RIGHT Click here for the Word 97 version of this document


The letter below is intended to be sent to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Supreme Court, etc.  It is intended to clearly explain why enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code is illegal, why it does not apply inside states of the Union, and why our elected servants and a legal duty to fix this situation.


<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>  <<ZIP>>









President George Bush

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D. C. 20500


Cert. Mail #:

Senate President Dick Cheney

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D. C. 20500


Cert. Mail #:

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert

235 Cannon HOB

Washington, DC 20515-1314


Cert. Mail #:

Secretary of the Treasury John Snow

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20220


Cert. Mail #:

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Mark Everson

1111 Constitution Ave NW

Washington DC 20224


Cert. Mail #:

Chief Justice Rehnquist

U.S. Supreme Court Building

1 First St. N.E.

Washington, DC 20543


Cert. Mail #:



1.        1939 Act (available at:

2.        1954 Act (available at:

3.        Treasury Orders 150-01 and 150-02 (also available at

4.     Treasury Organization Chart, from the U.S. Government Manual, p. 339, 2003. (also available at:



1.        Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax; free book downloadable from

Subject:  Notice of Fraud, And Demand for Redress

1.  This is a formal complaint.

The IRS has never been authorized to collect taxes or enforce any laws, and since March 9th, 2001, the Commissioner has had no legitimate Offices outside the District of Columbia.  Despite the law and the facts, IRS continues to pretend to be the nation’s tax collector, using the United States Mails to extort money from the public.

In August of 2003, Ms. Vernice Kuglin was acquitted of several charges of “willful failure to file” and “false information on W-4’s” because Ms. Kuglin had asked the government to produce the taxing statute, and the government had failed or refused to produce it.  To my knowledge, there are at least two other cases that similar in nature.  In U. S. A. v. Lloyd Long, in 1993, a similar verdict was reached by a jury in Tennessee.  Prior to that, in 1991, John Cheek (Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192) argued before the Supreme Court, which held that since the government had not produced the required taxing statute, he could not be convicted of willfulness.  

Thus, it is now res judicata that the government cannot produce the taxing statute. I maintain that the government cannot produce the taxing statute, because Congress repealed all the internal revenue laws in 1939, and has never re-enacted them.  The Code of 1954 did not, and could not, repeal or modify the Code of 1939.  It is not a code of laws, hence is unenforceable as law.  This is my demand that the President, his Cabinet, the Congress, and the Judicary, examine the facts below, and either rebut my facts and conclusions or admit that there is no “internal revenue law” to enforce, and even if there were, the IRS could not enforce it. 

I accuse the government of perpetrating a hoax upon the American people that has reduced all of us to a condition of involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and federal law found at 18 U.S.C. 1581, and 42 U.S.C. 1994.  Millions of us in states of the Union living outside of federal legislative jurisdiction involuntarily pay tribute to the federal government annually, in order to avoid having our property taken from us by IRS mail rather than the court orders required under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.  IRS letters are more powerful than any law, or any court order, but they lack legal authority.  By these bogus letters and the illegal response to them by fearful employers and banks everywhere, the IRS has exceeded its delegated authority to become an illegal enforcement agency, and hence, a financial terrorist protected from its wrongdoing by corrupted federal courts by abusing official and sovereign immunity over the District of Columbia (or the District of Criminals, as I call it).  An examination of the Treasury Organization Chart, found in the 2003 U.S. Government Manual on p. 339, reveals that the IRS is NOT an enforcement agency, since it does not come under the Undersecretary for Enforcement as all other Treasury enforcement related activity does.  See enclosure (4).

