William Cooper - HOTT Facts - Expose of IRS Fraudulent Racketeering

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 30 | Comments: 0 | Views: 634
of 272
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

HOTT - Crisis In Arizona

Crisis In Arizona
Cooper Family Targeted by Feds Daily Update

$10,000 REWARD Notice to Citizens
United States in default... it's the Law! Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the media in which they are printed. The United States including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the

Money Making and Asset Protection

http://www.williamcooper.com/crisisin.htm (1 of 3) [12/15/01 1:22:45 PM]

HOTT - Crisis In Arizona
Statistics for the WebSite program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States government computers including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States Military installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National Laboratory including, but not limited to, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.

The most important texts you will ever read in your life. They can set you free.

Public Judicial Notice Public Judicial Notice #2 Public Judicial Notice #3
These public notices will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed therein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed therein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. A true and correct copy of each of these Public Notices is on file with and available for inspection at the office of VERITAS national newspaper. These public notices address federal jurisdiction, federal authority, jurisdiction and authority of federal agents, the Constitutionality and lawful character of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies of the United States government including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code.

All the feds have to do to prove us wrong is to successfully rebut each and every item of these Public Judicial Notices. They will not because they cannot. We would never have refused to file and would never have challenged their jurisdiction and authority unless we were absolutely firm in the belief that we are RIGHT in the law. Every day that passes without a satisfactory rebuttal is a condemnation of the federal government. Help us put the dragon back in its cage. Can YOU tell us the law that makes YOU liable to file an income tax return? Can YOU define "gross income" in the law? Can YOU produce the "delegation of authority" that gives the IRS, or its agents, or its Criminal Investigation Division the power to investigate, audit, examine records, levy, seize, subpoena, arrest, and/or prosecute? Can YOU define the exact nature of the so-called income tax? If not, and YOU are filing and paying, then YOU are a coward, paying tribute to YOUR masters in a system ruled by fear and intimidation... it is called EXTORTION in the law... it is the work of criminals. Wake up America you've been had.

http://www.williamcooper.com/crisisin.htm (2 of 3) [12/15/01 1:22:45 PM]

HOTT - Crisis In Arizona

They Have NO Evidence!
We Are NOT Liable! IRS - NO Authority - NO Jurisdiction Internal Revenue Service
Home | The HOTT Shop | Hour of the Time | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Statement © 1999-2001, Excel Studios Corporation S.A. All rights reserved.

http://www.williamcooper.com/crisisin.htm (3 of 3) [12/15/01 1:22:45 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

WE WILL PAY YOU

IF YOU CAN PROVE THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE FALSE
We have conclusive proof that the following FACTS are
correct. That is why we can say - American citizens and permanent resident aliens, living and working within the States of the Union ARE NOT SUBJECT to the filing of an IRS Form 1040 and ARE NOT LIABLE for the payment of a tax on "income"!!! If this sounds odd to you, read on.

For YEARS, the Internal Revenue Service has RULED the
American people in a manner equal only to the Soviet KGB. FEAR and BLUFF and deception have been the IRS's major weapons. Americans have been led to believe that they "owe" an income tax on their earnings; that it is their "patriotic duty" to pay it, and there is no alternative to the IRS's abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth! Samuel Adams, the Father of the American Revolution cultivated and nurtured the theory of the English philosopher John Locke, that mankind needed no godlike mortal rulers to care for his every need. Locke and Adams believed that the common man was perfectly capable of ruling himself, was entitled to his property, and that property could only be taxed by government to pay for the legitimate cost
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (1 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

of government functions - the protection of life and property. Sam contended: If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. FEAR can only prevail when victims are ignorant of the FACTS. The Bible teaches that God's people perish for lack of knowledge.

THEREFORE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FACTS: FACT # 1: Our Founding Fathers created a constitutional
REPUBLIC as our form of government. The Constitution gives the federal/national government limited powers. ALL powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States respectively or to the People. The Union was created to be the servant of the people! The United States Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land. (Article VI, Clause 2.)

FACT #2: The Constitution gives the Congress the power to
lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the government. Provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States subject to the following rules pertaining only to the two classes of taxation permitted. 1. DIRECT TAXES, which are subject to the rule of apportionment among the states of the Union. 2. INDIRECT TAXES -- imposts, duties and excises, subject to the rule of uniformity.

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (2 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

FACT #3: The government does not allow either one of the
two classifications to tax CITIZENS or PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS of the United States of America, DIRECTLY. The intent of the Founders was to keep the government the servant and to prevent it from becoming the master. (See Article 1, section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.)

FACT #4: The CENSUS is taken every ten (10) years to
determine the number of representatives to be allotted to each State and the amount of a direct tax that may be apportioned to each State. This is determined by the percentage its number of representatives bears to the total membership in the House of Representatives. (Article 1, section 2, clause 3; Article 1, section 9, clause 4.)

FACT #5: It was established in the Constitutional
Convention of 1787 that the supreme Court of the United States would have the power of "judicial review". Which is the power to declare laws passed by the U.S. Congress to be null and void if such a law or laws was/were in violation of the Constitution. This was to be determined from the original intent as found in Madison's Notes recorded during the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the ratifying conventions found in Elliott's Debates.

FACT #6: Due to the characteristics of the SECOND
CLASSIFICATION of taxation, the Supreme Court called it an indirect tax and it is divided into three distinct taxes: IMPOSTS, DUTIES, and EXCISES. These taxes were intended to provide for the operating expenses of the government of the United States. (See Article 1, section 8, clause 1.)

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (3 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

FACT #7: Duties and imposts are taxes laid by government
on things imported into the country from abroad, and are paid at the ports of entry.

FACT #8: The supreme Court says that excises are...taxes
laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges. (See Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107 [1911].)

FACT #9: In 1862, Congress passed an Act (law) to create an
"Income Duty" to help pay for the War Between the States. A duty is an indirect tax, which the federal government cannot impose on citizens or residents of a State having sources of income within a State of the Union.

FACT #10: Congress passed an Act in 1894 to impose a tax
on the incomes of citizens and resident aliens of the United States. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged in 1895 and the Supreme Court said the law was Unconstitutional because it was a DIRECT TAX that was not apportioned as the Constitution required (See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 [1895].)

FACT #11: In 1909 Congress passed the 16th Amendment to
the Constitution that was allegedly ratified by 3/4 of the States; it is known as "The Income Tax Amendment".

FACT #12: Some officials within the Internal Revenue
"Service," along with professors, teachers, politicians and some judges, have said and are saying, that the 16th Amendment changed the United States Constitution to allow a DIRECT tax
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (4 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

without apportionment.

FACT #13: The above persons are not empowered to
interpret the meaning of the United States Constitution! As stated above (Fact #5), this power is granted by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, but limited to the original intent. The Supreme Court has no power to function as a "social engineer" to amend or alter the Constitution as they have been doing. A change or "amendment " can only be lawfully done according to the provisions of Article 5 of that document.

FACT #14: The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1916 that the
16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article 1, section 9, clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself. The Court also said that the 16th Amendment merely prevented the "income duty" from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation. (See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US, page 16.)

FACT #15: After the Supreme Court decision, the office of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued Treasury Decision [Order] 2313 (dated March 21, 1916; Vol. 18, JanuaryDecember, 1916, page 53.) It states in part; ...it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic change corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

FACT #16: In another Supreme Court decision in 1916, the
Court, in clear language settled the application of the 16th Amendment. By the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (5 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

that the provisions of the Sixteenth conferred no new power of taxation. Rather it simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary [full] power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged... (See Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US, 112.)

FACT #17: The United States Constitution gives the national
government the exclusive authority to handle foreign affairs. Congress has the power to pass laws concerning the direct or indirect taxation of foreigners doing business in the U.S. of A. It has possessed this power from the beginning, needing no "amendment" (change) to the U.S. Constitution to authorize the exercise of it.

FACT #18: The DIRECT classification of taxation was
intended for use when unforeseen expenses or emergencies arose. Congress, needing funds to meet the emergency, can borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article 1, section 8, clause 2). The Founding Fathers intended that the budget of the United States be balanced and a deficit be paid off quickly and in an orderly fashion. Through a DIRECT tax, the tax bill is given to the States of the Union. The bill is "apportioned" by the number of Representatives of each State in Congress; therefore, each State is billed its apportioned share of the DIRECT tax equal to the number of votes its Representatives could employ to pass the tax. How the States raise the money to pay the bill is not a federal concern (Article 1, section 2, and clause 3).

FACT #19: In the Brushaber and Stanton cases, the Supreme
Court said the 16th Amendment did not change income taxes to another classification. So, if the INCOME TAX is an indirect
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (6 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

EXCISE tax, then how is it applied and collected? According to the Supreme Court, "Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods." (Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US, 110.) QUESTION: If all RIGHTS come from GOD (citizens of the States retained all RIGHTS except those surrendered as enumerated in the United States Constitution), and PRIVILEGES are granted by government after application; THEN what is the PRIVILEGE that the "income tax" is applied against? ANSWER: As established in the U.S. Constitution, the federal government cannot directly tax a citizen living within the States of the Union. Citizens possess RIGHTS; these rights cannot be converted to PRIVILEGES by government. The only individuals who would not have these RIGHTS and liable to regulation by government are NONRESIDENT ALIENS doing business and working within the United States or receiving domestic source profits from investments, and United States citizens working in a foreign country and taxable under TREATIES between the two governments.

FACT #20: WITHHOLDING AGENTS withhold income
taxes. The only section in the Internal Revenue Code that defines this authority is section 7701(a)(16).

FACT #21: Withholding of money for income tax purposes,
according to section 7701(a)(16), is only authorized for sections:
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (7 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

1441 - NONRESIDENT ALIENS, 1442 - FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, 1443 - FOREIGN TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS, 1461 - WITHHOLDING AGENT LIABLE FOR WITHHELD TAX.

FACT #22: Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 1100
Organization and Staffing, section 1132.75 states: The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements...

FACT #23: The implementation of IRS Treasury Regulation
1.1441-5 is explained in Publication 515 on page 2, that "If an individual gives you [the domestic employer or withholding agent] a written statement, in duplicate, stating that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you may accept this statement and are relieved from the duty of withholding the tax.

FACT #24: The ONLY way a United States citizen or
permanent resident alien, living and working within a State of the Union can have taxes deducted from his/her pay, is by voluntarily making an application Form SS-5 to obtain a Social Security Number. Then by entering that number on an IRS Form W and signing it to permit withholding of "Employment Taxes" -"Form W Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate" (emphasis added). That is why the IRS pressures children to apply for a Social Security Numbers, and for employers to obtain the voluntary execution of Form W immediately from all those being hired. However, no federal law or regulation requires workers to have a Social Security Number or sign a Form W to
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (8 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:22 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

qualify for a job.

FACT #25: Karl Marx wrote in his COMMUNIST
MANIFESTO, ten planks needed to create a COMMUNIST state. The SECOND PLANK is A HEAVY OR PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX, second only to the ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

FACT #26: The attorney who successfully challenged the
Income Tax Act of 1894, Joseph H. Choate, recognized the communist hand in the shadows. He told the United States Supreme Court, "The act of Congress which we are impugning [challenging as false] before you is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic -- what shall I call them -- populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world".

FACT #27: The Supreme Court agreed; and Mr. Justice
Field wrote the Court's opinion, concluding with these statements in intensity and bitterness. Prophetic words: Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war growing.

NEED WE SAY MORE? FACT #28: Internal Revenue Code Section 6654(e)(2)(c)
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (9 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:23 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

(cited fully below) states:...no tax liability...if....the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year. IRS contends the success of the SELFASSESSMENT system depends on VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE -- EVIDENTLY SO! Just how much of the Communist Manifesto has become part of your daily life?

CONCLUSION OF FACTS: ALL RIGHTS come
from God. The United States Government can only exercise powers given to it by "We the People" through the U.S. Constitution. The "income tax" is an INDIRECT TAX. There is NO section of law in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 USC) making a CITIZEN or a RESIDENT working and living WITHIN A STATE OF THE UNION, LIABLE to pay the INCOME (indirect/excise/duty) TAX.

TIRED OF BEING CONNED & RAILROADED INTO PAYING TAXES WHICH YOU DO NOT OWE, TO BE SQUANDERED BY ARROGANT BUREAUCRATS?
You are invited to join in a national Fellowship with other Patriotic Americans whose only goal is to LEARN, REVIVE and PRESERVE our UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP was founded to disarm the IRS of its only actual weapon: FEAR. By standing together we can force these bureaucrats back within the confines of THE LAW...and arrest the wild rush toward PERPETUAL DEBT and a TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA. You can serve your country and NOT FEAR reprisals from
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (10 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:23 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

bureaucratic THUGS. The EDUCATION and INSURANCELIKE PROTECTION provided by the SAVE-A-PATRIOT FELLOWSHIP has been a constant thorn in the side of the IRS since 1984. Come join with others, who have learned how to combat the true TAX CRIMINALS! Email me for more information on the benefits of membership and copy of our membership newsletter Reasonable Action TODAY!

We encourage you to print and distribute these pages to your
family, friends, legislators and the PUBLIC AT LARGE. If you wish to learn more about these facts of law, you may wish to purchase any of our information resources . These resources are based on over 25 years of legal research.

Are you "self employed"? Did you know what the Internal Revenue Code says concerning filing quarterly estimated returns? Read below!
SEC. 6654. FAILURE BY INDIVIDUALS TO PAY ESTIMATED INCOME TAX. (e) Exceptions. Where tax is small amount. -- No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is less than $500. Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.--No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if: A. the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12
http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (11 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:23 PM]

$10,000 REWARD!

months. B. the individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year, and C. the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year. (emphasis added)

Thank You

Jim Deal
Exam Certified Independent Representative for the

Save A Patriot Fellowship
[The law says WHAT?! ] [They told the truth!! ] [HELP US HELP AMERICA! ] [ NEW VICTORY EXPRESS!! ] [ HELP US HELP AMERICA! ] [ Reasonable Action ] [ The Truth Behind the Income Tax! ] [ Products ] [ Social Security? ] [ Tax Basics 101 ] [ Just the Facts ] [ What is SAP ] [ UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ] [ GAO AUDITS THE IRS! ] [ Do you love America? How about the IRS? ] [ Why I did this site ]

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/10k.html (12 of 12) [12/15/01 1:23:23 PM]

Public Notice

Notice to Citizens
United States in default... it's the Law! Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the media in which they are printed. The United States including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the Statistics for the WebSite program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (1 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

government computers including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States Military installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National Laboratory including, but not limited to, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.

Public Judicial Notice
This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. A true and correct copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the newspaper responsible for publishing the instrument as legal notice. The memorandum addresses the character of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies of the Department of the Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code. 1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (T.O. No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321), and as will be demonstrated, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (2 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Treasury, Puerto Rico. The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In October, a criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico. In November, criminal complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United States district court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmondson, and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Kenney F. Moore, et al, 95 CR-129C). By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a “Bureau of Internal Revenue” is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2. Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate authority resides in or emanates from an office which was not legitimately created and/or ordained either by state or national constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943); where the state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (3 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR § 1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the United States Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional. Administration of the Act was subsequently moved offshore to Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration, and operation eventually merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Philippines, created by the Philippines provisional government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue)), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines). This line will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority. Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC §§ 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table). In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal Register, extending authority to the several States and the population at large, (1) to establish revenue districts within the several States, (2) extending authority of the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3) giving authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants within the several States, or (4) extending authority of any other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States. Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is convoluted in regulations, but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations pertaining to the Service and application of the Commissioner’s authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR § 601.101(a) provide a beginning-point:

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (4 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed... The fact that there are no regulations extending Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or Department of the Treasury authority to the several States (26 USC § 7802(a)), has greater clarity in the light of the general merging of functions between IRS and other agencies presently attached to the Department of the Treasury. The Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations for the Code at 26 CFR § 301.7805-1, with approval of the Secretary, but there are no cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, or even statute cite. In other words, there is no actual or effective delegation which vests the Commissioner with significant independent authority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATF, Customs or any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or affecting the several States and the population at large. The link between IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant as the tie with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, is through this door. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1940, Section 2, made the following change: § 2. Federal Alcohol Administration The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the members thereof, and the office of the Administrator are abolished, and their function shall be administered under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury.

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (5 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Again, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was declared unconstitutional in 1935, and the operation thereafter transferred off shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service in 1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division of the Internal Revenue Service, was seemingly separated from IRS (T.O. 120-01, June 6, 1972). In relevant part, the order reads as follows: 1. The purpose of this order is to transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under law relating to Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal Revenue Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein after referred to as the Bureau which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein referred to as the Director... 2. The Director shall perform the functions, exercise the powers and carry out the duties of the Secretary and the administration and the enforcement of the following provisions of law: A. Chapters 51 and 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as they relate to the commodity subject to tax under such chapters. B. Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52, 53. (emphasis added) Transfer of functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important where the instant matter is concerned as the only regulations published in the Federal Register applicable to the several States are under 27 CFR, Part 70 and other parts of this title relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms matters. However, the charade doesn’t end there. In Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC § 903), the original Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress in 1895, was abolished and merged under the Secretary of the
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (6 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Treasury. In a Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the Treasury used something of a slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, “The term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has been replaced with the term Internal Revenue Service.” Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing when it comes to administrative responsibility. However, the order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely operating with interchangeable hats. Therefore, definitions and designations applicable to one are applicable to the other. In definitions at 27 CFR § 250.11, the following provisions are found: Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part. In the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents, the Secretary, or the Department of the Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to all IRS and BATF departments, functions and personnel. In fact, it will be found that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to United States territorial jurisdiction exclusive of the several States and to imported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to firearms, munitions, etc., produced outside the several States and the first sale of imports. The two delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus far located tend to reinforce conclusions set out above. Treasury
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (7 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Department Order No. 150-42, dated July 27, 1956, appearing in at 21 Fed. Reg. 5852, specifies the following: The Commissioner shall, to the extent of the authority vested in him, provide for the administration of United States internal revenue laws in the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. On February 27, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 9571), Treasury Department Order No. 150-01 specified the following: The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world. To date only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as currently amended, have been located that specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States (District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.): 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to imported distilled spirits for governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions, and the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the United States and the several States. None of the three statutes extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within the several States. IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for International Development, and case law demonstrates that the true principals of interest are the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242; see 22 USCA § 286, et seq.). In other words, IRS seemingly provides collection services for undisclosed foreign
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (8 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the benefit of constitutional United States government operation. To date, IRS principals have failed to dispute the published Cooper/Bentson allegation that the agency, via these foreign principals, funded the enormous tank and military truck factory on the Kama River, Russia. The Internal Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect to the several States, is not registered to do business in the several States. 2. Preservation of Due Process Rights The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by statutory courts both of the United States and the several States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted uniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the several States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress’ Article IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate private international law under exclusively United States treaties on private international law, and both operate in the framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority of Department of Justice as representative of the “Central Authority” established by U.S. treaties on private international law at 28 CFR § 0.49; also, “conflict of law” as a subcategory to “statutes” in American Jurisprudence). However, this house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism, known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United States appellate courts and in public forum. In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently: [Sec. 7804(b)] (b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. -- Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (9 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law. The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Code. Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the general population or the legal profession. The statute set out above is easier to comprehend when references are consolidated. Further, the dependent clause “including trial by jury” relates to a constitutionally-assured right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location in the sentence. Finally, the matter of venue is important as “existing law” is constitutional and common law indigenous to the several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which extends to the several States, those who operate under color of law, engage in oppression, extortion, etc., are subject to the foundation law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of legislative jurisdiction. Citing “including trial by jury” preserves the full slate of due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several States. The example represents the class. Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus assessments as
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (10 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

well as collections, and (2) § 7804(b), unlike § 7433, does not presume that the complaining party is a “taxpayer”. Finally, there is 26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support for § 7804 where there are no regulations published in the Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations). Therefore, § 7804(b) preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for remedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable portions of § 7804(b) read as follows: Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered to impair any right, [including trial by jury], or remedy, [***], to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ... The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law. The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC § 2463, which stipulates that any seizure under United States revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject solely to disposition of courts of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment, seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment citizen-subject of the United States or a Citizen principal of one of the several States. Due process assurances in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate -administrative seizures without due process can be equated only to tyranny and barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1). (1) Rule I. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (11 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers. Even officers, agents and employees of United States agencies are assured due process where garnishment is concerned (5 USC § 5520a), so the notion that IRS has authority to execute garnishment and other seizures via the private sector without due process is clearly absurd. In the EnglishAmerican lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury under rules of the common law indigenous to the several States; the de jure people of America are not subject to admiralty or administrative tribunals. Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process as the Handbook for Revenue Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following: During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person of the taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass, assault and battery, conversion, etc. The provision acknowledges the Supreme Court decision in Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. 337 U.S. 682 (1949). In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts,
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (12 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

administrative seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life, liberty or property. 3. Current Internal Revenue Code & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same Consult 26 USC §§ 7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since, simply reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read § 7852(b) & (c), then read the balance of §§ 7851 & 7852 for best comprehension. The importance of making this connection rests on the fact that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely codification of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. There was no general income tax levied against the population at large in 1939 or since. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 incorporated the Social Security tax activated after 1936, was premised on the notion that working for federal government is a privilege. Income and related taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the current Internal Revenue Code have never been mandatory for anyone other than officers, agents and employees of the United States, as identified at 26 USC § 3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified at § 3401(d), particularized at 5 USC §§ 102 & 105. The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the Sixteenth Amendment, fraudulently promulgated in 1913, did not alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require all direct taxes to be apportioned among the several States (Constitution, Article I §§ 2.3 & 9.4). In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and numerous decisions since, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that for purposes of income tax, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are property, not income. In fact, returns from enterprise of common right are fundamental to all property, and the sanctity is preserved as a fundamental common law principle dating to signing of the Magna Charta in 1215.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (13 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

The nature of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR § 31.3101-1: “The employee tax is measured by the amount of wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936...” In other words, the wage is not the object, but merely the measure of the tax. This verbiage constitutes so much legalese in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service fall into the excise category was confirmed by the Comptroller General’s report following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). It is further suggested at 26 CFR § 106.401(a)(2), where the regulation concedes that, “The descriptive terms used in this section to designate the various classes of taxes are intended only to indicate their general character...” By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, cited above, it is found that the definition of “gross income” is still preserved in Section 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, thus cementing the link between the Code of 1939 and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 merely codified the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in Senate Committee On Finance and House Committee On Ways and Means reports No. H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which § 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked. Both reports stipulate that the current definition of “gross income” is intended to be constitutional. This intent is articulated at 26 CFR § 1.61-1(a): “Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law.” An “Act of Congress” is policy, not law, and per definition located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has only local application in the District of Columbia and other United States territories and insular possessions unless general application is manifestly expressed: Rule 54(c) -“‘Act of congress’ includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (14 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.” Where the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large, p. 3), the legislation is in fact styled, “An Act” “To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.” As demonstrated above, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are exempt from direct tax by fundamental law, and the regulation for the current Internal Revenue Code definition for “gross income” clearly articulates the fundamental law exemption. The exemption as it pertains to the several States is demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules (Index volume to the CFR, p. 751 of the 1995 edition): There are 26 CFR, Part 1 regulations listed for 26 USC §§ 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross income, but there is no 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26 USC § 63, the definition for taxable income. While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross income which is not taxable within the several States is of no consequence where the federal tax system is concerned. Further, on examination of 26 CFR § 1.62-1, pertaining to “adjusted gross income”, it is found that subsections (a) & (b) are reserved so the published regulation is incomplete, with “temporary” regulation § 1.62-1T serving as the current authority defining “adjusted gross income.” Temporary regulations have no legal effect. Definitions at § 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large (the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), make it clear that, (§ 3401(a)(A)), “a resident of a contiguous country who enters and leaves the United States at frequent intervals..,” is a
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (15 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of the several States included), and the exclusion from “wages” extends even to citizens of the United States who provide services for employers “other than the United States or an agency thereof” (§ 3401(a)(8)(A)). 4. The Employer or Agent is Liable Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, makes it perfectly clear who is “liable” for payment of Subtitles A & C taxes: SEC. 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS. In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control, receipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays the wages of an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, the Secretary of his delegate, under regulations prescribed by him, is authorized to designate such fiduciary, agent, or other person to perform such acts as are required by employers under this subtitle and as the Secretary or his delegate may specify. Except as may be otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to an employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary, agent, or other person so designated, but, except as so provided, the employer for whom such fiduciary, agent, or other person acts shall remain subject to the provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to employers. The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d): (d) TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (16 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

respect to such failure to deduct and withhold. These provisions from Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large comply with and verify liability set out at 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D in general. Further, territorial limits of application are made clear by the absence of regulations supporting 26 USC §§ 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes authorizing establishment of internal revenue districts and delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants. The fact that the liability falls to the “employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) and/or his agent, with no compensation for serving as “tax collector,” narrows the field to federal government entities as “employers” if for no other reason than the population at large is not subject to the edict of government officials. As a matter of course, government cannot compel performance where the general population is concerned. The subject class that has “liability” for Subtitles A & C taxes is the “employer” or his agent, fiduciary, etc., as specified above. The matter is further clarified in Sections 3403 & 3404 of Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large: SEC. 3403. LIABILITY FOR TAX. The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment. SEC. 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER. If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and withheld upon any wages may be made by any officer or employee of the United States, or of such State, Territory, or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be, having control of the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated for that purpose.

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (17 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

The territorial application, and limitation, is made clear by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: § 31.3121(3)-1 State, United States, and citizen. (a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa. (b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term “United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa. Definition of the terms “includes” and “including” located at 26 USC § 7701(c) provides the limiting authority which the above definitions, beyond constructive application, are subject to: (c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. -- The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. Two principles of law clarify definition intent: (1) The example represents the class, and (2) that which is not named is intended to be omitted. In the definition of “United States” and “State” set out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the transition of
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (18 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving the point. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts in the several States (26 USC § 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC § 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Department of the Treasury personnel (26 USC § 7802 & 7803). 5. Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax Here again, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is useful as it demonstrates that Subtitles A & C taxes do not have general application within the several States and to the population at large. The regulation for 26 USC § 1 refers to 26 CFR § 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is no regulation under 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the several States and the population at large. Further, there are no supportive regulations at all for 26 USC §§ 2 & 3, and of considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate income tax, 26 USC § 11, as applicable to the several States. Where the instant matter is concerned, regulations supporting 26 USC § 6321, liens for taxes, and § 6331, levy and distraint, are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is that Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations is exclusively under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration for Subtitle E and related taxes. There are no corresponding regulations for the Internal Revenue Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, which extend comparable authority to the several States and the population at large. The necessity of regulations being published in the Federal Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act, at 5 USC § 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at 44 USC § 1501 et seq. Of particular note, it is specifically set out at 44 USC § 1505(a), that when regulations are not published in the Federal Register, application of any given statute is exclusively to agencies of the United States and officers, agents and
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (19 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

employees of the United States, thus once again confirming application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated above. Further, the need for regulations is detailed in 1 CFR, Chapter 1, and where the Internal Revenue Service is concerned, 26 CFR § 601.702. The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as stated in California Bankers Ass’n. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974): Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone ... The government argues that since only those who violate regulations may incur civil and criminal penalties it is the regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and not the broad, authorizing language of the statute, which is to be tested against the standards of the 4th Amendment... Because there is a citation supporting these statutes applicable under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it is important to point out that, “Each agency shall publish its own regulations in full text,” (1 CFR § 21.21(c)), with further verification that one agency cannot use regulations promulgated by another at 1 CFR § 21.40. To date, no corresponding regulation has been found for 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, so until proven otherwise, IRS does not have authority to perfect liens or prosecute seizures in the several States as pertaining to the population at large. 6. Misapplication of Authority Regulations pertaining to seized property are found at 26 CFR § 601.326: Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to the personal property seized by officers of the Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (20 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended to be used, to violate certain Federal Laws; the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture; and the administrative sale or other disposition, pursuant to forfeiture, of such seized property other than firearms seized under the National Firearms Act and firearms and ammunition seized under title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968. For disposal of firearms and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, see 18 U.S.C. 924(d). For disposal of explosives under Title XI of Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c). The only other comparable authority thus far found pertains to windfall profits tax on petroleum (26 CFR § 601.405), but once again, application is not supported by regulations applicable to the several States and the population at large. Where the provision for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the key regulatory reference is at 26 CFR § 601.401(d)(4), and this application appears related to “employees” who work for two or more “employers”, receiving foreignearned income effectively connected to the United States. The option of filing a 1040 return for refund is mentioned in instructions applicable to United States citizens and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date has not been located elsewhere. Reference OMB numbers for § 601.401, listed on page 170, 26 CFR, Part 600-End, cross referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign application. The fact that 1040 tax return forms are optional and voluntary, with special application, is further reinforced by Delegation Order 182 (reference 26 CFR §§ 301.6020-1(b) & 301.7701). The Secretary or his delegate is authorized to file a Substitute for Return for the following: Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return); Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return); Form 2290 (Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles); Form CT-1 (Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return); Form 1065 (U.S. Partnership Return of Income); Form 11-B
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (21 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

(Special Tax Return - Gaming Services); Form 942 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return for Household Employees); and Form 943 (Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees). The “notice of levy” instrument forwarded to various third parties is not a “levy” which warrants surrender of property. The Internal Revenue Code, at § 6335(a), defines the “notice” instrument by use -- notice is to be served to whomever seizure has been executed against after the seizure is effected. In short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for action. The term “notice” is clarified by definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, and other law dictionaries. Use of the “notice of levy” instrument to effect seizure is fraud by design. Proper use of the “notice” process, administrative garnishment, et al, is specifically set out in 5 USC § 5514, as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees of agencies of the United States (26 USC § 3401(c)). Even then, however, the process must comply with provisions of 31 USC § 3530(d), and standards set forth in §§ 3711 & 3716-17. In accordance with provisions of 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the employer, meaning the United States agency the employee is employed by, is responsible for promulgating regulations and carrying out garnishment. Even if IRS was the agency responsible for collecting from an “employee,” due process would be required, as noted above, so authority to collect would ensue only after securing a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, which in the several States would mean a judicial court of the State. In law, however, there is no authority for securing or issuing a Notice of Distraint premised on non-filing, bogus filing, or any other act relating to the 1040 return. See United States v. O’Dell, Case No. 10188, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 1947. In G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that a judicial warrant for tax levies is necessary to protect against unjustified intrusions into privacy. The Court further held that forcible entry by IRS officials onto private premises without prior judicial authorization was also an invasion of
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (22 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

privacy. 7. Liability Depends on a Taxing Statute General demands for filing tax returns, production of records, examination of books, imposition and payment of tax, etc., are of no consequence to the point a taxing statute (1) defines what tax is being imposed, and (2) the basis of liability. In other words, even if the Internal Revenue Service was a legitimate agency of the United States Department of the Treasury and had authority in the several States, the Service would have to be specific with respect to what tax was at issue and would have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute with the necessary elements to establish that any given person was obligated to pay any given tax. This mandate has been clarified by the courts numerous times, with the matter definitively stated by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797, at p. 800 (1964): Without question, a taxing statute must describe with some certainty the transaction, service, or object to be taxed, and in the typical situation it is construed against the Government. Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.858 In other words, to the point Service personnel produce the statute which mandates a certain tax and which specifies, “... the transaction, service, or object to be taxed..,” the burden of proof lies with the Government, with the consequence being that no obligation or civil or criminal liability can ensue to the point a taxing statute that meets the above requirements is in evidence. This conclusion is supported by the statute which provides the underlying requirements for keeping records, making statements, etc., located at 26 USC § 6001: Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (23 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employee shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a). The control statute for Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part I, concerning records, statements, and special returns, clearly returns the matter to the “employee” defined at § 3401(c), and the “employer” defined at § 3401(d). In general, however, (1) the Secretary must provide direct notice to whomever is required to keep books, records, etc., as being the “person liable,” or (2) specify the person liable by regulation. In the absence of notice by the Secretary, based on a taxing statute which makes such a person liable according to provisions stipulated in United States v. Community TV, Inc., Hassett v. Welch, and other such cases, or regulations which specifically set establish general liability, there is no liability. Sec. 6001 also exempts “employees” from keeping records except where tips and the like are concerned. This is consistent with constructive demonstration that “employers” rather than “employees” are required to file returns, as opposed to paying deducted amounts as income tax returns, constructively demonstrated in a previous section of this memorandum and specifically articulated in 26 CFR § 601.104. Clarification via 26 USC § 6053(a) is as follows: (a) REPORTS BY EMPLOYEES. -- Every employee who, in the course of his employment by an employer, receives in any calendar month tips which are wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or section 3401(a)) or which are compensation (as defined in
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (24 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

section 3231(e)) shall report all such tips in one or more written statements furnished to his employer on or before the 10th day following such month. Such statements shall be furnished by the employee under such regulations, at such other times before such 10th day, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed by the Secretary. Unraveling § 6001 straightens out the meaning of § 6011, which requires filing returns, statements, etc., by the person made liable (§ 3401(d)), as distinguished from the person required to make returns (payments) at § 6012 (§ 3401(c)). Even though a person might be a citizen or resident of the United States employed by an agency of the United States, and thereby be required to return a prescribed amount of United States-source income, he is not the person liable under § 6011 and attending regulations. The “method of assessment” prescribed at 26 USC § 6303 is therefore dependent on the taxing statute and must rest on authority specifically conveyed by a taxing statute which prescribes liability where the Secretary (1) has provided specific notice, including the statute and type of tax being imposed, or (2) supports assessment by regulatory application. In the absence of one or the other, an assessment by the Secretary is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating. The requirement for the Secretary to provide notice to whomever is responsible for collecting tax, keeping records, etc., is clarified at 26 CFR § 301.7512-1, particularly (a)(1)(i), relating to “employee tax imposed by section 3101 of chapter 21 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act),” and (a)(1)(iii), relating to “income tax required to be withheld on wages by section 3402 of chapter 24 (Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages)...” The person liable is the employer or the employer’s agent, and of particular significance, it is this “person” who is subject to civil and particularly criminal penalties (26 CFR § 301.7513-1(f); 26 CFR §§ 301.7207-1 & 301.7214-1, etc.). Officers and employees of the United States are specifically identified as being liable at 26 USC § 301.7214-1.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (25 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

The matter of who is required to register, apply for licenses, or otherwise collect and/or pay taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code is ultimately and finally put to rest under “Licensing and Registration”, 26 USC §§ 301.7001-1, et seq. Each of the categories so addressed has liability based on some particular taxing statute which creates liability. 8. The Necessity of Administrative Process The requirement for a specific taxing statute, with 26 USC § 6001 clearly providing the first leg in necessary administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at length in Rodriguez v. United States, 629 F.Supp.333 (N.D. Ill. 1986). Presuming (1) the Secretary has provided the necessary notice, or (2) a regulation prescribes general application which makes any given person liable for a tax and requires tax return statements to be filed, each step in administrative process prescribed by 26 USC §§ 6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must be in place for seizure or any other encumbrance to be legal. Here again, regulations published in the Federal Register are significant, with provisions of 5 USC § 552 et seq., 44 USC § 1501 et seq., 1 CFR, Chapter I, and 26 CFR, Part 601 all supporting the mandate for regulations to be published in the Federal Register before they have general application. It will be noted by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, that application by regulation to the several States is only under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or that there are no regulations published in the Federal Register. The following entries, or non-entries, are found: 26 USC § 6201 Assessment authority 27 CFR, Part 70 26 USC § 6212 Notice of deficiency No Regulation 26 USC § 6213 Restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court No Regulation 26 USC § 6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR,
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (26 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Part 53, 70 26 USC § 6331 Levy and distraint 27 CFR, Part 70 The assessment authority under 26 USC § 6201, in relevant part as applicable to Subtitles A & C taxes, are as follows: (a) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. -- The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquires, determination, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following: (1) TAXES SHOWN ON RETURN. -- The secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title. (3) ERRONEOUS INCOME TAX PREPAYMENT CREDITS. -- If on any return or claim for refund of income taxes under subtitle A there is an overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the source, or of the amount paid as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or clerical error appearing upon the return, except that the provisions of section 6213(b)(2) (relating to abatement of mathematical or clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard to any assessment under this paragraph. (b) AMOUNT NOT TO BE ASSESSED. -- (1) ESTIMATED INCOME TAX. -No unpaid amount of estimated income tax required to be paid under section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed. (2) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAX. -- No unpaid amount of Federal unemployment tax for any calendar quarter or other period of a calendar year, computed as provided in section 6157, shall be assessed. (d) DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS. -- For special rules applicable to deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and certain excise
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (27 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

taxes, see subchapter B. [emphasis added] The grant of assessment authority with respect to taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C is limited to provisions set out above even where the Service might have authority relating to those made liable for the tax, meaning the “employer” specified at 26 USC § 3401(d). Clearly, returns made either by the agent of the United States agency required to file a return, or the Secretary, are to be evaluated mathematically, and errors are to be treated as clerical errors, nothing more. The Secretary has no authority to assess estimated income tax (individual estimated income tax at § 6554; corporation estimated income tax at § 6655), or unemployment tax ( § 6157). For all practical purposes, the trail effectively ends here. 9. The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election In order for there to be an opportunity for a nonresident alien of the United States (a Citizen of one of the several States) to elect to be taxed or treated as a citizen or resident of the United States, one or the other of a married couple, or the single “individual” making the election, must be a citizen or resident of the United States (26 USC § 6013(g)(3)). Some party must in some way be connected with a “United States trade or business” (performance of the functions of a public office (26 USC § 7701(a)(26)). A nonresident alien never has self-employment income (26 CFR § 1.1402(b)-1(d)). In the event that a nonresident alien is an “employee” (26 USC § 3401(c)), the “employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) is liable for collection and payment of income tax (26 CFR § 1.1441-1). And in order for real property to be treated as effectively connected with a United States trade or business by way of election, it must be located within the geographical United States (26 USC § 871(d)). Provisions cited above preclude any and all legal authority for Citizens of the several States, or privately owned enterprise located in the several States, to participate in federal tax and benefits programs prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code and companion legislation such as the Social
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (28 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Security Act which provide benefits from the United States Government, which is a foreign corporation to the several States. Summary & Conclusion This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely sufficient to support causes set out separately. The most conspicuous conclusions of law are that Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the predecessor of the Internal Revenue Service; Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code prescribe excise taxes, mandatory only for employees of United States Government agencies; the Internal Revenue Service, within the geographical United States where the Service appears to have colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to seizing or encumbering assets; and the law demonstrates that people of the several States, defined as nonresident aliens of the self-interested United States in the Internal Revenue Code, cannot legitimately elect to be taxed or treated as citizens or residents of the United States. If a Citizen of one of the several States works for an agency of the United States or receives income from a United States “trade or business” or otherwise effectively connected with the United States, the employer or other third party responsible for payment is made liable for withholding taxes at the rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification, and is thus “the person liable” and may be subject to Internal Revenue Service initiatives, with administrative initiatives, where seizure and/or encumbrance actions are concerned, subject to judicial determinations by courts of competent jurisdiction. Under penalties of perjury, per 28 USC § 1746(1), I attest that to the best of my knowledge and understanding, all matters of law and fact presented herein are accurate and true. Dan Meador William Cooper

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (29 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Cooper Family Targeted Home

Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised:December 16, 1999.

