Dear IRS

I apologize for the untimeliness of my reply concerning my compliance
to your “alleged” assessments. I underwent shoudler surgery at the VA
in late January, suffered through a kidney stone and now find myself
as primary caregiver for my elderly Aunt who is home now from the
nursing home she’d been in after suffering a fall and becoming
injured, and I am still recuperating from my surgery and unable to
work.
Between the pain and the meds and the fact that I couldn’t use my
favorite arm and hand, it has taken me until now to transform what I
was able to discern from having “hit the books” into the written word
as I told the IRS agent I’d called (at my own expense and from my own
home) in good faith in an effort to discuss the differences we seem
to have in opinion. And in regard to that conversation I would like
you to cite the “Law” that specifically states that I am forbidden to
record a conversation I initiated on my own phone when it comes to
speaking with one of your agents. It seems to me that it lies within
the realm of probability that the agent is going to act not as a
mediary between yourselves and myself, but has a vested interest in
leaning everything in your direction so as to get maximum “voluntary
compliance” as is referenced so often in your manuals, after all, it
is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary
depends on him not understaning it, and given the scope and level of
IRS abuses I have assimilated it seems to me that there is an
atmosphere at or within your organization that allows for persons in
your employ to be serial contrarians, therefore he could,
conceiveably, either have lied to me or in some other way attempted
to lead me to believe something that was not true and therefore
violate my Constitutional civil rights.
Are you telling me then that I do not have the right to protect
myself from what might be an overzealous agent whose salaries and
promotion depends upon how well they are able to enforce voluntary
compliance?
After having “hit the books” I am still unswayed in my contention
that “Income Tax” as you say they apply to me, do not. I believe
in “good faith” that the “Income Tax” as you are attempting to apply
it to me is not Constitutionally valid as it has to be written in as
non-compulsory in order to retain said Constitutional validity.
So I have carefully studied what you seem to want to contend
are “frivolous” arguements, and in some cases I could actually see
your point, in others, however, and in good conscience, I could not,
but putting that conflict completely aside I have sought out numerous
sources to attempt to confirm or deny my original summations that
have little, if anything, to do with the “frivolities” you mentioned
earlier as I have no desire to waste mine, yours, a judge, or a
juries’ time.

To that end there are questions I have and statements I feel the need
to make regarding my newer findings that I would like you to answer
for me so that I might have a clearer understanding of what former
President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, once called a disgrace
to the human race and what your own former Commissioner (Shirley
Peterson) stated was “Incomprehensible, even to professionals in the
field”.
Or in more specific terms, your organization, the I.R.S.
Hardly a wonder since the Tax Laws as they were written in 1913
contained a mere 11,400 words. As of 1999 it (the I.R.S. Manual) is
more than 7,000,000 words.
By comparison, the King James Bible contains only 773,000 words.
So can you tell me, for a certainty, that any single I.R.S. Agent
fully comprehends the code as it is so vaguely and convolutedly
written?

Given that understanding I would like, then, to state why I feel I am
(still) NOT a “taxpayer” as set forth in the terms described in 26
U.S.C., and I would like to ask you a series of questions that I feel
certain you will not find “frivolous”.
Should you answer them satisfactorily I will be convinced of
my “alleged” obligations and will comply without reservation as I am
only trying to get to the truth of a matter that finds our entities
in conflict.
Therefore, sir, I trust that you will appreciably reply to my
evidences and my doubts in a manner that will allow for what I am
sure we both want solved.

Where to begin.
I shall try to be as concise and clear as I can, and I shall try to
present them in an order that will make the most sense, but I only
ever got a G.E.D. and I climb trees for a living, I’m not as well
versed in these matters as a “professional” in the field.