In 1944, Beardsley Ruml, then Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, gave a speech to the American Bar Association, entitled “Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete.”  In his speech to the Bar, he said that taxes for revenue purposes were obsolete, because the government could now print all the money it needed to pay its bills.  It could now use taxes for other purposes, such as implementing “national policies”, beginning with “redistributing the wealth”.  I have yet to meet anyone, American or otherwise, who desires to have his wealth redistributed.  “National policy” cannot take precedence over the Constitution, especially a policy so absurd as one “to redistribute the wealth.”  You can read Rummel’s speech yourself at:

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's definition of "tax" confirms that "taxes" cannot be used for wealth redistribution and can ONLY be used to support the government, and not private citizens or entities that are not part of the government such as the Federal Reserve, which is a private consortium of banks.

"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word [tax] has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another.
[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms."
[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

Consequently, the exaction of monies described by Subtitles A and C of the Internal Revenue Code cannot properly or legally be described as a “tax” and to do so would amount to fraud.  Therefore, such monies can only be described as a federal donation program for the municipal government of the District of Columbia.  Ref. (1), section 5.1.4, for instance, confirms that monies paid in income taxes DO NOT support the government, but instead support expenditures on socialism that are NOT authorized by the Constitution.

According to the Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Congress is the nation’s tax collector, and the Secretary of the Treasury is the nation’s Accountant.  According to the Code of 1954 (see encl. (2)), “the Secretary” is the collector of “taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws”.  Something is dreadfully wrong with this picture.  The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is a Hoax.  The “internal revenue laws” it purports to represent, are nonexistent.

The IRS cannot collect taxes for the Commissioner, who cannot collect taxes for “the Secretary”, who cannot collect taxes for the President.  The President cannot collect taxes, because the Congress is the nation’s tax collector.  The Secretary of the Treasury is the nation’s accountant.  The Secretary of the Treasury referred to in the IRC of 1954, at Section 6301, who is authorized and required to collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws, cannot be the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.  There are no internal revenue laws, and have not been since Congress repealed all the internal revenue laws by Act of February 10th, 1939, 53 Stat 1 (see encl. (1)).

The Code is not the law.  The Code represents the law.  If any part of the Code does not faithfully represent the law, that part of it is void.  In its strictest sense, the term, “the law” means the collection of documents originating as bills or resolutions, signed by Presidents, maintained at the nation’s Capitol as a matter of public record.  In order to promulgate the law, the government compiles the Statutes at Large, and publishes a new volume every year.  The Statutes are held to be “competent evidence” of the law.  The Code is published for different reasons than the Statutes.  The Statutes are published chronologically, in order of dates of enactment.  The Code is published according to subject matter, as a compilation, or restatement, of the Statutes.  This creates a massive job for those charged with the responsibility, to render a faithful representation of the Statutes as amended.  However, when Congress feels that a Title of the Code is reasonably complete, and not likely to be amended significantly in the future it “seals” the Title by enacting it into positive law.   Because the Code represents the Statutes, rather than “the law”, the Code is said to be “prima facie evidence” of the law.  It is, at best, third-hand information with respect to the documents filed in Washington.  It’s like the game of telephone, in which the further from the source, the less accurate the retelling of it. 

When Congress feels that a Title of the Code is reasonably complete on its subject, and anticipates few or no significant changes on the subject in the future, and that the words of the Code accurately reflect the words of the lawmakers in the Statutes, then Congress may enact the Title into  “positive law”.  Titles enacted into positive law are designated “legal evidence” of the law.  Legal evidence is a cut above prima facie evidence, and a cut below competent evidence of the law.  Prima facie evidence can be easily challenged. By comparing the words of the lawmakers with the words of the Code, and, if different, the words of the lawmakers always prevail.

The Act of February 10th, 1939 enacted the Internal Revenue Title into positive law.  The Code of 1954 is not now, nor never can it be, enacted into positive law, because the Act of 1939 repealed all the laws it codified, and is the only legitimate “Internal Revenue Title” of the United States Code.  That it has ceased to be functional does not license Congress to create Internal Revenue Title II, which it appears to have done in 1954.    See Encl. (1) for confirmation of these assertions.

