenas in which to deal with the IRS: The
Administrative arena OR the Judicial Arena. With the IRS, when any
problem is "handled" at the administrative level, they NEVER
have to move it to the Judicial arena. With the people who have been
engaged with "the revocation of election process", about
which I write, and which [THE COMPANY] performs for all their clients,
there has yet to be the FIRST challenge from the IRS on the
administrative level, let alone in the Judicial arena. And that's over
a period of approximately 30 years!
Of course, it also helps, from the clients point of view, that he/she
doesn't have to keep abreast of any changes in the Internal Revenue
Code, since [THE FOUNDER] does that on a daily and weekly basis. After
the initial revocation paperwork, the client does not even have to
sign his own "statements and declaration of material facts"
each year, which [THE COMPANY] files for each client.
Why do we file every year? Because the IR Code only allows for two
conditions for NOT continuing to file every year ONCE the person has
entered the contract: one is if he dies, and the other is if he makes
less than the threshold income in any year - neither of which
condition we wish on any client. (An analogy to this would be the
person who has been in the "military contract;" once he's
"out," he will still always be a "veteran". He
can't get out of being a veteran.
______________________________________ Does the missing piece (the 15% of the materials you mention that I wouldn't see by paying you to service my needs) amount to Paul Mitchell's "Affidavit of Rescission" which is posted on my website at: <http://familyguardian.tzo.com/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/AffOfRescission.htm>?? If not, do you file a similar form or one that is slighly edited but essentially the same?
As I tried to explain in my last email, it is not a "form".
Yes there are forms involved. There's an affidavit; there's a Notice
of Election/Change of Election; there's a Revocation of Power of
Attorney; there's a Revocation of Signature and Seal, and there is the
Form 2848 Power of Attorney. On top of that, there is the issue of
WHERE and WITH WHOM the specific steps of the process, are taken in
proper order, with BOTH the federal and State taxing agencies. In
other words, certain things are filed in different places at different
times, in a certain order. ALL THAT is the 15%. It's NOT just
"materials". On top of that, the IRS occasionally CHANGES
the places where certain things are filed, as they did last year, when
they changed one of the places some of the paperwork is filed, from
the Philadelphia Center to the International Center in Washington,
D.C. Thankfully, [THE FOUNDER] keeps abreast those changes. (I think I
recall reading something at your web site that indicates you believe
that this type of paperwork is still filed through the Philadelphia
IRS Center).
If Sammy Sousa stands at home plate and hits the baseball over the
outfield fence in "fair" territory, is that a home run? NOT
NECESSARILY! He must do a NUMBER of steps, each in the proper order.
(He has to run all bases, touching each one, in order). Otherwise, not
only is it NOT a home run; it's an "out". I'm sure you grasp
the analogy and how it applies to "The Revocation of Election P R
O C E S S". It's that 15% of procedural knowledge that makes [THE
COMPANY] a viable business. And it is that 15% to which I'm not privy,
nor do I care to be, since I'd personally rather have someone else
handling all the "keeping abreast" and the annual filing and
making sure I'm always in 100% harmony with the Internal Revenue Code,
so I don't have to keep looking over my shoulder or constantly
preparing for some fearful day of having to face the IRS in court
The weak point in your approach is that it would appear, based on your statements, that one has to give up the right to vote in order to avoid paying taxes. Is that correct? What do you think would happen to this country if everyone did that? I believe that our country would decay if everyone just stopped voting. What remedy do you have for this defect in your approach?
First, it is NOT a requirement to not vote; it is only a
"suggestion" to not vote, and even that suggestion pertains
only to voting in a FEDERAL election. But it is just a suggestion,
since the "language" of the voter registration process for
federal elections is similar to that used in the IR Code. I haven't
checked this out for myself, but I understand California has TWO
separate voter registration cards, one that speaks more to
"Private State Citizens", along with the "normal"
federal one.
Secondly, the IRS admits that approximately 6000 persons each year
file some sort of "nonresident alien" status or some manner
of revocation. I don't know whether all are successful, of course, but
that's not my point. My point is, that compared to 6000, the IRS says
they have 275,000 NEW people join the ranks of taxpayers each year.
If you can imagine the confusion and lack of clear distinctions among
the "tax protestor" community, about which I've been writing
here , what do you think exists in the great majority of people who
have never even considered some of these things, not to mention that
great cloud of 275,000 new (and blind) fresh taxpayers every year?
Bottom line: I think it will be a L O N G time before
"everyone" is even aware of what we're doing tax-wise, let
alone being concerned about the issue of voting in a federal election
and what impact that might have.