I suppose before I begin I would like to once again request anything
that may be on file in the Secretaries Office that records any
alleged tax liability under Section 6203 as what I received from
Kenneth Wilder, Disclosure Specialist, in a letter from the
Department Of The Treasury, dated August 1st, 2005, concerning
request for same he states that there are no Summary Records of
Assessments on file that Identify either myself of any other taxpayer
by name, but then I suppose that’s why we have “Social Securitiy
Numbers”, so if you would, please have them look under my “Taxpayer
Identification Number” so that we might clear this matter up.
Other than that he says they charge $17.00 an hour to search through
what must be a mountain of information which, for all intents and
purposes, should be at the touch of a button as long as he types
my “ID” number in correctly, and for which, by law, they are
incumbent upon
giving me at my request within a 30 day time frame given them by your
own Law.
What’s more, in a letter signed by a different Disclosure Agent (a
[Mr./Ms./Mrs.?] “C. Hardee”, in a letter dated June 2, 2006, on page
8 under “Summary Record of Assessments”, racs report 006, Certificate
Number 13320051006001, “Claims” that I “allegedly” owe
$26,638,490,428.99 in unpaid “Income” taxes, $141,807,686.06
in “Penalties”, and $60,101, 827.60 in “Interest” for a total of
$26,840,399,942.65 (assessment date 01/01/2005).
So am I to honestly believe I am in debt to the United States
Government to the amount of nearly thirty Billion dollars?
I like a punchline as well as the next guy, but this one tops them
all.
Is this debt true or is it a real son-of-a-glitch? And if “it’s” a
glitch, how then can I trust any other amounts you portend that
I “Owe”, especially given what I consider to be non-frivolous
arguements I still intend to make - and reference?
On the following page (9), however, there is a “Copied” signature of
what appears to be “Debra C. Hennessey”, “Signature” (For Service
Center Directors of Internal Revenue Service) that, after crunching
all these ungodly numbers, goes on to state that the “Total” as is
featured to the right of “Principal Taxpayers And Amounts Related To
Jeopardy Assessments” is $0.00.
To say the least I find this confusing and would like to inquire to
Ms./Mrs. Hennessey, as is my 5th Amendment right concerning full
Disclosure Laws, as to by what means and informations at her disposal
did she come up with the figures she did, and then why they, on the
next page, added up to $0.00.

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

As required in the condition precedent set by Shapiro Vs. Secretary
Of State and as per your own procedural guidelines, by LAW, you are
REQUIRED to send me form 17 or 17A if I “owe” a “Tax” I have not
paid. This, as you know, is the REQUIRED, OFFICIAL, and DULY
DELEGATED “Form” specifically stating that it is a “Bill” for what
is “Due and Owing” which I have never, to date, received.
I have received forms 5564, CP504, 806-A, 4549, 1040A (which,
considering you have no ORIGINAL 1040A filed by myself you, by law,
couldn’t possibly be in possession of [will reference at a later
time]), and 1040 (see last parentheticals), but I have yet to receive
the requiste forms that specifically states that it is a “Bill” for
what is “Due and Owing” as is REQUIRED by LAW. Just as I have yet to
receive the necessary “Disclosure” that would allow me the
opportunity to prove either of our points (reference 26 CFR 601.103
(a) if this simplifies matters for you).

Have been advised to formally request AINS/AMDIS printout. As of yet
I have only a cursory understanding of the need for this, but am
still in the process of assimilating and extrapolating all of the
newer informations I have uncovered that seem to not be “frivolous”
as you have deemed by law, as I do not intend to waste any more of
your time as well as my own, much less a judge and/or a juries. Would
also like any full disclosure due to me under the Freedom Of
Information Act regarding wherein my “Tax Liability” and “Filing
Requirement” might be fully outlined.