The Internal Revenue Title of 1939 is the genuine article.  It is a code of laws that cannot be changed, because the Title was enacted into positive law, and Section 4 of the Act repealed all the laws incorporated in the Title.  There is no way the laws incorporated in the Code could be changed in any way, and there is no reason to change the Code unless the underlying statutes it represents have been amended.

1.        Congress repealed all the internal revenue laws in 1939, and has never re-enacted them.  The Code of 1939 is a code of repealed laws, but it is a code of laws.  The Internal Revenue Title was enacted into positive law at the time, and Table III provided a list of all the laws affected by the repeal.

2.        The Code of 1954 is not a code of laws, repealed or otherwise.  It is a revision of the illegal revisions to the 1939 Code enacted between 1939 and 1954.  Unlike the 1939 Act, it lists none of the provisions of prior laws or Code sections affected by the Act.  Its stated purpose was to “revise” the Internal Revenue Laws, but does not cite a single law that was affected by the Act.  The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has no authority to collect taxes, and has not had since the Alcohol Division was carved out of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, circa 1951.

3.        The Secretary of the Treasury is not the nation’s tax collector.  Congress is the nation’s tax collector.  The Secretary of the Treasury is the nation’s Accountant.

4.        The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is under the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.  The Secretary of the Treasury referred to in the 1954 Code (IRC 6301) is not Secretary Snow.  The Commissioner of Internal Revenue supervises the Secretaries of the Treasuries of the possessions the tax collector for the territories and possessions of the United States.  The IRS is under the supervision of the Commissioner, and he cannot collect taxes without both constitutional and delegated authority.  He does not have either, so the IRS cannot collect taxes for him.

5.        Besides the office of the Commissioner, there are 14 offices attached to, associated with, or under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, all located in the District of Columbia.  Treasury Order 150-02, effective March 9th, 2001, cancelled Treasury Order 150-01, which created 33 District and 4 Regional offices, outside the District, and effective that date, there have been no legitimate IRS offices outside the District of Columbia.  

The Act of 1939 was “ an Act to consolidate and codify the internal revenue laws”.  It clearly was not meant to enact any new ones, merely to codify the existing ones.  Section 4 of the Act (53 Stat 1, encl. (2)) repealed “all laws and parts of laws relating exclusively to internal revenue”, that were in force on January 2nd of that year, and codified within the Act.  There followed certain “savings to suitors” provisions, to prevent the loss of rights arising under the repealed laws, but 1939 and 1940, and any calendar years thereafter, were definitely not “tax years”.  Although the Code of 1939 is a Code of repealed laws, it is a code of laws.

The Code of 1954 is not really a code of anything.  It is, instead, a shameless and dangerous misrepresentation of illegal amendments to the 1939 Act.  Between 1939 and 1954, Congress “amended” or “revised” the Code of 1939 some 200 times, adding hosts of new provisions to it, expanding it exponentially, as it were.  Such activities violate the intent of the lawmakers who enacted the Internal Revenue Title into law, and repealed all the laws codified therein.  They provided a list of affected Statutes at Table III, because the purpose of the Code is to operate as a finding aid to the Statutes represented in the Code.  Repealed laws cannot be changed in any way.  Codes that represent them cannot be changed in any significant way.  An omitted comma, word, or even sentence might be added, if it more correctly represents the Statute, but repealed laws cannot be amended, so new provisions could never be added to the repealed laws codified in 1939.  It makes no sense for Congress to amend the Code of 1939 200 times, adding provisions at random, and it is illegal, or at least deceptive, to add provisions to the Code that cannot reflect amendments to the Statutes.

It would make no sense, after codifying only repealed laws, to amend this particular Title in any significant way.  What would be the point of amending a Code of repealed laws, when the underlying Statute cannot possibly be amended?  Congress could have re-enacted the repealed laws, and had done so several times in prior years.  There is no way Congress could add new provisions to the 1939 Code.