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnote.htm (30 of 30) [12/15/01 1:24:02 PM]

Public Notice

Notice to Citizens
United States in default... it's the Law! Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the media in which they are printed. The United States including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the Statistics for the WebSite program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (1 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

government computers including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States Military installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National Laboratory including, but not limited to, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.

Public Judicial Notice #2
Judicial notice is hereby served by affiants upon the United States any other interested party named within. This public notice will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This public notice includes all information which will be found by following the links on this page and by following the links found on any page that is linked from this page. A true and correct copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the office of VERITAS national newspaper and at the office of Harvest Trust. This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction, federal authority, jurisdiction and authority of federal agents, the Constitutionality and lawful character of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies of the United States government including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code. Any statements or claims made by the Affiants in this public notice, properly rebutted by facts of Law, or by overriding Constitution for the United States of America, Article Three, Supreme Court rulings, shall not prejudice the Lawful validity of other claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (2 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

of Law. This public notice has been published on this WebPages for more than three days which fulfills the legal requirement under the law in accordance to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending rules of the State of Arizona. This public notice is mirrored on three websites in addition to this website. It appears that we, William and Annie Cooper, have been targeted for imprisonment or extermination by the federal government and the Anti Defamation League (ADL) for documenting and sourcing the truth about the tyranny and despotism of the Illuminati's coming socialist totalitarian new world order. We have worked feverishly since 1988 documenting and sourcing the facts of the treason being brought about by the Illuminati's socialist change agents in government, and through the activities of Secret Societies and organizations such as the subversive Anti Defamation League. We are not criminals. Everything we have ever done has been in good faith and with reasonable cause. We are not afraid. We will not run and hide. We will continue to oppose evil whenever and wherever we find it. We will stand and fight whomever or whatever assault they may mount against us. I first learned of the treason taking place in this country (and around the world) when I discovered the plan named "MAJESTYTWELVE" while a member of the Intelligence Briefing Team and Petty officer of the watch in the command center of Admiral Bernard Clarey who at that time was the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. The plan outlined the implementation of all of the planks of the Communist Manifesto which began with the graduated so-called Income Tax administered by the fiction known as the Internal Revenue Service, the disarmament of the American People through laws instigated by a series of "terrorist" acts, the formation of a world police force made up of the United Nations force known as NATO combined with the military forces of the United States and the members of the United Nations force known as the "Warsaw Pact" which plan is outlined in State Department Publication 7277. It documented the intent to
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (3 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

demonize and target Patriots and so-called "tax protestors" through "Project Trojan Horse"... and much much more. We have been documenting and sourcing the facts of this plan since 1988 through my book "Behold A Pale Horse", my radio broadcast "Hour Of The Time," in our full size national newspaper "VERITAS", "Oklahoma City: Day One," and in lectures and speaking engagements throughout the nation and the world. The accuracy of MAJESTYTWELVE and our research is reflected in the fact that since 1988 I have made over 150 predictions of future world events and have only been wrong once. The Illuminati's Rush Limbaugh read a White House memo that stated, "William Cooper is the most dangerous radio host in America" on his socalled Excellence In Broadcasting Network in 1995 following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It was an cowardly effort to redirect the socialist attack on so-called "right wing" radio hosts away from Limbaugh and onto me, William Cooper, while touting himself as "the most dangerous radio host in America." My FBI record, which was initiated by the investigation required by my Secret security clearance while in the U.S. Air Force, and my Top Secret Q (SI) security clearance while in the U.S. Navy, was one of those found in possession of the White House during the scandal known as "Filegate". President Clinton ordered that all agencies of government begin an investigation naming us enemies of the administration and "domestic terrorists". Since when is telling the truth terrorism in this country? After publication of my book "Behold A Pale Horse", 14 issues of VERITAS which exposed, documented, and sourced the facts of the treason and the fraud of the so-called income tax administered by the so-called IRS, a series of 8 broadcasts exposing the Anti Defamation League as a criminal and subversive organization , and our publication of the scathing expose "Oklahoma City: Day One" by Michele Marie Moore, the government and
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (4 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

the ADL ordered their puppets to go after us with the intent of shutting us up for good. U.S. Attorney Janet Reno, the butcher of Waco, ordered the Nazi Gestapo to go after us which immediately launched investigations by the FBI, IRS, Financial Crimes Network, and many others. Reno ordered her Phoenix based puppet U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano to shut us up. Our investigation demonstrates that Janet Reno, Phoenix based United States Attorney Janet Napolitano, Assistant United States Attorney Stephan Winerip and Special Agent Frank Shupnik, and possibly Judge Irwin are members or supporters of the ADL. Shupnik and Winrip have been the most persistent and subversive of the Law in their relentless persecution of this family. Since my Honorable Discharge from the United States Navy on December 11, 1975 I have engaged myself in research to discover if the information regarding the federal income tax that I had seen in MAJESTYTWELVE could be documented. Of all the subjects that I have researched over the years, the unconstitutionality and unlawful application of the federal income tax by the bogus and unconstitutional Internal Revenue Service to the People domiciled within the territorial boundaries of the union states outside of the Constitutional and lawful jurisdiction and authority of the United States government turned out to be the easiest to document and source. I immediately understood that the income tax is "private law" fraudulently and unconstitutionally applied to the Citizens of the States of the union and others. This becomes obvious when you begin to understand that "tax courts" are not authorized in the constitution and so must be extra-judicial private courts or subversive unconstitutional courts engaged in treasonous activities against the Citizens of the States of the union. It appears that the Citizens of the States of the union are fraudulently brought under the income tax laws through contracts to which they did not wittingly or willingly subscribe. Any contract where full disclosure of all terms of the contract has not been made to all parties thereto are frauds and are null and void upon their inception but most certainly upon discovery of the fraud.

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (5 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

We have discovered the fraud and hereby serve judicial notice of our discovery. We DEMAND the Internal Revenue Service disclose any and all agreements, contracts, adhesions, laws, regulations, or statutes which make us liable to file and/or pay the so-called income tax. We demand the Internal Revenue Service disclose the true nature of the legal fiction which the IRS contends is us. When the government began its investigation (persecution) of this family we were noticed by Special Agent Frank Shupnik (no summons) to present ourselves and all our financial records at a meeting to be held between him and us in Phoenix, Arizona... we refused. Compulsory Production of Documents: This brief explains the operation of the Fifth Amendment in reference to producing personal books and records to an agency of the government. Ours and other's legal research, and information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that the federal government and its agents have no authority whatsoever to conduct such an investigation. In fact it once again confirmed that the federal government has no authority or federal jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries of any state of the union whatsoever except on property purchased by the government where jurisdiction has lawfully been ceded to the federal government by the state legislature, and over only those specific crimes enumerated in the Constitution for the united States of America. There is only one exception and that is extraterritorial jurisdiction brought about by treaties with foreign nations such as the Crown of England. We are not citizens of any foreign government. We are not subjects of the Crown of England or Great Britain. We are not subjects of the Queen of England or Great Britain. My research was confirmed with the following: "The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (6 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of a state is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction." - Supreme Court Justice Fields "It is a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281. And then this by the Supreme Court of New York: The Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefore had not been ceded to the United States: "To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not, the offence committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state." The IRS makes it own rules (constitutes unconstitutional legislative action) but the Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Enforcement Activities and Investigative Techniques admits no agent of the United States government has any authority or jurisdiction to serve a summons or arrest warrant anywhere other than "within the jurisdiction of the United States": "[10.3.1.1] 7.2.3 (10/01/96) "Service and Return
1.

"An arrest warrant can be executed by a federal marshal or by some other officer authorized by law. The summons may be served by any

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (7 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

person authorized to serve a summons in a civil action; however, Inspectors should make every effort to serve their own summonses. The arrest warrant can be executed, and the summons served, at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States. (Emphasis in red mine) I discovered that the Internal Revenue Service is NOT an agency of the Department of the Treasury or the federal government. It is not listed as required by law in the United States Code under the organization of the Department of the Treasury nor is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, or the Secret Service, nor are any of these bogus agencies listed in the United States Code as agencies of any other branch of government. These agencies are in fact fictions. The United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company while ruling that the income tax is an excise (indirect tax) included as a part of its ruling that the federal income tax is VOID because Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the Secretary of the Treasury to write the Law concerning the administrative and enforcement procedures. It was a blatant and unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers and in any case the Constitution does not grant Congress the ability to delegate its powers to anyone or anything or any entity. The IRS, BATF, the Secret Service, and all of their administrative rules, regulations, and enforcement powers were created unconstitutionally by the stroke of a pen of a Department of the Treasury employee. That is why there is so much subterfuge and so many lies involved in the administration and enforcement of the tax by the so-called Internal Revenue Service. Uncertainty of the Law: American courts have failed to identify what is the nature of the income tax. This uncertainty of the constitutional classification of this form of taxation presents a monumental due process problem for the American people. Members of Congress should be informed of this uncertainty of the law which they did not create. On January 8, 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans who
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (8 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

refuse to pay their income taxes because they sincerely believe that the tax law is unconstitutional COULD NOT be convicted of willful tax evasion! According to Justice Byron White "someone's good faith belief that a federal tax on his or her wages is unlawful, would not make that person guilty of a crime requiring willful action, no matter how unreasonable that persons belief". Even if the income tax were Constitutional it is misapplied to the Citizens of the States of the union except where the IRS can prove that a Citizen has contracted, with full disclosure by the IRS to that Citizen of all terms and liabilities of that contract, to make him or herself liable. American Legacy Resources wrote one of the best explanations of what the income tax is and what it is not. Visit their Taxation Supplement for a mind expanding experience. Another extremely educational site is called Taxgate. Once you begin to understand how badly you have been defrauded, cheated, and extorted you will never be able to return to sheopledom. Using our Rights guaranteed by Article One of the first ten amendments known as the "Bill Of Rights" to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press and acting as the Constitutional and Lawfully constituted unorganized Militia of the State of Arizona and the united States of America we published several stories revealing the results of our research into the history of, and the Law concerning, the IRS. We also published a lawful "Public Notice" in issues #14, 15, and 16 of VERITAS national newspaper which enumerated certain facts discovered in Dan Meador's and my research. The law allows us to presume the content of the Public Notice to be "presumed facts" since neither IRS or the United States government has ever denied any of the facts thus presented. In light of the above we filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which specifically require us to file and pay the so-called income tax... they could not and did not produce any such documentation but sent me a copy of an old 1040 which I had filed before I mustered the guts to stop
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (9 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

filing based upon the information I had seen in MAJESTYTWELVE and from my research which verified that the tax is a criminal fraud. The implication was that the 1040s which I had filed in the past was their only authority. In other words I had signed the form stating that I was a "taxpayer". The interpretation of the IRS was that since I had filed previously it was an admission that I was required to file. Hitler would have loved their reasoning. When we filed we filed either by honest mistake because we had not yet discovered the fraud or because of fear and intimidation which is called extortion. Fraud and extortion are criminal acts under the law. When we discovered the fraud we declared all contracts and signatures past, present, and future, which might make us liable to the fraud to be null and void due to fraud. We also filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which gave the IRS the authority to conduct an investigation of a Citizen of Arizona. The IRS could not, and did not, produce any such documentation. We noticed Special Agent Shupnik and Assistant U.S. Attorney Winerip to produce their credentials and documentation of their authority to conduct such an investigation... they refused because they could not as no such documents exists. We learned of an secret agreement between the individual states of the union and the IRS. We obtained an unredacted copy and found that it is an agreement granting jurisdiction to the IRS to require federal employees who are state Citizens and residents of the states to file and pay the so-called federal income tax. No cession of jurisdiction over these people was granted by the state legislature as required by Law. If the so-called Internal Revenue Service has the jurisdiction and authority to require Citizens and residents of the states to file and pay the so-called income tax why do they have to have an special secret agreement between the IRS and the states to tax their federal employees who live and work outside the jurisdiction and authority of the United States government? We filed suit against the United States government, the IRS, Attorney
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (10 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

General Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Janet Napolitano, and others, demanding the court simply order the defendants to either produce the documentation that allows the IRS to tax and/or investigate a Citizen of any state of the union or admit that no such documentation exists, and several other points of Law. The suit has been active for almost three years and the federal judge has refused to order the defendants to obey the law and produce their authority or admit that it does not exist. The attorney for defendants, Katz (another ADL member) has slipped up and admitted in documents that he/she filed in this case that no such documentation (thus no such authority) exists in the Phoenix District. This suit is still awaiting adjudication in United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona. The government and the ADL wants us in prison or dead before the judge is forced to rule in our favor as he must if he obeys the Law. Recent experience tells us that the courts have been corrupted and the law is frequently ignored. Pro Se litigants are all but ignored by federal judges who pass the cases to clerks to handle. Upon discovery that U.S. District Court in Phoenix is an Article I Court we withdrew our suit against defendants for the reason that Title I Courts have no jurisdiction over Citizens of the Union States. Only Article III Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction in cases concerning Citizens of Union States. We cannot find an Article III Court existing anywhere in the united States of America. We have not committed any crime; but on June 18, 1998 a United States Marshall came to the Trust Headquarters in Eagar, Arizona to serve a summons for criminal trial in U.S. District Court in Phoenix Arizona on "legal fictions". We told him that we are not the legal fictions named in the summons and ordered him off the Trust property. I told him he was trespassing and that he had no federal jurisdiction or authority within the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona. He knew I was right and obeyed me without serving the papers thus proving me right. Since no legal fictions can be found at our Trust Headquarters and domicile
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (11 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

and since no service was made the Court can take no action if the Court obeys the Law. As we discovered with Waco, Ruby Ridge, and other federal atrocities the federal Courts seldom obey the Law. The Marshall told me that if the legal fictions named in the summons did not appear in federal Court in Phoenix, Arizona on July 1, 1998 a warrant will be issued for OUR arrest. We will not appear as we are not the legal fictions named in the summons, the court has no jurisdiction or authority over us domiciled within the territorial boundaries of the State of Arizona, and we will not allow an unconstitutional arrest to occur. As members of the Constitutional and Lawfully constituted unorganized Militia of the State and of the united States of America we have the Right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Arizona to keep and bear arms in defense of our property, ourselves, the State of Arizona, and the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore we have not only the Right but the duty to stand and fight the federal Gestapo with all the means at our disposal and any assault which may be mounted upon our property or upon us. Our children will remain with us. They are not shields, as our enemies will claim, any more than children have been shields for families which have been attacked by despotism throughout history. Allowing our children to disappear into the immoral and destructive government child care and foster home industry run by the mind controlling bogus Psychology profession only to be abused and sexually assaulted for many years is a fate worse than death, and we simply will not allow such a thing to happen to our precious little girls. The federal and/or State government have no jurisdiction or authority of kidnap our children for any reason whatsoever. The people who have infiltrated our government and are destroying it from within are morally bankrupt and in fact are Nazi jack booted thugs of the worst SS Hitler storm trooper type. They have no ethics, morals, or respect for life, property, religion, or the Law. The Nazis were socialists and socialists are Nazis. Socialists are in complete control of the government of
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (12 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

the united States of America today. We are not anti-government, radical, fundamentalist, crazy, suicidal, criminals, child molesters, bank robbers, child abusers, tax protestors, wife beaters, husband beaters, drug users, drug dealers, drug growers, drug stockpilers, revolutionaries, subversives, terrorists, white supremicist, racists, anti-Semitic, or any other demonizing label that may be applied. We do not have illegal weapons, hand grenades, bombs, missiles, tanks, machine guns, anti-tank rockets, anti-aircraft weapons or any other demonized instrument of any type whatsoever. And our Trust Headquarters and domicile is NOT a compound. We are intelligent law abiding reasonable People who have drawn our line in the sand. Our enemy will attempt to demonize us in order to obtain the public's permission to murder our whole family just as they did the Weaver family and the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas. I never thought I would hear so-called Christians whose ancestors fled the old world to escape religious persecution say, "The Branch Davidians deserved what they got... they were just a bunch of religious fanatics," but I heard so-called Christians say it over and over and over again. If we are found dead it will NEVER be because we committed suicide. It will be cold blooded murder, just as they did at Ruby Ridge, The World Trade Center, Waco, and Oklahoma City. We are pro-government, lawful government, lawful Constitutional Republican government as guaranteed to us in the Constitution for the United States of America. We know what the government is and what it is not. We know that the Constitution for the united States of America constitutes the lawful government and anything or anyone outside its strictures, limits, and powers is operating unlawfully and are in fact outlaws. We know that the Constitution was not penned by a bunch of dottering old men who did not understand the complexities of the modern age over two
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (13 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

hundred years ago. The Constitution was produced by the greatest collection of geniuses who have ever lived. It is the LIVING Supreme Law of our country. It provides within the document itself the provisions for us to make any changes that we may deem necessary. Only a very few changes (Amendments) have ever been made. Those changes or deletions wished for by the socialist/communist Illuminati have been rejected by the American People. I have served my government all my life. I have been a member of the United States Air Force and the United States Navy. I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam war. I fought as a River Patrol Boat Captain in Vietnam earning medals with the "V" for Valor. I took an Oath to, "support and defend the Constitution for the united States of America against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC." I intend to fulfill that Oath until the day I die... and after, if that is possible. What we have included here is by not to be construed to be the entirety of our legal position. The Affiants hereby give the government agents, to whom this public notice is directed, twenty (20) calendar days from the date that this public notice is published on these WebPages to respond to this public notice. All responses to this affidavit must be designated for delivery EXACTLY as prescribed below, without omitting any parentheses. Otherwise, any attempted correspondence with the Affiant will be returned to the sender, "Refused for Fraud." William Cooper All Rights Reserved (c/o Independence Trust, P.O. Box 1462, Lakeside, (de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (14 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of (40351) Annie Cooper All Rights Reserved (c/o Independence Trust, P.O. Box 1462, Lakeside, (de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of (40351) The Affiants now affixe Affiants' signatures to all of the above affirmations with explicit reservation of all of Affiants' unalienable Rights without prejudice to any of those Rights. I William, Cooper. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America that the foregoing public notice is, to the best of William, Cooper's Knowledge, belief, understanding and information, true, correct certain and complete. In God we trust. This public notice was published to this WebPages on June 28, 1998. Further the Affronts sayeth naught. (signed) William, Cooper Annie, Cooper - Affiants Dorothy Cooper and Allyson Cooper minor children of Affiants

Anti Defamation League

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (15 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Communist Manifesto Compulsory Production of Documents Department of State Publication 7277 Federal Jurisdiction Federal Income Tax VOID - Administrative Powers Unconstitutional Hour Of The Time Illuminati Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Internal Revenue Service MAJESTYTWELVE NATO Oklahoma City Bombing Oklahoma City: Day One Plot Thickens Project Trojan Horse Public Judicial Notice #2

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (16 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

Public Notice

Public Judicial Notice #3 Secret Societies Subversive Organizations Taxation Supplement Taxgate Uncertainty of the Law Veritas

Home
Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised: December 16, 1999 .

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot2.htm (17 of 17) [12/15/01 1:24:40 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Notice to Citizens
United States in default... it's the Law! Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the media in which they are printed. The United States including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the Statistics for the WebSite program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (1 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

government computers including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States Military installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National Laboratory including, but not limited to, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.

Public Judicial Notice Public Judicial Notice #2

Public Judicial Notice #3
Posted at 2:10 p.m. PDT July 7, 1998. No changes or corrections will be made.

Notice, Contract, Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit, Demand, and Jurisdiction Challenge

To IRS - Put up or shut up!
We give the Internal Revenue Service 20 Calendar days to respond.

$10,000 REWARD
This Notice, Contract, Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit, Demand, and Jurisdiction Challenge addresses federal jurisdiction, federal authority, jurisdiction and authority of federal agents, the Constitutionality and lawful character of the income tax, the Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (2 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

of the United States government including but not limited to the Department of the Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code. It will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut within 20 calendar days any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted within 20 calendar days, will be construed to have general application. In federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction." "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem. Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308. All interested parties must make rebuttals to the address contained in item #146 below. A true and correct signed copy of this document is on file with and available for inspection at the office of VERITAS national newspaper. Interested parties can obtain a certified copy by sending a BLANK $50 postal money order to: VERITAS, c/o P.O. Box 1450, Eagar, Arizona 85925

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (3 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Notice, Contract, Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit, Demand, and Jurisdiction Challenge Know all Men and Women by these presents de jure, union state ) of Arizona ) ) Ss. Affidavit of Fact ) Apache County ) Whereas: The Eternal and Unchanging Principles of the Laws of commerce are: 1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved. 2. In commerce, Truth is Sovereign. 3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit 4. An undisputed Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce. 5. An undisputed Affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce. 6. An Affidavit of Fact, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied: I. through a Rebuttal Affidavit of Fact, point for point; II. by payment; III. by agreement; IV. by resolution by a jury according to the rules of Common Law; 7. A worker is worthy of his hire; 8. All are equal under the Law. The foundation of Commercial Law is based upon certain eternally just, valid, moral precepts and truth, which have remained unchanged for at least
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (4 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

six thousand (6,000) years, having its roots in Mosaic Law. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization, if not all Nations, Law and Commerce in this world. Commercial Law is non-judicial and is prior and superior to the basis of and cannot be set aside or overruled by the statutes of any governments, Legislatures, Quasi-Governmental Agencies, Courts, Judges, and Law Enforcement Agencies, which are under an inherent obligation to uphold said Commercial Law. Know all Men that William, Cooper hereinafter, "the Affiant", certifies in this Affidavit of Fact that the following facts are true, correct, certain and complete to the best of the Affiant's knowledge, belief and information. I, William, Cooper a sui juris, Free, Good and Lawful, Christian, Man upon the Land, who was natural-born on the sixth day of the fifth month of the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and forty-three in the de jure Los Angeles county of the De jure, union state of California, who is currently a Free Inhabitant, Citizen of the de jure Apache county, of the de jure union state of Arizona in addition to Citizen of the union state of California, and whose mailing location is: All Rights Reserved, ( c/o Harvest Trust, c/o P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united States of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery, non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85925 ), does solemnly affirm, declare, attest and depose: 1. That the Affiant is of Lawful age to make this Affidavit. 2. That the Affiant is competent to make this Affidavit. 3. That the Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts as stated herein. 4. That the Affiant is not under the Lawful guardianship or disability of another. 5. That the Affiant makes this Affidavit of Fact as a matter of record of the
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (5 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Affiant's own Right, sui juris, in the Affiant's own proper self, in propria persona. 6. That the Affiant was natural-born a Citizen of the de jure union state of California in the de jure Los Angeles county on the sixth day of the fifth month of the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and forty-three. That Affiant's wife, Annie Mordhorst was natural-born a Citizen of the de jure nation of Taiwan in the de jure city of Taipei on the eighth day of the eleventh month of the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-three. 7. That as a natural-born, de jure, preamble Citizen of the de jure, union state of California, the Affiant declares the Affiant's sovereignty extended to the Affiant by All Mighty GOD. That Affiant's wife by virtue of the "Common Law" as the lawful wife of Affiant Affiant's lawful wife is a de jure, Common Law Citizen of the de jure, union state of California and sovereignty is extended to the Affiant's lawful wife by ALL MIGHTY GOD. 8. That the de jure, union states of Arizona and California are of the freely associated, compact states of the American union. 9. That the Affiant is a Citizen under the 1776, Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (also known as the Declaration of Independence); the 1777 Articles of Confederation; the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America; the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, and precedent decisions of the Constitution for the united States of America, Article III justice Courts of Law. That Affiant's wife by virtue of the "Common Law" as the lawful wife of Affiant is a Citizen of the same. 10. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are possessed of unalienable, GOD-given Rights from Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's creator. 11. That Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's unalienable Rights are memorialized in and secured by the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America and the 1791 Bill of Rights.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (6 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

12. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have not ever, do not now, and will not ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally waive any of the Affiant's or Affiant's lawful wife's Rights. 13. That the government of the United States may not assume any power over the Citizens of the de jure union states which is not specifically delegated to the United States by the creators of the United States, that is, the Citizens of the de jure, union states. 14. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not owe their Citizenship to the so-called Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States. 15. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife ARE NOT LIABLE for the Title 26 United States Code/Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle-A, Section One graduated income taxes for reasons of the Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's alienage to the State of the forum of United States Tax Laws. 16. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife were not born in a territory over which the United States is sovereign. 17. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in (26 Code of Federal Regulations 1.1-1(c)); to wit: (c)Who is a citizen: Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. 3A American Jurisprudence 1420, Aliens and Citizens. A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, If this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign. 18. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are "non-resident to" and "not
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (7 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

a dweller within" the jurisdiction of the "State of the Forum" of Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen, and Article Four, Section Three, Clause Two of the Constitution for the united States of America, in which the United States Congress "exercises exclusive Legislation in; all Cases whatsoever; over said District not exceeding ten Miles square." beyond the seat of Government of places legally ceded by the union states for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings, or any other territories or properties "belonging to" the United States. Consequently, the Affiant is not liable for the (Title 26 United States Code, Subtitle-A, Section One), graduated income tax for reasons of the Affiant's non-residence to such State of Forum. 19. That "It is a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281. 20. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a "resident of", "inhabitant of", "franchise of", "subject of", "ward of", "chattel of", or "subject to the jurisdiction of" the State of the forum of any United States, the corporate State, corporate County, or corporate City, Municipal, body politics created under the primary authority of Article one, Section Eight, Clause seventeen, and Article Four, Section Three, Clause Two of the Constitution for the united States of America, therefore, the Affiant is not subject to any legislation created by such authorities; is not subject to the jurisdiction of any employees, officers or agents deriving the authority thereof; is not subject to Administrative, Constitution for the united States of America, Article One courts, and is not bound by precedents of such courts: Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of power under Article III of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. D.C. Code, Title 11, at page thirteen 21. That as sovereign Citizens of one of the union states, under the
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (8 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

constitution for the united States of America and Law, only Constitution for the united States of America, Article Three, Justice Courts of law decisions are applicable to the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife. 22. That the reader is hereby w a r n e d to TAKE NOTICE that through the Contract and Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Fact, presently before the reader, the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife hereby C A N C E L S any and all presumed election(s) made by the United States government or by any agency or department thereof, that has assumed that the Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife is or ever has been a citizen or resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality, or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the united states as defined and limited to the United States in Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen and Article Four Section Three, Clause Two of the Constitution for the united States of America, and furthermore, the Affiant hereby C A N C E L S any presumption that the Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally elected to be treated as such a citizen or resident. 23. That the reader is hereby w a r n e d to TAKE NOTICE that through the Contract and Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Fact, presently before the reader, the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife; hereby; a) R E S C I N D S all endorsements, subscriptions or presumed signatures attributed to the hand of the Affiant, on any form or document whatsoever, which may be construed or has been construed to give the International Monetary Fund; the United Nations; any entity that claims to have a treaty, compact, contract, agreement or understanding with the United States government; the Internal Revenue Service; the Social Security Administration; or any agency or entity of the United States government created under the authority of the Constitution for the united States of America, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen and Article Four, Section Three, Clause Two; or any other government - whether said government be de jure, de facto, foreign, domestic, local, state, national, international, hemispheric, global, secular or one which maintains the trappings, vestments and appearance of a true ecclesiastical organization - whatsoever, any authority or jurisdiction over
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (9 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife; through inadvertence, fraud (see 1 after end of this paragraph) or mistake; b) RESCINDS and makes V0ID ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, endorsed or subscribed by the Affiant or which bear a presumed signature attributed to the hand of the Affiant, or signed by someone or some thing else, without the Affiant's prior, knowing, willing, voluntary and intentional consent, as such power of attorney pertains to the Affiant, but not limited to, any and all quasicolourable, corporate governmental entities, private or public, on the grounds of constructive fraud and non-disclosure. 1 United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65-66 24. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not now, and will not ever, knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally be an officer, employee, elected official or chattel of the United States; the District of Columbia; or an agency, franchise or instrumentality of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Royal Family of Great Britain, or the Vatican. 25. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an officer of a corporation under a duty to withhold. 26. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an "employee" as that "term" is defined in Law and in the Internal Revenue Code, Federal Register, Tuesday, September 7, 1943, section 404.104, page 12267, to wit: Employee: The term "employee" specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed of the United States, a State, territory, or political subdivision thereof or of the District or Columbia or any agency instrumentality or any one or more of the foregoing. Section 3401(c) EMPLOYEE For purposes of this chapter, the term employee Includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State or any political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (10 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

term also includes an officer of a corporation. 27. That, because the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are NOT an "employee", the Affiant does not earn "wages" as such terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code, to wit: Section 3401(a) Wages...the term "wages' means all remuneration...for services performed by an employee for his employer... . 28. That, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, Title One, Section One, the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not earn "gross income" as such term is defined therein. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, Title 1 - Section 1, Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the definition of "gross income" (is amended after the words "compensation for personal service") includes [only] personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. 29. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not involved in any type of "revenue taxable activities" including but not limited to the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms; any wagering activities; or any other regulated industry, trade or profession. 30. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not reside in or obtain income from any source within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam or any other territory, insular possession, possession, enclave, franchise or instrumentality of the United States, the District of Columbia, the British Commonwealth, or the Vatican. 31. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a United States Person; United States Resident; United States Individual; United States Corporation "citizen subject to it's jurisdiction", or subject of the Royal Family of Great Britain, as such "words of art" are defined in the Internal Revenue Code and other applicable United States Codes or treaties.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (11 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

32. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States did not repeal the Constitutional apportionment restrictions imposed on direct taxes by the Constitution for the united States of America, Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, and Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four, thus, taxes on personal property are direct taxes, not taxable by the federal government unless apportioned according to the census of the union states. 33. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States was not properly lawfully and constitutionally ratified by the States of the Union. But if it had been properly ratified it specifies "...incomes, from whatever source derived,...". Amendment XVI. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." 34. That the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury has defined and limited the tax to be applicable to only, "...taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities..." The income must be taxable and must come from specific sources and activities that are defined by the Secretary. Code of Federal Regulations ¤ 1.861- 8(a): "...The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections." 35. That the Federal Regulations make reference to 'sources' within the United States.. below are the only sources listed from which income must derive in order for it to be taxable for the purpose of the Income Tax. Code of Federal Regulations 1.861-8(f)(1)
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (12 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit. (ii) [Reserved] (iii) DISC and FSC taxable income. (note: DISC is Direct International Sales Corp, and FSC is a Foreign Sales Corp) (iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States,... (v) Foreign base company income. (vi) Other operative sections. (A) "...foreign source items of tax..." (B) "...foreign mineral income..." (C) [Reserved] (D) "...foreign oil and gas extraction income..." (E) "...citizens entitled to the benefits of section 931 and the section 936 tax credit..." (F) "...residents of Puerto Rico..." (G) "...income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands..." (H) "...income derived from Guam..." (I) "...China Trade Act corporations..." (J) "...income of a controlled foreign corporation..."
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (13 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

(K) "...income from the insurance of U.S. risks..." (L) "...international boycott factor...attributable taxes and income under section 999..." (M) "...income attributable to the operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936..." 36. That the item 35. list explains clearly the "gross income" involvement in light of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the inclusion or exclusion of something in a law. Or simply, if a particular source is not on the list, then it is effectively 'excluded' from the Income Tax Act and subsequently the legal definition of 'Gross Income'. 37. That the item 35. list/regulation can be described simply as a "fence". The U.S. Congress gave the Secretary the task to encircle and delineate the only area from which "Gross Income", and hence "taxable income", can be derived or accepted from... and the Secretary published his understanding of what was expected of him in the regulations. The above list is in fact the only definition of "sources" anywhere in the regulations. "Whatever" is within the fence is "allowed" to be listed as "Gross Income". If it is not within the confines of the Secretary's "fence" or "regulation", it is "exempt". 38. That some with a vested interest in taking care of our money for us, will argue that the phrase "whatever sources" in the so-called 16th Amendment means "any and all sources"... we AGREE that it does... any and all "sources" within the list! The Secretary has defined them, then Congress agreed with the Secretary! And they are restricted to the above list, as it is the only list which defines sources! An entry for Citizens with domestic income does not exist on this list!