And, speaking of which, I am told I can request a local jury trial if
necessary since what you contend I owe falls under a category that
allows for same to be conducted here if it boils down to that (unless
you think I really DO owe nearly 3 Billion dollars…) and that would
be why I filed for no “Appeal”, as I still consider your attempts to
attempt to collect monies from me unlawful, as I shall continue to
attempt to point out to our mutual satisfaction, but, please, feel
free to truthfully and effectively answer all of my questions in the
event you can make sense to me of the “alleged” liability and filing
requirement you say I have, for if you can do so effectively, in good
faith, then I, in good faith, shall file and pay as you suggest I do,
and inasmuch as filing said “Appeal” (such as you offered to me at an
earlier date), to me, would be akin to lending creedence to what I
still consider to be an illegal act which I feel is completely
unlawful at its heart, so I therefore opted out of your “option” as I
felt that to conform to it would deny me my Constitutional Right to
continue to seek a solution in the manner that should, by my
reckoning and understanding of the LAW, be available to me through
you, especially considering the evidences I intend to relate to you
and what I consider to be your obvious ommissions regarding what I
consider to be a misuse of Code Sections that cannot possibly apply
to me.

Can you show me, specifically, so we can both have a mutual
understanding, which provision within the I.R.S. Code that creates
my “Tax Liability” and “Filing Requirement”? I am aware that you
lost your case against Kuglin on those grounds, and I have numerous
certified return mail receipts to show that I have answered every
letter ever sent to me by your organization essentially seeking the
same answers that Kuglin sought, so it is incumbent upon you to
provide me with said provision so as to prevent what her assessment
agent, apparently, hadn’t been prepared for and I would prefer that,
if such a provision exists, that you make it known to me for
Full “Disclosure” purposes so I can make a carefully considered
decision regarding your contentions that I “Owe” the I.R.S. and then
file and pay if I deem your informations to be lawful and correct and
mine have been in error.

In an Internal Revenue Investigation, Hearings before a Sub-Committee
of the Commission of Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 83rd
Congress, 1st session, on the administration of the Internal Revenus
Laws, Part “A”, states in relevant part that “Your Income Tax is a
100% Voluntary Tax and your Liquor Tax is 100% enforced, now the
situation is as different as day and night”, tesimony given by Dwight
E. Avis, then HEAD of the Alcohol and Tobacco Division.
I find this to be in complete contradiction to your allegations that
I have both a “Filing Requirement” and a “Tax Liability” under
the “Title” you say I am “Required” under, and since he would be
higher up in the I.R.S. food chain I would think he’d quite likely
have a greater understanding of the true nature of things, which
makes me wonder about and, essentially doubt, your “assessments”
since they appear to me to have been rendered due to a willfull (or
otherwise) and gross misapplication of the Law.

But wait, there’s more.

Jerome Kurtz, in his Internal Revenue Annual Report, circa 1980,
states that the I.R.S.’s PRIMARY
task is to collect taxes under “Voluntary Compliance System”.
Therefore if, as you say, my compliance is “Compulsory”, I would
appreciate knowing which provision/Code Section makes it so.

True or False: “Income” is specifically defined within the Internal
Revenue Code? If True, please provide me with where said specific
definition lies as I cannot seem to find it anywhere within the
confines of the Code. Simple question, one you should be able to
answer rather easily.

Thus far I have been consistently denied “Due Process”, as is my 5th
Constitutional Right regarding the hows, whys, and wherefores of how
your “assessments” against me have come into being. I have NOT been
served with the “REQUIRED” forms demanding payment for what is “Due
and Owing”, I therefore formally request that all said informations
be furnished to me for further study so that I can make a carefully
informed determination of what you “allege” I “owe”, or that you
abandon your attempts to collect from me taxes I cannot/have not been
allowed to fully examine/comprehend and which are in serious doubt to
me given what I still intend to present to you.

Spreckles Sugar Refining Company v. McClain, 192 US 397 (pg. 416)
ruled, in relevant part, that a citizen is EXEMPT from taxation
unless same is impose by CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE”
(see “Shirley Peterson” as quoted above and then see if you can tell
me in that clear and unequivocal language wherein lies my “Tax
Liability” and “Filing Requirement”, do so and I will happily comply
to your requests).