Congress apparently neglected to tell the IRS, or the public, what they’d done.  When Congress began “revising” the Code of 1939, as they did in August of 1939, they gave the impression that the Code of 1939 was a code of “current” law in the ordinary sense, which could be amended.  That they amended the Code without amending the underlying Statutes is surprising.  That they amended it some 200 times is shocking.   Did those in Congress not understand the lawmaking process?  Were they deliberately trying to fool the public?  After some 200 illegal revisions to the Code of 1939, Congress came out with the Code of 1954.  It was “an act to revise the internal revenue laws.”  There Act did not enact any new tax laws, and it did not “revise" any old ones.  The Act of 1939 was “an act to consolidate and codify the internal revenue laws.” The Code of 1939 did not create any new laws, and no new internal revenue laws have been enacted since. 

Congress might amend laws, or revise codes, but it does not revise laws.  What did the Code of 1954 revise?  Not the Code of 1939.  Congress had not enacted any new internal revenue laws between 1939 and 1954, so the Code of 1954 is not a code of laws.  It might be a code of all the illegal amendments to the 1939 Code, but it is not a code of laws.  The only code that could have been revised was the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, but that code could not be revised.  Nonetheless, Congress had amended it some 200 times between 1939 and 1954.  What, exactly, is the Code of 1954? (Rhetorical question: answer- not law.)

Amending the Code, without amending the underlying Statute, leaves the law unchanged, and in this particular case, Congress could not amend the Code because it could not amend the underlying Statutes.    Amending a code of laws that cannot be changed, because they were repealed, would be absurd, and of no legal effect. 

The difference between the Code of 1939 and the Code of 1954 is that the Code of 1939 is a code of laws.  True, it is a code of repealed laws, but a code of laws nonetheless.  They were “in force” only in specialized ways, but it could still be said that they were in force, if only in a specialized way.  By contrast, the Code of 1954 is not a code of laws in force that can be found in the Statutes at Large.  It is not founded upon any Statute, except the “statute” that created it.  However the law that created it did not create any new Statutes.  The Code of 1939 was ordered by the Act to be published alongside the Statutes at Large, in a separate Volume, in the same fashion as the 1939 Code.  Table III of the 1939 Act, which listed all the affected Statutes, became part of the law, as it directs the reader to the Statute that was repealed and codified.  According to the source notes in the Code of 1954 (as amended) its only statutory authority is 68A Stat., the Act “to revise” the internal revenue laws.  In other words, the Code of 1954 is not founded on a single “internal revenue law”.

The recent Kuglin case should put the government on notice that the best defense the people have against suits for non-filing or non-compliance with “the tax laws” is to demand a copy of the taxing statute, which the government cannot provide.  It is shameful for the government to prosecute people for violating laws it cannot produce.  We have become the laughingstock of the planet as a result.  To permit such idiotic things to occur makes you an embarrassment to the people you theoretically serve.  You all should be embarrassed.  In light of the recent Kuglin case, the question we all have, now, is “what federal law imposes a tax on me, my activity, or my property?”  More precisely, “where is the taxing statute, that is represented by the Code, that imposes the alleged tax on me, my property, or my activities?”  If the government fails to produce the un-repealed taxing statute, it can never convict anyone for violating it. 

Whereas the Act of 1939 provides a table (Table III) of Statutes affected by the repeal, the Act of 1954 does not provide a list of Code sections “revised” by the Act.  The Act of 1954 did not affect any underlying Statutes.  In fact, all it really did was to incorporate approximately 200 amendments to the Code of 1939 that had been “enacted” between 1939 and 1954.