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (14 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

39. That the power of the Congress and the authority it gives to the Executive Branch is limited to the contents of the law. 40. What is not stated in the law is ALWAYS important; it is a fundamental legal principle and a basic maxim of statutory interpretation: "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) "When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded." (Black's, 6th ed.) 1.) Section 61 states that gross income is from 'sources' which are taxable. 2.) 26 USC ¤ 861(a), states that the following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States, and does not define the 'specific sources' of income from within the U.S., that are taxable. 3.) 26 CFR ¤ 1.861 and following, are the Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Treasury to implement 26 USC ¤ 861, and prove that the items of gross income discussed in 26 USC ¤ 861, are applicable only to nonresident aliens and U.S. Citizens living abroad. 41. That all of the regulations applicable to 26 USC ¤ 864, Definitions, are directed only to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. Significantly, the only application of the federal income tax upon the income of U.S. Citizens in existence is with respect to: (1) a U.S. Citizen's foreign earned income, and
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (15 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

(2) the income of U.S. Citizens living abroad. 42. That when you examine 861's regulations, you find the admission in 1.861-8 (a)(4), that income must come from a specific source to be taxable. If you examine the sources in 1.861-8 (f)(1), you will find that the domestic sources are plainly applicable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. The others listed are foreign sources that U.S. citizens would definitely be taxed upon. 43. That there is no direct mention of U.S. sources where U.S. Citizens can earn 'gross income'. 44. That of the five sources listed in (f)(1), four of them are repeated as non-exempt income pursuant to 26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(iii). And pursuant to 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(ii)(A), all income that is exempt, excluded (not listed), or eliminated from the law, is exempt income. There are no other U.S. sources listed that are applicable to U.S. citizens living and working within the U.S. 45. That since the law is plainly structured to be taxing nonresident aliens, and foreign earned income, we must have some specific citation of law, specifically taxing U.S. citizens on their domestic source income, as the Secretary has made the list of U.S. sources that are taxable in 26 U.S.C. ¤ 861, applicable only to nonresident aliens. 46. That the only form required to be filed by U.S. Citizens, pursuant to section 1.1-1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is the 2555 foreign earned income form. With regard to the filing of returns, the only filing requirement for an individual under Subtitle A "income" tax is found in code section 6012(a). Under section 6012(a) and its underlying regulations, "taxable income" is limited to certain income that has been "earned" while living and working in certain foreign
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (16 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

countries or territories. As proof of the above, under the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must assign an OMB approval number to any agency return that requests and collects information from a U.S. citizen. According to OMB approval control number 1545-0067 assigned to Treasury regulations 1.1-1 "Tax imposed" and 1.6012-0 "Person required to make returns of income" under 26 CFR part 600 to end, the required return for a U.S. citizen to report income is not Form 1040, but Form 2555 "Foreign Earned Income." The 1040 return for the "U.S. Individual" is merely a SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET for the required Form 2555. The top of Form 2555 instructs "attach to front of Form 1040" and "for use by U.S. citizens". Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313) clarifies that the Form 1040 individual income tax return is to be used only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien and receiving interest and/or dividends from the stock of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien. This decision was issued in 1916 to "collectors of internal revenue" pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court under the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. decision and still stands today. For the above reasons, the income tax under Subtitle A is not "voluntary" for those to whom it applies, as some have asserted. It is mandatory, but only for those to whom it applies as explained above. Since the law is limited in its application, the question of whether it is mandatory or voluntary is superfluous. The question is to whom and under what circumstances is the law applied? With regard to the wage tax under Subtitle C, certain legal requirements may be considered mandatory. But only for the payor of the wages (the "employer") and even then, only if both the "employer" and the "covered employee" has voluntarily agreed (via voluntary application on Form W-4) to participate in the entitlement programs. Since there is no legal requirement to have a social security number (SSN) in
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (17 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

order to live and work in the U.S. (or simply for the sake of having one); no legal requirement to enter a SSN on Form W-4, sign or submit it, and; no legal requirement for an employer to obtain an employer identification number (EIN) in order to hire workers, neither party - "employee" or "employer" - can be compelled to participate in the entitlement programs, hence compliance under Subtitle C is correctly said to be voluntary for those to whom the income tax under Subtitle A does NOT apply. IRS Publication 515 and Treasury regulation 1.1441-5 explain the proper use of the Statement of Citizenship (SOC), a copy of which is sent by the employer (who retains the original) to the IRS in Philadelphia only, which makes sense since Philadelphia is the IRS international tax office. The SOC authorizes (and indemnifies) the employer to stop withholding income taxes from the worker who chooses not to have his or her taxes withheld. 47. That attempting to pass off ¤ 61 defining "Gross income" as the section of Code as the law taxing all U.S. citizens on their U.S. source income, even if the income cannot be deemed to be from taxable sources, is dishonest in light of the construction of the statute. Since 26 CFR ¤¤ 1.861-8 (f)(1) and -8T (d)(2)(iii) state plainly the taxable sources which a U.S. Citizen must have, to make income "Gross income" and thus "taxable income" (the latter being taxed in ¤ 1). It is no wonder that the proper Form to be filed, pursuant to Section 1 of 26 U.S.C. and 26 CFR by a U.S. Citizen is the 2555 Foreign Earned Income form. 48. That 'Exempt Income' is defined: 26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)(A) "In general. For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income that is in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (18 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

eliminated for federal income tax purposes." 49. That "Exclusion" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, in part, as follows: "Denial of entry or admittance." 50. That right after the Secretary stated this, he plainly listed income not exempt from taxation here as follows: 26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) (iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them: (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business; (B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC and its related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC; (C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and (D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of section 1.911-6 do
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (19 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)). 51. That the only income listed in item 50. related to U.S. Citizens is (D) 52. That the definition of "wages" in ¤ 3401(a) to be withheld from in accordance with ¤ 3402, excludes all remuneration paid to U.S. Citizens by employers, except income which is deemed to be gross income under ¤ 911, or other income related to foreign and U.S. possession sources. 53. That this law confirms our position, in simple terms according to Black's Law Dictionary, that if the income in question comes from a source "excluded" from the law, and thus not mentioned within the law as being taxable, it cannot then meet the source requirements of ¤ 861, its regulations, and thus section 61(a) to be "Gross income", and is by definition EXEMPT. 54. That what is not within a law is just as important as what is! 55. That the entire topic of the "Income Tax" and the statutes regarding it are built upon the foundation of "Gross Income" as defined in ¤ 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, and that the laws mean exactly what they say. 56. That compensation for labour and exercise of the Right to labour are personal property, and such personal property correctly comes under the authority of the Constitution for the united States of America, Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, and Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four, and are, therefore, not taxable by the Federal Government as a graduated tax. Be advised: compensation earned and exercising the Right to Labour is excluded from "Gross Income" and is exempt from taxation under Title 26 of the United States Code, under the authority of Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (1939), Section 9.22(b)-1, as follows: 26 Code of Federal Regulations (1939) Section 9.22(b)-1 Exclusions from
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (20 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

gross income -- The following shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this title: (b)-1 Exceptions; exclusions from gross income. Certain items of income ... are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income ... those items of income which are under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government. 57. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America was not ever properly ratified by the States of the union according to the conditions required by the Constitution for the united States of America for ratification and adoption of Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America. That even if the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America had been properly ratified the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States would be limited in application only to indirect taxes. 58. That the income tax is an excise tax. (United States Supreme Court in Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company) 59. That compensation for the Affiant's labour is the Affiant's personal property, and therefore, is not taxable by the Federal Government except by rule of apportionment. 60. That an excise tax CANNOT be imposed upon a natural-born Man or Woman upon the Land, Citizen measured by his/her compensation for labour because such a tax would be a direct capitation tax, subject to the rule of apportionment privilege. 61. That the requirement to pay an excise tax involves the exercise of a privilege. 62. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not exercising any taxable privileges.

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (21 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

63. That the Affiant provides for the Affiant's and his families existence by labouring in a non-taxable craft of common Right, to wit: "The Citizen, unlike the corporation, can not be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the Citizen's Right to live and own property are Natural Rights for the enjoyment of which an excise can not be imposed ... We believe that the conclusion is well justified that a tax laid directly upon income or property, real or personal may well be regarded as a tax upon the property which produces the income." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon Supreme Court, 813 at 817, 819 (1939) 64. That the Affiant's compensation for labour constitutes the fruits of the Affiant's labour, and as such is the Affiant's substance and personal property, of which the Federal Government may not deprive the Affiant of any portion by appropriating said property against the Affiant's will. 65. That the Victory Tax Act of 1942 [ 56 Statutes at Large, Chapter 619 page 884. Oct. 21, 1941 ] which implemented "withholding" and 1040 Returns requirements, stated: Section 476 "The taxes imposed by this subchapter shall not apply with respect to any taxable year after the date of cession of hostilities in the present War, i.e., World War II." 66. That the Victory Tax Act and its provision for withholding was repealed pursuant to 58 Statutes at Large, Chapter 210, Section 6(a), page 235. 67. That there are only four things that can possibly be the subject matter of any tax whether it's local, state or federal: (1) People (capitation, "head" and poll taxes - a direct tax) (2) Property by reason of ownership (real and personal property taxes - a direct tax) (3) Revenue taxable activities (such as the manufacture, sale or distribution
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (22 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

of alcohol, tobacco or firearms - an indirect tax) (4) A grant of privilege (for example, state registered corporate charters granting permission to do business - is a privilege by the state's definition - an indirect tax) 68. That taxes on the first two types are called direct taxes while the third and fourth types are known as indirect taxes. This definition is not derived from what the tax is popularly or formally named nor from how the tax is measured. This definition can only come from its "subject." 69. That there has never been a "head" tax since the Constitution was instituted because capitation taxes are expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 4. This type of tax is "outlawed" at all levels. That while property taxes are legal in nearly all state and local jurisdictions, they are not legal on the federal level. That the federal government must restrict itself to the indirect class of taxes, duties, imposts and excises. "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580 70. That the courts have clearly established that the misleadingly named "income tax" is an excise tax and, therefore, is an indirect tax. The Supreme Court case, Russell v. U.S., 369 U.S. 749, at 765 (1962), states that: "'Taxable income' can only be derived from revenue taxable activities. Statements alleging some sort of taxable activity must be made in order to support the legal conclusion that the accused had 'taxable income,' etc., or the indictment is invalid and the court does not have authority to hold a trial." 71. That the Supreme Court's unanimous rulings in the following cases have never been reversed or overturned: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (23 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

U.S. 1; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103; and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 The Court in Brushaber and Stanton held that the Sixteenth Amendment (the "income tax" amendment), as correctly interpreted, and the "income tax" itself WHEN CORRECTLY APPLIED, are constitutional because they are restricted to indirect taxes. Which means that when incorrectly interpreted and incorrectly applied the "income tax" is unconstitutional. 72. That in Flint, the Court held that indirect taxes are never upon any kind of property, money or otherwise, but only upon particular activities, in which the resulting income is used to measure the tax on the taxable activity. "Income taxes" are only named such because the income connected with the activity is used as the standard or yardstick by which the tax upon the activity is measured. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an activity must be taxable for revenue purposes as opposed to strictly regulatory purposes. "[Excise taxes are] taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 7th Ed., p.680 as cited in Flint, supra, 151. 73. That facts regarding the exercise of a revenue taxable privilege or activity must exist in order to support the legal position that a person had "taxable income," or was "obligated to pay", or was "required by law to file tax returns," or is even to be considered a "taxpayer". 74. That there is a distinct class officially recognized as "non-taxpayers" who are not subject to the jurisdiction of Internal Revenue statutes. "Jurisdiction is essentially the authority conferred by Congress to decide a given type of case one way or another." Hagans v Levine, 415 U.S. 533 (1974). "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem. Fund v
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (24 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308. 75. That the IRS, in order to define Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife as a "taxpayer", must assert jurisdiction.which Affiant refutes. The IRS must prove that Affiant falls under its jurisdictional influence. 76. That should the Internal Revenue Service violate Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's rights under color of law and, with the complicity of the courts, forcing jurisdiction upon Affiant, they still cannot prevail; first, because of the lack of implementing regulations, second, because Affiant is not engaged in any revenue taxable activities and, third, through the emphatic assertion of Affiant's correct and proper legal status. 77. That in law the legal definition is the only authoritative one. About eighty court decisions and Treasury decisions have used the terms "includes" and "including" in a restrictive sense meaning that when they are used the terms denote ONLY those items that follow it. Further, Black's Law Dictionary, the "handbook" of legal definition defines "include" as follows: "Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in, keep within) To confine within, hold as an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. 'Including' within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation." Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227,228. 78. That Black's Law Dictionary says when the term "include" is used it expands to take in all of the items that are listed but only those items and no others. The importance of this limiting sense of the term is apparent when you look at many of the Internal Revenue Code definitions. Section 7701 (a) (9) : UNITED STATES. - The term "United States" when
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (25 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

used in a geographic sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. 79. That in the very next definition the Code defines the term "State." Section 7701 (a) (10) : STATE. - The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Based on the legal definition of the term "include," then "State" means ONLY the District of Columbia. If we substitute this in the definition of "United States" then the code is limited in its jurisdiction to only the District of Columbia. 80. That to show that the IRS knows precisely what it’s saying and is very specific in its application of these definitions, the Code follows form when it defines "State, United States, and Citizen" in Chapter 21 - Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA. Section 3121 (e) : STATE, UNITED STATES, AND CITIZEN. - For the purposes of this chapter (1) STATE. - The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Somoa. (2) UNITED STATES. - The term 'United States' when used in the geographic sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Somoa. The IRS insists the Code is absolutely correct so this is exactly what it must mean. Therefore, the provisions of Title 26 apply only to the District of Columbia and the federal territories. 81. That the Code defines 'employer' in Chapter 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES. Section 3401 (d) : EMPLOYER. - For purposes of this chapter, the term 'employer' means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person.... 82. That if you have an 'employee' then you are an employer. There is a
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (26 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

conspicuous absence of the term "include" in this definition? Section 3401 (c) : EMPLOYEE. - For purposes of this chapter, the term 'employee' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term 'employee' also includes the officer of a corporation. 83. That to be an "employee" you must work for the government or be an officer of a corporation. The term "include" shows up here and again, if we substitute this idea into the definition of 'employer' a company is most likely NOT an employer because none of the people working for companies are employees of the government. Section 7701 (a) (3) : CORPORATION. - The term 'corporation' includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies. 84. That further investigation shows that the corporation must be formed in, be doing business in, or receiving income from the District of Columbia or be classified as a "foreign corporation." Those who are not incorporated are covered in the Code as well. Section 7701 (a) : TRADE OR BUSINESS. - The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office. 85. That the Courts have drawn a distinct line between "income" and "wages." "Income, within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act, means gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal.... 86. That income is neither a wage nor compensation for any type of labor." Stapler v. U.S., 21 F. Supp. 737, at 739. "There is a clear distinction between
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (27 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

‘profit’ and "wages", or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word "profit", as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955) "...[W]hatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient.... If there is not gain there is not income.... Congress has taxed income not compensation." Connor v. U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) 87. That each time a company and/or its executives turns over "employee" money to the IRS under a Notice of Levy they are unwittingly aiding and abetting the IRS in the performance of an illegal act. To understand why we need to look to the Code provisions relating to Levy and Distraint. Specifically, Subchapter D - Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes. Under Section 6331 - Levy and Distraint is the following: Section 6331 (a) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. - If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after the notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such a tax... (A lien can only exist by order of a Court after "due process" has been extended to the accused under law.) Section 6331 (a) cont'd AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. - ...Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in 3401 (d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.... (on which there is a lien). 88. That when we take the time to look closely at this "power" we see from
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (28 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:37 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

the first part of it that the Secretary's power is delimited and confined to those who are "liable to pay any tax." As further evidence of the limited power of the Secretary to issue Notices of Levy (to such person on which there is a lien), the second part of sec. 6331(a) is clearly aimed at government employees and is actually the only part of the section that even mentions the filing of a notice. Since the IRS adamantly asserts that the Code is completely correct in its script Affiant can only conclude that the power to issue a Notice of Levy applies only to government employees and therefore, as a "foreign corporation", by Code definition, no one else is charged with any responsibility for the perfection of such overextended, misapplied powers and bogus jurisdictional claims. "As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement 'that all men are endowed' not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain unalienable rights' that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except as punishment for crime 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these' not grant them but secure them 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment. "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits,
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (29 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore, be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. "...The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property." Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, (1883) 89. That in two other cases, the Supreme Court said: "Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and others services are exchanged for money or other forms of property." Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915) ". . . Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, as generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will . . ." Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, at 120 90. That in 1913, four years after Congress first introduced the income tax amendment, Philander Knox, a Pittsburgh attorney and then Secretary of State, declared the 16th Amendment duly ratified, despite the protests and subsequent research which reveals proof to the contrary. Congress intended that somebody should pay a tax. Congress has the Constitutional authority to tax, but only through specific types of taxes. 91. That therefore, since Congress and the Courts have defined it as an excise tax, Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have no argument with the tax itself
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (30 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

and do not protest against the income tax. However, it is one thing to protest a tax and another thing entirely to protest extortion committed under the guise, pretext, sham, or subterfuge of the unlawful unconstitutional misapplication of the revenue laws against Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife who are neither subject to nor liable for such indirect taxes. This type of extortion is prohibited by the 5th amendment "due process of law" clause, and the extortion clause of the Internal Revenue Code in Section 7214. 92. That Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are NOT tax protesters. That Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are protesting against the unconstitutional and unlawful MISAPPLICATION of the revenue laws and are not protesting the tax itself in its proper and lawful application as an excise tax levyed upon "those made liable" who are engaged in taxable activities and privileges deriving "gross income" from the specific "sources" named by the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury. 93. That the IRS was not created by Congress. It is not an organization found under the organization of the Department of the Treasury in Title 31 United States Code with the other agencies of the Department of the Treasury. One of the organizations known as the IRS was created as a trust in the Philippines ("Bureau of Internal Revenue," Trust fund #1, Philippine special fund; 31 USC 1321) under the Department of Finance and Justice. Another trust fund, Trust fund #62, Puerto Rico special fund, was created for "Internal Revenue." Title 26 United States Code (Internal Revenue Code) specifically defines the jurisdiction under which it is effective as only pertaining to the District of Columbia and its territories and possessions. 94. That an agency's failure to publish any document (regardless of how named by the agency) which is designed to implement or prescribe law is a "rule" which is void and unenforceable. 95. That within an agency, "instructions" may be promulgated and distributed to agency officers and employees informing them as to the manner and method of implementing and enforcing any particular law. If by
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (31 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

chance these "instructions" likewise meet the definition of a "rule" as defined by ¤ 551, and if the same be "substantive" as prescribed by ¤ 552, they must be published in the Federal Register. Several cases have found such "instructions" to agency employees void for non-publication. Case authority clearly shows that "instructions" given to agency personnel which command the performance of an act by a member of the public or which limit entitlement to statutory benefits are subject to the publication requirement. If such "rules" found in agency instructions to agency personnel must be published, then likewise similar "instructions" given directly by the agency to the public must also be published on the grounds that the same similarly are "rules." 96. That it is essential for a federal employee to possess delegated authority to perform any particular act; the absence of delegated authority means that the act in question was beyond the scope of the employee's duties, and therefore unlawful. The necessity for a federal employee to have delegated authority to act not only is shown in the above cases, it also manifests itself in cases under the Federal Torts Claims Act (herein "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C., ¤1346(b). Under this law, the United States is liable for torts committed by its employees if so committed within the scope of their employment. If the act in question was not committed in the scope of employment, the employee is liable and the United States is not. A variety of cases deciding FTCA claims show instances where the United States is held not liable for its employees torts. In Paly v. United States, 125 F.Supp. 798 (D.Md. 1954), a soldier detailed as a military funeral escort was driving his own car to a funeral and was involved in an accident. Since the soldier lacked express orders to do so, his tort was held to be outside the scope of his employment and the United States was not liable. In Jones v. F.B.I., 139 F.Supp. 38, 42 (D.Md. 1956), it was alleged that certain FBI agents had stolen or converted property belonging to the plaintiff. The court held
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (32 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

that if such were true, the agents "were not 'acting within the scope of [their] office or employment'," and the United States could not be liable in tort. In James v. United States, 467 F.2d 832 (4th Cir. 1972), a reservist was involved in a car accident on his return from an annual field training exercise; since this travel was not within the scope of his employment, the government was held not liable for damages. In another accident case involving an Army truck, White v. Hardy, 678 F.2d 485, 487 (4th Cir. 1982), the driver was found to have no authority to drive the truck when the accident happened, thus his acts were beyond the scope of his employment and the United States was not liable ("There was substantial evidence that Sergeant Hardy was not given the requisite express authority to use the government vehicle involved in the collision"). In Hughes v. United States, 662 F.2d 219 (4th Cir. 1981), the United States was held not liable for child molestation committed by one of its employees, a postal worker. In Trerice v. Summons, 755 F.2d 1081 (4th Cir. 1985), the United States was held not liable for the wrongful death of one serviceman committed by another. And in Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1986), the court held the government not liable under the FTCA for the sexual assault of some girls by one of its employees. Cases from other jurisdictions also demonstrate that for an act to be within the government employee's scope of employment, it must have been authorized by a regulation or some other written document. For example, in Mider v. United States, 322 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1963), a FTCA claim was being asserted against the United States for damages arising from an accident involving a drunken Air Force serviceman. To define the serviceman's authority, written regulations were consulted to determine whether the act of driving the government's car was authorized. Finding that the regulations did not permit use of the vehicle on this occasion, the serviceman was found not to be acting within the scope of his employment. In Bettis v. United States, 635 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1981), a soldier drove a truck off a military base without authority and was involved in an accident; his act was held to be beyond his authority and thus the United States was not liable in tort. In Turner v. United States, 595 F.Supp. 708 (W.D.La. 1984), a recruiter conducted an unclothed physical examination of some potential females
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (33 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

enlistees, which caused them to sue under the FTCA. In finding that there were no regulations either permitting or requiring such examinations, the United States was found not liable. See also Doggett v. United States, 858 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1988), and Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus the above cases adequately demonstrate that a government employee must have some specific delegated authority, based upon statutes, regulations or delegation orders, in order to be authorized to act in the premises. The absence of such authority, when challenged, therefore requires a holding that the employee's acts were unauthorized and thus beyond the scope of his employment. 97. That a plain reading of ¤7608 reveals that the section itself conveys authority to nobody other than the Secretary; the Secretary, in turn, must authorize agents and this calls for the issuance of delegation orders. Under the repealed regulation 301.7608-1, it is obvious that some type of authority had been conveyed to the Commissioner, but here even he had to issue delegation orders appointing agents. Thus, to follow the flow of authority under ¤7608, it is essential to consult Treasury Department Orders and Commissioner's Delegation Orders. In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act was adopted and the same required federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register statements of their central and field organizational structures as well as the methods by which their functions were channeled (delegation orders); see 5 U.S.C., ¤552. It is acknowledged by both Treasury and I.R.S. that these items must be so published; see 31 C.F.R. ¤1.3(a), and 26 C.F.R., ¤601.702(a). In fact, it is acknowledged that anything concerning or affecting the American public must be published. In 1953, Revenue Ruling 2 (1953-1 CB 484) was issued and it required all divisions or units of the I.R.S. to publish in the Federal Register any item of concern to the public. This was more clearly expressed in Rev. Proc. 55-1 (1955-2 CB 897) as follows: "It shall be the policy to publish for public information
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (34 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

all statements of practice and procedure issued primarily for internal use, and, hence, appearing in internal management documents, which affect rights or duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes." That which is expressed above currently manifests itself within 26 C.F.R., ¤601.601(d)(2)(b), which reads as follows: "A 'Revenue Procedure' is a statement of procedure that affects the rights or duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Code and related statutes or information that, although not necessarily affecting the rights and duties of the public, should be a matter of public knowledge." Before commencing with a review of "modern" TDOs, it might perhaps be useful to examine older delegation orders and TDOs issued before and during the time of the 1939 Code; by doing so, it may be seen how authority from the President and Secretary has been delegated. For example, Executive Order 6166, dated June 10, 1933, stated as follows: "All functions now exercised by the Bureau of Prohibition of the Department of Justice with respect to the granting of permits under the national prohibition laws are transferred to the Division of Internal Revenue in the Treasury Department. "The Bureaus of Internal Revenue and of Industrial Alcohol of the Treasury Department are consolidated in a Division of Internal Revenue, at the head of which shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue." Executive Order No. 6639, dated March 10, 1934, stated as follows:
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (35 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

"1.(a) The Bureau of Industrial Alcohol and the Office of Commissioner of Industrial Alcohol are abolished, and the authority, rights, privileges, powers and duties conferred and imposed by law upon the Commissioner of Industrial Alcohol are transferred to and shall be held, exercised, and performed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his assistants, agents, and inspectors, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury." And TDO No. 143, dated December 6, 1951, provided as follows: "By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury by Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950, there are hereby transferred to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the functions and duties now performed by collectors of Internal Revenue in connection with tobacco and other taxes imposed under Chapter 15 of the Internal Revenue Code. "The functions and duties herein transferred to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may, at his discretion, be delegated to subordinates in the Bureau of Internal Revenue service in such manner as the Commissioner shall from time to time direct." Thus each delegation order must be examined to determine the authority conveyed therein. In 1949, Congress enacted a law authorizing the President to reorganize the executive departments; see 63 Stat. 203, chap. 226, codified at 5 U.S.C., ¤901, et seq. Pursuant to this authority, the President promulgated Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950 (15 Fed. Reg. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280), which restructured the entire Treasury Department via the following:
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (36 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

"[T]here are hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury all functions of all other officers of the Department of the Treasury and all functions of all agencies and employees of such Department." By this reorganization plan, all statutory and delegated authority of anyone in the Treasury Department was immediately divested and placed into the hands of the Secretary. Thereafter, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 2243, 66 Stat. 823) reorganized the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the name of which was changed to the Internal Revenue Service the following year; see T.D. 6038, 1953-2 CB 443. Based upon the above reorganization plans, on March 15, 1952, the Secretary issued TDO No. 150, which authorized the continued performance of functions by Treasury officers and agents until changed by subsequent order. This order established a series of later orders, all of which deal with and concern administration of the internal revenue laws. A separate brief lists the TDOs issued since the reorganization plan which are in 150 series; citation as to where each order is published is also provided. A review of these TDOs discloses that most of them concern only organizational changes made to the I.R.S. Insofar as authority granted pursuant to ¤7608 is concerned, of those which were published, only TDO No. 150-42 could possibly embody the criminal enforcement powers to which ¤7608 relates. Based upon the above, the process of determining what agent has been delegated ¤7608 authority thus requires examination of all published CDOs issued by the Commissioner. A list enumerating every published CDO from 1954 to the present is contained in a separate brief; by review of these various CDOs, it is possible to trace the authority which is the subject of ¤7608. The only possible CDOs which could delegate ¤7608 authority are numbered 31, 33 and 34. On April 30, 1956, CDO No. 31 was issued delegating to the
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (37 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Assistant Commissioner and the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division the authority to administer and enforce chapters 51, 52 and 53 of the Code (the "ATF" chapters), in addition to a few other functions. A few months later, CDOs No. 33 and 34 were issued and these orders also related to alcohol and tobacco taxes. Once these units of the I.R.S. had been delegated these enforcement responsibilities, Congress thereafter in 1958 created ¤7608, and the regulation at 301.7608-1 was promulgated in 1959. Below is a list containing the cites where these and subsequent revisions of these orders were published. CDO No. 31: (a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 3083, 1956-1 CB 1015. (b) Rev. 1, 34 Fed. Reg. 87, 1969-1 CB 379. (c) Rev. 2, 35 Fed. Reg. 16808, 1970-2 CB 487. (d) Rev. 3, 36 Fed. Reg. 18678, 1971-2 CB 524. (e) Rev. 4, 36 Fed. Reg. 22607, 1971-2 CB 525. CDO No. 33: (a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 4415, 1956-2 CB 1375. CDO No. 34: (a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 5851, 1956-2 CB 1375. (b) Revoked, 38 Fed. Reg. 33407, 1973-2 CB 462. As can be seen from these orders, the same allowed for the seizure and forfeiture of property and the enforcement of the criminal laws. Logically, it is these orders which permitted the promulgation of the regulation at
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (38 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

301.7608-1. The ATF Division of the I.R.S. was the unit which was responsible for the administration and enforcement of the laws which were the subject of CDOs No. 31, 33 and 34. This ended with the creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms via TDO No. 221 on June 6, 1972; see 37 Fed. Reg. 116696, 1972-1 CB 777. Among other administration and enforcement functions transferred to BATF via this order were the following: "(a) Chapters 51, 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such Code insofar as they relate to the commodities subject to tax under such chapters; "(b) Chapters 61 to 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, insofar as they relate to the activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52 and 53." About 2 1/2 years later, the Secretary issued TDO No. 221-3 (40 Fed. Reg. 1084, 1975-1 CB 758) which delegated to the BATF the authority to administer and enforce "chapter 35 and chapter 40 and 61 through 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapter 35." Chapter 35 deals with wagering taxes and chapter 40 concerns occupational taxes related to wagering. Some 1 1/2 years later, TDO No. 221-3 (Rev. 1) was issued. The only real, detectable distinction between the former and latter orders was the inclusion of the following phrase in the latter: "The Commissioner may call upon the Director for assistance when it is necessary to exercise any of the enforcement authority described in section 7608 of the Internal Revenue Code."

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (39 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

But, on January 14, 1977, the Secretary transferred back to the I.R.S. the enforcement duties relating to wagering via TDO No. 221-3 (Rev. 2). Thereafter, the authority of BATF encompassed chapters 40, 51, 52 and 53 of the 1954 Code in addition to the authority to enforce other non-Code laws. It is of great significance that the repeal of regulation 301.7608-1 occurred shortly after the creation of the BATF. The authority of BATF agents to exercise the functions under ¤7608 is today found in 27 C.F.R., ¤70.28. In summary, ¤7608 requires delegations from the Secretary to enforcement agents. In reference to ¤7608(a), it has been shown above that this "ATF" authority has flowed through the ATF unit within I.R.S., ultimately to be passed onto the BATF. But, in the search for authority under ¤7608(b), a review of all published TDOs and CDOs reveals that there appears to have been no such delegation. Thus, if a Special Agent is conducting any investigation pursuant to the authority of ¤7608, that investigation encompasses violations only of the alcohol, tobacco and firearms tax laws, and there is NO apparent authority to conduct any federal income tax investigation which is possessed by a Special Agent. 98. That Affiant filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which gave the IRS the authority to conduct an investigation of a Citizen of Arizona. The IRS could not, and did not, produce any such documentation. We noticed Special Agent Shupnik and Assistant U.S. Attorney Winerip to produce their credentials and documentation of their authority to conduct such an investigation; they refused because they could not as no such documents exists. 99. That of all the circuits, the Ninth Circuit has addressed jurisdictional issues more than any of the rest. In United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal. 1888), it was determined that the United States did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon. 1905). But later, California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (40 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

(N.D.Cal. 1927), that this enabled the U.S. to maintain a murder prosecution. See also United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D.Wash. 1909), United States v. Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal. 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or. 1921). Because the U.S. owned and had a state cession of jurisdiction for Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the U.S. had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction; see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz. 1977). The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth the rule that in criminal prosecutions, the government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and a state cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction, must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159 P.2d 686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction; see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782, 265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v. District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410 P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The same applies in Nevada; see State v. Mack,
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (41 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763 (1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987); it applies in Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694, 598 P.2d 731 (1979)). In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of an IRS office was held to be within state jurisdiction, the court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of jurisdiction. In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S. post offices which were rented were held to be within state jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910), and People v. Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936). See also In re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218 (1945). In Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a U.S. missile site in State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327 (1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987), the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a D.U.I. committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state cession of jurisdiction. In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, state jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1983). The proper method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in People v. Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule was likewise enunciated in State v. Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640 (1986), a case involving a D.U.I. offense committed on a road near a federal arsenal.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (42 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App. 1972), the state was held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in question in the United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597 (Okl.Cr.App. 1975). Similar holdings for murders committed at U.S. post offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1968). Another Oregon case, State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987), demonstrates this rule. Finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense. 100. That in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction." "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem. Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308. 101. That a citizen or alien domiciled within and making a living within one of the 50 states of the Union, has never been made liable by Congress for the payment of the income tax under title 26, Subtitle A. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have NO liability under the law to file or pay the so-called income
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (43 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

tax. The so-called income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional as applied to the Citizens and others Domiciled within the territorial boundaries of the Union States who earn a living within the Union States and are not engaged in excise taxable activities. 102. That there are three sections of the IRC that address the making or filing of returns or statements: Sections 6001, 6011(a) and 6012(a): Section 6001 This section states, in relevant part ; "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns ..." -- and "Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records..." Therefore, Section 6001 clearly does not create a requirement for every person to file, but only specific individuals (i.e., those made liable). This section does not, however, establish the liability but merely presumes it Section 6011(a) This section states, in relevant part, "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement ..." -- and
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (44 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

"Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations." Similar to Section 6001, 6011(a) applies only to certain individuals and a liability is not established but presumed in this section. Section 6012(a) This section states, in relevant part, "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income ..." Under this section, an "individual" is required to file under specific circumstances with respect to subtitle A, and the liability for any tax under subtitle A is established elsewhere in the IRC (see below). In other words, the Section 6012(a) requirement for returns to be made applies only to those who are made liable under subtitle A. Therefore, it is clear from this section, as well as those previously cited, that the requirement to file is not an all-encompassing one, but is directly related to an explicit liability for a tax. 103. That the sections of the IRC which actually establish a liability for a tax are as follows: ... Under Subtitle A (Income Taxes) a. Section 402(d)(1)(D) makes liable for a separate tax the recipient of lump sum distributions from employee benefit plans. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a recipient of a lump sum distribution from any employee benefit plan.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (45 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

b. Section 1461 makes liable every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under Subchapter B. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not deduct and withhold any tax under Subchapter B. ... Under Subtitle B (Estate and Gift Taxes) c. Section 3405(d)(1) makes liable the payor of a designated distribution from a pension or annuity. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a payor of a distribution from any pension or annuity. d. Section 3505(a) and (b) make liable a lender, surety, or other person that pays wages directly to an employee and that is withholding. Affiant and Affiant's wife do not pay wages to any employees. ... Under Subtitle D (Miscellaneous Excise Taxes) e. Section 4401(c) makes liable each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not engaged in the business of accepting wagers. f. Section 4980(b) makes liable an employer maintaining a qualified plan. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an employer maintaining a qualified plan. ... Under Subtitle E (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes) g. Section 5005 makes liable the distiller or importer of distilled spirits.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (46 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a distiller nor an importer of distilled spirits. h. Section 5703 makes liable the manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not manufacture or import tobacco products, cigarette papers or tubes. Case Authority "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." -- Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 "Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax." -Highly v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F. 2d 160 "...the taxpayer must be liable for the income tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." -- Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Contractors, 713 F. 2d 1405 104. There is only one section (Section 6020) of the IRC covering the preparation of returns by the Internal Revenue Service on a persons behalf. This section states, in relevant part: "6020(a) -- If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title or by regulations prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return, which, being signed by such person, may
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (47 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

be received by the Secretary as the return of such person." -- and "6020(b)(1) -- If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return..." Therefore, it is clear from this section that the IRS may prepare or execute returns on a person's behalf only when that person has a clearly established requirement to make a return AND with such person's consent to provide the necessary information. Section 6020 does not establish a requirement to make a return, however, but merely presumes it. Furthermore, Section 6020 clearly declares that any return prepared by the IRS on a person's behalf must be signed by that person. This is confirmed by the enforcing regulation, 26CFR301.6020-1 which states, in relevant part: "(a) Preparation of returns -- (1) In general. If any person required by the Code or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return fails to make such return, it may be prepared by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee provided such person consents to disclose all information necessary for the preparation of such return. The return upon being signed by the person required to make it shall be received by the district director as the return of such person." 105. That if the Internal Revenue Service wishes to prepare a return on Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's behalf, please provide the: (1) Code or Regulation that requires Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife to make statements, keep records, or file returns; or (2) Proper notice served upon Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife by the Secretary or delegated authority requiring me to make statements, keep records, or file returns;
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (48 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