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

Merchants Loan and Trust Company vs. Smietanka, 255 US 509, (1921,
pgs. 518, 519), yet another Supreme Court Decision states in relevant
part that “Income” has the same meaning as the Corporation Excise Tax
of 1909″, which is why, to my understanding, my “Taxes”, per se, fall
under Sub-Title “C”, “Employment Taxes and Collections of Taxes at
their Source”, and not Sub-Title “A” as you would seem to have me
want to believe.
If this is not so please explain the particulars to me so that I
might garner a greater understanding of the “incomprehensible” nature
of the Tax and the assessments you seem to have rendered against me
utilizing a “Mandatory” Sub-Title rather than the “Voluntary” nature
to which I believe MY alleged “Taxes” apply.

Your “assesments” detail that Section 6020 (b) were utilized to
determine my “Tax Deficiency”, yet the preceding aspect of said
Section was, for some reason, ommitted. It (Section 6020 (a)) states,
in relevant part that “Preparation of a return by the Secretary if
any person shall fail to make a return required by this Title as by
regulations prescribed thereunder but shall consent (emphasis mine)
to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof,
then, and in that case, the Secretary may (not “must” [emphasis
mine]) prepare such return being signed by such person (emphasis,
again, mine) may be received by the Secretary as the return of such
person.”. Therefore any “Return” prepared by the I.R.S. can contain
no information from which a “Tax” can be determined (see U.S v.
Verkuilen and Schiff v. Commissioner U.S.T.C., 1984-223) unless
the “Taxpayer” has filed an “Original” return, which I have not done
(as I still continue to hold that I have neither a “Tax Liability nor
a “Filing Requirement”), neither have I given my “Consent” in any
way, shape, or form (no pun intended…), therefore your organization
cannot possibly have the required information necessary, b Law, to
render any kind of assessment against me under the letter of said Law.

Therefore, since we both know I have filed no return because I, in
good faith, believe that I am not subject to the “Tax” as you suppose
it is applied to me, 6020 (b) cannot be enforced since there was
no “Original” return filed by myself from which a determination could
have been made, and that, in no small way, is part of the underlying
reason as to why I feel I am NOT subject to your “Jurisdiction”,
your “Tax” or your “Revenue Laws” as they apply to Sub-Title “A” as
you attempt to apply them to me and which, to my understanding,
applies ONLY to Foreign corporations, non-resident aliens, and
whomever draws a federal paycheck.
None of what was mentioned above can possibly apply to me and that is
why I must contest your, apparently, unlawful allegations that
I “Owe” anything to the I.R.S., and especially not what amounts to
nearly 3 Billion dollars.
Bill Gates makes more in a day than I will in my lifetime, but I
doubt you’d even try to hand him such a “Bill” (but then since it’s
not the “Requisite” form “Required” by Law then it’s not really
a “Bill” at all, and 6020 (b) can’t possibly apply given the nature
of its preceding clause so I can only surmise that it has been
misapplied in your “alleged” case against me).

Section 6011 only applies when persons are “Required” to
make “Returns/Statements pursuant to certain regulations prescribed
by the Secretary”, and yet that “Section” fails in specificity by not
directly identifying ANY of those specific “Regulations”.
If this is not so please advise me as to where I can find such
references so that I may be better able to determine the true nature
of the assessments you have rendered against me (by, apparently,
misusing Code Section 6020 (b)).

I can find nowhere in Sections 6001 or 6011 where it specifically
states that the “Taxes” imposed in Section 1 shall (which, by LAW,
can be construed as “May”, [Reference Fort Howard Paper Company v.
Fox River Heights Sanitary district, 26 NW 2nd 661, also see Cairo
and Fulton R.R. Company v. Hect, 95 US 170]…) be paid on the basis
of a “Return”, such as is specified in Code Sections dealing with
Alcohol/Tobacco and Firearms (mandatory “Taxes”). Note that said
Section does not contain any specific/particular reference
to “Income”. Will you please explain this discrepancy? I am sure that
if you were to effectively do so you could better establish your
position that I am in violation of the law, and, if I am, it is
certainly something I would like to know so that I might conform to
the letter of same and make everyone happy that this event is behind
us.