A couple more things which I believe are distinct about [THE COMPANY]
I represent, from my perspective: We are NOT anti-IRS; in fact,
we say, "Long live the IRS in it's present form; because if it
were not for the Internal Revenue Code AS IT IS, we could not do what
we do. What we do has been inherent in the Code FROM THE BEGINNING.
Also, [THE COMPANY] does not maintain a web site because web site
owners have no control over people and groups linking to the site.
Since [THE COMPANY] is not wanting to be painted with the same brush
as many in the "protesting" community, and because we do NOT
engage in IRS bashing, or giving the finger (or the fist) to the IRS,
or challenging them to "prove there is some law requiring people
to pay income taxes" - because we don't get involved in any of
that stuff, and since we don't have much use or need for ANY of the
flawed arguments, and since we never have to go to court - I think you
can understand that what we're doing is at least slightly different
from the approach most others are using, at least the ones who are all
over the Net, and whom, upon listening to, you get the
"flavor" that they are ever having to "be
prepared" for that eventful "fight" and who, in fact,
seem to be constantly engaged in correspondence battles and judicial
arguments.
We know - or I should say [THE FOUNDER] knows - other people who are
engaging in a similar (if not the same) process. BUT, to our knowledge
(and our knowledge could be limited, of course), no other company, or
group, or individual is actually doing all the work FOR the client,
so, instead of selling "information", leaving the client on
his/her own to tackle the IRS, we "sell" service, and
provide the information freely. So, any "customer" of [THE
COMPANY] is actually paying for, and receiving, money-back-guaranteed
"results".
We also do not use a "reliance" defense, because we believe
the Law itself is sufficient for reliance. Since we're not
"asking" the IRS to approve or evidence some form of proof
that our interpretation of law is correct, and instead, since we're
simply STANDING on the law itself, fully offering the IRS, with each
communication or filing, plenty of "challenge room", in the
event they think we're "off-base", and noticing they never
challenge, and noticing that whereas they were pursuing some people
before they became clients, and then noticing they CEASE their pursuit
after the process is complete - you can understand there wass a lot of
room for confidence in the mind of [THE FOUNDER], when after nearly 15
years of experience with the process, he decided to turn it into a
business and make it available to many folks.
People ask if the IRS is aware of what we're doing. Our answer is that
the IRS is certainly aware of [THE FOUNDER]. He has a "CAF"
number with the IRS (a number which "identifies" a person
like [THE FOUNDER] who is acting under power of attorney as an
"un-enrolled agent," one of the four categories of people
the IRS recognizes in the function of representing other people under
power of attorney); and he represents over 1100 clients at this point.
I'm sure if you get on Joe Lansing's conference call next Wednesday
(or any Wednesday - we didn't have one this week), at 9 PM Eastern (6
PM PDT), and bring any of your questions, you'll get another
"slant" on what we do, and you'll hear the answers in the
context of various people, with many viewpoints, asking questions.
Feel free to ask (or challenge) any idea or concept you hear or in
which you're interested. (305-503-1874, Pin 940).
I eagerly look forward to hearing your response, as this is an issue of great interest and considerable study of mine. God bless,
I hope I've answered some of your questions. If you don't mind, I may
want to use our communication as "fodder" for my newsletter
(preserving your anonymity, of course), although I'm happy to provide
the links to your web-site, which would not exactly preserve your
anonymity.
Sincerely,
Paul Leinthall
661-822-7889
Hi Chris,
I'll do my usual, thanks.
Paul,
No. At least not from my perspective. Some smart a## might question a
person such as yourself as to why you take a stand in one direction
(with the IRS) and an apparent different position when it comes to the
same language in the voter registration
2. Does the IRS see my voter registration in their computers which migh invalidate my NR Alien status?"
I seriously doubt it. Personally, I don't think the IRS can always
efficiently handle their own business on their computers. However, there
may be a different answer for example, coming from [THE FOUNDER] or
others in [THE COMPANY].
3. What paperwork or form at the California level makes me a Private State Citizen for the issue of voting and can you point me to it on the web?
You birth and residence do both. YOU may have to stand or declare such
in certain paperwork, or avoid declaring differently in other paperwork.
4. If I work for the federal government outside of D.C. and on a federal reservation within the state of California, for a part of the DOD as a civilian (civil servant), am I liable for taxes on the income and will your process help that part of my income?
It depends on whether your checks come DIRECTLY from the U.S. Treasury.
It also depend on whether you RESIDE on the reservation. I think
"most" civilian government workers are not paid DIRECTLY from
the Treasury; but that's not in the realm of my personal knowledge
5. I am unable to hold a security clearance for the DOD unless I claim to be a U.S. Citizen. I can't survive professionally without a security clearance. Can I still hold citizenship so as to keep that clearance but at the same time claim myself to be a nonresident alien with my employer?