(3) Code and Regulation that makes Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife liable for a tax; and (4) Specific sources of gross income upon which a tax is imposed. 106. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife would be most happy to complete any returns required of Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife by law, if Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife have a tax liability and upon service of proper notice. 107. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife hereby rebut the presumption of a requirement where none actually exists under law via this sworn affidavit, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the agency (Secretary of the Treasury/IRS), which must then disprove Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's statements and cannot. 108. That on June 18, 1998 a United States Marshall came to Affiant's Domicile in Eagar, Arizona to serve a summons for criminal trial in U.S. District Court in Phoenix Arizona on the "legal fictions" WILLIAM COOPER and ANNIE MORDHORST or "fictions" of like names. 109. That Affiant noticed the U.S. Marshall that Affiant is NOT the legal fictions named in the summons and ordered him off the property. 110. That Affiant noticed the U.S. Marshall that he was trespassing. 111. That Affiant noticed the U.S. Marshall that he has no federal jurisdiction or authority within the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona. 112. That the U.S. Marshall did NOT serve the summons. 113. That the U.S. Marshall obeyed Affiant's demand and notice to vacate the property due to unlawful trespass. 114. That Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not the legal fictions
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (49 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

WILLIAM COOPER and/or ANNIE MORDHORST or any other fiction named in the summons signed by United States District Court Judge Irwin. 115. That NO summons has ever been served upon the Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife at any time whatsoever by anyone whomsoever. 116. That any summons issued by a federal Judge of a federal Court upon Citizens of any State domiciled within the territorial boundaries of that State is unconstitutional and unlawful when jurisdiction is challenged unless and until the United States first prove their jurisdiction over such, land, property, business, and Citizens. 117. That any arrest warrant issued by any federal Judge of any federal Court due to failure to appear in any federal Court against a summons which was NEVER SERVED is unconstitutional and unlawful and is void upon its inception. 118. That any arrest warrant issued by any Judge of any federal Court against any Citizens of any State domiciled within the territorial boundaries of any Union State is unconstitutional and unlawful when jurisdiction of the United States is challenged unless and until the United States first prove their jurisdiction over such land, property, business, and Citizens. 119. On July 1, 1998, U. S. District Court Judge Irwin unconstitutionally and unlawfully stepped outside the jurisdiction and authority of the United States when he issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the legal fictions known as WILLIAM COOPER and ANNIE MORDHORST or other similar names, mistaking them for William Cooper and Annie Cooper, for not appearing in "his" court on an unconstitutional and unlawful summons which was NEVER SERVED. The United States has no jurisdiction or venue within the territorial boundaries of the State of Arizona except over land that was ceded to the United States by the State Legislature. 120. That the federal income tax is VOID because the administrative and
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (50 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

enforcement powers are unconstitutional. Supreme Court ruling in: 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,v,UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 140. Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.Decided January 24, 1916. Affirmed Supreme Court ruled: "We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state the proposition is to answer it." Supreme Court Cited: Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649,36 L. ed. 294, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192U. S. 470, 496, 48 L. ed. 525, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Oceanic SteamNav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 53 L. ed. 1013, 29Sup. Ct. Rep. 671. Note! The Supreme Court not only referred to the contention but stated it and thus answered it citing case precedent. In answering the contention in the ruling of the Court the Supreme Court Justices have rendered the federal income tax VOID. Since no one else to my knowledge has ever cited this fact the Courts may not honor the ruling. Nevertheless it is a factual statement under the Law that the Congress cannot delegate its powers to anyone, or anything, or any entity. Another factual statement in the Law is that the Congress cannot breach the balance of power between branches of government by giving its legislative power to the executive or judicial branches of governement. Both of these statements are set in stone. For either one or both of those reasons the federal income tax AND the Internal Revenue Service are unconstitutional. The first time this contention is brought before the Supreme Court the income tax must be struck down.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (51 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

121. That between the years 1970 and 1973, while a member of the Intelligence Briefing Team, Petty Officer of the Watch in the Command Center, and SPECAT Operator of the KL-47 for Admiral Bernard Clarey Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet Affiant witnessed the MAJESTYTWELVE plan to disarm the American People, destroy the united States of America, and institute world totalitarian socialist government. The plan included a statement that the so-called income tax is the unconstitutional implementation of the graduated income tax required as Plank #2 of Karl Marx and Engles' Communist Manifesto. 122. That Affiant has never knowingly or intentionally defrauded any "bank". All contracts have been honored and all loans repaid on time and in full except for one, which loan is current and paid up to date according to its contract. 123. That Affiant has not obtained a loan of any kind from any "bank" in over seventeen years. 124. That Affiant's lawful wife has obtained five loans from a "bank," individual, or lending institution as a single woman. 125. That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a "bank," individual, or lending institution Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have without fail informed the "bank," individual, or lending institution of our married status. 126. That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a "bank," individual, or lending institution Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have asked the representative of the "bank," individual, or lending institution to make the loan to Affiant's lawful wife as "a single woman" because of the immediate danger that Affiant might be murdered due to his status as an enemy of the socialist subversives operating within the United States government. 127. That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a "bank," individual, or lending institution Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have followed the
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (52 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

instructions of the representative of the lending institution, individual, or "bank". That all letters delivered, forms filled out, or forms signed by Affiant or Affiant's wife were at the instruction of the representative of the "bank", individual, or lending institution for the purpose of facilitating the loan(s) to Affiant's lawful wife as a "single woman". 128. That following the instructions of the lending representative of any "bank," individual, or lending institution after having given full disclosure of our marital status is NOT fraud. 129. That as all letters delivered, forms filled out, or forms signed by Affiant or Affiant's wife were at the instruction of the lending representative of the "bank", individual, or lending institution for the purpose of facilitating the loan(s) to Affiant's lawful wife as a "single woman" there can be NO fraud. 130. That all monetary figures given to any representative of a "bank," individual, or lending institution as moneys earned by Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife were always much LOWER than actual moneys earned during any period of time requested. Stating a lower figure always makes it more difficult to obtain a loan and is NOT fraud. 131. That it is much more difficult for a "single woman" with children to obtain a loan than a "married woman". Making it more difficult upon oneself to obtain a loan is NOT fraud. 132. That "fraud" requires intent to "defraud" and NO such intent has ever been present in any of Affiant's or Affiant's lawful wife's dealings with any "bank," individual, or lending institution. Affiant's intent was to protect his lawful wife and children against the possibility of Affiant's murder by a despotic government. All contracts have been honored and all loans repaid on time and in full except for one, which loan is current and paid up to date according to its contract. 133. That the only outstanding loan is on the Headquarters of a
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (53 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

Constitutional Contractural Pure Trust for which Affiant and Affiant's wife are the Trustees. The transfer of title is registered with the Apache County Recorder in St. Johns, Arizona. The lending institution has accepted all payments by check drawn on the Trust account. The property has been legally and lawfully transferred from Affiant's wife to the Trust even though the loan remains in the name of Affiant's wife. According to Law Affiant's wife holds title in Trust as "Trustee". 134. That all applications for loans by Affiant's lawful wife were accepted and signed by the representative of the "bank," individual, or lending institution as "true and correct", "approved", and "accepted". 135. That any representative who attests to anything other than what is sworn to in this affidavit is acting only to protect his or her job and to cover his or her own actions in advising us in the particular manner dictated to us in order that Affiant's wife could obtain the loan or loans as a "single woman". Any loan obtained in this manner cannot be, and is NOT fraud. 136. That Affiant is a member of the Constitutional and Lawfully constituted unorganized Militia of the State of Arizona and of the united States of America. 137. That the Affiant and the Militia have the Right guaranteed by the Constitution for the united Statesof America and the Constitution of the State of Arizona to keep and bear arms in defense of Affiant, Affiant's property, the State of Arizona, and the Constitution for the united States of America. That if the United States will not enforce the Laws of the Union it is the Right and the Duty of the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Union. 138. That Affiant and the Militia have the Right and the duty to stand and fight the United States governments despotic and tyrannical unconstitutional and unlawful usurpation of power and jurisdiction with all the means at Affiant's and the Militia's disposal, including the force of arms, any assault which may be mounted upon Affiant, Affiant's family, Affiant's property,
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (54 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

and any other property for which Affiant may be responsible. 139. Affiant and or Affiant's wife are not anti-government, radical, fundamentalist, crazy, suicidal, criminal, child molesters, bank robbers, child abusers, tax protesters, wife beater, husband beater, drug users, drug dealers, drug growers, drug stockpilers, revolutionaries, subversives, terrorists, white supremacist, racists, anti-Semitic, or any other demonizing label that may be applied. Affiant and Affiant's wife do not have illegal weapons, hand grenades, bombs, missiles, tanks, machine guns, anti-tank rockets, anti-aircraft weapons or any other demonized instrument of any type whatsoever. The Trust Headquarters and domicile of Affiant and Affiant's wife as Trustees is NOT a compound. 140. Affiant demands that the Internal Revenue Service disclose and CANCEL any and all agreements, contracts, adhesions, laws, regulations, codes, statutes, or treaties which the United States believes bring Affiant under the jurisdiction of the United States and/or make Affiant liable to file and/or pay the so-called income tax according to items enumerated above. Affiant demands the Internal Revenue Service disclose the true nature of the fictions WILLIAM COOPER and ANNIE MORDHORST or any other fictions upon which the Internal Revenue Service is attempting to levy the socalled income tax and upon whom the federal Court has issued summons and arrest warrants. 141. The Affiant has always acted, and is acting in good faith and with reasonable cause in accordance with 26 CFR Section 1.6661-6(b) 142. The Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are permitted to amend and/or correct any records in possession of, or maintained by, any governmental authority, which is inconsistent herewith, in accordance with Title 26 of the United States Code, Section 552a. 143. The Affiant knows that if any government employee, agent, representative, or official, to whom these letters become known, fails to state
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (55 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

a rebuttal, said government employee, agent, representative, or official is forever estopped so to do by the maxim of law, "he who remains silent, consents." 144. The Affiant hereby gives the government agents, to whom this Contract and Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Truth and Jurisdiction Challenge is directed, twenty (20) calendar days from the date that this Contract and Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Truth and Jurisdiction Challenge is received by said government agents to respond to this Contract and Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Truth and Jurisdiction Challenge. 145. Any statements or claims made by the Affiant in this Affidavit of Truth, properly rubutted by facts of Law, or by overriding Constitution for the united States of America, Article Three, Supreme Court rulings, shall not prejudice the Lawful validity of other claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts of Law. 146. All responses to this affidavit must be designated for delivery EXACTLY as prescribed below, without omitting any parentheses. Otherwise, any attempted correspondence with the Affiant will be returned to the sender, "Refused". William, Cooper All Rights Reserved (c/o Harvest Trust, c/o P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, (de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85925 ) The Affiant now affixes the Affiant's signature to all of the above affirmations with explicit reservation of all of Affiant's unalienable Rights without prejudice to any of those Rights.
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (56 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

I William, Cooper declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America that the foregoing Contract and Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit of Truth, Jurisdiction Challenge and Summary thereof is, to the best of William, Cooper's Knowledge, belief, understanding and information, true, correct certain and complete. Further the Affiant sayeth naught.

_Signature on original.______________________ William, Cooper - Affiant All Rights Reserved (c/o Harvest Trust, c/o P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, (de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85925 )

I do attest and certify by my signature below that William, Cooper the Affiant is known to me and that I personally witnessed William, Cooper the Affiant affix his signature to this Demand, Declaration, and Affidavit and that the signature affixed above is the true and correct signature of William, Cooper the Affiant.

_Signature on original.______________________ John Doyel, Shamley

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (57 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:38 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

All Rights Reserved (c/o 21176 Avenue 144, Porterville, (de jure, union state of California) nonassumpsit to the venue of "CA" (these united states of America) nondomestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 93257 )

_Signature on original._______________________ Annie, Cooper All Rights Reserved (c/o P.O. Box 1420, Show Low, (de jure, union state of Arizona) nonassumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) nondomestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85901 ) $10,000 REWARD Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Compulsory Production of Documents Cooper Family Targeted Federal Jurisdiction (very restricted) Federal Income Tax VOID - Administrative Powers Unconstitutional Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Internal Revenue Service
http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (58 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:39 PM]

This public notice addresses federal jurisdiction,

MAJESTYTWELVE Public Judicial Notice Public Judicial Notice #2 Taxation Supplement Taxgate They Have NO Evidence Uncertainty of the Law Veritas We Are NOT Liable

Home
Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised: December 16, 1999 .

http://www.williamcooper.com/pubnot3.htm (59 of 59) [12/15/01 1:25:39 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

They Have NO Evidence!
To IRS - Put up or shut up!
We give the Internal Revenue Service 20 Calendar days to respond.

$10,000 REWARD
Items 28 through 46 excerpted from the LAW and Public Judicial Notice #3 28. That, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, Title One, Section One, the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not earn "gross income" as such term is defined therein. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, Title 1 Section 1, Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the definition of "gross income" (is amended after the words "compensation for personal service") includes [only] personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. 29. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not involved in any type of "revenue taxable activities" including but not limited to the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms; any wagering activities; or any other regulated industry, trade or profession. 30. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not reside in or obtain income from any source within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam or any other territory, insular possession, possession, enclave, franchise or instrumentality of the United States, the District of Columbia, the British Commonwealth, or the Vatican.

http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (1 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

31. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a United States Person; United States Resident; United States Individual; United States Corporation "citizen subject to it's jurisdiction", or subject of the Royal Family of Great Britain, as such "words of art" are defined in the Internal Revenue Code and other applicable United States Codes or treaties. 32. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States did not repeal the Constitutional apportionment restrictions imposed on direct taxes by the Constitution for the united States of America, Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, and Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four, thus, taxes on personal property are direct taxes, not taxable by the federal government unless apportioned according to the census of the union states. 33. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States was not properly lawfully and constitutionally ratified by the States of the Union. But if it had been properly ratified it specifies "...incomes, from whatever source derived,...". Amendment XVI. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." 34. That the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury has defined and limited the tax to be applicable to only, "...taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities..." The income must be taxable and must come from specific sources and activities that are defined by the Secretary. Code of Federal Regulations ¤ 1.861- 8(a): "...The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections."
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (2 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

35. That the Federal Regulations make reference to 'sources' within the United States.. below are the only sources listed from which income must derive in order for it to be taxable for the purpose of the Income Tax. Code of Federal Regulations 1.861-8(f)(1) (i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit. (ii) [Reserved] (iii) DISC and FSC taxable income. (note: DISC is Direct International Sales Corp, and FSC is a Foreign Sales Corp) (iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States,... (v) Foreign base company income. (vi) Other operative sections. (A) "...foreign source items of tax..." (B) "...foreign mineral income..." (C) [Reserved] (D) "...foreign oil and gas extraction income..." (E) "...citizens entitled to the benefits of section 931 and the section 936 tax credit..." (F) "...residents of Puerto Rico..." (G) "...income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands..."
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (3 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

(H) "...income derived from Guam..." (I) "...China Trade Act corporations..." (J) "...income of a controlled foreign corporation..." (K) "...income from the insurance of U.S. risks..." (L) "...international boycott factor...attributable taxes and income under section 999..." (M) "...income attributable to the operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936..." 36. That the item 35. list explains clearly the "gross income" involvement in light of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the inclusion or exclusion of something in a law. Or simply, if a particular source is not on the list, then it is effectively 'excluded' from the Income Tax Act and subsequently the legal definition of 'Gross Income'. 37. That the item 35. list/regulation can be described simply as a "fence". The U.S. Congress gave the Secretary the task to encircle and delineate the only area from which "Gross Income", and hence "taxable income", can be derived or accepted from... and the Secretary published his understanding of what was expected of him in the regulations. The above list is in fact the only definition of "sources" anywhere in the regulations. "Whatever" is within the fence is "allowed" to be listed as "Gross Income". If it is not within the confines of the Secretary's "fence" or "regulation", it is "exempt". 38. That some with a vested interest in taking care of our money for us, will
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (4 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

argue that the phrase "whatever sources" in the so-called 16th Amendment means "any and all sources"... we AGREE that it does... any and all "sources" within the list! The Secretary has defined them, then Congress agreed with the Secretary! And they are restricted to the above list, as it is the only list which defines sources! An entry for Citizens with domestic income does not exist on this list! 39. That the power of the Congress and the authority it gives to the Executive Branch is limited to the contents of the law. 40. What is not stated in the law is ALWAYS important; it is a fundamental legal principle and a basic maxim of statutory interpretation: "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another) "When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded." (Black's, 6th ed.) 1.) Section 61 states that gross income is from 'sources' which are taxable. 2.) 26 USC ¤ 861(a), states that the following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States, and does not define the 'specific sources' of income from within the U.S., that are taxable. 3.) 26 CFR ¤ 1.861 and following, are the Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Treasury to implement 26 USC ¤ 861, and prove that the items of gross income discussed in 26 USC ¤ 861, are applicable
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (5 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

only to nonresident aliens and U.S. Citizens living abroad. 41. That all of the regulations applicable to 26 USC ¤ 864, Definitions, are directed only to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. Significantly, the only application of the federal income tax upon the income of U.S. Citizens in existence is with respect to: (1) a U.S. Citizen's foreign earned income, and (2) the income of U.S. Citizens living abroad. 42. That when you examine 861's regulations, you find the admission in 1.861-8 (a)(4), that income must come from a specific source to be taxable. If you examine the sources in 1.861-8 (f)(1), you will find that the domestic sources are plainly applicable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. The others listed are foreign sources that U.S. citizens would definitely be taxed upon. 43. That there is no direct mention of U.S. sources where U.S. Citizens can earn 'gross income'. 44. That of the five sources listed in (f)(1), four of them are repeated as non-exempt income pursuant to 26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(iii). And pursuant to 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(ii)(A), all income that is exempt, excluded (not listed), or eliminated from the law, is exempt income. There are no other U.S. sources listed that are applicable to U.S. citizens living and working within the U.S. 45. That since the law is plainly structured to be taxing nonresident aliens, and foreign earned income, we must have some specific citation of law, specifically taxing U.S. citizens on their domestic source income, as the Secretary has made the list of U.S. sources that are taxable in 26 U.S.C. ¤ 861, applicable only to nonresident aliens.
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (6 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

46. That the only form required to be filed by U.S. Citizens, pursuant to section 1.1-1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is the 2555 foreign earned income form. With regard to the filing of returns, the only filing requirement for an individual under Subtitle A "income" tax is found in code section 6012(a). Under section 6012(a) and its underlying regulations, "taxable income" is limited to certain income that has been "earned" while living and working in certain foreign countries or territories. As proof of the above, under the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must assign an OMB approval number to any agency return that requests and collects information from a U.S. citizen. According to OMB approval control number 1545-0067 assigned to Treasury regulations 1.1-1 "Tax imposed" and 1.6012-0 "Person required to make returns of income" under 26 CFR part 600 to end, the required return for a U.S. citizen to report income is not Form 1040, but Form 2555 "Foreign Earned Income." The 1040 return for the "U.S. Individual" is merely a SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET for the required Form 2555. The top of Form 2555 instructs "attach to front of Form 1040" and "for use by U.S. citizens". Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313) clarifies that the Form 1040 individual income tax return is to be used only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien and receiving interest and/or dividends from the stock of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien. This decision was issued in 1916 to "collectors of internal revenue" pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court under the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. decision and still stands today.

$10,000 REWARD Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (7 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

Compulsory Production of Documents Cooper Family Targeted Federal Jurisdiction (very restricted) Federal Income Tax VOID - Administrative Powers Unconstitutional Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Internal Revenue Service IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction MAJESTYTWELVE Public Judicial Notice #3 Public Notice Taxation Supplement Taxgate Uncertainty of the Law Veritas We Are NOT Liable

Home
http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (8 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

They Have NO Evidence!

Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised: December 16, 1999 .

http://www.williamcooper.com/noevidnce.htm (9 of 9) [12/15/01 1:26:33 PM]

We are NOT liable!

We are NOT liable!
To IRS - Put up or shut up.
We give the Internal Revenue Service 20 calendar days to respond.

$10,000 REWARD
Items 101 through 107 is from the Law and Public Judicial Notice #3 101. That a citizen or alien domiciled within and making a living within one of the 50 states of the Union, has never been made liable by Congress for the payment of the income tax under title 26, Subtitle A. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have NO liability under the law to file or pay the so-called income tax. The so-called income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional as applied to the Citizens and others Domiciled within the territorial boundaries of the Union States who earn a living within the Union States and are not engaged in excise taxable activities. 102. That there are three sections of the IRC that address the making or filing of returns or statements: Sections 6001, 6011(a) and 6012(a): Section 6001 This section states, in relevant part ; "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns ..."

http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (1 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

-- and "Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records..." Therefore, Section 6001 clearly does not create a requirement for every person to file, but only specific individuals (i.e., those made liable). This section does not, however, establish the liability but merely presumes it Section 6011(a) This section states, in relevant part, "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement ..." -- and "Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations." Similar to Section 6001, 6011(a) applies only to certain individuals and a liability is not established but presumed in this section. Section 6012(a) This section states, in relevant part, "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income ..." Under this section, an "individual" is required to file under specific
http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (2 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

circumstances with respect to subtitle A, and the liability for any tax under subtitle A is established elsewhere in the IRC (see below). In other words, the Section 6012(a) requirement for returns to be made applies only to those who are made liable under subtitle A. Therefore, it is clear from this section, as well as those previously cited, that the requirement to file is not an all-encompassing one, but is directly related to an explicit liability for a tax. 103. That the sections of the IRC which actually establish a liability for a tax are as follows: ... Under Subtitle A (Income Taxes) a. Section 402(d)(1)(D) makes liable for a separate tax the recipient of lump sum distributions from employee benefit plans. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a recipient of a lump sum distribution from any employee benefit plan. b. Section 1461 makes liable every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under Subchapter B. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not deduct and withhold any tax under Subchapter B. ... Under Subtitle B (Estate and Gift Taxes) c. Section 3405(d)(1) makes liable the payor of a designated distribution from a pension or annuity. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a payor of a distribution from any pension or annuity. d. Section 3505(a) and (b) make liable a lender, surety, or other person that
http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (3 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

pays wages directly to an employee and that is withholding. Affiant and Affiant's wife do not pay wages to any employees. ... Under Subtitle D (Miscellaneous Excise Taxes) e. Section 4401(c) makes liable each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not engaged in the business of accepting wagers. f. Section 4980(b) makes liable an employer maintaining a qualified plan. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an employer maintaining a qualified plan. ... Under Subtitle E (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes) g. Section 5005 makes liable the distiller or importer of distilled spirits. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a distiller nor an importer of distilled spirits. h. Section 5703 makes liable the manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not manufacture or import tobacco products, cigarette papers or tubes. Case Authority "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not
http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (4 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." -- Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 "Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax." -Highly v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F. 2d 160 "...the taxpayer must be liable for the income tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." -- Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Contractors, 713 F. 2d 1405 104. There is only one section (Section 6020) of the IRC covering the preparation of returns by the Internal Revenue Service on a persons behalf. This section states, in relevant part: "6020(a) -- If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title or by regulations prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return, which, being signed by such person, may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person." -- and "6020(b)(1) -- If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return..." Therefore, it is clear from this section that the IRS may prepare or execute returns on a person's behalf only when that person has a clearly established requirement to make a return AND with such person's consent to provide the necessary information. Section 6020 does not establish a requirement to make a return, however, but merely presumes it. Furthermore, Section 6020 clearly declares that any return prepared by the IRS on a person's behalf
http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (5 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

must be signed by that person. This is confirmed by the enforcing regulation, 26CFR301.6020-1 which states, in relevant part: "(a) Preparation of returns -- (1) In general. If any person required by the Code or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return fails to make such return, it may be prepared by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee provided such person consents to disclose all information necessary for the preparation of such return. The return upon being signed by the person required to make it shall be received by the district director as the return of such person." 105. That if the Internal Revenue Service wishes to prepare a return on Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's behalf, please provide the: (1) Code or Regulation that requires Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife to make statements, keep records, or file returns; or (2) Proper notice served upon Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife by the Secretary or delegated authority requiring me to make statements, keep records, or file returns; (3) Code and Regulation that makes Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife liable for a tax; and (4) Specific sources of gross income upon which a tax is imposed. 106. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife would be most happy to complete any returns required of Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife by law, if Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife have a tax liability and upon service of proper notice. 107. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife hereby rebut the presumption of a requirement where none actually exists under law via this sworn affidavit, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the agency (Secretary of the Treasury/IRS), which must then disprove Affiant's and Affiant's lawful
http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (6 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

wife's statements and cannot.

$10,000 REWARD Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Compulsory Production of Documents Cooper Family Targeted Federal Jurisdiction Federal Income Tax VOID - Administrative Powers Unconstitutional Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Internal Revenue Service MAJESTYTWELVE Public Judicial Notice #3 Public Notice Taxation Supplement Taxgate They Have NO Evidence Uncertainty of the Law

http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (7 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

We are NOT liable!

Veritas

Home
Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised: December 16, 1999 .

http://www.williamcooper.com/notliabl.htm (8 of 8) [12/15/01 1:27:12 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

IRS - NO Authority to Investigate - NO Jurisdiction To IRS - Put up or shut up!
We give the Internal Revenue Service 20 Calendar days to respond.

$10,000 REWARD
All below taken from law and Public Judicial Notice #3 93. That the IRS was not created by Congress. It is not an organization found under the organization of the Department of the Treasury in Title 31 United States Code with the other agencies of the Department of the Treasury. One of the organizations known as the IRS was created as a trust in the Philippines ("Bureau of Internal Revenue," Trust fund #1, Philippine special fund; 31 USC 1321) under the Department of Finance and Justice. Another trust fund, Trust fund #62, Puerto Rico special fund, was created for "Internal Revenue." Title 26 United States Code (Internal Revenue Code) specifically defines the jurisdiction under which it is effective as only pertaining to the District of Columbia and its territories and possessions. 94. That an agency's failure to publish any document (regardless of how named by the agency) which is designed to implement or prescribe law is a "rule" which is void and unenforceable. 95. That within an agency, "instructions" may be promulgated and distributed to agency officers and employees informing them as to the manner and method of implementing and enforcing any particular law. If by chance these "instructions" likewise meet the definition of a "rule" as
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (1 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:56 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

defined by ¤ 551, and if the same be "substantive" as prescribed by ¤ 552, they must be published in the Federal Register. Several cases have found such "instructions" to agency employees void for non-publication. Case authority clearly shows that "instructions" given to agency personnel which command the performance of an act by a member of the public or which limit entitlement to statutory benefits are subject to the publication requirement. If such "rules" found in agency instructions to agency personnel must be published, then likewise similar "instructions" given directly by the agency to the public must also be published on the grounds that the same similarly are "rules." 96. That it is essential for a federal employee to possess delegated authority to perform any particular act; the absence of delegated authority means that the act in question was beyond the scope of the employee's duties, and therefore unlawful. The necessity for a federal employee to have delegated authority to act not only is shown in the above cases, it also manifests itself in cases under the Federal Torts Claims Act (herein "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C., ¤1346(b). Under this law, the United States is liable for torts committed by its employees if so committed within the scope of their employment. If the act in question was not committed in the scope of employment, the employee is liable and the United States is not. A variety of cases deciding FTCA claims show instances where the United States is held not liable for its employees torts. In Paly v. United States, 125 F.Supp. 798 (D.Md. 1954), a soldier detailed as a military funeral escort was driving his own car to a funeral and was involved in an accident. Since the soldier lacked express orders to do so, his tort was held to be outside the scope of his employment and the United States was not liable. In Jones v. F.B.I., 139 F.Supp. 38, 42 (D.Md. 1956), it was alleged that certain FBI agents had stolen or converted property belonging to the plaintiff. The court held that if such were true, the agents "were not 'acting within the scope of
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (2 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:56 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

[their] office or employment'," and the United States could not be liable in tort. In James v. United States, 467 F.2d 832 (4th Cir. 1972), a reservist was involved in a car accident on his return from an annual field training exercise; since this travel was not within the scope of his employment, the government was held not liable for damages. In another accident case involving an Army truck, White v. Hardy, 678 F.2d 485, 487 (4th Cir. 1982), the driver was found to have no authority to drive the truck when the accident happened, thus his acts were beyond the scope of his employment and the United States was not liable ("There was substantial evidence that Sergeant Hardy was not given the requisite express authority to use the government vehicle involved in the collision"). In Hughes v. United States, 662 F.2d 219 (4th Cir. 1981), the United States was held not liable for child molestation committed by one of its employees, a postal worker. In Trerice v. Summons, 755 F.2d 1081 (4th Cir. 1985), the United States was held not liable for the wrongful death of one serviceman committed by another. And in Thigpen v. United States, 800 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1986), the court held the government not liable under the FTCA for the sexual assault of some girls by one of its employees. Cases from other jurisdictions also demonstrate that for an act to be within the government employee's scope of employment, it must have been authorized by a regulation or some other written document. For example, in Mider v. United States, 322 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1963), a FTCA claim was being asserted against the United States for damages arising from an accident involving a drunken Air Force serviceman. To define the serviceman's authority, written regulations were consulted to determine whether the act of driving the government's car was authorized. Finding that the regulations did not permit use of the vehicle on this occasion, the serviceman was found not to be acting within the scope of his employment. In Bettis v. United States, 635 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1981), a soldier drove a truck off a military base without authority and was involved in an accident; his act was held to be beyond his authority and thus the United States was not liable in tort. In Turner v. United States, 595 F.Supp. 708 (W.D.La. 1984), a recruiter conducted an unclothed physical examination of some potential females
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (3 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

enlistees, which caused them to sue under the FTCA. In finding that there were no regulations either permitting or requiring such examinations, the United States was found not liable. See also Doggett v. United States, 858 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1988), and Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus the above cases adequately demonstrate that a government employee must have some specific delegated authority, based upon statutes, regulations or delegation orders, in order to be authorized to act in the premises. The absence of such authority, when challenged, therefore requires a holding that the employee's acts were unauthorized and thus beyond the scope of his employment. 97. That a plain reading of ¤7608 reveals that the section itself conveys authority to nobody other than the Secretary; the Secretary, in turn, must authorize agents and this calls for the issuance of delegation orders. Under the repealed regulation 301.7608-1, it is obvious that some type of authority had been conveyed to the Commissioner, but here even he had to issue delegation orders appointing agents. Thus, to follow the flow of authority under ¤7608, it is essential to consult Treasury Department Orders and Commissioner's Delegation Orders. In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act was adopted and the same required federal agencies to publish in the Federal Register statements of their central and field organizational structures as well as the methods by which their functions were channeled (delegation orders); see 5 U.S.C., ¤552. It is acknowledged by both Treasury and I.R.S. that these items must be so published; see 31 C.F.R. ¤1.3(a), and 26 C.F.R., ¤601.702(a). In fact, it is acknowledged that anything concerning or affecting the American public must be published. In 1953, Revenue Ruling 2 (1953-1 CB 484) was issued and it required all divisions or units of the I.R.S. to publish in the Federal Register any item of concern to the public. This was more clearly expressed in Rev. Proc. 55-1 (1955-2 CB 897) as follows: "It shall be the policy to publish for public information
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (4 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

all statements of practice and procedure issued primarily for internal use, and, hence, appearing in internal management documents, which affect rights or duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes." That which is expressed above currently manifests itself within 26 C.F.R., ¤601.601(d)(2)(b), which reads as follows: "A 'Revenue Procedure' is a statement of procedure that affects the rights or duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Code and related statutes or information that, although not necessarily affecting the rights and duties of the public, should be a matter of public knowledge." Before commencing with a review of "modern" TDOs, it might perhaps be useful to examine older delegation orders and TDOs issued before and during the time of the 1939 Code; by doing so, it may be seen how authority from the President and Secretary has been delegated. For example, Executive Order 6166, dated June 10, 1933, stated as follows: "All functions now exercised by the Bureau of Prohibition of the Department of Justice with respect to the granting of permits under the national prohibition laws are transferred to the Division of Internal Revenue in the Treasury Department. "The Bureaus of Internal Revenue and of Industrial Alcohol of the Treasury Department are consolidated in a Division of Internal Revenue, at the head of which shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue." Executive Order No. 6639, dated March 10, 1934, stated as follows:
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (5 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

"1.(a) The Bureau of Industrial Alcohol and the Office of Commissioner of Industrial Alcohol are abolished, and the authority, rights, privileges, powers and duties conferred and imposed by law upon the Commissioner of Industrial Alcohol are transferred to and shall be held, exercised, and performed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his assistants, agents, and inspectors, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury." And TDO No. 143, dated December 6, 1951, provided as follows: "By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury by Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950, there are hereby transferred to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the functions and duties now performed by collectors of Internal Revenue in connection with tobacco and other taxes imposed under Chapter 15 of the Internal Revenue Code. "The functions and duties herein transferred to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may, at his discretion, be delegated to subordinates in the Bureau of Internal Revenue service in such manner as the Commissioner shall from time to time direct." Thus each delegation order must be examined to determine the authority conveyed therein. In 1949, Congress enacted a law authorizing the President to reorganize the executive departments; see 63 Stat. 203, chap. 226, codified at 5 U.S.C., ¤901, et seq. Pursuant to this authority, the President promulgated Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950 (15 Fed. Reg. 4935, 64 Stat. 1280), which restructured the entire Treasury Department via the following:
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (6 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

"[T]here are hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury all functions of all other officers of the Department of the Treasury and all functions of all agencies and employees of such Department." By this reorganization plan, all statutory and delegated authority of anyone in the Treasury Department was immediately divested and placed into the hands of the Secretary. Thereafter, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 2243, 66 Stat. 823) reorganized the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the name of which was changed to the Internal Revenue Service the following year; see T.D. 6038, 1953-2 CB 443. Based upon the above reorganization plans, on March 15, 1952, the Secretary issued TDO No. 150, which authorized the continued performance of functions by Treasury officers and agents until changed by subsequent order. This order established a series of later orders, all of which deal with and concern administration of the internal revenue laws. A separate brief lists the TDOs issued since the reorganization plan which are in 150 series; citation as to where each order is published is also provided. A review of these TDOs discloses that most of them concern only organizational changes made to the I.R.S. Insofar as authority granted pursuant to ¤7608 is concerned, of those which were published, only TDO No. 150-42 could possibly embody the criminal enforcement powers to which ¤7608 relates. Based upon the above, the process of determining what agent has been delegated ¤7608 authority thus requires examination of all published CDOs issued by the Commissioner. A list enumerating every published CDO from 1954 to the present is contained in a separate brief; by review of these various CDOs, it is possible to trace the authority which is the subject of ¤7608.

http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (7 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

The only possible CDOs which could delegate ¤7608 authority are numbered 31, 33 and 34. On April 30, 1956, CDO No. 31 was issued delegating to the Assistant Commissioner and the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division the authority to administer and enforce chapters 51, 52 and 53 of the Code (the "ATF" chapters), in addition to a few other functions. A few months later, CDOs No. 33 and 34 were issued and these orders also related to alcohol and tobacco taxes. Once these units of the I.R.S. had been delegated these enforcement responsibilities, Congress thereafter in 1958 created ¤7608, and the regulation at 301.7608-1 was promulgated in 1959. Below is a list containing the cites where these and subsequent revisions of these orders were published. CDO No. 31: (a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 3083, 1956-1 CB 1015. (b) Rev. 1, 34 Fed. Reg. 87, 1969-1 CB 379. (c) Rev. 2, 35 Fed. Reg. 16808, 1970-2 CB 487. (d) Rev. 3, 36 Fed. Reg. 18678, 1971-2 CB 524. (e) Rev. 4, 36 Fed. Reg. 22607, 1971-2 CB 525. CDO No. 33: (a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 4415, 1956-2 CB 1375. CDO No. 34: (a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 5851, 1956-2 CB 1375. (b) Revoked, 38 Fed. Reg. 33407, 1973-2 CB 462. As can be seen from these orders, the same allowed for the seizure and
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (8 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

forfeiture of property and the enforcement of the criminal laws. Logically, it is these orders which permitted the promulgation of the regulation at 301.7608-1. The ATF Division of the I.R.S. was the unit which was responsible for the administration and enforcement of the laws which were the subject of CDOs No. 31, 33 and 34. This ended with the creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms via TDO No. 221 on June 6, 1972; see 37 Fed. Reg. 116696, 1972-1 CB 777. Among other administration and enforcement functions transferred to BATF via this order were the following: "(a) Chapters 51, 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such Code insofar as they relate to the commodities subject to tax under such chapters; "(b) Chapters 61 to 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, insofar as they relate to the activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52 and 53." About 2 1/2 years later, the Secretary issued TDO No. 221-3 (40 Fed. Reg. 1084, 1975-1 CB 758) which delegated to the BATF the authority to administer and enforce "chapter 35 and chapter 40 and 61 through 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapter 35." Chapter 35 deals with wagering taxes and chapter 40 concerns occupational taxes related to wagering. Some 1 1/2 years later, TDO No. 221-3 (Rev. 1) was issued. The only real, detectable distinction between the former and latter orders was the inclusion of the following phrase in the latter: "The Commissioner may call upon the Director for assistance when it is necessary to exercise any of the enforcement authority described in section 7608 of the
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (9 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

Internal Revenue Code." But, on January 14, 1977, the Secretary transferred back to the I.R.S. the enforcement duties relating to wagering via TDO No. 221-3 (Rev. 2). Thereafter, the authority of BATF encompassed chapters 40, 51, 52 and 53 of the 1954 Code in addition to the authority to enforce other non-Code laws. It is of great significance that the repeal of regulation 301.7608-1 occurred shortly after the creation of the BATF. The authority of BATF agents to exercise the functions under ¤7608 is today found in 27 C.F.R., ¤70.28. In summary, ¤7608 requires delegations from the Secretary to enforcement agents. In reference to ¤7608(a), it has been shown above that this "ATF" authority has flowed through the ATF unit within I.R.S., ultimately to be passed onto the BATF. But, in the search for authority under ¤7608(b), a review of all published TDOs and CDOs reveals that there appears to have been no such delegation. Thus, if a Special Agent is conducting any investigation pursuant to the authority of ¤7608, that investigation encompasses violations only of the alcohol, tobacco and firearms tax laws, and there is NO apparent authority to conduct any federal income tax investigation which is possessed by a Special Agent. 98. That Affiant filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which gave the IRS the authority to conduct an investigation of a Citizen of Arizona. The IRS could not, and did not, produce any such documentation. We noticed Special Agent Shupnik and Assistant U.S. Attorney Winerip to produce their credentials and documentation of their authority to conduct such an investigation; they refused because they could not as no such documents exists. 99. That of all the circuits, the Ninth Circuit has addressed jurisdictional issues more than any of the rest. In United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal. 1888), it was determined that the United States did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States v. Tully, 140 F.
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (10 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

899 (D.Mon. 1905). But later, California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal. 1927), that this enabled the U.S. to maintain a murder prosecution. See also United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D.Wash. 1909), United States v. Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal. 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or. 1921). Because the U.S. owned and had a state cession of jurisdiction for Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the U.S. had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction; see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz. 1977). The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth the rule that in criminal prosecutions, the government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and a state cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction, must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159 P.2d 686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction; see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782, 265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v. District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410 P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a state cession of
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (11 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The same applies in Nevada; see State v. Mack, 23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763 (1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987); it applies in Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694, 598 P.2d 731 (1979)). In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of an IRS office was held to be within state jurisdiction, the court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of jurisdiction. In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S. post offices which were rented were held to be within state jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910), and People v. Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936). See also In re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218 (1945). In Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a U.S. missile site in State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327 (1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987), the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a D.U.I. committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state cession of jurisdiction. In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, state jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1983). The proper method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in People v. Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule was likewise enunciated in State v.
http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (12 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640 (1986), a case involving a D.U.I. offense committed on a road near a federal arsenal. In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App. 1972), the state was held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in question in the United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597 (Okl.Cr.App. 1975). Similar holdings for murders committed at U.S. post offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1968). Another Oregon case, State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987), demonstrates this rule. Finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense. 100. That in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction." "Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem. Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308. $10,000 REWARD

http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (13 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Compulsory Production of Documents Cooper Family Targeted Federal Jurisdiction (very restricted) Federal Income Tax VOID - Administrative Powers Unconstitutional Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Internal Revenue Service MAJESTYTWELVE Public Judicial Notice #3 Public Notice Taxation Supplement Taxgate They Have NO Evidence Uncertainty of the Law Veritas We Are NOT Liable

http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (14 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

IRS - NO Authority - No Jurisdiction

Home
Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised: December 15, 1999 .

http://www.williamcooper.com/irsno.htm (15 of 15) [12/15/01 1:27:57 PM]

HOTT - Internal Revenue Service

Internal Revenue Service
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects something it cannot be." Thomas Jefferson "The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of a state is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction." - United States Supreme Court Justice Fields

April 9, 2001: IRS "WALK-AROUND" Be There! We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education An Excellent Site! - New Warren Richardson, Senator Orrin Hatch's attorney, admitting that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. - New IRS Special Agent Banister Challenges System Proves William Cooper is RIGHT.
Agency illegitimate, tax law non-existent, he says.