“Dummy” returns, as arbitrarily created by agents of your
organization and not unlike the ones in which you are likely trying
to use against me at this time, according to “Phillips v. C.I.R.,
1986, TC 433″, the Court specifically ruled that such “Dummy” returns
do NOT (emphasis mine…) have the status of a return”.
Lynn Poll, one time Chief Correspondence Secretary to the I.R.S.
stated in a letter to a taxpayer who requested a record of their
assessment that “A record of assessment for the years cannot be
determined until such a time as you file your Income Tax Returns and
any subsequent examinations of the tax years are made”.
So, according to this person, I MUST have had to have filed a return
for you to have created a lawful assessment against me. Since I filed
no return, in good faith that I am under no specific obligation to do
so, and since no one in your organization seems to want to provide me
with the provision(s) that fully create that lawful obligation in
clear and concise terms I am led to believe that no such tax
liability or filing requirement exists on my part and therefore I
choose to continue to not volunteer my alleged “Taxes” until such a
time as it has been made crystal clear to me wherein that “tax
liability” and “filing requirement” lies. Therefore, and to that end,
I ask, again, if your records show wether a “Lawful” assessment has
been made against me pursuant to Code Section 6201, and are you,
specifically, authorized by LAW, to determine a “Tax Deficiency”
before you have proven a “Tax Liability” as provided for within the
confines of that Section?

Section 6203 provides and requires that the Secretary, upon request
from the “Taxpayer”, shall (not to be construed as “May” in this
concern) furnish said taxpayer with a copy of any records of
assessment within 30 days of said request. As you’ll see I have
provided copies of numerous certified mail receipts wherein I have
made numerous 6203 requests over the years after receiving what I can
only consider to be “bogus” “Notice and Demands” that were never
the “Required” forms, and, in all but one situation, my requests were
completely and totally ignored.
But the one response I DID get states I “Owe” nearly 3 Billion
dollars in unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest, but hen somehow
totals $0.00 on the following page. Very confusing.
And it would be funny if it weren’t so truly tragic.
I think I can say with a certainty that I do not owe the Federal
Government 3 Billion dollars, so something isn’t just rotten in
Denmark and the smell seems to be coming from your office.

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

Where in Section 6020 does it state that there are “Penalties” if
a “Taxpayer” does not consent (volunteer) to disclose informations?
This would prove most helpful in allowing me to determine the
validity of what seems to me to be an unlawfully and illegally
perpetrated claim against me. Has 6020 (a) been revoked or amended?
These are extremely pertinent (non-frivolous) questions to the issues
at hand, therefore I wholeheartedly request that you provide answers
to these questions in an effort to allow me to more fully understand
and appreciate the full/complete nature of the claims you seem to
have illegally rendered against me through what I can’t help but
consider to be a gross misapplication of the existing Laws.

Has the Secretary of the Treasury (whose agent says I “Owe” nearly 3
Billion dollars…) been given authority by Congress other than to
ENCOURAGE voluntary compliance with I.R.S. Laws and Regulations?
Please be specific in this answer.
If this is so can you be wholly specific as to where said authority
lies so that I might investigate same for Disclosure purposes as I
try to, pro se, create my own defense against your allegations
regarding “Taxes” I “allegedly” “owe”?

Can you provide me with any Section of the law that says there are
interest/fraud penalties if a “Taxpayer” does not consent (volunteer)
to give the I.R.S. information from which a tax can be computed? And
would not providing said information conflict with my 5th amendment
rights by doing so? And does not the I.R.S. Handbook for Special
Agents specifically state in Section 342.12 that “An individual may
refuse to exhibit his books and records for examination on the
grounds that compelling him to do so violates his rights against
possible self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment” (and constitutes
an illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment)?
Could you take the time, as I have, in an effort to bring
clarification to you, to enlighten me as to where the lines are drawn
in this immense sand of “Incomprehensible” Law that we seem to be
quagmired in?