2.  The Commissioner cannot collect taxes, and has no offices outside the District of Columbia.

 The Secretary of the Treasury is not the Nation’s tax collector; he is the Nation’s Accountant.  Congress is the Nation’s tax collector under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution.  Congress MAY NOT delegate their authority under the Constitution to lay AND collect taxes to the Executive branch either through the Internal Revenue Code or any other vehicle.  However, the general impression is that Congress has delegated its taxing power to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he, in turn, has delegated his authority to collect taxes to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who, in turn, has delegated his tax collecting authority to certain officers or agents in the IRS.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a bureaucrat, not a cop.  He is a supervisor, not a tax collector.  This is borne out by two clear Treasury Orders.

The Treasury Secretary issued Treasury Order (TO) 150-01, first issued circa 1951, and which, as amended, created 33 District Offices and 4 regional offices under or associated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  It shows that the duty and authority to “collect” taxes was not vested in the Commissioner.  It also shows that he had no real authority except for the territories and possessions, and “other areas of the world”.  (The IRS is international.  It has offices all over the globe.)  The general authority of the Commissioner, as expressed in TO 150-01, is as follows.

3. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, to the extent of authority vested in the Commissioner, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. territories and insular possessions and other areas of the world.

Now, in Puerto Rico, and perhaps other possessions, the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico collects “internal revenue” taxes, which are deposited in the Treasury of Puerto Rico.  Thus, it would appear that the Secretary of the Treasury mentioned in the questionable 1954 Code is under the Commissioner, in which case the term “the Secretary of the Treasury” in the Code cannot be Secretary Snow.  Secretary Snow could not collect taxes without trespassing on the exclusive power of Congress to do so.  However, because the Commissioner is under Secretary Snow, and IRC 6301 says “the Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the internal revenue laws”, the public gets the false impression that “the Secretary” means Secretary Snow, not the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, or another similar Secretary, who answers to the Commissioner. Be that as it may, the 33 District and 4 Regional offices established by 150-01 were abolished by Secretary O’Neill, effective March 9th, 2001, and 14 new offices were created in the District of Columbia.  There are no legitimate offices under the Commissioner outside the District of Columbia.  I believe it is time you told the IRS the truth, as they still believe the outlying offices are legally in place.

In order to implement provisions of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Secretary O’Neill issued TO 150-02, with an effective date of March 9th, 2001.  The Order did three things: first, it established the following Offices, all in the District of Columbia.  1) Commissioner, 2) Deputy Commissioner, 3) Chief Counsel, 4) Chief, Communications and Liaison Division, 5) National Taxpayer Advocate, 6) Chief Information Officer, 7) Chief, Appeals Division, 8) National Headquarters, 9) Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, 10) Commissioner, Small Business and Self-Employed Division, 11) Commissioner, Large and Mid-Size Business Division, Commissioner, 12) Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division 13) Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Services Division, and 14) Chief, Criminal Investigation Division. 

There is no “Collection Division.”  Section 4 re-defined the Commissioner’s authority:

4. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. The Office of the Commissioner consists of the Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner; and Assistant Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner is the chief executive officer for the IRS. The Commissioner is responsible for overall planning and for directing, controlling and evaluating IRS policies, programs, and performance.

And, third, it cancelled TO 150-01, and all the offices it had created.

18. CANCELLATIONS. Treasury Order 150-01, "Regional and District Offices of the Internal Revenue Service," dated September 28, 1995, is canceled. Treasury Order 150-02, "Establishment of Certain Offices in the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service," dated January 11, 1994, is superseded.

 After March 9th, 2001, the Commissioner ceased to have authority to operate offices outside the District of Columbia.  4 USC 72 says that all offices attached to the seat of the government are to be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as expressly provided otherwise by law.  It would take an Act of Congress for the Secretary or the Commissioner to open and operate offices outside the District, and no such act exists.  In point of fact, the Department of the Treasury is attached to the seat of the government, and the same law (4 USC 72) applies to the whole Treasury Department.  Before the 1939 repeal, there were collectors, attached to the legislative branch.  They were charged with the responsibility of collecting the revenue.  They were heavily bonded.  They were bound by sworn oath.  They had capacity to sue and be sued in the name of the United States.  They ceased to function with respect to calendar years after 1938, and would have soon run out of work.  They do not exist in the Code of 1954.  All executive power is vested in the President, and he is immune from lawsuits while in office, except for impeachments.  Put another way, the executive branch lacks capacity to sue, unlike the legislative branch and its officers.  Thus, neither the Secretary nor the Commissioner can carry out the functions of a tax collector, because whole executive branch of government lacks power to enforce laws by suing in the name of the United States, cannot be bonded, and are not bound by solemn oath to collect taxes according to law. 