I believe the "U.S. Citizen" you're referring to would be the
same as that of a passport - a citizen/national of the United States. In
other words, with any use of the label "U.S.Citizen" in either
of the two OTHER meanings at law than the "second" meaning in
"The Federal Zone" there is no problem. Another example where
it would be no problem - in fact where it might be a definite problem to
not declare yourself as a "U.S.Citizen" would be at the border
with Customs Agents. That's not the same "U.S. Citizen" - or I
should say, not the same meaning as the "U.S.citizen" who is
subject to income taxes. The only "U.S.citizenship" which
creates a "problem" is being considered by the IRS as a
"U.S. citizen" for tax purposes.
6. It's a great concern of mine that you are so tight-lipped about identifying who [THE COMPANY] and [THE FOUNDER] are. I can only assume that this is because you want to evade legal liability if your methods are found not to work. I hope I am wrong in that assumption. If your methods indeed are above board and legit, then you and [THE COMPANY] should have nothing to hide.
You said someone sent you a copy of my newsletter. If it was a recent
one - in fact if it was an issue anytime since the end of January, 2001,
you would have read in the LAST section something like what I will give
you here in it present "evolved" state:
You may notice that I refer to [THE COMPANY} or to the founder of the company [THE FOUNDER] in various places throughout the Newsletter. I choose those expressions, instead of providing the actual names of the company or it's founder, for a couple of reasons...reasons which you'll also find reflected in my explanation of the copyright notice (below). I want to insulate [THE COMPANY] and [THE FOUNDER] from undue and unwarranted attention (especially negative attention or reaction), whether from a casual reader or from any taxing agency or authority, their attorneys, or representatives. Therefore, it is my desire that the reader be absolutely clear who is responsible for what appears in this newsletter. This newsletter is NOT sponsored directly by [THE COMPANY] or [THE FOUNDER], and while I believe I am being representative of [THE COMPANY's] and [THE FOUNDER's] philosophy, goals, ideals and the truth in law and in fact on which [THE COMPANY] stands to perform its valuable service for its clients (of which I am one), and while I may quote [THE FOUNDER], or someone else, I always seek to maintain each person's privacy, unless their words are already in the public (published) domain; thus I will take the heat for any negative attention, response or reaction. Also, this allows anyone, including other representatives of [THE COMPANY], who find this information valuable, and who want to share it with others, to substitute their name and contact information for mine, and not have to worry about potential clients of the company going over their heads and bypassing them. Since [THE COMPANY] sponsored conference call and Joe Lansing, the conference call presenter, follow this same philosophy of client protection for their representatives, the information in this newsletter can, then, be more widely disseminated for the value and education of others. In the newsletter, I may occasionally use the name of the conference call presenter, Joe Lansing; but that's because he is also out in the public forum with his conference call. About the copyright notice: The copyright notice covers all the contents herein, except quotations, if any. I value my (and the reader's) freedom, integrity and responsibility, and I desire to maintain an environment where I (and the reader) can utilize and distribute this written material. From the point of view of copyright law, if I don't first copyright this material, someone else could; and then, by law, they could disallow me (and the reader) from using or distributing it. Given that fact, copyright is the best avenue I know to continue allowing freedom for all of us regarding this matter. Therefore, the reader is free to copy, print, use and distribute this material by personal email, fax, or handout (including substituting her own contact information), as long as BOTH the copyright notice AND this explanation of the copyright notice remain in the material. However, I do NOT, nor does [THE COMPANY], in its own philosophy and ideals, authorize or condone ANY mass media distribution of this material, including (and especially) posting to any web site. The responsibility for the words contained herein resides with the copyright owner. The copyright notice makes absolutely clear who is responsible for what appears here; that way, the buck stops with me, should anyone question or challenge what is written herein. This material is not intended to be interpreted as legal or financial advice. The copyright owner is neither an attorney nor CPA and has no license to offer legal and financial advise. I encourage the reader to study and think for herself and to make her own informed decisions, based on her own desires and beliefs, in harmony with her own inner sense and self-interested, positive and comfortable, good-gut feeling. For THAT, each reader is, himself/herself, entirely responsible. 7. I'd like to know the true business name of [THE COMPANY] and the name of the founder and his contact information, including address, phone number, etc. I'm very leary to give so much money to a person who insists on anonymity. Such anonymity only subjects me to unnecessary legal risks upon signing the power of attorney because that I have no way to mitigate legally since I can't contact the founder in the event that his methods prove illegal or illegitimate. This serves no other purpose than to encourage, promote, or allow fraud or illegal activity. The person who would ultimately service my account is the person whose full identity I would want in order to ensure that everything being done is legitimate. You have my assurance that this private information will not be revealed to third parties"