IRS special agent is right, says CPA
'We need to take next step'

Money Making and Asset Protection

Joseph R. Banister Report
Three cheers for Joe Banister, the former special agent for the Internal Revenue Service, who actually went to the trouble to study the constitutionality of his employer, came to the conclusion it was illegal and had the nerve to confront his bosses.

Exposing the IRS fraud

$10,000 REWARD
Proof: 16th Amendment Never Properly Ratified
http://www.williamcooper.com/internal.htm (1 of 3) [12/15/01 1:28:50 PM]

HOTT - Internal Revenue Service

New Soviet Style IRS Headquarters = (Illuminati) Masonic Temple Abolish the IRS Attorney Lawrence BeCraft's "Dixieland Law Journal" Brushaber Vs Union Pacific Railroad Citizens for an Alternative Tax System Deceptive IRS Code Words Federal Jurisdiction FOIA Help Center History of the Sixteenth Amendment How to get Tax Amnesty Income Tax VOID - Administrative Powers Unconstitutional Internal Revenue Code Title 26 Online (Searchable) IRS Abuse Reports IRS Fraud Exposed IRS Home Page IRS Research by Dan Meador Irwin Schiff Legislates Outside the Constitutional Limitations Let's Halt IRS Taxpayer Abuse Now Lloyd Long Trial Transcripts (IRS Lost) James Madison's Notes Meador's Public Notice of IRS Origin Memoirs National Organization for Non-Enumeration Nerd World: TAXES Public Judicial Notice #3

http://www.williamcooper.com/internal.htm (2 of 3) [12/15/01 1:28:50 PM]

HOTT - Internal Revenue Service

Pure Contractual Trust Reasonable Action State Citizen (sovereign citizen Vs U.S. citizen (Federal citizen) Save A Patriot Fellowship Social Security Number Taxes Tax Basics 101 Tax Freedom Tax Freedom 101 Tax Freedom Network Tax Truth

Taxgate.com They Told the Truth Title 26 Internal Revenue Code Transcripts Senate Hearings IRS Unbridled Power: Inside the Secret Culture of the IRS U.S. Vs Long (IRS Lost) Victory Express What Can They Seize? Subversive Organizations United States of America

Home | The HOTT Shop | Hour of the Time | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Statement © 1999-2001, Excel Studios Corporation S.A. All rights reserved.

http://www.williamcooper.com/internal.htm (3 of 3) [12/15/01 1:28:50 PM]

Timed Javascript Re-Direct w/ Countdown - NO META TAGS!!!

Please access this page from the home page for security reasons. You will be automatically redirected there in in 10 seconds, if not then click here.

WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law May 5, 2000 Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar 1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473 Dear Mr. Benson: You may address me simply as Warren and I'll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data-over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental. In case you wish to know a little about my background, let me give you a brief overview. I was honored to serve my nation in World War II as a Naval Aviator. Since my college career at the University of Rochester had been interrupted by the war, I went back to the U. of R. and obtained my A.B. degree in history. That was followed by a B.S. in accounting. By then I was married and we moved to the Washington, D.C. area so that my wife could continue her college work while I attended law school. Upon receiving my law degree, I was honored to be chosen for the first class of Honor Law Graduates at the Justice Department. (This program was started in 1953 while Eisenhower was president.) Because of my law and accounting background, I moved to the legal department at the General Accounting Office. After 5 years as a government attorney, I left for the private sector, where I have been ever since. Two years of that time was spent in a law firm and the rest has been working in the lobbying profession. Before going to the subject of your books - the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the Court's discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case.
http://rightonthemark.com/warren%20richardsom.htm (1 of 3) [12/15/01 1:33:22 PM]

Timed Javascript Re-Direct w/ Countdown - NO META TAGS!!!

The Supreme Court's decision in that case can only be changed by one of two methods: 1. The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or, 2. An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected. The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative. In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based? Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the Members of Congress? Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now. Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country. Sincerely, /S/ Warren S. Richardson P.S. Since a personal letter cannot be distributed, or even shown, to anyone other than the recipient without permission of the author, I hereby authorize you to show it (not publish it) to other people at your discretion.

http://rightonthemark.com/warren%20richardsom.htm (2 of 3) [12/15/01 1:33:22 PM]

Timed Javascript Re-Direct w/ Countdown - NO META TAGS!!!

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 5th day of May, 2000 /S/ (Mary M. Challstrom, Notary Public)

http://rightonthemark.com/warren%20richardsom.htm (3 of 3) [12/15/01 1:33:22 PM]

Volume 1 Issue 1

Features What Do You Think? Rush Limbaugh's deafness. Doctors say radical treatment of taking his fingers out of his ears may provide some relief. Archives This Week's Horoscopes

News In Brief Baby infected with anthrax. BOSTON, MAS—The 7-month-old son of a free-lance producer at ABC News has developed the milder skin form of anthrax after spending time in the New York newsroom, authorities and network officials said Monday night. Exactly what an infant was doing in an adult restroom alone is under investigation. Full Text » Shortage of anthrax antibiotics becomming critical. FDA pushing for approval of "spoonful of sugar" treatment. ATLANTA,GA-A severe shortage of the antibiotic, doxycycline, used to treat anthrax is prompting the FDA to research older, cheaper treatments. Mohammad Akhter, executive director of the American Public Health Association said the idea came to him after watching the USA Network presentation of Mary Poppins. "Before doxycycline and penicillin, people had to make due with what they had. He discovered that during Mary Poppins, where a spoonful of sugar was used as a delivery system for other drugs, the recovery was almost instantaneous, implying that the medicine was actually a placebo and the sugar was the healing catalyst. If this proves to be the case then we can begin prophylactic treatment by having people ingest large quantities of Count Chocula. People for the ethical treatment of the pancreas expressed disapproval for the plan, which they believe is based solely on shoddy science and brilliant Britishnanny marketing. U.S. House shuts for sweeps of anthrax. Red cross air dropping thousands of bath robes to aid in the evacuation of naked congressional interns. WASHINGTON, D.C.-Weapons grade anthrax has found it's way into the very nerve center of our nation. Senator Tom Daschle's office received an envelope containing what was called by experts to be, "Some serious fucking shit". The Capitol Building was evacuated of all personnel except for approximately1700 naked interns. The Red Cross is air dropping hundreds of terry-cloth bath robes so the frightened interns can be evacuated with minimal risk of

Top Story

Jenna Bush practices the "drop and hump" defensive move on a sorority sister during a recent Bud Light drill.
DALLAS—Anthrax scare paralyzes America's breweries. President Bush's daughters moved to an undisclosed location for their safety. National Guard mobilized to protect the country's barley, malt, hops and rice reserves. Full Text »

News

In The News

Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty George Bush says, "Be prepared to give your life for your country, don't be a pussy". Broadcasts brave, patriotic message deep underground in special, fortified, impervious bunker. President Bush's nephew, Porter, voted "most unpopular kid" in 8th grade. Talks of war with 4th grade to combat bullyism. Editorial "Before I let terrorists take my life I vow to screw myself to death"

http://www.rightonthemark.com/ (1 of 2) [12/15/01 1:34:03 PM]

Volume 1 Issue 1

exposure and maximum comfort. One congressman was hospitalized earlier this week when it was believed he was exposed to anthrax after licking a contaminated envelope. The congressman's condition proved to psychosomatic and the contaminated envelope proved to be the nipple of one of the congressman's interns.

Pleas from a precocious second grader

"Mr. Bush, shove this war up your ass."
Joe six-pack speaks out

"God commands us to kill. It's the American way."

Casualities in the war on terror Man stepping out of shower with towel on head shot and killed by angry mob. Police say mistaking hair dryer for a box cutter wan an honest mistake.

Government experimenting with new national ID system. Civil libertarians protesting the possibility of outlawing bangs. Cite life, liberty and right to hide forehead. Towel wearing Arab community reported to be having themselves a "hissy fit".

http://www.rightonthemark.com/ (2 of 2) [12/15/01 1:34:03 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction

FEDERAL JURISDICTION
The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their juridiction, as much as that of a state is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction. Supreme Court Justice Fields
by Attorney Lowell H. "Larry" Becraft Jr. In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, one being that of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory. Notwithstanding the clarity of this simple principle, the line of demarcation between these two jurisdictions and the extent and reach of each has become somewhat blurred due to popular misconceptions and the efforts expended by the federal government to conceal one of its major weaknesses. Only by resorting to history and case law can this obfuscation be clarified and the two distinct jurisdictions be readily seen. The original thirteen colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English Crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English Parliament. The political connections of the separate colonies to the English Crown and Parliament descended to an rebellious state of affairs as the direct result of Parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760's and early 1770's. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October, 1774, and its purpose was to submit a petition of grievances to the British Parliament and Crown. By the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these Parliamentary acts of which they complained as "impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights;" but further, they asserted that these acts manifested designs, schemes and plans "which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America." Matters grew worse and between October, 1775, and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England, and several adopted constitutions for the newly formed States. By July, 1776, the exercise of British authority in all of the colonies was not recognized in any degree. The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal Declaration of Independence. The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:
Money Making and Asset Protection

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (1 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
"This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted."

q

The consequences of independence was again explained in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:
q

"There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states. "Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory. "[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour."

Thus, unequivocally, in July, 1776, the new States possessed all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits. This condition of supreme sovereignty of each State over all property and persons within the borders thereof continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. Article II of that document declared:
q

"Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

As the history of the confederation government demonstrated, each State was indeed sovereign and independent to such a degree that it made the central government created by the confederation fairly ineffectual. These defects of the confederation government strained the relations between and among the States and the remedy became the calling of a constitutional convention. The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the States, although the product of the Convention was more than this. But, no intention was demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by them at that time, and indeed the Constitution as finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, ¤ 8, cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which defined federal jurisdiction as follows:
q

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles of

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (2 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
Confederation was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and it had no jurisdiction within the States. This defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally dependent upon any given State for protection, and this dependency did in fact cause embarrassment for that Congress. During the Revolutionary War while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted its members. The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania proved themselves powerless to remedy this situation, so Congress was forced to flee first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally to Annapolis, Maryland.[1] Thus, this clause was inserted into the Constitution to give jurisdiction to Congress over its capital, and such other places which Congress might purchase for forts, magazines, arsenals and other needful buildings wherein the State ceded jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government. Other than in these areas, this clause of the Constitution did not operate to cede further jurisdiction to the federal government, and jurisdiction over those areas which had not been so ceded remained within the States. While there had been no real provisions in the Articles which permitted the Confederation Congress to acquire property and possess exclusive jurisdiction over that property, the above clause filled an essential need by permitting the federal government to acquire land for the seat of government and other purposes from certain of the States. These lands were deemed essential to enable the United States to perform the powers delegated by the Constitution, and a cession of lands by any particular State would grant exclusive jurisdiction of them to Congress. Perhaps the best explanations for this clause in the Constitution were set forth in Essay No. 43 of The Federalist:
q

"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. "The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment."

Since the ratification of the present U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower courts have had many opportunities to construe and apply this clause of the Constitution. The essence of all these decisions manifests a legal principle that the States of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders, excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (3 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
been ceded to the United States. Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute this crime and argued that the federal circuit courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as much:
q

"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dockyards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," Id., at 350-51.

In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over this crime, the Court held:
q q

q

"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? "We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," Id., at 386-87. "The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction... Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. "It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction," Id., at 388.

The Court in Bevans thus established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution. The decision in Bevans was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled this sale of federal land, the Court held:
q

"The legislation and authority of congress is confined to cessions by particular states for the seat of government, and purchases made by consent of the legislature of the state, for the purpose of erecting forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states, of all territory within their limits, not ceded to, or purchased by, congress, with the assent of the state legislature, to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states."

A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefore had not been ceded to the United States:

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (4 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
"To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he says,) the offence committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state."

q

The decisional authority upon which this court relied was United States v. Bevans, supra. At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar fact situation was before a federal court, the only difference being that the murder was committed on land which had been ceded to the United States. In United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed.Cas. 646, 648, No. 14,867 (C.C.D.R.I. 1819), the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction:
q

"But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for public purposes, within the territorial limits of a state, this does not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of such State over the lands so purchased. It remains until the State has relinquished its authority over the land either expressly or by necessary implication. "When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the State Legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of Congress, and the State jurisdiction is completely ousted."

Almost 18 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court was again presented with a case involving the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction. In New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836), the United States claimed title to property in New Orleans likewise claimed by the city. After holding that title to the subject lands was owned by the city, the Court addressed the question of federal jurisdiction:
q

"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved an attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report regarding the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:
q

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," Id., at 133. "They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (5 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," Id., at 139. Some eight years later in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a real property title dispute with one of the parties claiming a right to the contested property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:
q

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," Id., at 221. "[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," Id., at 223. "Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," Id., at 228-29.

The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885), which sets forth the law on this point fully. Here, the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by Kansas, and the company claimed an exemption from state taxation because its property was within federal jurisdiction and outside that of the state. In holding that the railroad company's property could be taxed, the Court carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the States:
q

"The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes named, is, however, essential, under the constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property of private individuals."

Thus the cases decided within the 19th century clearly disclosed the extent and scope of both State and federal jurisdiction. In essence, these cases, among many others, hold that the jurisdiction of any particular State is co-extensive with its borders or territory, and all persons and property located or found therein are subject to that jurisdiction; this jurisdiction is superior. Federal jurisdiction results from a conveyance of state jurisdiction to the federal government for lands owned or otherwise possessed by the federal government, and thus federal jurisdiction is extremely limited in nature. There is no federal jurisdiction if there be no grant or cession of jurisdiction by the State to the federal government. Therefore, federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States. The above principles of jurisdiction established in the last century continue their vitality today with only one minor exception. In the last century, the cessions of jurisdiction by States to the federal government were by legislative acts which typically ceded full jurisdiction to the federal government, thus placing in the hands of the federal government the troublesome problem of dealing with and governing scattered, localized federal enclaves which had been totally surrendered by the States. With the advent in this century of large federal works projects and national parks, the problems regarding management of these areas by the federal government were magnified. During the last century, it was thought that if a State ceded jurisdiction to the federal government, the cession granted full and complete jurisdiction. But with the ever increasing number of separate tracts of land falling within the jurisdiction of the federal government in this century, it was obviously determined by both federal and state public officials that the States should retain

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (6 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
greater control over these ceded lands, and the courts have acknowledged the constitutionality of varying degrees of state jurisdiction and control over lands so ceded. One of the first cases to acknowledge the proposition that a State could retain some jurisdiction over property ceded to the federal government was Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 50 S.Ct. 455 (1930). Here, a state attempt to assess an ad valorem tax on Army blankets located within a federal army camp was found invalid and beyond the state's jurisdiction. But in regards to the proposition that a State could make a qualified cession of jurisdiction to the federal government, the Court held:
q

"[T]he state undoubtedly may cede her jurisdiction to the United States and may make the cession either absolute or qualified as to her may appear desirable, provided the qualification is consistent with the purposes for which the reservation is maintained and is accepted by the United States. And, where such a cession is made and accepted, it will be determinative of the jurisdiction of both the United States and the state within the reservation," Id., at 651-52.

Two cases decided in 1937 by the U.S. Supreme Court further clarify the constitutionality of a reservation of partial state jurisdiction over lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. In James v. Dravo Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208 (1937), the State of West Virginia sought to impose a tax upon the gross receipts of the company arising from a contract which it had made with the United States to build some dams. One of the issues involved in this case was the validity of the state tax imposed on the receipts derived by the company from work performed on lands to which the State had ceded "concurrent" jurisdiction to the United States. The Court held that a State could reserve and qualify any cession of jurisdiction for lands owned by the United States; since the State had done so here, the Court upheld this part of the challenged tax notwithstanding a partial cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. A similar result occurred in Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of State of Washington, 302 U.S. 186, 58 S.Ct. 233 (1937). Here, the United States was undertaking the construction of several dams on the Columbia River in Washington, and had purchased the lands necessary for the project. Silas Mason obtained a contract to build a part of the Grand Coulee Dam, but filed suit challenging the Washington income tax when that State sought to impose that tax on the contract proceeds. Mason's argument that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over both the lands and its contract was not upheld by either the Supreme Court of Washington or the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter Court held that none of the lands owned by the U.S. were within its jurisdiction and thus Washington clearly had jurisdiction to impose the challenged tax; see also Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474, 66 S.Ct. 663 (1946). Some few years later in 1943, the Supreme Court was again presented with similar taxation and jurisdiction issues; the facts in these two cases were identical with the exception that one clearly involved lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. This single difference caused directly opposite results in both cases. In Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628 (1943), the question involved the applicability of state law to a contract entered into and performed on a federal enclave to which jurisdiction had been ceded to the United States. During World War II, California passed a law setting a minimum price for the sale of milk, and this law imposed penalties for sales made below the regulated price. Here, Pacific Coast Dairy consummated a contract on Moffett Field, a federal enclave within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to sell milk to such federal facility at below the regulated price. When this occurred, California sought to impose a penalty for what it perceived as a violation of state law. But, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to permit the enforcement of the California law, holding that the contract was made and performed in a territory outside the jurisdiction of California and within the jurisdiction of the United States, a place where this law didn't apply. Thus in this case, the existence of federal jurisdiction was the foundation for the decision. However, in Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S.Ct. 617 (1943), an opposite result was reached on almost identical facts. Here, Pennsylvania likewise had a law which regulated the price of milk and penalized milk sales below the regulated price. During World War II, the United States leased some land from Pennsylvania for the construction of a military camp; since the land was leased,

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (7 of 13) [12/15/01 1:47:59 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania did not cede jurisdiction to the United States. When Penn Dairies sold milk to the military facility for a price below the regulated price, the Commission sought to impose the penalty. In this case, since there was no federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court found that the state law applied and permitted the imposition of the penalty. These two cases clearly show the different results which can occur with the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction. A final point regarding federal jurisdiction concerns the question of when such jurisdiction ends or ceases. This issue was considered in S.R.A. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 563-64, 66 S.Ct. 749 (1946), which involved the power of a State to tax the real property interest of a purchaser of land sold by the United States. Here, a federal post office building was sold to S.R.A. pursuant to a real estates sale contract which provided that title would pass only after the purchase price had been paid. In refuting the argument of S.R.A. that the ad valorem tax on its equitable interest in the property was really an unlawful tax on U.S. property, the Court held:
q

"In the absence of some such provisions, a transfer of property held by the United States under state cessions pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution would leave numerous isolated islands of federal jurisdiction, unless the unrestricted transfer of the property to private hands is thought without more to revest sovereignty in the states. As the purpose of Clause 17 was to give control over the sites of governmental operations to the United States, when such control was deemed essential for federal activities, it would seem that the sovereignty of the United States would end with the reason for its existence and the disposition of the property. We shall treat this case as though the Government's unrestricted transfer of property to non-federal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive legislative power."

Thus when any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State. The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). What was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now. In summary, the jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as they possessed when they were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States of lands found essential for the operation of that government. However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction, it only permitted its future operation wherein any State, by its own volition, should choose to cede jurisdiction to the United States. By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related almost entirely to external affairs of the States. Any single delegated power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion so as to invade or divest a State of its jurisdiction. As against a single State, the remainder of the States under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single State absent its consent.

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (8 of 13) [12/15/01 1:48:00 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
The only provision in the Constitution which permits territorial jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Art. I, ¤ 8, cl. 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within the States, and it possessed jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly after formation of the Union, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. Over time, the States have ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may now be owned by the United States. The above conclusion is buttressed by the opinion of the federal government itself. In June 1957, the United States government published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, and this report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:
q

"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46. "On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government," Id., at 107.

Thus from a wealth of case law, in addition to this lengthy and definitive government treatise, the "jurisdiction of the United States" is identified as a very precise and carefully defined portion of America. The United States is one of the 50 jurisdictions existing on this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces. FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;" see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). This particular principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial);

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (9 of 13) [12/15/01 1:48:00 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215, where the Court declared:
q

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

But, because of treaties as well as express statutory language, the federal drug laws operate extra-territorially; see United States v. King, 552 F.2d 833, 851 (9th Cir. 1976). The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union, and this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases. As a general rule, the power of the United States to criminally prosecute is, for the most part, confined to offenses committed within "its jurisdiction" in the absence of treaties. This is born out simply by examination of 18 U.S.C. ¤5 which defines the term "United States" in clear jurisdictional terms. [2] Further, ¤7 of that federal criminal code contains the fullest statutory definition of the "jurisdiction of the United States." The U.S. district courts have jurisdiction of offenses occurring within the "United States" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ¤3231. Examples of this proposition are numerous. In Pothier v. Rodman, 291 F. 311 (1st Cir. 1923), the question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the State of Washington was a federal crime. Here, the murder was committed more than a year before the U.S. acquired a deed for the property which was the scene of the crime. Pothier was arrested and incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his release on the grounds that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over this offense not committed in U.S. jurisdiction. The First Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction and ordered his release. But, on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rodman v. Pothier, 264 U.S. 399, 44 S.Ct. 360 (1924), that Court reversed; although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enunciated by the First Circuit, it held that only the federal court in Washington State could decide that issue. In United States v. Unzeuta, 35 F.2d 750 (8th Cir. 1929), the Eighth Circuit held that the U.S. had no jurisdiction over a murder committed in a railroad car at Fort Robinson, the state cession statute being construed as not including railroad rights-of-way. This decision was reversed in United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 50 S.Ct. 284 (1930), the Court holding that the U.S. did have jurisdiction over the railroad rightsof-way in Fort Robinson. In Bowen v. Johnson, 97 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1938), the question presented was whether the lack of jurisdiction over an offense prosecuted in federal court could be raised in a habeas corpus petition. The denial of Bowen's petition was reversed in Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 59 S.Ct. 442 (1939), the Court concluding that such a jurisdictional challenge could be raised via such a petition. But, the Court then addressed the issue, found that the U.S. both owned the property in question and had a state legislative grant ceding jurisdiction to the United States, thus there was jurisdiction in the United States to prosecute Bowen. But, if jurisdiction is not vested in the United States pursuant to statute, there is no jurisdiction; see Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312, 63 S.Ct. 1122 (1943). The lower federal courts also require the presence of federal jurisdiction in criminal

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (10 of 13) [12/15/01 1:48:00 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
prosecutions. In Kelly v. United States, 27 F. 616 (D.Me. 1885), federal jurisdiction of a manslaughter committed at Fort Popham was upheld when it was shown that the U.S. owned the property where the offense occurred and the state had ceded jurisdiction. In United States v. Andem, 158 F. 996 (D.N.J. 1908), federal jurisdiction for a forgery offense was upheld on a showing that the United States owned the property where the offense was committed and the state had ceded jurisdiction of the property to the U.S. In United States v. Penn, 48 F. 669 (E.D.Va. 1880), since the U.S. did not have jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery, a federal larceny prosecution was dismissed. In United States v. Lovely, 319 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1963), federal jurisdiction was found to exist by U.S. ownership of the property and a state cession of jurisdiction. In United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va. 1948), federal criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating:
q

"Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out."

In Brown v. United States, 257 F. 46 (5th Cir. 1919), federal jurisdiction was upheld on the basis that the U.S. owned the post office site where a murder was committed and the state had ceded jurisdiction; see also England v. United States, 174 F.2d 466 (5th Cir. 1949); Hudspeth v. United States, 223 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1955); Krull v. United States, 240 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1957); and Gainey v. United States, 324 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1963). In United States v. Townsend, 474 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1973), a conviction for receiving stolen property was reversed when the court reviewed the record and learned that there was absolutely no evidence disclosing that the defendant had committed this offense within the jurisdiction of the United States. In United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 1974), in finding federal jurisdiction for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court held:
q

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor."

In two Sixth Circuit cases, United States v. Tucker, 122 F. 518 (W.D.Ky. 1903), a case involving an assault committed at a federal dam, and United States v. Blunt, 558 F.2d 1245 (6th Cir. 1977), a case involving an assault within a federal penitentiary, jurisdiction was sustained by finding that the U.S. owned the property in question and the state involved had ceded jurisdiction. In In re Kelly, 71 F. 545 (E.D.Wis. 1895), a federal assault charge was dismissed when the court held that the state cession statute in question was not adequate to convey jurisdiction of the property in question to the United States. In United States v. Johnson, 426 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970), a case involving a federal burglary prosecution, federal jurisdiction was sustained upon the showing of U.S. ownership and a state cession. And cases from the Eighth and Tenth Circuits likewise require the same elements to be shown to demonstrate the presence of federal jurisdiction; see United States v. Heard, 270 F.Supp. 198 (W.D.Mo. 1967); United States v. Redstone, 488 F.2d 300 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Goings, 504 F.2d 809 (8th Cir. 1974) (demonstrating loss of jurisdiction); Hayes v. United States, 367 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1966); Hall v. United States, 404 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir. 1969); United States v. Carter, 430 F.2d 1278 (10th Cir. 1970); and United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534 (10th Cir. 1978). Of all the circuits, the Ninth Circuit has addressed jurisdictional issues more than any of the rest. In United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal. 1888), it was determined that the United States did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon. 1905). But later, California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal. 1927), that this enabled the U.S. to maintain a murder prosecution. See also United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D.Wash. 1909), United States v. Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal. 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or. 1921). Because the U.S. owned and had a state cession of jurisdiction for Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the U.S. had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction; see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445 F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz. 1977).

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (11 of 13) [12/15/01 1:48:00 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth the rule that in criminal prosecutions, the government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and a state cession of jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction, must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159 P.2d 686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction; see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782, 265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v. District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410 P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The same applies in Nevada; see State v. Mack, 23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763 (1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987); it applies in Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694, 598 P.2d 731 (1979)). In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of an IRS office was held to be within state jurisdiction, the court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of jurisdiction. In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S. post offices which were rented were held to be within state jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910), and People v. Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936). See also In re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218 (1945). In Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a U.S. missile site in State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327 (1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987), the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a D.U.I. committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state cession of jurisdiction. In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, state jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1983). The proper method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in People v. Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule was likewise enunciated in State v. Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640 (1986), a case involving a D.U.I. offense committed on a road near a federal arsenal. In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App. 1972), the state was held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in question in the United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597 (Okl.Cr.App. 1975). Similar holdings for murders committed at U.S. post offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1968). Another Oregon case, State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987), demonstrates this rule. Finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense.

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (12 of 13) [12/15/01 1:48:00 PM]

HOTT - Federal Jurisdiction
Therefore, in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction." END NOTES: [1] See Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 529, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885). [2] The statutory definition of "United States" as expressed in this ¤ 5 is identical to the constitutional definition of this term; see Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923), which deals with the definition of "United States" as used in the 18th Amendment. ************************** [Note for the reader: The above memo discusses only about 140 cases. If you wish to find more cases addressing the issue of federal territorial jurisdiction, please see the other 3 separate briefs which can be found by following the links at the bottom of the page. The important U.S. Supreme Court cases are all cataloged in their own brief; the same type of cases from each federal circuit and each state are found in the other two briefs.]