History repeats itself.  The Act of 1939 repealed all the taxing statutes, but it was business as usual for the Bureau of Internal Revenue.  They continued to mail out tax returns for “tax year” 1939, 1940, and subsequent years, even though those years were not “tax years”.  Secretary O’Neill’s abolition of the outlying offices was probably 20 years overdue, as they were created originally to accommodate the dying 1939 Code.  The repealed laws codified in the 1939 Act might have had effects for 20 years or more after the repeal.  We all know a federal tax lien lasts for ten years, and is renewable for another 20.  Thus the savings provisions are the “heart” of the Act, providing special provisions for taxpayers and government alike to settle differences arising under the laws before their repeal.  TO 150-02 cancelled all the outlying offices, but nobody told the IRS.  They think they’re still in business.

3.  Phony Law, Phony Offices, Phony Seals

IRS, knowingly or otherwise, is guilty of misuse of Seals.  All the Seals prescribed by the Secretary for the use of Internal Revenue Offices and Officers are published at 26 CFR 301.7514-1 and in the Federal Register.  They are judicially noticeable.  The IRS cannot use the Commissioner’s Seal.  Before TO 150-02, there were nine seals, encircled with ropes, indicating maritime functions, and one seal without a rope for District offices.  There was one for the Commissioner, another for the Assistant Commissioner, International, one each for several Districts, including San Francisco and Las Vegas, and another for the Detroit Computing Center, and a generic seal without the rope for the 33 District and 4 Regional offices enumerated in TOI 150-01.  The seals with ropes do not contain the phrase “internal revenue service” or the word “Treasury” or the phrase “Treasury Department.”  They are all a light shield on a shaded background, with the name of the Office at the top and the location at the bottom.  The shield is a standard crest divided by a chevron, with a scale at the top and a key at the bottom.  The Commissioner’s seal says “Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue”, no address (he only has one).  The Assistant Commissioner’s says “Assistant Commissioner International” at the top, and “Washington, D. C.” at the bottom.  The San Francisco District Seal has “District Director of Internal Revenue” at the top, and “San Francisco, Calif.” at the bottom.  Las Vegas District Seal stands out, as it has a stylized eagle as its symbol, instead of the shield that appears on all the others. It says “District Director of Internal Revenue” at the top, and “Las Vegas Nevada” at the bottom.

The generic seal, prescribed for the 33 District and 4 Regional offices, is a white shield on a black background, with the words “Internal Revenue Service” at the top, and “[Office] [Location]” at the bottom.  I raise the issue of official seals, because the IRS never affixes any seal to any document, and does not use the proper seals or symbols on its letterhead or any of its publications.  An IRS “summons” for example, bears a circular seal at the top, and the Las Vegas eagle at the bottom.  The Las Vegas eagle is on all the Forms and Instructions.  The circular seal at the top of the “summons” has “Treasury” at the top, and “Internal Revenue Service” at the bottom.  Clearly, this use of a fraudulent symbol subjects the user to punishments provided at 31 USC 333, by making documents that have no legal authority seems as though they do.  Also the Las Vegas Eagle symbol is on all IRS Forms, Instructions, Publications, and Circulars.  Only the Las Vegas District Director could have used that symbol, until March of 2001, but now, no one can use it, because the Las Vegas District was a casualty of TO 150-02.  That leaves only the Seal of the Commissioner in place, pursuant to TO 150-02 and 301.7514-1 when read together. The Assistant Commissioner, who had a seal, was replaced by a Deputy Commissioner, the outlying offices were abolished, rendering the use of all the Seals but the Commissioner’s illegal.  All persons and printed publications illegally using the Seals or Symbols of the Treasury Department are in violation of 31 U.S.C. 333, and 18 U.S.C. section 1017.