I think by now - after having read the answer to your last question -
you will have a greater appreciation for why I have not communicated
that information to you. When I'm responding to private email, I'm
generally doing it with regard to this topic in the light of the
communication being possible "fodder" for my newsletter. Your
question also reveals that you have not fully read ALL the information I
sent you apart from these "communication" emails. While [THE
FOUNDER's] name is not revealed in my WRITTEN material, it is no secret,
and if you CALL me, or if you get on [THE COMPANY's] conference call,
either I or Joe Lansing will give you the name of [THE FOUNDER]. ANY
client has access to [THE FOUNDER], including, in certain situations,
access prior to becoming a client. But please keep in mind, you are
dealing with something here that truly is different from what you're
normally used to dealing; I "suspect" that is is the case by
the "flavor" of your pursuit to know that which, even if I
knew, I would not reveal to you. If [THE FOUNDER] wants to reveal his
"trade secrets" to you, that's fine. I think, however, I've
provided you adequate explanation for my personal position on this, as
well as sufficient information to begin deducing the "truth"
for yourself. I guess it is possible, however, that you have so much
"knowledge" floating around (you certainly do in your book)
that it becomes more difficult to sort the the "real" truth
from things that sound so much like it.
You did not answer the one big question I had about Paul Mitchell's Affidavit of Rescission and its relationship to your Revocation of Election process. I'll ask it once again. Is any part of the Affidavit of Rescission (posted on my website) reflected in the correspondence, forms, or submissions to the State or Federal governments as part of the Revocation of Election process? What part(s)? What step in the process do you use his materials? How does your technique differ from Paul Mitchell/Mitch Modeleski's?
Yes, I'm aware that I did not fully answer that question. Why? For
several reasons, the primary one of which is that I personally don't
care to get that detailed and that involved. I don't get involved with
my automobiles at the level that my mechanic does, either. Nor do
I get involved in the details of my digestive system as may my doctor. I
do what I do because I enjoy it - and that is to write and talk about
the more general concepts and the specific distinctions in the law that
make possible the detailed steps and procedures which [THE FOUNDER] uses
and which, at this point in time, ONLY he has access to (at least as it
pertains to the service [THE COMPANY] performs for its clients).
From my knowledge and experience of [THE FOUNDER] - albeit it somewhat
limited, although I know him personally and have communicated with him
at various times - and from my conversations with Joe Lansing (the
person who presents [THE COMPANY's] weekly conference call), [THE
FOUNDER] has taken this course of less than full, procedural disclosure
to ensure the privacy and protection of clients and the continued
viability of [THE COMPANY] AS A BUSINESS. I think perhaps you are not
fully appreciative of what that may entail; and I'm not saying you
"should" be. How could you unless you viewed life from behind
[THE FOUNDER's] eyeballs?
There is a big difference when, as a company, [THE FOUNDER] chooses to
represent others to the IRS under power of attorney. There are OTHER
laws that come into play, and while neither you nor I may have a full
appreciation for what that may entail, I know he could LOSE his right to
represent others if he were to be found in violation of some of those
laws. Ask your attorney; he/she should appreciate what I'm saying here.
I realize, that in interacting with me, you've run into something that
operates a little differently from the tax protestor community; and that
is specific, by design, in its own right: because we do NOT want to even
be colored with the brush called "tax protestor". Our position
in this regard is almost 180 degrees different from many with whom I
presume you deal on a daily basis, and whose processes and procedures
and tactics you so competently write in your book.
Last year, we realized that using just the INITIALS of [THE COMPANY] was
causing some confusion in the minds of clients and potential clients,
because there was another company, with a different name but the SAME
initials, operating and selling materials that "sounded" very
much like what we say, and who were claiming they accomplished the same
results for their clients as we do for ours. Last year (about the same
time that it became evident there were people being confused by two
different companies each referring to themselves with the same three
initials, they other company got "raided" by a couple of
alphabet agencies, including the IRS, and the founder of that company is
now under indictment and (I believe) going to court sometime this month.
I've had numerous inquiries from some of that company's former clients,
many of whom are now terrified - and doubly doubtful - because they
thought there were in good hands. Having lived through that experience,
however, after they "listen" for a while, they begin to
discern for themselves certain critical distinctions present in what we
do that were NOT present where they were; and they appreciate those
distinctions. Of course, they wish they had heard about us first; but
that's not the way it played out.