State Jurisdiction Cases & Rulings Circuit Jurisdiction Cases & Rulings U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction Cases & Rulings Treaties and Jurisdiction The Dixieland Law Journal Cooper family targeted

Home | The HOTT Shop | Hour of the Time | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Statement © 1999-2001, Excel Studios Corporation S.A. All rights reserved.

http://www.williamcooper.com/federaljurisdiction.html (13 of 13) [12/15/01 1:48:00 PM]

Federal income tax VOID

Federal income tax Unconstitutional

VOID

- Administrative Powers

Supreme Court ruling in: 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,v,UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 140. Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.Decided January 24, 1916. Affirmed Supreme Court ruled: "We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state the proposition is to answer it." Supreme Court Cited: Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649,36 L. ed. 294, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192U. S. 470, 496, 48 L. ed. 525, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Oceanic SteamNav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 53 L. ed. 1013, 29Sup. Ct. Rep. 671. Note! The Supreme Court not only referred to the contention but stated it and thus answered it citing case precedent. In answering the contention in the ruling of the Court the Supreme Court Justices rendered the federal income tax VOID. Since no one else to my knowledge has ever cited this fact the Courts may not honor the ruling. Nevertheless it is a factual statement under the Law that the Congress cannot delegate its powers to anyone, or anything, or any entity. Another factual statement in the Law is that the Congress cannot breach the balance of power between branches of government by giving its legislative power to the executive branch. Both of these statements are set in stone. For either one or both of those reasons the
http://www.williamcooper.com/void.htm (1 of 2) [12/15/01 1:48:14 PM]

Federal income tax VOID

federal income tax AND the Internal Revenue Service are unconstitutional. Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad Company Cooper Family Targeted Home Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised:December 17, 1999.

http://www.williamcooper.com/void.htm (2 of 2) [12/15/01 1:48:14 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS
by Attorney Lowell H. (Larry) Becraft For several years now, a variety of high public officials have openly declared that the federal income tax laws are incredibly complex and need to be either substantially revised or scrapped. But after making such statements, these officials invariably fail to identify what specific parts of the tax laws suffer from this condition, choosing instead to conceal them. Are the objectionable parts of the federal tax code secretly and quietly discussed behind closed Congressional committee doors? If they are, why doesn't someone inform the American public of these deficiencies so that they may likewise participate in this debate? Is it possible that it is the major and not various minor features of the tax laws which are complex, even uncertain? Is it possible that these major features are so fundamentally flawed that they simply cannot be repaired? If so, what is the legal consequence of this complexity? It is alleged that the legal duties arising from the tax laws are clearly known to all, but there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, in United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160 (4th Cir. 1974), at issue was the validity of the conviction of an Indian for tax evasion. Here, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had informed Mrs. Critzer that the money she derived from real property located within a reservation was not taxable; Mrs. Critzer relied upon this advice and failed to report such income. But, the IRS maintained a contrary position and indicted and convicted her for tax evasion. This conviction was reversed on the grounds that the unsettled nature of this field of law precluded any conviction:
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (1 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

"While the record amply supports the conclusion that the underreporting was intentional, the record also reflects that, concededly, whether defendant's unreported income was taxable is problematical and the government is in dispute with itself as to whether the omitted income was taxable," Id., at 1160. "We hold that defendant must be exonerated from the charges lodged against her. As a matter of law, defendant cannot be guilty of willfully evading and defeating income taxes on income, the taxability of which is so uncertain that even co-ordinate branches of the United States Government plausibly reach directly opposing conclusions. As a matter of law, the requisite intent to evade and defeat income taxes is missing. The obligation to pay is so problematical that defendant's actual intent is irrelevant. Even if she had consulted the law and sought to guide herself accordingly, she could have had no certainty as to what the law required. "It is settled that when the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant- actually or imputedly- lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Id., at 1162. This single case is an adequate demonstration that there is at least one part of the tax code which is unclear and that lack of clarity caused the reversal of Mrs. Critzer's criminal conviction. But there are others; see United States v. Mallas, 762 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1985)(a prosecution for violating an unclear legal duty abridges principles of due process); United States v. Garber, 607 F.2d 92, 9798 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Dahlstrom, 713 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1983); United States v. Heller, 830 F.2d 150 (11th Cir. 1987); and United States v. Harris, 942 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1991). Unclear legal duties in other fields of law besides tax likewise
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (2 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

prevent criminal convictions on due process grounds; see United States v. Insco, 496 F.2d 204 (5th Cir. 1974); People v. Dempster, 396 Mich. 700, 242 N.W.2d 381 (1976); United States v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676, 681-82 (1st Cir. 1985); United States v. Denemark, 779 F.2d 1559 (11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Varbel, 780 F.2d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1986); and United States v. Larson, 796 F.2d 244 (8th Cir. 1986). Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, §2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, §9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the nature of this tax? To determine whether and to what extent there is any uncertainty or conflict of authority regarding the nature of the federal income tax requires at least a short review of the fundamental decisions concerning it. In 1894, Congress adopted an income tax act which was declared unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912 (1895). The Pollock Court found that the income tax was a direct tax which could only be imposed if the tax was apportioned; since this tax was not apportioned, it was found unconstitutional. In an effort to circumvent this decision, the 16th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1909 and allegedly ratified by the states in 1913. As a result, various opinions arose regarding the legal effect of the amendment. Some factions contended that the 16th
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (3 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

Amendment simply eliminated the apportionment requirement for one specific direct tax known as the income tax, while others asserted that the amendment simply withdrew it from the direct tax category and placed the income tax in the indirect, excise tax class. These competing contentions and interpretations were apparently resolved in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916).[1] Rather than attempt a determination of what the Court held in this case, it is more important to learn what various courts have subsequently declared Brushaber to mean. A little more than a week after the opinion in Brushaber, similar issues were present for decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916), which involved the question of whether an inadequate depletion allowance for a mining company constituted a direct tax on the company's property. As to Baltic's contention that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment," the Court rejected it by stating that this contention: "... manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation." The Court clearly held that income taxes inherently belonged to the indirect/excise tax class, but had been converted by Pollock to direct taxes by considering the source of the income; the 16th
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (4 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

Amendment merely banished the rule in Pollock. See also Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281 (1916), decided the same day. However, the victory of defining what the 16th Amendment meant was short lived and later decisions commenced a course which appears to have changed the meaning of Brushaber, or at least provided fertile grounds for an entirely different and opposite construction of it. In William E. Peck and Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-73, 38 S.Ct. 432, 433 (1918), which involved a tax imposed on export earnings, the Court seemed to indicate that what was accomplished by the amendment was the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax, an argument rejected in Baltic: "The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removed all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another." The drift away from the position of the Court that the income tax via the 16th Amendment fell within the excise tax category became more pronounced with the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920), which involved the application of this tax to a stock dividend. Here, the Court plainly stated what many lawyers and some judges today think was accomplished by means of this amendment, the elimination of the apportionment requirement for the direct tax known as the income tax. In deciding this case, the Court quoted the amendment and then redeclared its meaning:
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (5 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

"As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber....," 252 U.S., at 206. "A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal." Is this the resurfacing of the argument that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment" condemned in Baltic? From a study of Brushaber, it is thus possible for someone to rely upon those portions of the two phrases at the beginning and ending of 240 U.S. 19 to believe that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment." If one fell into that error, this belief would be magnified by the above highlighted portions of Eisner. Confusion abounds as to the correct interpretation of Brushaber, and this is obvious because various courts of this nation have relied upon this line of authority to reach diametrically opposing results. The state courts have been particularly split over the nature of an income tax and whether it constitutes a direct property tax or an indirect/excise, which is not imposed on property. A small number of them hold that an income tax is a direct property tax; see Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, 204 Ala. 492, 86 So. 56,
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (6 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

58 (1920); State v. Pinder, 108 A. 43, 45 (Del. 1919); Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579, 182 N.E. 909 (1932); Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 108 N.E. 570 (1915); Trefry v. Putnam, 227 Mass. 522, 116 N.E. 904 (1917); Maguire v. Tax Comm. of Commonwealth, 230 Mass. 503, 120 N.E. 162, 166 (1918); Hart v. Tax Comm., 240 Mass. 37, 132 N.E. 621 (1921); In re Ponzi, 6 F.2d 324 (D.Mass. 1925); Kennedy v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747 (1926); In re Opinion of the Justices, 266 Mass. 583, 165 N.E. 900, 902 (1929); Hutchins v. Comm. of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 422, 172 N.E. 605, 608 (1930); Bryant v. Comm. of Corps. & Tax'n., 291 Mass. 498, 197 N.E. 509 (1935); Culliton v. Chase, 174 Wash. 363, 25 P.2d 81, 82 (1933)[2]; Jensen v. Henneford, 185 Wash. 209, 53 P.2d 607 (1936); State ex rel Manitowoc Gas Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 161 Wis. 111, 152 N.W. 848, 850 (1915); and State ex rel Sallie F. Moon Co. v. Wisconsin Tax Comm., 166 Wis. 287, 163 N.W. 639, 640 (1917). A far larger number of state courts disagree with the cases noted above and have held that an income tax is not a property tax but an excise; see Purnell v. Page, 133 N.C. 125, 45 S.E. 534, 535 (1903); State v. Frear, 148 Wis. 456, 134 N.W. 673, 692 (1912); Opinion of Justices, 77 N.H. 611, 93 A. 311, 313 (1915); LudlowSaylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, 275 Mo. 339, 205 S.W. 196 (1918); Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34, 88 So. 4 (1921); Stanley v. Gates, 179 Ark. 886, 19 S.W.2d 1000, 1001 (1929); Featherstone v. Norman, 170 Ga. 370, 153 S.E. 58 (1930); Diefendorf v. Gallet, 51 Idaho 619, 10 P.2d 307, 313 (1932); O'Connell v. State Board, 95 Mont. 91, 25 P.2d 114, 119 (1933); Maxwell v. Kent-Coffey Mfg. Co., 204 N.C. 365, 168 S.E. 397, 400 (1933); Reed v. Bjornson, 191 Minn. 254, 253 N.W. 102, 109 (1934); Opinion of the Justices, 133 Me. 525, 178 A. 621, 623 (1935); Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, 209 Ind. 172, 199 N.E. 372, 377 (1935)(citing Brushaber); Marshall v. South Carolina Tax Comm., 178 S.C. 57, 182 S.E. 96, 97 (1935); Hunton v. Commonwealth, 166 Va. 229, 183
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (7 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

S.E. 873, 876 (1936); Reynolds Metal Co. v. Martin, 269 Ky. 378, 107 S.W.2d 251, 259 (1937); Vilas v. Iowa State Bd. of Assess. & Review, 223 Iowa 604, 273 N.W. 338, 342 (1937); Oursler v. Tawes, 178 Md. 471, 13 A.2d 763, 768 (1940); California Co. v. State, 141 Colo. 288, 348 P.2d 382 (1959); and Burns v. State Bureau of Revenue, 79 N.M. 53, 439 P.2d 702, 706 (1968). This split of authority evident within the state cases also manifests itself in the federal appellate courts. For example, in the First Circuit it is difficult to determine the meaning of the 16th Amendment because in United States v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986), that court held that the "16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income." Next door in the Second Circuit, there is uncertainty revealed by three completely inconsistent cases. In Jandorf's Estate v. Commissioner, 171 F.2d 464, 465 (2nd Cir. 1948), that court declared, "It should be noted that estate or inheritance taxes are excises ... while surtaxes, excess profits and war-profits taxes are direct property taxes." Surtaxes are the graduated taxes of the income tax, so this court holds that the personal income tax is a direct tax. But in Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2nd Cir. 1984), that court stated that the personal income tax was an indirect tax: "[T]he Supreme Court explicitly stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and are not subject to the necessity of apportionment." But compare United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 46 (2nd Cir. 1988)(citing Parker, infra, for the proposition that the tax is direct). In the Third Circuit, it has been held in one case that all income taxes are direct, but in another that only some are direct; see Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d 894, 897 (3rd Cir. 1943)("[A]n income tax is a direct tax upon income therein defined"); and Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 277 F.2d 16, 19 (3rd Cir. 1960)("Pollock .... only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (8 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier"). In the remainder of the Circuits, the difference of opinion as to whether the federal income tax is a direct or indirect tax is likewise as profound and confusing. In the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, the income tax has been held to be an excise tax; see White Packing Co. v. Robertson, 89 F.2d 775, 779 (4th Cir. 1937)("The tax is, of course, an excise tax, as are all taxes on income..."); and United States v. Gaumer, 972 F.2d 723, 725 (6th Cir. 1992)("Brushaber and the Congressional Record excerpt do indeed state that for constitutional purposes, the income tax is an excise tax"). However, in the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits, arguments that this tax is an excise have been squarely rejected and determined to be frivolous. For example, in Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984), the court clearly rejected the contention that this tax is an excise: "The Supreme Court promptly determined in Brushaber... that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax. "The sixteenth amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states. "The sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax." In Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986), the court held that an argument that this tax was an excise was frivolous on its face ("The power thus long predates the Sixteenth Amendment, which did no more than remove the apportionment
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (9 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

requirement..."). A similar conclusion was reached in United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617, 619 (8th Cir. 1980), that court declaring that Brushaber held this tax to be a direct one: "The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax, thus refuting the argument based upon his first theory. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 242, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax 'out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes')".[3] Finally, in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 927 (10th Cir. 1982), that court expressed in the following fashion its contempt for the contention that the federal income tax was an excise: "Lawson's 'jurisdictional' claim, more accurately a constitutional claim, is based on an argument that the Sixteenth Amendment only authorizes excise-type taxes on income derived from activities that are governmentlicensed or otherwise specially protected... The contention is totally without merit... The Sixteenth Amendment removed any need to apportion income taxes among the states that otherwise would have been required by Article I, Section 9, clause 4." Therefore, while the Supreme Court rejected in Baltic the argument that "the 16th Amendment authorized only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment," this position now prevails in the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits. In the Second Circuit, the existing authority illogically claims that the tax is both.

http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (10 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

A direct tax applies to and taxes property while an indirect, excise tax is never imposed on property but usually an event such as sales; see Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 50 S.Ct. 46, 47 (1929).[4] Those courts which hold that an income tax is a direct property tax believe that income is property, yet those which hold that this tax is an excise declare that income is not property. If the courts of this nation cannot identify what is the nature of this ephemeral item known as income,[5] then how can the American people? While in Critzer the difference of opinion existed between two government agencies, here the difference of opinion is among many different courts, a situation far more serious than that presented in Heller. Aren't we being subjected to a monumental due process problem far bigger than that to which Mrs. Critzer was subjected? The question of what constitutes property is an issue governed by state law; see Aquilino v. United States, 363 U.S. 509, 512-13, 80 S.Ct. 1277, 1280 (1960), and United States v. Baldwin, 575 F.2d 1097, 1098 (4th Cir. 1978). The definition of the term, "property," is very broad; see Samet v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank, 247 F. 669, 671 (4th Cir. 1917)("Property is .... everything that has exchangeable value or goes to make up a man's wealth"). It includes money, credits, evidences of debt, and choses in action; see State v. Ward, 222 N.C. 316, 22 S.E.2d 922, 925 (1942). Income is property according to St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States, 617 F.2d 1293, 1301 (8th Cir. 1980). Accrued wages and salaries are likewise property; see Sims v. United States, 252 F.2d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 1958), aff'd., 359 U.S. 108, 79 S.Ct. 641 (1959); and Kolb v. Berlin, 356 F.2d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 1966). Accounts receivable are property; see In re Ralar Distributors, Inc., 4 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 1993). Even private employment and a profession are considered property; see United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 798 (5th Cir. 1975).
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (11 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

There appears to be no dispute about the plain requirements of the Constitution that direct taxes must be apportioned and that indirect taxes must be uniform. Likewise as shown above, there is a line of decisional authority regarding the generally accepted proposition that income is property, although there are courts which deny this. In James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755, 756 n. 11 (10th Cir. 1992), the 10th Circuit made it clear that income is property. Pursuant to United States v. Lawson, supra, the 10th Circuit declares that the property known as income is subject to tax under the view that the 16th Amendment eliminated the apportionment requirement for a specific class of property known as income. However, there is ample contrary judicial authority which demonstrates that this construction of the 16th Amendment is erroneous and that the purpose, intent and meaning of the amendment was the opposite construction and that the amendment did not free this one type of property tax from the regulation of apportionment. An error in a logical argument involving a single premise affects the ultimate conclusion. If the 10th Circuit accepted the proposition that the meaning of the 16th Amendment was contrary to that asserted in Lawson, but adhered to its decision in James, a valid legal argument would logically follow that property known as income could not be taxed because the current income tax is not apportioned. This same problem, but from an opposite perspective, is evident within the Fourth Circuit where the existing authority of Sims v. United States, supra, declares that income is property. Since that Circuit holds that the federal income tax is an excise via White Packing Co. v. Robertson, supra, and since the definition of an excise tax appearing in that Court's opinion in New Neighborhoods, Inc. v. West Virginia Workers' Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714, 719 (4th Cir. 1989), excludes a tax on property, does it not logically follow that there is a tremendous gap in the decisional
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (12 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

authority within the Fourth Circuit which presents a view of the law that the property known as income might not be taxed? Based on these cases, is this tax clearly imposed? Review of the above noted authority in other circuits and states only demonstrates how profound this problem is. In the 6th Circuit, United States v. Gaumer, supra, declares the income tax to be an excise; via Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-56 (Tenn. 1960), the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that an excise tax cannot be used to tax the right to earn a living. Which authority do the people living in Tennessee follow? If they follow the word of their own state court, they might be charged with a tax crime, yet they have a right to rely upon the word of the courts, even when erroneous; see United States v. Albertini, 830 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 1987). A different problem emerges in the 8th Circuit where United States v. Francisco, supra, holds that an income tax is a direct property tax. Missouri is within the 8th Circuit, but the Missouri Supreme Court held in Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck, supra, that an income tax is an excise; if income is not property under Missouri state law,[6] then how does this federal property tax operate as to this "non-property"? Iowa is also in the 8th Circuit, but in Hale v. Iowa State Board of Assessment and Review, 223 Iowa 321, 271 N.W. 168, 172 (1937), that court held that "income is not property within the law of taxation." If state law holds that income is not property yet the federal appellate court for the same state holds the exact opposite, is not a serious uncertainty of the law, due process problem clearly evident? The decisional authority within the 5th Circuit, Parker v. Commissioner, supra, holds that this tax is a direct property tax, but a contrary view prevails in Mississippi where its citizens are told that an income tax is an excise; see Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, supra. The courts in Wisconsin and Indiana, via State
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (13 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

v. Frear, supra, and Miles v. Dept. of Treasury, supra, have found this tax to be an excise, yet the federal appellate court which encompasses these two states has an entirely different view of the object of the tax; see Coleman v. Commissioner, supra. The 10th Circuit, which sits in Denver, held in Lawson, supra, that the income tax is a property tax, yet a state court in the same city has declared that such a tax is an excise; see California Co. v. State, supra. In Alabama, income is property via Eliasberg Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Grimes, supra; but next door in Georgia via Featherstone v. Norman,[7] it is not. While the 11th Circuit appears not as yet to have passed upon the question of what type of tax the federal income tax is, consultation of Supreme Court decisions still doesn't resolve the question. By following the rationale of Brushaber and Bromley, supra, which declare the federal income tax to be an excise tax which is not imposed on property, are the people of Alabama exempt from this tax while those in Georgia are not? But by reversing the choice of Supreme Court decisions to follow in an effort to resolve this controversy merely changes the results but not the problem. By following Eisner which seems to hold that the tax is imposed on property, do the people of Alabama owe the tax while those in Georgia do not? These differing conclusions plainly reveal a serious uncertainty about what is taxed, and I do not attempt herein to offer any explanation for all of this inconsistency; the fact of the matter is that I cannot other than to allege that this is uncertainty of the law creates a serious due process problem. The problems created by the failure of American courts to determine what is the nature of an income tax are very broad. Any particular federal tax must fit within one of the two constitutional tax categories and once the category is known, it may be determined whether the tax in question complies with the
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (14 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

constitutional regulation for imposition of that type of tax. A direct tax which is uniformly imposed would still be unconstitutional as one imposed in the absence of apportionment. An indirect tax imposed via apportionment would likewise be unconstitutional since it would not be uniform. But if it is impossible to determine which class any given tax falls within, then it is likewise impossible to determine which constitutional regulation, if any, applies to that tax. If the courts of this nation hold that an income tax is both an excise tax and a direct one, it cannot with any degree of certainty be determined what constitutional restrictions might or might not apply to this tax or what is even the meaning of the 16th Amendment. What's more, it cannot be determine what is income, whether property or nonproperty. But this is not the only fundamental problem for the federal income tax. Additionally, the question of which statute controls the duty to file income tax returns is subject to judicial dispute. In Commissioner v. Lane-Wells Co., 321 U.S. 219, 222, 64 S.Ct. 511, 513 (1944), the Court noted that §54 of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code, the predecessor for Internal Revenue Code §6001, related to the filing requirement; see also Updike v. United States, 8 F.2d 913, 915 (8th Cir. 1925). In True v. United States, 354 F.2d 323, 324 (Ct.Cl. 1965), United States v. Carlson, 260 F.Supp. 423, 425 (E.D.N.Y. 1966), White v. Commissioner, 72 U.S.T.C. 1126, 1129 (1979), McCaskill v. Commissioner, 77 U.S.T.C. 689, 698 (1981), Counts v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 426, 427 (11th Cir. 1985), Blount v. Commissioner, 86 U.S.T.C. 383, 386 (1986), and Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), these courts held that Internal Revenue Code §6011 related to the filing requirement. In United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 834 (7th Cir. 1980), United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189, 1192, n. 3 (10th Cir. 1991), and United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1991), those courts held that Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011 and 6012
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (15 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

governed this duty. In contrast, the cases of Steinbrecher v. Commissioner, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983), United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990), and United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698, 699 (11th Cir. 1992), held that only §6012 governed this duty. But in United States v. Pilcher, 672 F.2d 875, 877 (11th Cir. 1982), none of the above sections were mentioned and it was held that §7203 required returns to be filed. It is very apparent that there is even a diversity of opinion among judges regarding which sections of the Internal Revenue Code govern the requirement to file income tax returns. The observation of the dissenting judge in Culliton v. Chase, 25 P.2d at 89-90, that this "disagreement of the courts and judges on identical problems seems to afford the highest proof that 'reasonable doubt' does exist," is particularly appropriate here. If American courts cannot decide such fundamental questions as what is the nature of the income tax and which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, then it is obvious that a serious due process problem exists within the federal income tax laws. If American courts cannot decide such fundamental questions as what is the nature of the income tax and which section of the Internal Revenue Code requires the filing of an income tax return, then it is obvious that the problem with this tax involves these basic questions. Since even the courts are split over these questions, shouldn't we just scrap the whole thing since the condition which exists is incapable of repair? In 1913 during the debate on the first income tax act under the 16th Amendment, Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law: "I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (16 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."[8] Apparently, nothing has changed. END NOTES: [1] In this decision, there is a very lengthy sentence which contains the following phrase: "... by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class," 240 U.S., at 19. This phrase and the one at the very end of this paragraph are almost identical. This language was used to describe the contention the Court was rejecting, not approving. [2] The dissent in this case noted the wide divergence of the authority as to whether the tax is a direct property tax or an excise. It commented: "The disagreement of the courts and judges on identical problems seems to afford the highest proof that 'reasonable doubt' does exist," 25 P.2d, at 89-90. [3] It is interesting to note that this court relied upon those portions of the Brushaber decision quoted previously where the Court noted the argument is was precisely rejecting. If the judges who are legal scholars are capable of completely miusunderstanding this opinion, is it not also probable that the American people and even lawyers can make the same mistake? [4] The Court defined these two types of taxes in the following manner: "While taxes levied upon or collected from persons
http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (17 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

UNCERTAINTY OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS

because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct.... a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned..." [5] At least one court has declared that the term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code; see United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Cir. 1976). [6] The Court in Ludlow, 205 S.W. at 198, declared that income is not property: "It is apparent therefore, that when the Constitution of 1875 was adopted, the word 'property' as the basis for taxation, proportioned to value, had acquired a fixed and definite meaning preclusive of personal incomes, occupations, privileges and similar sources of revenue." [7] See 153 S.E. at 65: "Hence a man's income is not 'property' within the meaning of a constitutional requirement that taxes shall be laid equally and uniformly upon all property within the State." [8] See The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis, page 12, by Harold Dubroff. Published by CCH. Cooper Family Targeted Home
Copyright © 1999 Excel Studios Corporation, All rights reserved. Revised:December 17, 1999.

http://www.williamcooper.com/uncertai.htm (18 of 18) [12/15/01 1:49:10 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

Deceptive IRS Code Words
"Income," "Person," "Taxpayer," "Shall," and "Must."
Learn to Decipher the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Publications The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is a masterpiece of deception designed to mislead Citizens into believing that individuals are subject to federal income tax. The Code was written by attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and contains a series of directory statutes using the word "shall", with provisions that are requirements for corporations, but not for individuals. Even members of Congress are generally unaware of the deceptive legal meanings of certain terms that are consistently used in the IRC. These terms have legal definitions for use in the IRC that are very different from the general understanding of the meaning of the words. Lack of knowledge of these legal definitions causes misunderstanding by uninformed Citizens who are confused as to the correct interpretation of both the IRC and the true meaning of the tricky wording in IRS instructional publications and news articles. However, when you understand the legal definitions of these terms, the deception is easily recognized and the limited application of the Code becomes clear. This understanding will help you to see that filing income tax forms and paying income taxes must be voluntary acts for most Americans because the United States Constitution forbids the federal government to impose any tax directly upon individuals.

INCOME
Most people mistakenly believe all moneys they receive, such as wages, salaries, and tips, are "income". However, for years, IRS publication #525, entitled "Taxable and Nontaxable Income", has acknowledged that wages and salaries are not "income". Publication #525 states: "Wages and salaries are the main source of income for most people." In the court decision of Graves vs People of the State of New York ex rel O'Keefe, 59 S.Ct. 595 (1939), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a source of income is not income, and the source is not subject to income tax. In that decision, the Court stated: "A tax on income is not economically or legally a tax on its source." However, wages, salaries, commissions, and tips (sources) are considered to be "income" for an individual when he lists them as "income" on an IRS tax return form. When he signs the tax form under penalty of perjury, he has made a voluntary oath that his wages, salary, commissions, and tips listed on the return are "income" and that he is subject to the tax.
http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (1 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

In the still standing decision of Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal income tax is an excise tax under the Sixteenth Amendment (the income tax amendment). The Court explained that the income tax cannot be imposed as a direct tax (a tax on individuals or on property) because the United States Constitution still requires that all direct taxes must be apportioned among the States. "Apportioned" means that a direct tax is laid upon the State governments in proportion to each State's population. The Court ruled that income tax can be constitutional only as an indirect (excise) tax -- that is, a tax on profits earned by corporations or privileges granted by government. In other words, said the Supreme Court, in order for there to be "income", there must be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government. As an example, a lawyer is granted the government privilege of being an officer of the government court when he represents clients in litigation. At law, labor is property. In fact, the Supreme Court has identified labor as man's most precious property. Therefore, the exchange of one's labor for wages or salary (which are also property) is considered by law to be an exchange of properties of equal value in which there is no gain or profit. Such a property exchange of equal value cannot be taxed because there is no profit or gain. Also, one who works in an ordinary occupation is not a recipient of any privilege granted by government, because he is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to work and earn an living. Courts have repeatedly ruled that no tax may be placed upon the exercise of rights. Their reasoning was sensible. If the exercise of rights could be taxed, government could destroy them by excessive rates of taxation. Items that the law includes in "income" are described in Code sections listed under the title of "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income", which covers Sections 71 through 86. Nowhere in these sections and nowhere else in the Code is there any mention of wages, salaries, commissions, or tips as being "income". For example, to deceive and intimidate waitresses into declaring their tips to be income is a double fraud. First, tips are gifts, not wages. According to the IRC, gifts are not subject to income tax. In fact, even if tips were considered to be wages, they would still not be "income" and would not be subject to an income (excise) tax unless one enters them as "income" on a tax return form.

PERSON
People generally consider the term "person" to mean an individual only. But, IRC Section 7701, entitled "Definitions", includes a corporation, a trust, an estate, a partnership, an association, or company as being a "person". All of these legal entities are "persons" at law, so it is legally correct but very misleading when the federal income (excise) tax on corporations is described by the deceptive title of "Personal Income Tax". This misleading description leads most people to believe that it means a tax on individuals.
http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (2 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

The legal term "person" has an even more restricted definition when used in IRC Chapter 75, which contains all the criminal penalties in the Code. In Section 7343 of that Chapter, a "person" subject to criminal penalties is defined as: ... [A]n officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who, as such officer, employee or member, is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. An individual who is not in such a capacity is not defined as a "person" subject to criminal penalties. Unprivileged individuals, who do not impose the income (excise) tax upon themselves by filing returns, are not subject to the tax and they are not "persons" who can lawfully be subjected to criminal charges for not filing a return or not paying income tax. Sections of the Code relating to the requirements for filing returns, keeping records, and disclosing information state that those sections apply to "every person liable" or "any person made liable". These descriptions mean "any person who is liable for the tax". They do not state or mean that all persons are liable. The only persons liable are those "persons" (legal entities such as corporations) who owe an income (excise) tax, and are therefore subject to the requirements of the IRC. If you substitute the word "corporation" for the term "person" (a corporation is a person at law) when reading the Code or other articles and publications relating to income tax, the true meaning of the Code becomes more apparent.

A TAX PAYER IS NOT A "TAXPAYER"
The deceptive term "taxpayer" is a legal term created by combining the words "tax" and "payer". The general understanding of the term's meaning is different from its legal definition in the IRC. Section 7701(a)(14) gives the legal definition of the term "taxpayer" in relation to income tax. It states: "The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax." (All internal revenue taxes are excise taxes.) Note that the section does not say that all persons are "taxpayers" subject to internal revenue tax. Corporations are "taxpayers", for they are "persons" subject to an internal revenue (excise) tax. The term "taxpayer" is used extensively throughout the IRC, in IRS publications, news articles, and instructional literature as a verbal trap to make uninformed Citizens believe that all individuals are subject to federal income tax and to the requirements of the IRC. These materials state that "taxpayers" are required to file returns, keep records, supply information, etc. Such statements are technically correct, because "taxpayers" are those legal "persons" previously described that are subject to an excise tax, but unprivileged individuals are not "taxpayers" within the meaning of the IRC.

http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (3 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

The confusion about the meaning of the term leads most people to mistakenly assume that they are "taxpayers" because they pay other taxes such as sales taxes and real estate taxes. Those people are tax payers, not "taxpayers" as defined in the IRC. When they read articles and publications related to income tax, describing the legal requirements for "taxpayers", they erroneously believe that the term applies to them as individuals. It is very important to understand that the IRC requirements apply to IRC-defined "taxpayers" only, and not to unprivileged individuals. Corporations and other government-privileged legal entities are "taxpayers under the Internal Revenue Code"; unprivileged individuals are not, unless they voluntarily file income tax returns showing they owe taxes, thus legally placing themselves in the classification of "taxpayers". Because of its legal definition, the term "taxpayer" should never be used in relation to income tax, except to describe those legal entities subject to a federal excise tax.

"SHALL" means "MAY"
In general use, the word "shall" is a word of command with a mandatory meaning. In the IRC, "shall" is a directory word that has a mandatory meaning when applied to corporations. The IRC contains a series of directory statutes using the word "shall" in describing the actions called for in those sections of the law. The provisions of these directory statutes are requirements for corporations, because corporations are created by government and, consequently, are subject to government direction and control. Since corporations are granted the privilege to exist and operate by government-issued charters, they do not have the constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals. This governmentgranted privilege legally obligates corporations to make a "return" of profits and gains earned in the exercise of their privileged operations when directed to do so by law. This is why the tax form is called a "return". However, directory words in the Code merely imply that individuals are required to perform certain acts, but directory words are not requirements for individuals when a mandatory interpretation of the directory words would conflict with the constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals. Courts have repeatedly ruled that in statutes, when a mandatory meaning of the word "shall" would create a constitutional conflict, "shall" must be defined as meaning "may". The following are quotes from a few of these decisions. In the decision of Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. vs Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, the U.S. Supreme Court stated: As against the government the word "shall" when used in statutes, is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary intention is manifest. In the decision of George Williams College vs Village of Williams Bay, 7 N.W.2d 891, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated:

http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (4 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

"Shall" in a statute may be construed to mean "may" in order to avoid constitutional doubt. In the decision of Gow vs Consolidated Coppermines Corp., 165 Atlantic 136, the court stated: If necessary to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, "shall" will be deemed equivalent to "may" .... Sections 6001 and 6011 of the IRC are cited in the Privacy Act notice in the IRS 1040 instruction booklet in order to lead individuals to believe they are required to perform services for tax collectors. Note the use of the word "shall" in the following sections of the Code: Section 6001 states: Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and requirements as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Section 6011 states: When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Note that Sections 6001 and 6011 apply to "every person liable" and "any person made liable", but not to "individuals". However, there is no section of the IRC that makes individuals liable for payment of income tax because any law imposing a federal tax on individuals would be unconstitutional, for it would violate the taxing limitations in the U.S. Constitution which prohibit direct taxation of individuals by the federal government. People are often confused when reading the Code because, under Subtitle A, Chapter 1, which covers income taxes, Part 1 of Subchapter A has the misleading title of "Tax on Individuals". The title is misleading because Part 1 imposes the tax on "income", but contains no requirement for individuals to pay it. But an individual becomes a "person liable" for the tax when he files an income tax form, thereby swearing that he is liable for (owes) the tax. The Privacy Act notice in the instruction booklet for IRS Form 1040 also shows that

http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (5 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

disclosure of information by individuals is not required. The notice states: Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001 and 6011 and their regulations. The IRS does not say that those sections require individuals to submit the information; those sections only give the IRS the authority to ask for it. Section 6012 states: Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross which equals or exceeds the exemption amount ...." Subsections (2) through (6) list corporations, estates, trusts, partnerships, and certain political organizations as also being subject to this section. Any requirements compelling unprivileged individuals to keep records, make returns and statements, or to involuntarily perform any other services for tax collectors, would be violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids compelling individuals to perform services involuntarily. The Amendment states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states that the people's right to privacy of their papers shall not be violated by government. To compel individuals to disclose information taken from their papers would violate this right. The Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects the right of individuals not to be required to be witnesses against themselves. To compel individuals to disclose information by submitting statements or information on a tax return form, all of which could be used against them in criminal prosecutions, would violate their Fifth Amendment right. These examples show some constitutional conflicts that would result from defining the word "shall" as meaning "is required to". Thus, "shall" in the above mentioned statutes must be interpreted as meaning "may". Consequently, for individuals, keeping records, making statements, and making returns are clearly voluntary actions that are not required
http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (6 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

by law.

"HAVING" INCOME
According to the wording of Section 6012 previously discussed, it is a directory statute which pertains to the filing of income tax returns, and applies only to those individuals "having income". Since the word "having" has no deceptive legal definition in the Code, its legal meaning is the same as its customary meaning in general use. Although dictionaries define the word "have" as meaning "possess" or "hold in one's possession", the IRS fraudulently misinterprets "having income" as meaning "receiving gross receipts" when applying Section 6012 to individuals. To better understand the meaning of "having income", consider this example: If during one year a corporation receives ten million dollars (gross receipts) from the sales of its products, and has expense items of nine million dollars, the corporation has a profit (income) of one million dollars. When tax liabilities are determined at the end of the year, the corporation has (possesses) an increase in its assets (a gain) of one million dollars. But, if the corporation's expenses equalled its gross receipts, it would then have (possess) no profit or gain (income) and it would owe no income tax. Now, consider another example: If during one year an individual receives fifteen thousand dollars in wages (gross receipts) from the sale of his labor, and has expenses of fifteen thousand dollars to sustain himself and his family, he then has (possesses) no increase in assets. Although he has (possesses) nothing more than he had at the beginning of the year, IRS agents consider him as "having income" of fifteen thousand dollars. IRS agents ignore the fact that his wages were not income according to their own publications!

"MUST" means "MAY"
Most people have never studied the IRC and their understanding of the law is generally based on hearsay, newspaper articles and IRS instructional materials. These instructions make frequent use of the deceptive word "must" in describing the things that the IRS wants you to do, because "must" is a forceful word that people mistakenly believe to mean "are required". Very few people realize that "must" is a directory word similar to "shall" and that, in IRS instructions to the public, it means "may", the same as the word "shall". In the legal definition of the word "must" in Black's Law Dictionary, it states: ... [I]t is often used in a merely directory sense, and consequently is a synonym for the word "may" not only in the permissive sense of that word, but also in the mandatory sense which it sometimes has.

http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (7 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

Because of the constitutional conflicts explained earlier in this article, the word "must", similar to the word "shall", cannot have a mandatory meaning for individuals. It therefore means "may" when used in IRS instruction publications. The IRS instructions for Form 1040 state that you "must" file a return if you have certain amounts of income. IRS withholding instructions state that employers "must" withhold money from paychecks for income tax, "must" withhold social security tax (an income tax also), and "must" send to the IRS any W-4 withholding statement claiming exemption from withholding, if the wages are expected to usually exceed $200 per week. An understanding of the legal meaning of the word "must" exposes the deception by the IRS and makes it clear that the actions called for are voluntary actions for individuals that are not required by law. If these actions were required by law, the instructions would not use the word "must", but would say that the actions were "required".

FREE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS
Prior to the American Revolution, the American colonists were subjects of the English Kings and were subject to their orders and edicts. But, according to the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the Citizens of our country are free sovereign individuals. They are not subjects of government, nor are they subject to mandatory direction or control by the federal government. Except for duties such as military draft and jury duty, the federal government has no authority to require unprivileged individuals to perform services for government. There is no section in the IRC requiring individuals to pay income tax or file income tax returns, because the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose any tax directly upon individuals or to require them involuntarily to keep records, make statements, make returns, or perform any acts for the convenience of federal tax collectors. But, if an individual files a return, his voluntary action of signing the form, thereby swearing under penalty of perjury that he owes the tax, is an acknowledgement under oath that he is subject to the tax (a "taxpayer") and is therefore subject to the directory statutes of the IRC. The reader should remember the legal definitions of the various terms and the information about the rights of Citizens presented in this article whenever he reads the IRC and other materials relating to income tax in order to better understand the correct meaning of whatever they read. INFORM PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS. SHOW THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS! REPRINT THIS ARTICLE AND DISTRIBUTE IT.

http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (8 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Deceptive IRS Code Words

YOU MAY PRINT YOUR GROUP'S NAME AND MESSAGE BELOW. To obtain additional information, send a large self-addressed stamped envelope to: FREE STATE CONSTITUTIONISTS c/o Post Office Box 3281 Baltimore, Maryland Postal Code 21228/TDC

Political Corrections
The Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension

http://deoxy.org/fz/deception.htm (9 of 9) [12/15/01 1:50:29 PM]

Amazon.com: buying info: How to Get Tax Amnesty: A Guide to the Forgiveness of IRS Debt Including Penalties & Interest

Books

How to Get Tax Amnesty: A Guide to the Forgiveness of IRS Debt Including Penalties & Interest by Daniel J. Pilla, David Engstrom
List Price: $15.95 Our Price: $15.95

(Use if you're redeeming a promotional certificate or coupon.)

Explore this book

buying info customer reviews rate this item
See more by the authors

Used Price: $9.50

Returning customer? Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.