I bring these matters to your attention, because it is only a matter of time before people start reading the laws for themselves, and discover what you folks, and your predecessors, have done, promoted, or simply permitted to happen.  You, directly or indirectly, have led the American people to believe lies about the law, promulgated or permitted by yourselves and those who carry out your orders.  President Truman had a sign in the Oval Office that said “the buck stops here”.  This whole mess is the responsibility of the President to admit to, and clean up under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution.  It is his appointees and employees who are perpetrating this hoax, and it is his duty to take care that the laws of the United States, made in pursuance of the Constitution, are faithfully executed. 

It is time for the President of the United States, Congress, and the Justices to “fess up” and admit that there is no “income tax law” codified in the Code of 1954, yet you have allowed us to believe, or promoted the notion, that the Code is real, honest-to-goodness law.  Even to this day, Congressmen continue to may their constituents letters in response to their tax questions assuring them that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the federal government to collect taxes on labor.  They tell this bald-faced lie in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has admitted many different time that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation" (see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)).  You must admit that the IRS is out of business, and that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner do not have constitutional power to collect taxes.  The Secretary is an accountant, not a cop.  The Congress is still the nation’s tax collector.  It just is not doing its job right now.  I believe that soon, the IRS will be gone, and with it the false belief that the people must pay tribute to the federal government through that instrumentality of injustice, or be ruined by it.  We seem to be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but the Constitution says you cannot tax people or their property directly.  Whether there ever was a tax on all the people or their activities or their property, if it was an “internal revenue law” the taxing statute no longer exists, and had no “force of law” after “tax year” 1938.

I am sending copies of this letter to everyone I know, in the hope that they will write similar ones to you, demanding accountability.  I expect that soon, the American people will become the squeaky wheel, to which you will be forced to listen.  I challenge you to disprove that all the official documents cited above, and my conclusions drawn from them, by providing me with the taxing statutes enacted between 1939 and 1954 that were codified in and underlie the “Code of 1954”. 

Please provide me with a considered response, within a reasonable time.  I am fed up with “the tax laws are constitutional” or other irrelevant assertions made by ignorant IRS employees or public officials.  If you can’t show me the taxing statute, then you must admit that we, as a nation, have a problem, and need to face it and work to get rid of it together.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.






Cc:  Your Bank, Employer,

Letter to Cc’s:

To Whom It May Concern;

I am attaching a letter I wrote to the President, Vice-President, and others in high office in Washington, D. C., that challenges the income tax, the authority of, and the very existence of, the Internal Revenue Service.  I offer it to you as a caveat.  Beware of being duped by IRS people.  They have no authority whatsoever.  The only legal office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenueare in the District of Columbia, and cannot be operated outside the District.  All the outlying offices were abolished in 2001. 

Please read through the letter carefully, and send it to any IRS office you believe has any authority over you to collect taxes for the Commissioner, in the District of Columbia.  Most of us operate on unfounded presumptions that the IRS has authority to collect taxes, or to compel others to collect taxes for it.  Chances are, may feel compelled because others told you that you are compelled, and not because you’ve actually read the law for yourself.   the letter came from an office that has been abolished, and the sender was not authorized to use the Treasury Name or any of its symbols.  You do not know who these people are.  

Letter to IRS.

I am attaching a copy of my letter to your employers.  I suggest you read it carefully, and retract your recent illegal letter.  You are obviously without an official position in the government.  It’s too bad your employers don’t tell you these things.

Thank you for your consideration.