The irony of the matter is that the founder of that company several
years ago hired [THE FOUNDER] of our company to give him some of the
information you are requesting. Whether or not [THE FOUNDER] provided
him all the information he desired, I'm not aware, but I am aware that
the founder of the other company did NOT follow some of the advice of
[THE FOUNDER]. I know [THE FOUNDER] specifically told him some things he
was doing that was going to get him in trouble. I believe THAT
experience helped contribute to what you're experiencing in your
relationship with us at this point, in that [THE FOUNDER] is a little
more tight-lipped than he may have been at one time.
I'm still quite intrigued by your approach, and I'll definitely be expanding my book to encompass everything we have talked about so far because I want it to be complete and truthful and as helpful as possible.
I can't speak specifically for [THE FOUNDER], but after perusing your
book in some detail yesterday, from my perspective, your approach may be
exactly what [THE FOUNDER] would not want to "mix" with. In
other words, to use an analogy, if you mix impure water with pure water,
does the impure water become pure, or does the pure water become impure.
Or the analogy that Jesus used about new wine and old wineskins.
From my perspective, your book contains quite a mixture. I don't
particularly think there's anything wrong with that. At the same time, I
know it takes a fairly discerning mind (and not just one that came in on
the last load of hay) to appreciate what is valuable and what is not.
One thing you said leads me to further inquiry: "so, instead of selling "information", leaving the client on his/her own to tackle the IRS, we "sell" service, and provide the information freely. "
Kindly provide me my own words where I said I would provide you
"documentation of each step [THE FOUNDER] uses and how to execute
each step."
I disagree with you that I'm selling a service performed by [THE
COMPANY] I represent that I know nothing about. Every client receives a
copy of everything that is filed with the IRS. However, you will have to
find some other client who will share copies of documents which THE LAW
requires that [THE COMPANY] NOT share with any person other than the
individual client; I am a representative of the company, so I can not do
that.
Your suggestion that my not knowing every step of the actual procedural
process might be dangerous is no more dangerous in my mind than my not
knowing the inner steps of the combustion engine or the interior
workings of my body, to whom I occasionally entrust those details to the
people who have paid the price in money, time, study, education and
practice. Perhaps from your perspective, that would limit your ability
(or willingness) to take part with us or become a client, and that's
perfectly okay. I'm not trying to convince you of anything here; I'm
just sharing as I normally do.
I will say again, however, even if I knew all the particular procedural
steps in the revocation of election process, which is the proprietary
knowledge of [THE FOUNDER], because of my understanding of his
intentions and desires (which which I agree), I would not violate his
"trust". You may want to keep in mind, however, that I have
the added benefit of the experience of seeing the profound effects of
how successful [THE COMPANY's] work is, particularly with those clients
who experience a gradual and eventual complete relief from IRS pressure.
Those clients who have been behaving in such a way that the IRS did not
view them as lawbreakers or tax code violators before they became
clients are just as likely to notice NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER; the IRS
wasn't harassing them before; the IRS will not begin hassling them now
that they are clients due to anything [THE COMPANY] does, because, as
I've said, over and over again, the IRS does not challenge [THE
COMPANY's] work. And when I say [THE COMPANY] handles EVERYTHING at the
administrative level, I do NOT mean TAX COURT in ANY case. (Some people
think tax court is part of an administrative process).
2. An identification of the legal authority used for each step in the process (the U.S.C or the State codes that allow or describe that step).
Much of this is available in the copies each client receives of what has
actually been filed with the IRS in his/her case. It is not mine,
however, to simply pass out to you. "No tickee - no laundry",
as they say. Viable business. Money-back guaranteed. You have to pay the
price of admission. Get on the conference call, ask your questions, see
what response you get. Take all the time you need or desire. No question
will go unanswered; but that does NOT equate to a free sharing of all
the proprietary knowledge for which it appears you are seeking.
My guess is, you already have ALL the ingredients you need. The problem
you're encountering, however, is that the real issue of qualifiedly
successful results lies in the "secret" of how to mix the
ingredients to produce successful cake. [THE COMPANY] has achieved that.
There "business" is to accomplish those results for others.
They do that without fail, with the results money-back guaranteed.
3. A copy of the forms and/or sample correspondence used at each step, with names removed.
Sorry. I don't mean to offend you; I'm aware that this is not what
you're used to dealing with,but, believe me, [THE COMPANY] can well
afford to take the stand they take, especially when it helps ensure
their successful results. By-the-way, no client has ever asked for her
money back.