Availability: Usually ships within 1 to 3 weeks
Win $350 of wishes! Add an item to your Wish List. Details.

all books by Daniel J. Pilla all books by David Engstrom read an interview with Daniel J. Pilla
Customers also bought

This item will not arrive until after December 25. Need a gift in a hurry? Consider sending a gift certificate via email!

these books these other items
Share your thoughts

2 used from $9.50
I have one to sell!

write a review e-mail a friend about this item
Great Buy

Buy How to Get Tax Amnesty: A Guide to the Forgiveness... with 41 Ways to Lick the IRS With a Postage Stamp today!
No No image image available available

Buy Together Today: $31.90

Paperback - 224 pages 7th edition (January 1998)
Winning Pubns; ISBN: 096171249X ; Dimensions (in inches): 0.63 x 8.51 x 5.43

Amazon.com Sales Rank: 29,406

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D096171249X/r/002-4285880-0800038 (1 of 4) [12/15/01 1:52:05 PM]

Amazon.com: buying info: How to Get Tax Amnesty: A Guide to the Forgiveness of IRS Debt Including Penalties & Interest

Your Favorite Magazines!

Rate this item to get personal recommendations. Average Customer Review: Based on 1 review. Write a review.

Customers who bought this book also bought:
q q

Explore our new Magazine Subscriptions store.

q q

41 Ways to Lick the IRS With a Postage Stamp by Daniel Pilla How to Settle With the Irs--For Pennies on the Dollar by Arnold S. Goldstein Settle Your Tax Debt by Sean P. Melvin How to Double Your Tax Refund : A Simple Guide to Managing Your Taxes & Getting Free Money by Daniel J. Pilla, Paul L. Engstrom (Editor) Explore similar items

Save up to 50% on the best Cutlery sets.

Customer Reviews
Avg. Customer Review:

Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
1 of 13 people found the following review helpful: Worth the Money, March 30, 2000 Reviewer: Chip Sanders from Georgia (US)

Get 16 MB memory and $250 in coupons

This was my first year filling out my tax forms, and it helped me fill out the forms. It also made me aware of many tax deductions, and they we to use them

Was this review helpful to you? with the Palm m125, m500, or m505.

DVD players

Customers who bought titles by Daniel J. Pilla also bought titles by these authors:
q q q q

Bargains from $99.99 q Feature packed from $149.99 q Top of the line from $199.99
q

q

Bernard B. Kamoroff Jeff A. Schnepper J. K. Rowling Arnold S. Goldstein Sean P. Melvin
Explore similar authors

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D096171249X/r/002-4285880-0800038 (2 of 4) [12/15/01 1:52:05 PM]

Amazon.com: buying info: How to Get Tax Amnesty: A Guide to the Forgiveness of IRS Debt Including Penalties & Interest

Win your wishes! Create or add items to your Wish List and you'll be automatically entered to win up to $350 worth of wishes.
(U.S. residents over 18 only. Learn more.)

Look for similar books by subject: Browse for books in:

Subjects > Business & Investing > Industries & Professions > Accounting > Taxes > General q Subjects > Business & Investing > General
q

Search for books by subject:

Business/Economics Legal Reference / Law Profession Law Civil Procedure Taxation - General Business & Economics
Find books matching ALL checked subjects i.e., each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ...

q q q

I have read this book, and I want to review it. Correct errors and omissions in this listing. Is there a specific product you'd like us to sell? Tell us about it.

Where's My Stuff? • Track your recent orders. • View or change your orders in Your Account.

Shipping & Returns • See our shipping rates & policies. • Return an item (here's our Returns Policy).

Need Help? • Forgot your password? Click here. • Redeem or buy a gift certificate. • Visit our Help department.

Search Digital Cameras

Books

for DVD Players
Get Free shipping on Kitchen & Housewares on orders over $150, and Tools & Hardware orders over $199. • Bargains from $99.99 • Featurepacked from $149.99 • Top-of-theline from $199.99

• Entry-level from $129.99 • Feature-packed from $299.99 • 3-megapixel from $399.99

Text Only

Top of Page

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D096171249X/r/002-4285880-0800038 (3 of 4) [12/15/01 1:52:05 PM]

Amazon.com: buying info: How to Get Tax Amnesty: A Guide to the Forgiveness of IRS Debt Including Penalties & Interest

Books Search | Browse Subjects | Bestsellers | Magazines | Corporate Accounts e-Books & Docs | Gift Ideas | Used Books

Amazon.com Home | Directory of All Stores Our International Sites: United Kingdom | Germany | Japan | France Help | Shopping Cart | Your Account | Sell Items | 1-Click Settings About Amazon.com | Join Our Staff

Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2001, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D096171249X/r/002-4285880-0800038 (4 of 4) [12/15/01 1:52:05 PM]

TAX-FREEDOM.COM & PERFECT TAX AVOIDANCE

Front Page | Main Menu | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links | TAX FREE INVESTING
Broadcasting the Information Revelation

WWW

.TAX-FREEDOM.COM
Twin site on a California Server (with FRAMES)

PERFECT TAX AVOIDANCE FOR CITIZENS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INCOME TAX THE IRS FRAUD EXPOSED HOW TO BEAT THE IRS JOIN US AND HELP SPREAD THE WORD THE WAR IS NOW ILLEGAL
The Truth is NOT "Out There", The Truth is HERE ! AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE !!

"The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted" Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465

http://users.erols.com/scambos/taxes.htm [12/15/01 1:54:38 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

Main Menu | Home Page | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links | SOLUTIONS
www.

TAX-FREEDOM

.com

Restoring Liberties, Truth, Understanding, and Freedom to America Through a Knowledge of the Law!

MAIN MENU
FRONT PAGE INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND INCOME TAX IMPOSED THE ORIGINAL IMPLEMENTATION THE ONLY FORM REQUIRED BY LAW THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS WITHHOLDING OF INCOME TAX WHO IS LIABLE WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE FRAUDULENT APPLICATION THE CITIZEN'S EXEMPTION $10,000 IF YOU PROVE WE ARE WRONG WHERE THE IRS REALLY COMES FROM - The Cooper File THE TRUE EVOLUTION OF THE IRS - Dan Meador KNOW YOUR ENEMIES WHO REALLY GETS THE MONEY
http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (1 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

THE LAWYERS KNOW THE TRUTH THE FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT CAN CONGRESS WRITE CLEAR LAWS ? ILLEGAL IRS MISUSE OF SOCIAL SECURITY THE FRAUDULENT ENFORCEMENT OPTING OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAX FREE INVESTING Personal & Business TRUST DOCUMENTS PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS

WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN LYING TO YOU ON-LINE LEGAL RESOURCES

PATRIOT LINKS DOWNLOAD WEB SITE IN BOOK FORM

IT IS NEVER HOPELESS ! THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CONNECTION

HOW IT HAPPENED TO AMERICA

http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (2 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

USING TRUSTS TO SHELTER YOUR ESTATE HOW THE RICH GET AWAY

THE CONFUSION OVER ... A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, TO AMEND OR REPLACE ? PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THE COMING DEPRESSION IRS CRIMES & CRIMINAL COVERUPS HOW AMERICA WILL BE DESTROYED BY 2010 HOW TO STOP THEM AND SAVE AMERICA ! LEGAL RECOURSE SUPREME COURT ENDS FEDERAL POLICE POWER THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ARE A JOKE IRS ENROLLED AGENT OPINIONS - FREE EXTRAS BEAT THE A.T.F. TOO ! TRACK THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO TWA FLIGHT 800 ?

http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (3 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

DON'T COUNT ON YOUR GUARD OR RESERVES TO HELP ! THE WAR POWERS ACT OF BETRAYAL DEAD LEGAL ISSUES & INCORRECT CLAIMS GOOD LEGAL BRIEFS LEGAL BRIEF ON SSNs LAW SUITS TO FIGHT LIENS AND WITHHOLDING !

PROPHECY FOR THE END PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CONGRESSMAN ! BIOLOGICAL & CHEMICAL WARFARE DEFENSE INFO ON BANK LOANS, TITLES, & FRAUD BANK LOAN FRAUD EXPLAINED ABOLISH THE IRS ! NATIONAL ID PROTEST - "Halt ! - Vhere are your papers ?" HOUSE and SENATE Directories - Write Your Congressman and Senators THESE CONGRESSMAN AGREE !

http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (4 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

NETLINE TO CONGRESS - VOTE EVERYDAY !

Main Menu | Home Page | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links | SOLUTIONS

NO AMERICAN CITIZEN, (except federal employees) HAS EVER ACTUALLY PAID A DIME OF INCOME TAX TO THE U.S. TREASURY, IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !! (Look and see who cashed your check !) IF IT WASN'T THE TREASURY, IT CAN'T BE TAX ! SO, WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING ? AND IF IT WASN'T THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, WHO HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING IT TO ???? WANNA BET ??? If you think I'm losing these bets, YOU BETTER CHECK THE BACK OF YOUR LAST CHECK TO THE IRS, AND THEN START READING THIS WEBSITE !!! The Fate of the Nation Hangs in the Balance !
http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (5 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

Which will it be; FREEDOM, and unimagined WEALTH for ALL Americans, OR, PEONAGE & SLAVERY and INEXSTINGUISHABLE DEBTS to FOREIGN Bankers FOR ALL ETERNITY ?

AMERICA IS NOW A NATION OF SLAVES. OUR FALSE BELIEFS CHAIN US TO THIS BEAST AS PEONS. NOW STAND UP
http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (6 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

AND BE MEN AND TAKE BACK AMERICA FROM THE BANKERSPOLITICIANS
EARN MONEY HOSTING WEBSITES ON THE NET
- 250 Megabytes for $49.95 per month - NO SETUP FEES ! OR

HAVE YOUR OWN WEBSITE ON THE NET
- for as little as $5 per month (per megabyte) NO SETUP FEES - your address will be: "www.america.moreprofits.com/your-name"

Last Update: 11/30/97 Web Author: The Disciples of Truth Web Site Owner: R Safe Copyright ©1997 by Agents of the LORD GOD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (7 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

PERFECT TAX KNOWLEDGE

[Next Site] [Skip 1 Site] [Next 5 Sites] [Previous Site] [JOIN!] [Chat]

http://users.erols.com/scambos/mainmenu.htm (8 of 8) [12/15/01 1:55:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud by William Cooper CAJI News Service -- Exclusive

Veritas Issue Number 6 September 1995 Forward by Dan Meador The following report was sent via FAX from one of our IRS triage people in the Northeast -- the FAX transmission was marginal grade and the original title was not included. There are a few holes where the type was not legible, so three or four lines are missing. The article appeared in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, published by William Cooper. The magazine can be secured by writing to P.O. Box 3390, St. Johns, Arizona <85936>. Cooper wrote the article, Cooper and Wayne Bentson did the research. I verified most material immediately in the federal depository at the Oklahoma State University library, and everything alleged in the article that I've had time to follow up on, including the fact that IRS and BATF are not listed in Chapter 3, Title 31, of the United States Code as agencies of the Department of the Treasury for the United States, checks out. Since receiving the article and doing preliminary follow-up research, I secured a book of documentation produced by Bentson some time prior to the Cooper article being published. The book has most Federal Register and Treasury Order materials mentioned in the article, although the contract for IRS collection on behalf of the Agency for International Development, the military arm of the United Nations, isn't produced in the book. In sum, however, everything in the following article that we've had time to verify stands as Cooper presents it.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (1 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

Tom Dunn of Maine throws in another twist yet to be verified: IRS allegedly operates through the Capital Trust Corporation, D.C., which is allegedly another off-shore entity. Dunn also links judges of "Nisi Prius" courts (statutory admiralty/contract) to Capital Trust, D.C. Our research demonstrates that the Department of Justice, when representing IRS, operates in an alter ego on behalf of what is described as the "General Authority" established under treaties on private international law (28 CFR Sec. 0.50), and that state district courts, via the various adopted acts implemented by the States, accommodate private international law (see "conflict of laws" as a subcategory to "statutes" in American Jurisprudence 2d). The following article contributes significantly to documenting the pedigree of IRS, BATF, etc. Ponca City, Oklahoma.

BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud by William Cooper CAJI News Service -- Exclusive "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...." The Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 ("1:8:1") "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." The Constitution for the United States of America Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 ("1:9:4")

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (2 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

CAJI Investigation Investigation of the alleged Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has disclosed a broad, premeditated conspiracy to defraud the Citizens of the United States of America. Examination of the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Statutes at Large, Congressional Record, the Federal Register, and Internal Revenue manuals too numerous to list, reveals a crime of such magnitude that words cannot adequately describe the betrayal of the American people. What we uncovered has clearly been designed to circumvent the limitations of the Constitution for the United States of America and to implement the Communist Manifesto within the 50 States. Marx and Engels claimed that, in the effort to create a classless society, a "graduated income tax" could be used as a weapon to destroy the middle class. The Art of Illusion Magic is the art of illusion. Those who practice magic are called Magi. They have created a web of obfuscation and confusion in the law. When the courts have ruled them unconstitutional or unlawful, they merely stepped outside jurisdiction and venue. By fooling the people, they continued the crime. These Magicians have convinced Americans that we have a status we do not. We are led to believe we must do things that are not required. Through the clever use of language, the government promotes the fraud. Not Created by Congress The Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the alleged Internal Revenue Service, were not created by Congress. These are not organizations or agencies of the Department of the Treasury, or of the federal government. They appear to be operated through pure trusts administered by the Secretary of the Treasury (the Trustee). The Settler of the trusts and the Beneficiary or Beneficiaries are unknown. According to the law governing trusts, the information does not have to be revealed. Not Found in 31 U.S.C.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (3 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

The organization of the Department of the Treasury can be found in 31 United States Code, Chapter 3, beginning on page 7. You will not find the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, or the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms listed. We learned that the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Internal Revenue, internal revenue, Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Internal Revenue Service, internal revenue service, Official Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Alcohol Administration, Director Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Division, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms are all one organization. We found this obfuscated. Constructive Fraud The investigation found that, except for the very few who are engaged in specific activities, the Citizens of the 50 States of the United States of America have never been required to file or to pay "income taxes." The Federal government is engaged in constructive fraud on a massive scale. Americans who have been frightened into filing and paying "income taxes" have been robbed of their money. Millions of lives have been ruined. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned on the pretense they violated laws that do not exist. Some have been driven to suicide. Marriages have been destroyed. Property has been confiscated to pay taxes that were never owed. Lincoln's War Tax During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln imposed a war tax upon the citizens. The war tax lawfully applied only to those citizens who resided within the federal District of Columbia and the federally owned territories, dockyards, naval bases, or forts, and those who were considered to be in rebellion against the Union. Many Citizens of the several States volunteered to pay. After the war, the tax was repealed. This left the impression that the President and Congress could levy an unapportioned direct tax upon the Citizens of the several States, when, in fact, no such tax had ever been imposed. The Tax was not fraud, because nothing was done to deceive the people. Those who were deceived, in fact, deceived themselves.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (4 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

Philippine -- Trust #1 In the last century, the United States acquired by conquest the territory of the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Philippine Customs Administrative Act was passed by the Philippine Commission during the period from September 1, 1900, to August 31, 1902, to regulate trade with foreign countries and to create revenue in the form of duties, imposts, and excises. The Act created the federal government's first trust fund called Trust Fund #1, the Philippine special fund (customs duties), 31 U.S.C., Section 1321. The Act was administered under the general supervision and control of the Secretary of Finance and Justice. Philippine Trust #2 Bureau of Internal Revenue The Philippine Commission passed another Act known as the Internal Revenue Law of Nineteen Hundred and Four. This Act created the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the federal government's second trust fund called Trust Fund #2, the Philippine special fund (internal revenue), 31 U.S.C., Section 1321. In the Act, Article I, Section 2, we find: "There shall be established a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the chief officer of which Bureau shall be known as the Collector of Internal Revenue. He shall be appointed by the Civil Governor, with the advice and consent of the Philippine Commission, and shall receive a salary at the rate of eight thousand pesos per annum. The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall belong to the department of Finance and Justice." And in Section 3, we find: "The Collector of Internal Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of Finance and Justice, shall have general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes and excises imposed by this Act or by any Act amendatory thereof, and shall perform such other duties as may be required by law." Customs & BIR Merged
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (5 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

It is clear that the Customs Administrative Act was to fall within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which bureau was to be responsible for "all taxes and excises imposed by this Act," which clearly included import and export excise taxes. This effectively merged Customs and Internal Revenue in the Philippines. Demon Alcohol When Prohibition was ratified in 1919 with the 18th Amendment, the government created federal bureaucracies to enforce the outlaw of alcohol. As protest and resistance to prohibition increased, so did new federal laws and the number of bureaucrats hired to enforce them. After much bloodshed and public anger, Prohibition was repealed with the 21st Amendment, which was ratified in 1933. Federal Alcohol Act In 1933, President Roosevelt declared a "Banking Emergency." The Congress gave the President dictatorial powers under the "War Powers Act of 1917." Congress used the economic emergency as the excuse to give blanket approval to any and all Presidential executive orders. Roosevelt, with a little help from his socialist friends, was prolific in his production of new legislation and executive orders. In 1935, the Public Administration Clearinghouse wrote, and Roosevelt introduced, the Federal Alcohol Act. Congress passed it into law. The Act established the Federal Alcohol Administration. That same year, the Supreme Court, in a monumental ruling, struck down the act, among many others on a long list of draconian and New Deal laws. The Federal Alcohol Administration did not go away, however; it became involved in other affairs, placed in a sort of standby status. Internal Revenue (Puerto Rico) At some unknown date prior to 1940, another Bureau of Internal Revenue was established in Puerto Rico. The 62nd trust fund was created and named Trust fund #62 Puerto Rico special fund (Internal Revenue). Note that the Puerto Rico special fund
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (6 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

has Internal Revenue, capital "I" and "R". The Philippine special fund (internal revenue) is in lower-case letters. Between 1904 and 1938, the China Trade Act was passed to deal with opium, cocaine, and citric wines shipped out of China. It appears to have been administered in the Philippines by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. China Trade Act We studied a copy of The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America in force June 1, 1938, Title 26 -Internal Revenue, Chapter I -- (Parts 1-137). On page 65, it makes reference to the China Trade Act, where we find the first use of such terms as: income, credits, withholding, Assessment and Collection of Deficiencies, extension of time for payment, and failure to file return. The entire substance of Title 26 deals with foreign individuals, foreign corporations, foreign insurance corporations, foreign ships, income from sources within possessions of United States, citizens of the United States and domestic corporations deriving income from sources within a possession of the United States, and China Trade Act Corporations. Narcotics, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms All of the taxes covered by these laws concerned the imposts, excise taxes, and duties to be collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue for such items as narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. The alleged Internal Revenue Service likes to make a big do about the fact that Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. The IRS will not tell you that the tax Capone evaded was not "income tax" as we know it, but the tax due on the income from the alcohol which he had imported from Canada. If he had paid the tax, he would not have been convicted. The Internal Revenue Act of 1939 was clearly concerned with all taxes, imposts, excises, and duties collected on trade between the possessions and territories of the United States, and foreign individuals, foreign corporations, or foreign governments. The income tax laws have always applied only to the Philippines, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, territories, and insular possessions.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (7 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

FAA becomes BIR Under the Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1940 which appears at 5 United States Code Service, Section 903, the Federal Alcohol Administration, and offices of members and Administrator thereof, were abolished and their functions directed to be administered under direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue. We found this history in all of the older editions of 27 U.S.C.S., Section 201. It has been removed from current editions. Only two Bureaus of Internal Revenue have ever existed: one in the Philippines and another in Puerto Rico. Events that have transpired tell us that the Federal Alcohol Administration was absorbed by the Puerto Rico Trust #62. Victory Tax Act World War II was a golden opportunity. Americans were willing to sacrifice almost anything if they thought that sacrifice would win the war. In that atmosphere, Congress passed the Victory Tax Act. It mandated an income tax for the years 1943 and 1944 to be filed and paid in the years 1944 and 1945. The Victory Tax Act automatically expired at the end of 1944. The federal government, with the clever use of language, created the myth that the tax was applicable to all Americans. Because of their desire to win the war, Americans filed and paid the tax. Because of their ignorance of the law, Americans filed and paid the tax. The government promoted the fraud and threatened those who objected. Americans forgot that the law expired in 2 years. When the date had come and gone, they continued to keep "records"; they continued to file; and they continued to pay the tax. The federal government continued to print returns and collect the tax. Never mind the fact that no Citizen of any of the several States of the Union was ever liable to pay the tax in the first place. Federal Power Limited The fiction, "that because it was an excise tax, it was legal," is not true. The power of the federal government is limited to its own property, as stated in Article I, Section 8,

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (8 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:47 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

Clause 17, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" as stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. 18 U.S.C., Section 921, Definitions, states, "The term 'interstate or foreign commerce' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone)." Only employees of the federal government, residents of the District of Columbia, residents of naval bases, residents of forts, U.S. citizens of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions were lawfully required to file and pay the Victory Tax. BIR becomes IRS In 1953, the United States relinquished its control over the Philippines. Why do the Philippine pure Trusts #1 (customs duties) and #2 (internal revenue) continue to be administered today? Who are the Settlers of the Trusts? What is done with the funds in the Trusts? What businesses, if any, do these Trusts operate? Who are the Beneficiaries? Coincidentally, on July 9, 1953, the Secretary of the Treasury, G. K. Humphrey, by "virtue of the authority vested in me," changed the name of the Bureau of the Internal Revenue, BIR, to Internal Revenue Service when he signed what is now Treasury Order 150-06. This was an obvious attempt to legitimize the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Without the approval of Congress or the President, Humphrey, without any legal authority, tried to turn a pure trust into an agency of the Department of the Treasury. His actions were illegal, but went unchallenged. Did he change the name of the BIR in Puerto Rico or the BIR in the Philippines? We cannot find the answer. Mutual Security Act In 1954, the United States and Guam became partners under the Mutual Security Act. The Act and other documents make reference to the definition of Guam and the United States as
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (9 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

being mutually interchangeable. In the same year, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed. The Code provides for the United States and Guam to coordinate the "Individual Income Tax". Pertinent information on the tax issue may be found in 26 C.F.R. 301.7654-1: Coordination of U.S. and Guam Individual income taxes, 26 C.F.R. 7654-1(e): Military personnel in Guam, and 48 U.S.C. Section 1421(i): "Income-tax laws" defined. The Constitution forbids unapportioned direct taxes upon the Citizens of the several States of the 50 States of the Union; therefore, the federal government must trick (read "defraud") people into volunteering to pay taxes as "U.S. citizens" of either Guam, the Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. It sounds insane, and it is, but it is absolutely true. BATF from IRS On June 6, 1972, Acting Secretary of the Treasury Charles E. Walker signed Treasury Order Number 120-01 which established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He did this with the stroke of his pen, citing "by virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury, including the authority in Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950." He ordered the ... "... transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives (including the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service) to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (hereinafter referred to as the Director). The Director shall perform his duties under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary ) and under the supervision of the Assistant Secretary (Enforcement, Tariff and Trade Affairs, and Operations) (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Secretary)." BATF = IRS Treasury Order 120-01 assigned to the new BATF Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (10 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

and 7653 of such code, chapters 61 through 80 inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. Chapter 8) (which, in 1935, the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional within the several States of the Union), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, Title VII Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. Appendix, sections 1201-1203, 18 U.S.C. 1262-1265, 1952 and 3615, and etc.) Mr. Walker then makes a statement within T.O. 120-01 that is very revealing: "The terms 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' and 'Commissioner of Internal Revenue' wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean 'the Director'." Walker seemed to branch the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), creating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), and then, with that statement, joined them back together into one. In the Federal Register, Volume 41, Number 180, of Wednesday, September 15, 1976, we find: "The term 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' has been replaced by the term 'Internal Revenue Service'." We found this pattern of deception and obfuscation everywhere we looked during our investigation. For further evidence of the fact that the IRS and the BATF are one and the same organization, check 27 U.S.C.A. Section 201. The Gift of the Magi This is how the Magi perform magic. Secretary Humphrey, with no authority, creates an agency of the Department of the Treasury called "Internal Revenue Service", out of thin air, from an offshore pure trust called "Bureau of Internal Revenue". The "Settler" and "Beneficiaries" of the trust are unknown. The "Trustee" is the Secretary of the Treasury. Acting Secretary Walker further launders the trust by creating, from the alleged "Internal Revenue Service", the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms."

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (11 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

Person Becomes Thing Unlike Humphrey, however, Walker assuaged himself guilt when he nullified the order by proclaiming: of any

"The terms 'Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division' and 'Commissioner of Internal Revenue' wherever used in regulations, rules, and instructions, and forms, issued or adopted for the administration and enforcement of the laws specified in paragraph 2 hereof, which are in effect or in use on the effective date of this Order, shall be held to mean 'the Director'." Walker created the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of Humphrey's Internal Revenue Service. He then says that, what was transferred is the same entity as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. He knew he could not legally create something from nothing without the authority of Congress and/or the President, so he made it look like he did something that he had, in fact, not done. To compound the fraud, the Federal Register published the unbelievable assertion that a person had been replaced with a thing: "the term Director Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division has been replaced with the term Internal Revenue Service." Stroke of Genius The Federal Alcohol Administration, which administered the Federal Alcohol Act, and offices of members and Administrator thereof, were abolished and their functions were directed to be administered under direction and supervision of the Secretary of Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, now the Internal Revenue Service. The Federal Alcohol Act was ruled unconstitutional within the 50 States, so it was transferred to the BIR, which is an offshore trust, which became the IRS, which gave birth to the BATF and, somehow, the term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, which is a person within the BATF, spawned the alleged Internal Revenue Service via another flick of the pen on September 15, 1976. In a that he brilliant flash of logic, Wayne C. Bentson determined could check these facts by filing a Freedom of

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (12 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

Information Act ("FOIA") request, asking the BATF to "name the person who now administers the Federal Alcohol Act." If we were wrong, then a reply would state that no record exists as to any name of any person who administers the Act. The request was submitted to the BATF. The reply came on July 14, 1994, from the Secret Service, an unexpected source, which discloses a connection we had not suspected. The reply states that John Magaw of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, of the Department of the Treasury, administers the Federal Alcohol Act. You may remember from the Waco hearings that John Magaw is the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. All of our research was confirmed by that admission. Smoke and Mirrors Despite all the pen flicking and the smoke and mirrors, there is no such organization within the Department of the Treasury known as the "Internal Revenue Service" or the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms." Title 31 U.S.C. is "Money and Finance" and therein are published the laws pertaining to the Department of the Treasury ("DOT"). Title 31 U.S.C., Chapter 3, is a statutory list of the organizations of the DOT. Internal Revenue Service and/or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed within Title 31 U.S.C. as agencies or organizations of the Department of the Treasury. They are referenced, however, as "to be audited" by the Controller General in 31 U.S.C. Section 713. BATF - Puerto Rico We have already demonstrated that both of these organizations are, in reality, the same organization. Where we find one, we will surely find the other. In 27 C.F.R., Chapter 1, Section 250.11, Definitions, we find: "United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office in Puerto Rico ..." and "Secretary -- The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico" and "Revenue Agent -Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico." Remember that "Internal Revenue" is the name of the Puerto Rico Trust #62. It is perfectly logical and reasonable that a Revenue Agent works as
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (13 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

an employee for the Department Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

of

the

Treasury

of

the

Where is IRS? Where is the alleged "Internal Revenue Service"? The Internal Revenue Code of 1939, aka Internal Revenue Code of 1954, etc., etc., etc., 27 C.F.R. refers to Title 26 as relevant to Title 27, as per 27 C.F.R., Chapter 1, Section 250.30, which states that 26 U.S.C. 5001(a)(1) is governing a Title 27 U.S.C. law. In fact, 26 U.S.C. Chapters 51, 52, and 53 are the alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes, administered by the Internal Revenue Service; alias Bureau of Internal Revenue; alias Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue; alias Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division; alias Internal Revenue Service. Must be Noticed According to 26 C.F.R. Section 1.6001-1(d), Records, no one is required to keep records or file returns unless specifically notified by the district director by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under subtitle A of the Code. 26 C.F.R. states that this rule includes State individual income taxes. Don't get yourself all lathered up, because "State" means ... the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, territories, and insular possessions. No Implementation of Law 44 U.S.C. says that every regulation or rule must be published in the Federal Register. It also states that every regulation or rule must be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. If there is no regulation, then there is no implementation of the law. There is no regulation governing "failure to file a return." There is no computer code for "failure to file." The only thing we could find was a requirement stating "where to file an income tax return." It can be found in 26 C.F.R., Section 1.6091-3, which states that, "Income tax returns required to be filed with Director of
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (14 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

International Operations." Operations?

Who is the Director of International

Delegation of Authority No one in government is allowed to do anything unless they have been given specific, written authority in the law, or else someone who has been given authority in the law gives that person a delegation of authority order, spelling out exactly what they can and cannot do under that specific order. We combed the Department of the Treasury's Handbook of Delegation Orders and we found that no one in the IRS or BATF has any authority to do most of the things they have been doing for years. No Authority to Audit Delegation Order Number 115 (Rev. 5) of May 12, 1986, is the only delegation of authority to conduct Audits. It states that the IRS and BATF can only audit themselves, and only for amounts of $750 or less. Any amount above that amount must be audited by the Controller General, according to Title 31 U.S.C. No other authority to audit exists. No IRS or BATF agent, or representative, can furnish us with any law, rule, or regulation which gives them the authority to audit anyone other than themselves. Order Number 191 states that they can levy on property, but only if that property is in the hands of parties. Authority to Investigate The manual states, on page 1100-40.2, Criminal Investigation Division, that ... of April 21, 1989,

"... the Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws ... involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements by developing information concerning alleged criminal violations thereof, evaluating allegations and indications of such violations to determine investigations to be undertaken, investigating suspected criminal violations of such laws, recommending prosecution when warranted, and
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (15 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

measuring effectiveness of the investigation processes ...." Authority to Collect On page 1100-40.1, it states in 1132.7 of April 21, 1989, Director, Office of Taxpayer Service and Compliance: "Responsible for operation of a comprehensive enforcement and assistance program for all taxpayers under the immediate jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International) .... Directs the full range of collection activity on delinquent accounts and delinquent returns for taxpayers overseas, in Puerto Rico, and in United States possessions and territories." 50 States not Included 1132.72 of April 21, 1989, Collection Division, says: "Executes the full range of collection activities on delinquent accounts, which includes securing delinquent returns involving taxpayers outside the United States and those in United States territories, possessions and in Puerto Rico." U.S. Attorney's Manual The United States Attorney's Manual, Title 6 Tax Division, Chapter 4, page 16, October 1, 1988, 6-4.270, Criminal Division Responsibility, states: "The Criminal Division has limited responsibility for the prosecution of offenses investigated by the IRS. Those offenses are: excise violations involving liquor tax, narcotics, stamp tax, firearms, wagering, and coin-operated gambling and amusement machines; malfeasance offenses committed by IRS personnel; forcible rescue of seized property; corrupt or forcible interference with an officer or employee acting under the internal revenue laws; and unauthorized mutilation, removal or misuse of stamps." See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.70.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (16 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

"Act of Congress" We found this Application of Terms: revelation in 28 U.S.C. Rule 54(c),

"As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. 'Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession." It is the Law 28 U.S.C. contains the "Rules of Courts." They were written and approved by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in writing 28 U.S.C., has already ruled upon this issue. They are the Law. Where is the Money? Where does the money go that is paid into the IRS? It spends at least a year in what is called a "quad zero" account under an Individual Master File, after which time the Director of the IRS Center can, apparently, do whatever he wants with the money. It is sometimes dispersed under Treasury Order 91 (Rev. 1), May 12, 1986, which is a service agreement between the IRS and the Agency for International Development ("AID"). We Financed Soviet Weapons When William Casey, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during Iran-Contra, was the head of AID, he funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars to the Soviet Union, which money was spent building the Kama River Truck Factory, the largest military production facility for tanks, trucks, armored personnel carriers, and other wheeled vehicles in the world. The Kama River Truck Factory has a production capability larger than all of the combined automobile and truck manufacturing plants in the United States.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (17 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

IRS/AID Service Agreement The agreement states: "Authority is hereby delegated to the Assistant Commissioner International to develop and enter into the service agreement between the Treasury Department and the Agency for International Development." The Secretary of the Treasury is always appointed U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund in accordance with the international agreement that created the IMF. The Secretary of the Treasury is paid by the IMF, while serving as Governor. Agent of Foreign Powers Lloyd Bentsen held the following positions at the same time as he was the Secretary of the Treasury: U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund, U.S. Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, U.S. Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank, U.S. Governor of the African Development Bank, U.S. Governor of the Asian Development Bank, U.S. Governor of the African Development Fund, and U.S. Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Mr. Bentsen received a salary from each of these organizations which literally made him an unregistered agent of several foreign powers. Citizen vs citizen By birth, we are each a Citizen of the State of California, or a Citizen of the State of Arizona, or a Citizen of whatever Union State wherein we were born and, at the same time, we are all Citizens of the United States of America, and are not subject to any Acts of Congress, other than the 18 powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the United States of America. People who are born, or who reside, within the federal District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, any territory, on any naval base or dockyard, within forts, or within insular possessions, are called U.S. citizens and are subject to Acts of Congress. Within the law, words have meanings that are not the same meanings that are
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (18 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

accepted in common usage. Our Constitution is the Constitution for the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution is the Constitution of Puerto Rico. Volunteer Taxpayers We are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction which we volunteer to accept. In the law governing income tax, "income" is defined as foreign earned income, offshore oil well or windfall profits, and war profits. A "return" is prepared by a taxpayer to submit to the federal government taxes that he/she collected. A "taxpayer" is one who collects taxes and submits the taxes as a return to the federal government. An "employee" is one who is employed by the federal government. An "employer" is the federal government. An "individual" is a citizen of Guam or the U.S. Virgin Islands. A "business" is defined as a government, a bank, or an insurance company. A "resident" is an alien citizen of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico, who resides within one of the 50 States of the Union known as the United States of America, or one of the other island possessions. 1040 for "Aliens" A form 1040 is the income tax return for a nonresident alien citizen of the U.S. Virgin Islands, residing within one of the 50 States of the several States in the Union known as the United States of America. If you volunteer that you are a U.S. citizen, you have become a U.S. citizen. If you write or print your name on a line labeled "taxpayer," you have become a taxpayer. Since these forms are affidavits which you submit under penalty of perjury, you commit a crime every time you fill one out and sign, stating that you are what you are not. The federal government is delighted by your ignorance, and will gladly accept your returns and your money. As proof, refer to the Virgin Islands Tax Guide, which states: "All references to the District Director or to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue should be interpreted to mean the Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue. All references to the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal depository and similar references should be interpreted as the BIR, and so forth. Any questions in

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (19 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

interpreting Federal forms for should be referred to the BIR."

use in

the Virgin

Islands

Codes Tell the Tale In Internal Revenue Service publication 6209, Computer Codes for IRS, "TC 150" is listed as the code for "Virgin Island Returns" and the Codes 300 through 398 are listed as "U.S. and UK Tax Treaty claims involving taxes on narcotics which were financed in the Cayman Islands and imported into the Virgin Islands." Narcotics Dealer? When Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed for the Individual Master File ("IMF") for people who are experiencing tax problems with the IRS, every return has been found to contain the above codes, except for some which are coded as "Guam" returns. Every return shows that the unsuspecting Citizen is being taxed on income derived from importing narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, or firearms into the United States, or one of its territories or possessions, from a foreign country, or from Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or into the Virgin Islands from the Cayman Islands. Who Is Required to File? 26 C.F.R., Section 601.103(a), is the only place which tells us who is required to file a return, provided that person has been properly noticed by the District Director to keep records, and then is properly noticed that he/she is required to file. It states, "In general each taxpayer (or person required to collect and pay over the taxes) is required to file a prescribed for[m] of return ...." Are you a taxpayer? Who Are These Thugs? The scam manifests itself in many different ways. In order to maintain the semblance of legality, hats are changed from moment to moment. When you are told to submit records for examination, you are dealing with Customs. When you submit an
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (20 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

offer in compromise, you are dealing with the Coast Guard. When you are confronted by a Special Agent of the IRS, you are really dealing with a deputized United States Marshall. When you are being investigated by the alleged Internal Revenue Service, you are really dealing with an agent contracted by the Justice Department to investigate narcotics violations. When the alleged Internal Revenue Service charges you with a crime, you are dealing with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Only a small part of 26 U.S.C. is administered by the alleged Internal Revenue Service. Most of the Code is administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, including Chapters 61 through 80, which is enforcement. In addition, 27 C.F.R. is BATF, and states in Subpart B, Definitions, 250.11, Meaning of terms: "United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms office in Puerto Rico." Every person we find, who is being prosecuted by the alleged Internal Revenue Service, has a code on their IMF which puts them in "tax class 6" which designates that they have violated a law relating to alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, in Puerto Rico. No Jurisdiction The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has no venue or jurisdiction within the borders of any of the 50 States of the United States of America (the "Union"), except in pursuit of an importer of contraband alcohol, tobacco, or firearms who failed to pay the tax on those items. As proof, refer to the July 30, 1993, ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in 1 F.3d 1511; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 19747, where the court ruled in United States v. D.J. Vollmer & Co. that the BATF has jurisdiction over the first sale of a firearm imported to the country, but they don't have jurisdiction over subsequent sales. Feds Lie Attorneys, including your defense attorney, the U.S. Attorney, Federal Judges, and alleged Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms personnel routinely lie in depositions and on the witness stand to perpetuate this

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (21 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

fraud. They do this willingly and with full knowledge that they are committing perjury. Every Judge intentionally lies every time he/she gives instructions to a Jury in a criminal or civil tax case brought by the IRS or BATF. They all know it, and do it willingly, and with malice aforethought. Where Do They Get These Guys? How does the government hire people who will intentionally work to defraud their fellow Americans? Most of those who work on the lower levels for the IRS, BATF, and other agencies simply do not know the truth. They do as they are told to earn a living until retirement. Executives, U.S. Attorneys, Federal Judges, and others do know, and are, with full knowledge and malice aforethought, participating in the crime of the century. Many of these people, including the President, are paid lots of money. Monetary Awards The Internal Revenue Manual, Handbook of Delegation Orders, January 17, 1983, page 1229-91, outlines the alleged Internal Revenue Service's system of monetary awards "of up to and including $5,000 for any one individual employee or group of employees in his/her immediate office, including field employees engaged in National Office projects; and contributions of employees of other Government agencies and armed forces members" with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, "of $5,001 to $10,000 for any one individual or group" with approval of the Deputy Commissioner, "of $10,001 - $25,000 for any one individual or group" with the Commissioner's concurrence, "an additional monetary award of $10,000 (total $35,000) to the President through Treasury and OPM" with the Commissioner's concurrence. Legal Bribery These awards include cash awards. They are not limited as to the number that may be awarded to any one person or group. There is no time limitation placed upon any award. Any person or group of persons can be awarded this money, including U.S. Attorneys, Federal Judges, your Certified Public Accountant, the President of the United States, members of Congress, your mother, H&R Block, etc. The awards may be given to the same person or
http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (22 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

group, each minute, each hour, every day, every week, every month, every year, or not at all. In other words, the U.S. Government and the alleged Internal Revenue Service, aka Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, has a perfectly legal system of bribery. The bribery works against the Citizens of the several States of the United States of America. Warning! Our investigation uncovered a lot. We have printed only a little. Successful use of this material requires a lot of study, and an excellent understanding of the legal system. Please do not compound errors by attempting to extract some imaginary magic bullet to use against the alleged Internal Revenue Service, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. It is not enough to discover this information; you must know it inside and out, backwards and forwards, like you know the smell of your own breath. Trust Betrayed We have been betrayed by those we trusted. We have been robbed of our money and property. It happened because we trusted imperfect men to rule imperfect men, and we failed in our duty as watchdogs. It happened because we have been ignorant, apathetic, and even stupid. By Choice and Consent "A nation or world of people, who will not use their intelligence, are no better than animals that do not have intelligence; such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent." from "Behold a Pale Horse," by William Cooper, Light Technology Publishing, Sedona, Arizona state A significant portion of the research that led to the writing of this article was contributed by Mr. Wayne Bentson. # # #

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (23 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

Supreme Law Library: The Cooper File

Return to the Supreme Law Library

http://users.erols.com/scambos/cooper.htm (24 of 24) [12/15/01 1:56:48 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Public Notice Regarding Limits of IRS Authority

This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. A true and correct copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the newspaper responsible for publishing the instrument as legal notice. The memorandum addresses the character of the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies of the Department of the Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code.