Once I completely understand the above, then I am doing exactly as you say and just paying you for the service, which by the way is all that I am willing to pay for. What I DON'T want to hear is "trust me" or "trust us", we know what we are doing, because that only serves to elevate you, or the people who do the work for you, into some guru status and makes the product you sell into quackery and snake oil that won't withstand legal scrutiny, should that ever be necessary.
"Guru's" spout knowledge and require that you bow down to
them. We don't require that anyone choose to become a client. You don't
have to trust me, or [THE COMPANY] or [THE FOUNDER]. At such time as
[THE FOUNDER] chooses to openly reveal all his "secrets" of
how it is all accomplished, if you're anywhere in the vicinity when he
does that, I'd guess you might be one of the first to pick it up. In the
meanwhile, [THE FOUNDER] has taken steps to protect every client in any
catastrophic event. If something should happen to the entire company, to
prevent any of the three different offices in three different states
from producing successful results for clients, or anything that would
make [THE COMPANY] unable to perform the service for the clients, there
are three people, separate and unknown to each other, who each have
access to all the knowledge and the data base of all clients, who EACH
would ensure that each client receives a complete record of every step
that had been performed in his case, and instructions on how to carry on
for him/herself.
Once again, if your system works, then it can be explained and defended legally and described completely in writing.
I agree with you. What makes you think that is NOT the case? Or do you
mean, in order for it to work, it has to be explained and defended
legally TO YOU? Those are two separate scenarios. The one is already the
case; the other will not be - at least at this time, given [THE
COMPANY's] desires of not providing that last 15% of proprietary
knowledge. That's not my decision; that is [THE FOUNDER's] decision, and
I honor it (so in that sense, it is my decision, too).
I have tried to explain to you, have I not, the distinction between
dealing 100% successfully with the IRS on THEIR administrative level,
and the supposed need to "defend legally" in the judicial
arena. Perhaps if we ever have the first case where what [THE COMPANY]
does fails to work in the administrative arena, and THEN [THE COMPANY]
finds themselves in the position of having to "defend
legally", I will be providing you a different answer. But, until
either [THE FOUNDER] changes his mind about what procedural knowledge
he's willing to simply let open to any person who wants it, just because
he thinks its his right to know, or until we find that we must engage in
the judicial arena, which, as I've said, has never yet occurred for any
person using this process in the nearly 30 years we know it has been
used - until then, you're free to ask for what ever you want, and we're
free to answer (or not answer) whatever we want. From that, we expect
anyone initially attracted will make a choice; and that choice is
sometimes to not be further involved. We are not trying to be all things
to all people. We do not advertize in ANY mass media; we do not do
direct mail or email campaigns; we don't do radio and TV talk shows.
(And I've done both in the past, but not about this).
Even Jesus gave his truth in parables to intentionally perplex and
confound certain people who did not understand, who did not have ears to
hear, or eyes to see what was right in front of them. (I presume they
did not, because their ears and eyes were already full of their own
miss-perceptions, and mixing the new wine with the old wineskins would
not have worked).
Any attempt to keep secrets about any part of the process simply raises red flags and will scare me and everyone else I know away.
Fortunately, it does NOT raise red flags with the IRS; and since [THE
COMPANY] has agreements with each client to produce the unqualified
results in each their cases, I think [THE COMPANY] is more concerned
about that than they are that you may be seeing red because of how they
choose to produce unfailing results.
In Jesus' day, when people wanted a "sign", he said that only
one sign would be given them, the sign of the prophet Jonah. And even
then, most people missed it, and it took almost two months for even
those closest to him to really "get it". They too
"had" to be patient, and wait.
Likewise, your anxiety may be that you might be "spilling the beans" on everything by giving me what I am asking for, and thereby undermining your ability to make a living by empowering others with the information needed to execute the whole process by themselves.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that I have
"anxiety" about "spilling the beans". I can't
"spill beans" I don't have. AND, I honor [THE FOUNDER]
specifically for NOT spilling them either. I perceive great wisdom
therein.
Besides, the IRS admits there are about 6000 people per year who do
something similar to what we do. Since we can only account for a little
over 1100 clients in the last TWO years, obviously somebody out there
has certain knowledge. I don't see anybody else, however, who are so
completely confident in their procedure that they are willing to stick
their own neck on the line (signature on the line) as [THE FOUNDER] does
for all [THE COMPANY's] clients. But, obviously, the information is out
there.
I can only say that it is not my intention to compete with you or help others compete with you. As a matter of fact, if your method works, I'd like to refer people to you and [THE COMPANY] (only after [THE COMPANY] and [THE FOUNDER] are fully identified) on my website.
I appreciate that it's not your intention to compete. That's not MY
concern, however. Believe me, there more business out there than any
hundred of us could handle.
However, I have to say I doubt that what there will come a time when
everything about [THE COMPANY] or [THE FOUNDER] will be fully identified
on your web site. If [THE FOUNDER] were to have you identify what he and
[THE COMPANY] do on your web site, what would be the difference between
that and having [THE COMPANY's] own web site, which he has already taken
a position he wants no part of, for the reasons I've already provided?
The knowledge is ALL contained in the United States Code. It's ALL
there. I've given you plenty of clues, so if you have ears to hear and
eyes to see, you will realize what I'm saying. And, you may well figure
it out for yourself; the proof of whether you have or not will always be
in the results.
I'm not David Copperfield, or David Blane either; but I'll bet you
wouldn't expect them to divulge their proprietary knowledge, if the
arena of "magic" were our field of discussion, would you?
People are always asking me for referrals and I'd like to have one more organization to point to and a product I believe in from people I know and trust. It's so hard to find legitmate businesses that can handle tax freedom issues and who are legit.
[THE COMPANY] does not view itself as "one more organization"
to which you'd like to refer. From my perspective, what [THE COMPANY]
does is unique. And I say that without knowing all that you demand to
know. I could (although I don't care enough to) defy you to show me even
ONE other company or organization that so effectively handles the IRS at
the administrative level that all harassing correspondence from the IRS
ceases, they cease their levy action, they remove liens in many cases,
PLUS they changes their point of view frp, seeing the former taxpayer to
seeing him/her as a non-taxpayer (nonresident alien, tax exempt - same
thing).
I don't mind paying for the service of executing the steps and making the correspondence, but once again, I insist on knowing everything there is to know about what precisely I am paying for.
Many of [THE COMPANY's] clients have had to "hang around" for
a while before they got comfortable enough to become a client. We don't
push or force or cajole anyone. I speak from MY personal experience. My
experience and satisfaction is only fortified by my association with
people in [THE COMPANY] like Joe Lansing and his office staff, and [THE
FOUNDER], because in meeting and talking with them, I have my own sense
that they are completely trustworthy.
The tax freedom movement is riddled with scams, and I have a large catalog of them. My website has pointers to two websites focusing exclusively on tax scams: <http://www.quatloos.com/>http://www.quatloos.com/ <http://www.taxprophet.com/tp.htm>http://www.taxprophet.com/tp.htm
Unfortunately, you will find no evidence of "scam" in this
case. (I realize you may not know that, at this point). And, yes, I'm
familiar with Jay Adkisson and his "quatloos" site. I'm not
familiar with the other one you mention, but then we're generally too
busy producing unqualified results and satisfied customers - and we're
definitely NOT interested in "casting pearls before swine"
so-to-speak. No offense intended. (I think you'll have to admit,
however, that Jesus advocated the same not-casting-pearls-before-swine
principle).
Most of the scams occurred because the victims trusted someone too much and never investigated the law, the facts, the process, and correspondence, or the founders themselves.
I agree. So does that mean, if you needed a brain operation, you would
make the same demands of the brain surgeon, since he/she would obviously
be privy to certain procedural knowledge to which you were not? How
would you ascertain whether you could entrust yourself to his process?
Maybe you might consider some of those same principles and apply them
here in this arena.
Unfortunately, you've been so engaged in an arena where everyone freely
shares their knowledge, but where there seems to be no guaranteed
results. Most of the information is out there, but very few have figured
out how to sort the unqualifiedly workable from the (mostly) unworkable
- to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
My experience seems to indicate that those who actually find a way that
truly works tend to get quite tight-lipped about it. I know [THE
FOUNDER] shares freely with equally tight-lipped people as himself, who
do the same, or a similar process (that works) on their own. I've never
asked for, nor do I care to ask for the names of those contacts. I have
exactly what I want, in this regard, exactly where I stand.
And you're free to take all the time you need, ask all the questions you
want. You're getting my answers here. You can get on the conference call
and ask Joe Lansing. He's a tremendous fellow, with a great bank of
knowledge (more than I, in certain areas, for example when it comes to
IRS Code cites). You can even call him privately (except you won't
be able to reach him till Monday); you have his number in the
information I sent you. And Joe can put you in touch with [THE FOUNDER].
We generally follow a hierarchical chain of information flow, which is
why I'm not providing that contact information directly at this time.