1. IRS Identity & Principal of Interest

In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Treasury Order No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no congressional or presidential authorization for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere. Research to which IRS officials have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as trustee of Puerto Rico, Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321), and as will be demonstrated, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, was first published in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research by William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. A criminal complaint was filed in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico. Later, criminal complaints were filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United States District Court for the District of Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmondson, and both the office of the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Kenney F. Moore, et al, 95 CR-129C).

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (1 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States Department of the Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2

Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties who knowingly participate in IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate authority resides in or emanates from an office which was not legitimately created and/or ordained either by state or national constitutions or by legislative enactment. See variously, United States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Cir. 1943); where the state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR § 1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the United States Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional. Administration of the Act was subsequently moved offshore to Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration, and operation eventually merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Philippines, created by the Philippines provisional government via Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue)), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines). This line will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.

Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority in the several States is found in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC §§ 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table). In other words, no regulations have been published in the Federal Register, extending authority to the several States and the population at large, (1) to establish revenue districts within the several States, (2) extending authority of the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3)
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (2 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

giving authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants within the several States, or (4) extending authority of any other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.

Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is convoluted in regulations, but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations pertaining to the Service and application of the Commissioner's authority. General procedural rules at 26 CFR § 601.101(a) provide a beginning-point:

(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed...

The fact that there are no regulations extending Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or Department of the Treasury authority to the several States (26 USC § 7802(a)), has greater clarity in the light of the general merging of functions between IRS and other agencies presently attached to the Department of the Treasury. The Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and regulations for the Code at 26 CFR § 301.7805-1, with approval of the Secretary, but there are no cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal Register, or even statute cite. In other words, there is no actual or effective delegation which vests the Commissioner with significant independent authority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATF, Customs or any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or affecting the several States and the population at large.

The link between IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant as the tie with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, is through this door. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1940, Section 2, made the following change:

§ 2. Federal Alcohol Administration

The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the members thereof, and the office of the
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (3 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Administrator are abolished, and their function shall be administered under direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury.

Again, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was declared unconstitutional in 1935, and the operation thereafter transferred off shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service in 1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division of the Internal Revenue Service, was seemingly separated from IRS (T.O. 12001, June 6, 1972). In relevant part, the order reads as follows:

1. The purpose of this order is to transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under law relating to Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal Revenue Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein after referred to as the Bureau which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein referred to as the Director...

2. The Director shall perform the functions, exercise the powers and carry out the duties of the Secretary and the administration and the enforcement of the following provisions of law: A. Chapters 51 and 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as they relate to the commodity subject to tax under such chapters. B. Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52, 53. (emphasis added)

Transfer of functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important where the instant matter is concerned as the only regulations published in the Federal Register applicable to the several States are under 27 CFR, Part 70 and other parts of this title relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms matters. However, the charade doesn't end there. In Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC § 903), the original Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress in 1895, was abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (4 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

In a Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the Treasury used something of a slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, "The term Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has been replaced with the term Internal Revenue Service."

Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing when it comes to administrative responsibility. However, the order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely operating with interchangeable hats. Therefore, definitions and designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.

In definitions at 27 CFR § 250.11, the following provisions are found: Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform the function mentioned or described in this part.

In the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents, the Secretary, or the Department of the Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to all IRS and BATF departments, functions and personnel. In fact, it will be found that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to United States territorial jurisdiction exclusive of the several States and to imported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to firearms, munitions, etc., produced outside the several States and the first sale of imports.

The two delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus far located tend to reinforce conclusions set out above. Treasury Department Order No. 150-42, dated July 27, 1956, appearing in at 21 Fed. Reg. 5852, specifies the following:

The Commissioner shall, to the extent of the authority vested in him, provide for the administration of United States internal revenue laws in the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (5 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

On February 27, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 9571), Treasury Department Order No. 150-01 specified the following:

The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

To date only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as currently amended, have been located that specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States (District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.): 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The first two provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to imported distilled spirits for governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions, and the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax Court will constitute evidence of the reports in courts of the United States and the several States. None of the three statutes extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within the several States.

IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for International Development, and case law demonstrates that the true principals of interest are the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242; see 22 USCA § 286, et seq.). In other words, the IRS seemingly provides collection services for undisclosed foreign principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the benefit of the Treasury or the constitutional United States government operation. To date, IRS principals have failed to deny or dispute these published allegations of fact.

The Internal Revenue Service, an (unregistered) foreign entity (agent) with respect to the several States, is not registered, legally or otherwise, to do business or enforce debt, or law, in the several States of the Union, outside of the Federal enclaves (military bases, etc) that may exist within a State.

2. Preservation of Due Process Rights
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (6 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by statutory courts both of the United States and the several States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted uniform laws which ascribe a federal character to the several States. Both operate under the presumption of Congress' Article IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate private international law under exclusively United States treaties on private international law, and both operate in the framework of admiralty rules to impose Civil Law (see both majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority of Department of Justice as representative of the "Central Authority" established by U.S. treaties on private international law at 28 CFR § 0.49; also, "conflict of law" as a subcategory to "statutes" in American Jurisprudence). However, this house of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism, known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United States appellate courts and in public forum.

In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:

§ 7804 (b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.

-- Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy, including trial by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any action to recover any such tax, penalty, or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence gave rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law. (emphasis added)

The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (7 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, and were codified as title 26 of the United States Code. Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the general population or the legal profession. The statute set out above is easier to comprehend when references are consolidated. Further, the dependent clause "including trial by jury" relates to a constitutionally-assured right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location in the sentence. Finally, the matter of venue is important as "existing law" is constitutional and common law indigenous to the several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which extends to the several States, those persons who operate under color of law in NAME of tax only, engage in fraud, oppression, misuse of authority, abuse of law, conspiracy, extortion, wrongful conversion, theft, etc., are subject to the foundation law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of legislative jurisdiction.

Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of due process rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several States. The example represents the class.

Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus assessments as well as collections, and (2) § 7804(b), unlike § 7433, does not presume that the complaining party is a "taxpayer". Finally, there is 26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support for § 7804 where there are no regulations published in the Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations). Therefore, § 7804(b) preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for remedies in the several States. When straightened out, applicable portions of § 7804(b) read as follows:

Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered to impair any right, [including trial by jury], or remedy, ... to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected ... The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law.

The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC § 2463, which stipulates that any seizure under United States revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject solely to disposition of courts of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if IRS had legitimate authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment, seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment citizen-subject of the United States or a
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (8 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Citizen principal of one of the several States. Due process assurances in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate -- administrative seizures without due process can be equated only to tyranny and barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1).

(1) Rule 1. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

Even officers, agents and employees of United States agencies are assured due process where garnishment is concerned (5 USC § 5520a), so the notion that IRS has authority to execute garnishment and other seizures via the private sector without due process is clearly absurd. In the English-American lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury under rules of the common law indigenous to the several States; the de jure people of America are not subject to admiralty or administrative tribunals.

Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process as the Handbook for Revenue Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following:

During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person of the taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass, assault and battery, conversion, etc.

The provision acknowledges the Supreme Court decision in Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. 337 U.S. 682 (1949).

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (9 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper jurisdiction, is clearly antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except where licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank accounts, administrative seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.

3. Current I. R. Code & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same

Consult 26 USC §§ 7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since, simply reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read § 7852(b) & (c), then read the balance of §§ 7851 & 7852 for best comprehension.

The importance of making this connection rests on the fact that the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely codification of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. There was no general income tax levied against the population at large in 1939 or since. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 incorporated the Social Security tax activated after 1936, was premised on the notion that working for federal government is a privilege. Income and related taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the current Internal Revenue Code have never been mandatory for anyone other than officers, agents and employees of the United States, as identified at 26 USC § 3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified at § 3401(d), particularized at 5 USC §§ 102 & 105.

The (privilege) tax is an indirect excise tax rather than a direct tax -- according to the Supreme Court rulings in Brushaber v Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916): "... taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such ...", and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112 (1916): "... the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation ...", the Sixteenth Amendment, deceptively promulgated in 1913, did not alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require all direct taxes to be apportioned among the several States (Constitution, Article I §§ 2.3 & 9.4), nor did it establish the income tax as a direct tax.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (10 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and numerous decisions since, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that for purposes of income tax, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are property, not income. In fact, returns from enterprise of common right are fundamental to all property, and the sanctity is preserved as a fundamental common law principle dating to signing of the Magna Charta in 1215.

The nature of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR § 31.3101-1: "The employee tax is measured by the amount of wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936..." In other words, the wage is not the object, but merely the measure of the tax. This verbiage constitutes so much legalese in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service fall into the excise category was confirmed by the Comptroller General's report following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). This little known fact of law is further confirmed by the Congressional Research Service Report No. 79-131 A, which was written by Howard Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney for the American Law Division of Congress. It is further suggested at 26 CFR § 106.401(a)(2), where the regulation concedes that, "The descriptive terms used in this section to designate the various classes of taxes are intended only to indicate their general character...".

By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, cited above, it is found that the definition of "gross income" is still preserved in Section 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, thus cementing the link between the Code of 1939 and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 merely codified the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in Senate Committee On Finance and House Committee On Ways and Means reports No. H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which § 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked, as shown in the footnote for 26 USC § 61 in the 1954 Code. Both reports stipulate that the current definition of "gross income" is intended to be constitutional. The implementing tables for section 22a under the 1939 (and current) Code show it as being implemented under Title 26 Part 519, which is the Canadian Tax Treaty that expired in 1993, but DO NOT SHOW any implementation for it under PART 1 - Tax On Individuals.

This intent is articulated at 26 CFR § 1.61-1(a): "Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, unless excluded by law."

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (11 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

An "Act of Congress" is policy, not law, and per definition located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, has only local application in the District of Columbia and other United States territories and insular possessions unless general application is manifestly expressed: Rule 54(c) -- "'Act of congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."

Where the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large, p.3), the legislation is in fact styled, "An Act" "To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States."

As demonstrated above, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are exempt from direct tax by fundamental law, and the regulation for the current Internal Revenue Code definition for "gross income" clearly articulates the fundamental law exemption.

The exemption as it pertains to the several States is demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules (Index volume to the CFR, p. 751 of the 1995 edition): There are 26 CFR, Part 1 regulations listed for 26 USC §§ 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross income, but there is no 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26 USC § 63, the definition for taxable income.

While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross income which is not taxable within the several States is of no consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.

Further, on examination of 26 CFR § 1.62-1, pertaining to "adjusted gross income", it is found that subsections (a) & (b) are reserved so the published regulation is incomplete, with "temporary" regulation § 1.62-1T serving as the current authority defining "adjusted gross income." Temporary regulations have no legal effect.

Definitions at § 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large (the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), make it clear that, (§ 3401(a)(A)), "a resident of a contiguous country who enters and leaves the United States at
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (12 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

frequent intervals..," is a nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of the several States included), and the exclusion from "wages" extends even to citizens of the United States who provide services for employers "other than the United States or an agency thereof" (§ 3401(a)(8)(A)).

4. The Employer or Withholding Agent is Liable

Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, makes it perfectly clear who is "liable" for payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:

§ 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS. In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control, receipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays the wages of an employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, the Secretary of his delegate, under regulations prescribed by him, is authorized to designate such fiduciary, agent, or other person to perform such acts as are required by employers under this subtitle and as the Secretary or his delegate may specify. Except as may be otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to an employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary, agent, or other person so designated, but, except as so provided, the employer for whom such fiduciary, agent, or other person acts shall remain subject to the provisions of law (including penalties) applicable in respect to employers.

The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d):

§ 3402(d). Tax paid by recipient.

If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (13 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

otherwise applicable in respect to such failure to deduct and withhold.

These provisions from Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large comply with and verify liability set out at 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D in general. Further, territorial limits of application are made clear by the absence of regulations supporting 26 USC §§ 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes authorizing establishment of internal revenue districts and delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants. The fact that the liability falls to the "employer" (defined at 26 USC § 3401(d)) under 26 USC 3403 and/or a "withholding agent" (defined at 26 USC § 7701(a)(14)) under 26 USC § 1461, with no compensation for serving as "tax collector," narrows the field to federal government entities (agencies) as "employers", if for no other reason than the population at large is not subject to the edict of government officials. As a matter of course, government cannot compel performance of Citizens of a State where the general population is concerned. (even if the Citizen is an employee of the State - see United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626. The subject class that has "liability" for Subtitles A & C taxes is the "employer" or his/a (withholding) agent, fiduciary, etc., as identified above.

The matter is further clarified in §§ 3403 & 3404 of Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:

§ 3403. LIABILITY FOR TAX.

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

§ 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER.

If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory, or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, the

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (14 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

return of the amount deducted and withheld upon any wages may be made by any officer or employee of the United States, or of such State, Territory, or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be, having control of the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated for that purpose.

The territorial application, and limitation, is made clear by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

§ 31.3121(3)-1 State, United States, and citizen. (a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960 Guam and American Samoa. (b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term "United States", when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term "United States" also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term "citizen of the United States" includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

Definition of the terms "includes" and "including" located at 26 USC § 7701(c) provides the limiting authority which the above definitions, beyond constructive application, are subject to:

(c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. -- The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

Two principles of law clarify definition intent: (1) The example represents the class, and (2) that which is not named is intended to be omitted.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (15 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

In the definition of "United States" and "State" set out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the transition of Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving the point. This conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts in the several States (26 USC § 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC § 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Department of the Treasury personnel (26 USC § 7802 & 7803).

5. Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax

Here again, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is useful as it demonstrates that Subtitles A & C taxes do not have general application within the several States and to the population at large. The regulation for 26 USC § 1 refers to 26 CFR § 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is no regulation under 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the several States and the population at large. Further, there are no supportive regulations at all for 26 USC §§ 2 & 3, and of considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate income tax, 26 USC § 11, as applicable to the several States.

Where the instant matter is concerned, regulations supporting 26 USC § 6321, liens for taxes, and § 6331, levy and distraint, are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is that Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations is exclusively under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration for Subtitle E and related taxes. There are no corresponding regulations for the Internal Revenue Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, which extend comparable authority to the several States and the population at large.

The necessity of regulations being published in the Federal Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures Act, at 5 USC § 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at 44 USC § 1501 et seq. Of particular note, it is specifically set out at 44 USC § 1505(a), that when regulations are not published in the Federal Register, application of any given statute is exclusively to agencies of the United States and officers, agents and employees of the United States, thus once again confirming application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated above. Further, the need for regulations is detailed in 1 CFR, Chapter 1, and where the Internal Revenue Service is concerned, 26 CFR § 601.702.
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (16 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:58 PM]

PUBNOTDM

The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as stated in California Bankers Ass'n. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974):

Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone ... The government argues that since only those who violate regulations may incur civil and criminal penalties it is the regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and not the broad, authorizing language of the statute, which is to be tested against the standards of the 4th Amendment...

Because there is a citation supporting these statutes applicable under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it is important to point out that, "Each agency shall publish its own regulations in full text," (1 CFR § 21.21(c)), with further verification that one agency cannot use regulations promulgated by another at 1 CFR § 21.40. To date, no corresponding regulation has been found for 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, so until proven otherwise, IRS does not have authority to perfect liens or prosecute seizures in the several States as pertaining to the population at large.

6. Misapplication of Authority

Regulations pertaining to seized property are found at 26 CFR § 601.326:

Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to the personal property seized by officers of the Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended to be used, to violate certain Federal Laws; the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture; and the administrative sale or other disposition, pursuant to forfeiture, of such seized property other than firearms seized under the National Firearms Act and firearms and ammunition seized under
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (17 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968. For disposal of firearms and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, see 18 U.S.C. 924(d). For disposal of explosives under Title XI of Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c).

The only other comparable authority thus far found pertains to windfall profits tax on petroleum (26 CFR § 601.405), but once again, application is not supported by regulations applicable to the several States and the population at large.

Where the provision for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the key regulatory reference is at 26 CFR § 601.401(d)(4), and this application appears related to "employees" who work for two or more "employers", receiving foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States under tax treaty. The option of filing a 1040 return for refund is mentioned in instructions applicable to United States citizens and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date has not been located elsewhere. Reference OMB numbers for § 601.401, listed on page 170, 26 CFR, Part 600-End, cross referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign application.

The fact that 1040 tax return forms are optional and voluntary, with special application, is further reinforced by Delegation Order 182 (reference 26 CFR §§ 301.6020-1(b) & 301.7701). The Secretary or his delegate is authorized to file a Substitute for Return for the following: Form 941 (Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return); Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return); Form 2290 (Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles); Form CT-1 (Employer's Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return); Form 1065 (U.S. Partnership Return of Income); Form 11-B (Special Tax Return - Gaming Services); Form 942 (Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return for Household Employees); and Form 943 (Employer's Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees).

The "notice of levy" instrument forwarded to various third parties is not actually a "levy" which warrants surrender of property. The Internal Revenue Code, at § 6335(a), defines the "notice" instrument by use -notice is to be served to whomever seizure has been executed against after the seizure is effected. In short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for action. The term "notice" is clarified by definition in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, and other law dictionaries. Use of the "notice of levy" instrument to effect seizure is prima facie evidence of fraud by design.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (18 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Proper use of the "notice" process, administrative garnishment, et al, is specifically set out in 5 USC § 5514, as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees of agencies of the United tates (26 USC § 3401(c)). Even then, however, the process must comply with provisions of 31 USC § 3530(d), and standards set forth in §§ 3711 & 3716-17. In accordance with provisions of 26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the employer, meaning the United States agency the employee is employed by, is responsible for promulgating regulations and carrying out garnishment.

Even if IRS was the agency responsible for collecting from an "employee," due process would still be required, as noted above, so authority to collect would ensue only after securing a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction, which in the several States would mean a judicial court of the State. In United States law, however, there is no authority for securing or issuing a Notice of Distraint premised on non-filing, bogus filing, or any other act relating to the 1040 return. See United States v. O'Dell, Case No. 10188, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 1947. In G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that a judicial warrant for tax levies is necessary to protect against unjustified intrusions into privacy. The Court further held that forcible entry by IRS officials onto private premises without prior judicial authorization was also an invasion of privacy.

7. Liability Depends on a Taxing Statute

General demands for filing tax returns, production of records, examination of books, imposition and payment of tax, etc., are of no consequence to the point a taxing statute (1) defines what tax is being imposed, and (2) the basis of liability. In other words, even if the Internal Revenue Service was a legitimate agency of the United States Department of the Treasury under the law and had authority in the several States, the Service would have to be specific with respect to what tax was at issue and would have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute with the necessary elements to establish that any given person was obligated to pay any given tax.

This mandate has been clarified by the courts numerous times, with the matter definitively stated by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797, at p. 800 (1964):

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (19 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

"Without question, a taxing statute must describe with some certainty the transaction, service, or object to be taxed, and in the typical situation it is construed against the Government." Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.858

In other words, to the point Service personnel produce the statute which mandates a certain tax and which specifies, "... the transaction, service, or object to be taxed..," the burden of proof lies with the Government, with the consequence being that no obligation or civil or criminal liability can ensue to the point a taxing statute that meets the above requirements is in evidence.

This conclusion is supported by the statute which provides the underlying requirements for keeping records, making statements, etc., located at 26 USC § 6001:

§ 6001 - Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employee shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).

This controlling statute for Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part I, concerning records, statements, and special returns, clearly returns the matter to the "employee" defined at § 3401(c), and the "employer" defined at § 3401(d). In general, however, (1) the Secretary must provide direct notice to whomever is required to keep books, records, etc., as being the "person liable," or (2) specify the person liable by regulation. In the absence of notice by the Secretary, based on a taxing statute which makes such a person liable according to provisions stipulated in United States v. Community TV, Inc., Hassett v. Welch, and other such cases, or regulations which specifically set establish general liability, there is no liability.
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (20 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Sec. 6001 also exempts "employees" from keeping records except where tips and the like are concerned. This is consistent with constructive demonstration that "employers" rather than "employees" are required to file returns, as opposed to paying deducted amounts as income tax returns, constructively demonstrated in a previous section of this memorandum and specifically articulated in 26 CFR § 601.104. Clarification via 26 USC § 6053(a) is as follows:

(a) REPORTS BY EMPLOYEES. -- Every employee who, in the course of his employment by an employer, receives in any calendar month tips which are wages (as defined in section 3121(a) or section 3401(a)) or which are compensation (as defined in section 3231(e)) shall report all such tips in one or more written statements furnished to his employer on or before the 10th day following such month. Such statements shall be furnished by the employee under such regulations, at such other times before such 10th day, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed by the Secretary.

Unraveling § 6001 straightens out the meaning of § 6011, which requires filing returns, statements, etc., by the person made liable (§ 3401(d)), as distinguished from the person required to make returns (payments) at § 6012 (§ 3401(c)). Even though a person might be a citizen or resident of the United States employed by an agency of the United States, and thereby be required to return a prescribed amount of United States-source income, he is not the person liable under § 6011 and attending regulations.

The "method of assessment" prescribed at 26 USC § 6303 is therefore dependent on the taxing statute and must rest on authority specifically conveyed by a taxing statute which prescribes liability where the Secretary (1) has provided specific notice, including the statute and type of tax being imposed, or (2) supports assessment by regulatory application. In the absence of one or the other, an assessment by the Secretary is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating.

The requirement for the Secretary to provide notice to whomever is responsible for collecting tax, keeping records, etc., is clarified at 26 CFR § 301.7512-1, particularly (a)(1)(i), relating to "employee tax imposed by section 3101 of chapter 21 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act)," and (a)(1)(iii), relating to "income tax required to be withheld on wages by section 3402 of chapter 24 (Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages)..." The person liable is the employer or the employer's agent, and of particular
http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (21 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

significance, it is this "person" who is subject to civil and particularly criminal penalties (26 CFR § 301.7513-1(f); 26 CFR §§ 301.7207-1 & 301.7214-1, etc.). Officers and employees of the United States are specifically identified as being liable at 26 USC § 301.7214-1.

The matter of who is required to register, apply for licenses, or otherwise collect and/or pay taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code is ultimately and finally put to rest under "Licensing and Registration", 26 USC §§ 301.7001-1, et seq. Each of the categories so addressed has liability based on some particular taxing statute which creates liability.

8. The Necessity of Administrative Process

The requirement for a specific taxing statute, with 26 USC § 6001 clearly providing the first leg in necessary administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at length in Rodriguez v.United States, 629 F.Supp.333 (N.D. Ill. 1986). Presuming (1) the Secretary has provided the necessary notice, or (2) a regulation prescribes general application which makes any given person liable for a tax and requires tax return statements to be filed, each step in administrative process prescribed by 26 USC §§ 6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must be in place for seizure or any other encumbrance to be legal.

Here again, regulations published in the Federal Register are significant, with provisions of 5 USC § 552 et seq., 44 USC § 1501 et seq., 1 CFR, Chapter I, and 26 CFR, Part 601 all supporting the mandate for regulations to be published in the Federal Register before they have general application. It will be noted by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, that application by regulation to the several States is only under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or that there are no regulations published in the Federal Register. The following entries, or non-entries, are found:

Code Section Description 26 USC § 6201 Assessment authority 26 USC § 6212 Notice of deficiency 26 USC § 6213 Deficiencies; Tax Court

Published Regulation 27 CFR, Part 70 No Regulation No Regulation

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (22 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

26 USC § 6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR, Part 53, 70 26 USC § 6331 Levy and distraint 27 CFR, Part 70

The assessment authority under 26 USC § 6201, in relevant part as applicable to Subtitles A & C taxes, are as follows:

§ 6201. ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority of Secretary. -- The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquires, determination, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following: (1) TAXES SHOWN ON RETURN. The secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title. (2) UNPAID TAXES PAYABLE BY STAMP. ... (3) ERRONEOUS INCOME TAX PREPAYMENT CREDITS. If on any return or claim for refund of income taxes under subtitle A there is an overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the source, or of the amount paid as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or clerical error appearing upon the return, except that the provisions of section 6213(b)(2) (relating to abatement of mathematical or clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard to any assessment under this paragraph. (b) Amount not to be assessed. (1) ESTIMATED INCOME TAX . -- No unpaid amount of estimated income tax required to be paid under section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed. (2) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAX . -- No unpaid amount of Federal unemployment tax for any calendar quarter or other period of a calendar year, computed as provided in section 6157, shall be assessed. ...

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (23 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

(d) DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS. For special rules applicable to deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes, see subchapter B. [emphasis added]

The grant of assessment authority with respect to taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C is limited to provisions set out above even where the Service might have authority relating to those made liable for the tax, meaning the "employer" specified at 26 USC § 3401(d). Clearly, returns made either by the agent of the United States agency required to file a return, or the Secretary, are to be evaluated mathematically, and errors are to be treated as clerical errors, nothing more. The Secretary has no authority to assess estimated income tax (individual estimated income tax at § 6554; corporation estimated income tax at § 6655), or unemployment tax ( § 6157). For all practical purposes, the trail effectively ends here.

9. The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election

In order for there to be an opportunity for a Citizen of the United States (a Citizen of one of the several States) to be taxed or treated as a "taxpayer" of the United States, one or the other of a married couple, or the single "individual" making the election, must be an employee of the United States. Some party must in some way be connected with a "United States trade or business" (performance of the functions of a public office (26 USC § 7701(a)(26)), or elect to participate in Social Security. A Citizen never has domestic self-employment income. In the event that a person becomes an "employee" of the Federal Government (26 USC § 3401(c)), the "employer" (26 USC § 3401(d)) is liable (26 USC § 3403) for collection and payment of income tax from that person. And in order for real property to be treated as effectively connected with a United States trade or business by way of election, it must be located within the geographical United States (26 USC § 871(d)).

Provisions cited above preclude any and all legal authority for Citizens of the several States, or privately owned enterprise located in the several States, to be mandated to participate in the federal tax and benefits programs prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code, and companion legislation such as the Social Security Act which provide benefits from the United States Government, which has no legislative (territorial) jurisdiction in the several States to impose law from on the Citizens of that State.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (24 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

PUBNOTDM

Summary & Conclusion

This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely sufficient to support causes set out separately. The most conspicuous conclusions of law are that Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, the predecessor of the Internal Revenue Service; Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code prescribe excise taxes, mandatory only for employees of United States Government agencies; the Internal Revenue Service, within the geographical United States where the Service appears to have colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to seizing or encumbering assets; and the law demonstrates that people of the several States cannot legitimately be taxed or treated as taxpayers (Federal employees) of the United States Government by presumption. If a Citizen of one of the several States works for an agency of the United States or receives income from a United States "trade or business" or otherwise effectively connected with the United States, the employer or other third party responsible for payment is made liable for withholding taxes at the rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification, and is thus "the person liable" and may be subject to Internal Revenue Service initiatives, with administrative initiatives, where seizure and/or encumbrance actions are concerned, subject to judicial determinations by courts of competent jurisdiction.

Under penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, per 28 USC § 1746, and without prejudice, I attest that to the best of my knowledge and understanding, all matters of law and fact presented herein are accurate and true.

Dan Meador & Thomas T. Scambos, Jr.

July 4, 1997

http://users.erols.com/scambos/pubnotic.htm (25 of 25) [12/15/01 1:57:59 PM]

KNOW YOUR ENEMIES

Main Menu | Home Page | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links | SOLUTIONS
Broadcasting the Information Revelation

www.

Tax-Freedom.com

KNOW YOUR ENEMIES

MENU

Who Really Gets the Money The Communist Manifesto

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta12000.htm (1 of 2) [12/15/01 1:59:40 PM]

KNOW YOUR ENEMIES

Last Update: 02/21/97 Web Author: The Disciples of Truth Copyright ©1997 by Agents of the LORD GOD R SAFE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta12000.htm (2 of 2) [12/15/01 1:59:40 PM]

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CONNECTION

Main Menu | Home Page | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links | SOLUTIONS
Broadcasting the Information Revelation

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CONNECTION

MENU The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT actually part of the Federal government. IT IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION THAT IS ALLOWED TO BUY MONEY FOR $230 PER MILLION. IT HAS NEVER PAID A DIME IN INCOME TAX AND HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED. THIS BANK IS PRIMARILY OWNED BY FOREIGNERS !! "The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, locally controlled corporations" [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F.2d 1239, 1241](1982) "It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford, Founder of the Ford Motor Co. "As we have advised, the Federal Reserve is currently paying the Bureau approximately $23 for each 1,000 notes printed. This does include the cost of printing, paper, ink, labor, etc. Therefore, 10,000 notes of any denomination, including the $100 note would cost the Federal Reserve $230. In addition, the Federal Reserve must secure a pledge of collateral equal to the face value of the notes." - William H. Ferkler (Mannager Public Affairs, Dept. of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving & Printing, Wasnington D.C.

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta24000.htm (1 of 3) [12/15/01 2:00:24 PM]

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CONNECTION

WHY ARE FOREIGNERS CONTROLLING THE AMERICAN CURRENCY ? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE REPRESENTING YOU WITH THEIR POLICIES ? IF YOU DO, YOU ARE A FOOL ! WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BUY YOUR MONEY for $230 per million (and have the American People guarantee its FULL VALUE, WITH THEIR OWN ASSETS)? Well, we won't do that for Citizens but we do it for a select group of foreign bankers. WHAT, you mean your government didn't teach you about this little arrangement in their SOCIALIST SCHOOLS. DO YOU KNOW WHY ? PEON. WHY IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION CASHING YOUR INCOME TAX CHECK ? THE MONEY DOESN'T EVEN GO TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ? THAT'S RIGHT, NOT ONE PENNY ! IT ALL GOES STRAIGHT TO VERY RICH BANKERS WHO ARE ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ATTEMPTING TO USURP CONTROL AND RULE OVER AMERICA, ITS PEOPLE, AND THIER WEALTH BY CONTROLLING OUR CURRENCY !

"AS GOES THE FATE OF THE CURRENCY, SO GOES THE FATE OF THE NATION !"

Who Really Gets the So-called "Tax" Revenues ? The Bank Accused - Congressman Louis McFadden The "Elite" Globalists More About The Federal Reserve Bank Federal Reserve Bank Exempted From Income Tax Secrets of The Federal Reserve Bank (.zip download) Who Really Owns this Bank ? PLEASE SUPPORT THIS CONGRESSMAN !

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta24000.htm (2 of 3) [12/15/01 2:00:24 PM]

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CONNECTION

Web Author: The Disciples of Truth Copyright ©1997 by Agents of the LORD GOD R SAFE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta24000.htm (3 of 3) [12/15/01 2:00:24 PM]

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Main Menu | Home Page | Contents | Statutes | Products | Links | SOLUTIONS
Broadcasting the Information Revelation

www. Tax-Freedom.com

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Introduction The Disciples of Truth The Save A Patriot Fellowship A Note From the Commissioner The Income Duty of 1861 Title 26 - Structural Organization This is NOT a Tax Protest The Biblical Foundations The Federal Employment "Kickback" The Justices Refuse

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta01000.htm (1 of 2) [12/15/01 2:01:01 PM]

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Last Update: 02/21/97 Web Author: The Disciples of Truth Copyright ©1997 by Agents of the LORD GOD R SAFE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://users.erols.com/scambos/ta01000.htm (2 of 2) [12/15/01 2:01:01 PM]

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close