Another way to look at it might be this: Since our "claim to
fame" is that we never fail to produce the results at the
administrative level, and since most of the people you know either
deal, or prepare to deal, in the judicial (court) arena, and base almost
all the correspondence I read on "judicial" court decision,
that IF we should ever fail, we STILL have all that great body of
knowledge to fall back on. IF I were to ever have to use the judicial
arena in this regard, I already know I'd cull most of my
"ammo" from Otto Skinner and Thurston Bell. But, I understand
THEIR work and writings before I ever heard about [THE COMPANY]. For me,
when I heard what [THE COMPANY] bases its results on, I KNEW it was the
final piece of the puzzle for which I'd been searching for years,
because it gave me back my FREEDOM and gave me the security of not
having to keep looking over my shoulder.
That won't happen to me EVER. If you want some entertaining reading about some of the scams, look at chapter 9 of my "Great IRS Hoax" book and the following website, entitled "Charlatans of Freedom": <http://www.anti-irs.com/charlatans.htm>
I just read your chapter 9. Again, I commend you on the great job you've
done of compiling information on the numerous scams that abound. I
familiar with most of them, but I discovered a couple I'd never heard
about.
However, let me address a very important distinction here. I've touched
on it, in various ways, in my correspondence to you over the last two
days, but let me take another shot at it. I notice that with almost
EVERY scam you mention, the verification of whether, or not, it has been
"proven" to be a scam is because the "position" that
was taken LOST in the judicial arena.
Now, this is a very critical distinction. YES - they lost in court. [THE
FOUNDER] is extremely clear that almost EVERY position EVER taken
regarding the IRS loses in court at some time or other (if not most of
the time).
Let me us an analogy here. If you join the military and go AWOL, are you
adjudicated by the judicial system you and I are familiar with, or is
there a separate (different) tribunal by whom the "voluntarily
enrolled" military person is judged? Now, I'm not referring
here to any supposed distinction between "tax court" and
regular court; What I am saying is, that the ONLY time an IRS matter
EVER gets in the courts or in the judicial arena is when the issue or
problem, whatever it was, was NOT handled on the administrative level
(and, again, I do NOT mean or include "tax court" when I refer
to the administrative arena).
[THE FOUNDER], in his communication with the IRS on the behalf of each
client, freely acknowledges that EVEN THE COURTS THEMSELVES CANNOT AGREE
on many of these issue. And, he continues to reason, how then can the
average person confronted with the Tax Code be expected to know and
understand what is before him? And he provides numerous court case cites
where different courts have disagreed among themselves over the same
issue.
So, why am I saying all this? Think about it. Who takes whom to court
when it comes to the IRS? Is not what most people are concerned about
the possibility of the IRS taking THEM to court?
Now, if the IRS has stated that EVERY problem CAN BE resolved at the
administrative level - prior to any attempt to pursue it into the
judicial arena - doesn't it make sense that IF that is the case, that
indeed, it be resolved in the administrative arena (again, I am NOT
including tax court here)?
If [THE COMPANY] presents their "case" on behalf of each
client ONLY ON the administrative level, AND if the IRS never challenges
or rebuts the case at that level, given plenty of timely and gentlemanly
and lawful opportunity to do so, with client, after client, after
client, after client, for year, after year, after year, after year -
don't you think they would have to AT THE VERY LEAST begin to rebut or
challenge [THE COMPANY's] work on the administrative level?
So you tell me. After 30 years, what do you think they might be waiting
for?
Unless, of course, they realize that the only ground they could stand
before any judge in the land and complain would be that [THE COMPANY] is
absolutely abiding by every aspect of the law and the Internal Revenue
Code, and they just don't like tit? Do you think any Judge is going to
buy that, especially since they waited so long to complain and where
[THE COMPANY] has the paper trail of proof of never even attempted
challenges?
So what I'm saying here is that I think you're going to have to be
willing to switch gears in your thinking that everything we do has to be
"Judicially" provable. The administrative level of the IRS is
handled according to THEIR procedures and processes, like the analogy I
gave of the military tribunal being distinct from the courts with which
most of us are familiar, in that arena one does not succeed by trying to
tell the IRS what the law is or what constitutional rights are or what
the Founding Fathers had in mind in the beginning or by challenging the
IRS to prove their case that they have jurisdiction (which is primarily
what I see most tax protestors doing, and which is why [THE FOUNDER]
doesn't want to "mix" his techniques with that plethora and
hodge-podge of arguments and techniques, most of which have questionable
"proven" success at best).
Thanks for clarifying your position so far, and I look forward to your prompt response.
I hope I have further clarified some things for you; and I sincerely
hope I haven't offended you.
Sincerely,
Paul Leinthall
661-822-7889
|
Copyright Chris Hansen |
By:
Chris Hansen, 858-538-6607, chansen3@san.rr.com Last revision: May 25, 2009 10:39 AM |
| This private system is NOT subject to monitoring |