Are you aware that Title 18 USC 241 and Section 6214 (a) (1) and (2)
makes it a crime for you to knowingly demand of me a sum (such as
nearly 3 Billion dollars…) which is greater than is authorized by
law?
To that end I pray that you examine and answer all of my questions
very carefully, as I have no qualms against Prosecution of the Law
and the suing of yourself and your agency for what essentially
amounts to a “Reckless Collection” action that former President Bill
Clinton, noting out-of-control I.R.S. abuses, signed into law a
specification allowing the raising of the amount a “Taxpayer” can sue
the Federal Government for from $100,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 in an
effort to reign in your well publicized abuses (of the time).
To date I cannot begin to quantify the hours I have spent in
researching and assimilating and extrapolating the information at my
disposal, which I have only begun to present, and which have given me
migraines as I try, pro se, to construct, with my limited resources,
a defense to your claims which has been made more difficult since no
one in your office seems willing to share with me the formal requests
I have made in an effort to prepare said, pro se, defense.

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

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

As a rule, for you to convict me of any kind of “willful evasion”
under the burder of proof, as per Rule 301, you will have to prove
that I have purposefully acted in “bad faith” to elude or defeat this
allegedy “Mandatory” (is this “Tax” “Mandatory”, as you suggest, and
if so, what makes it so for me, considering what I have presented to
you so far?) “Tax”.
I have, in good faith, responded to every letter I have ever received
from your organization, but my Lawful requests have been
(willfully?) “ommitted” or downright ignored after writing letters
such as this one I am writing, in good faith, to you now in an effort
to seek the answers I must have to make a more informed decision as
to the particulars of the arguements you are attempting to utilize in
what seems to me to be a flagrant misuse of authority due to the
(intentional/unintentional?) misuse of Code Sections that cannot
possibly apply to me. I, therefore, omit paying and filing regarding
this “allegedly” “Mandatory Tax” because my understanding in regards
to it leads me to believe that “I” fall under Sub-Title “C”, not “A”,
as you seem to want to attest. Furthermore due to it’s
convoluted, “difficult to understand/comprehend” status and because
of its often misleading Publications, Laws, and Regulations, then,
for all intents and purposes, it should be “Void for Vaugeness”,
which is also a matter of “Law” as I am certain you are aware.

True or False? = There are no Regulations under 26 USC Section 7621
which “specifically” authorizes the President of the United States
to “establish” revenue districts, so, by law there are no “districts”
for the States of the Union, but only apply, by law to it’s outlying
Territories, such as Guam and Puerto Rico?
It is now my understanding that the I.R.S. relies upon cases like
Collins, Becraft, Barcroft and Ward in an attempt to refute this
arguement, but what interests me is that in each case the Agency
relies solely on a Courts’ unsupported statement instead of a proper
legal reference, which is, of course, what the illegitimate
jurisdiction arguement is based upon.

A U.S. Attorney in a 1993 civil case in Idaho wherein the
Attorney “Denies that the Internal Revenue is an Agency of the United
States Government”, and add to this that the Internal Revenue Service
was initially created as a Puerto Rican Agency, which supports the
contention that there is a significant distinction in Law between
the “Federal” United States, and the Constitutional United States of
America.
This seems to support the facts that Sub-Title “A” which, by law,
applies to non-resident aliens, foreign corporations and those who
specifically draw a Federal paycheck, would be in Force within these
parameters and do not extend toward “Americans” as you have attempted
to apply towards myself and God knows how many other unsuspecting,
uninformed others.
To that end, as a freedom loving American, I cannot, in good
conscience, deny the facts as I feel I have come to understand them
when a portion of my meager livelyhood seems to be being demanded
from me by means of “authoritative” chicanery.

Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 92, the I.R.S. is trained
under the direction of the Division of Human Resources United Nations
(U.N.) and the Commissioner (International) by the Office of
Personnel Management.
In the 1979 edition of 22 USCA 278, “The United Nations”, you will
find Executive Order 10422, which states, in relevant part, that the
Office of Personnel Management is under the direction of the
Secretary of the United Nations and, pursuant to Delegation Order 91,
the “I.R.S.” entered into a “Service Agreement” with the US Treasury
Department (see public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967 Re-
Organization (BANKRUPTCY) plan No. 26) and the “Agency for
International Development”.
This “Agency” is an International Parlimentary Operation and,
according to the Department of the Army Field Manual (1969) 41-10,
pgs. 1-4, Sections 1-7 (b) and 1-6, Sections 1-10 (7) (c) (1), and 22
USCA 284 and includes such activities as assumption of full or
partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country
or area, as well as being an agency/member of a 169 Nation Pact
called the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol)
which can be determined by 22 USCA 263a.

Rather than continue verbatim as to what I could continue to quote
chapter and verse on, I think it safe to summarize by saying that
under Article 30 of the Interpol Constitution that I.R.S. Agents,
essentially, are Agents of a “Foreign Principle” within the meaning
and intent of the “Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938″ and since
you, by law, must expatriate yourselves from the United States in
order to be effectualized as an employee of the I.R.S., you aren’t
even an American, and you don’t “lawfully” collect “Taxes”
from “true” Americans as you only seem to have the power to do so as
they apply to territories, commonwealths, and outlying areas, and not
the “States of the Union” as they apply to “America”. So the “Federal
Reserve Bank” and the “I.R.S. Collection Agency” are both “Privately
Owned” and operated under “Private” statutes. Therefore the “I.R.S.”
operates under public policy not Constitutional Law, and more in
the interest of our Nations Foreign Creditors and NOT the “American
People”.

True or False = The Constitution only permits Congress to lay and
collect taxes, it does not authorize Congress to delegate the “Tax
Collection Power” to a “Private Corporation” (such as yours) for a
Private Bank (the Federal Reserve) who then deposits it into the
Treasury of the “International Monetary Fund”? It seems to me then
that “American” “Income Taxes” don’t even stay in this country and
aren’t utilized for “American” interests at all, but rather for
foreign ones. This information can be had as a matter of public
record so I strongly suggest you answer truthfully because I intend
to send this to you as an attested affidavit and I also intend to
share this information (my letter to you as I write it now), along
with your nearly 3 Billion dollar assessment against me with local
and national newspapers, who will also be given copies of my return
receipts should they think it newsworthy, so look for whatever press
coverage I can muster, because failing to answer my questions, which
I have a Legal Right to have, will, if I can help it, create a media
circus in which I seriously doubt I will be perceived as the “clown”.

True or False = The I.R.S. is not allowed to state that they collect
taxes for the United States Treasury. They only ever “refer” to “The
Treasury”.
Therefore, not some, but quite literally all monies paid,
by “Americans”, go out of the country to do whatever the
International Monetary Fund deems appropriate, yes, or no?
Be reminded that these are all issues I intend to get answers for
from as many judges and juries as it takes, even if it means taking
it to the highest court in the land.

Since 1995, and with cooperation of the OMB, the I.R.S. has knowingly
violated the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act by failing
to obtain and print valid OMB control numbers on Form 1040 and other
Forms.
The I.R.S. follows the policy of unlawfully prosecuting, penalizing,
and prosecuting individuals for failing to file 1040, rather than
admitting that the 1040 serves as a “bootleg” form due to its
violation of Federal Law by not bearing a valid OMB control number.

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

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

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

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

(IV) Wether the responses of the collection of information
are “voluntary”, required to
obtain a benefit, are “mandatory”, and;

(V) The fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to
respond to, a 1040 form unless it displays a valid
control number.

(Yes or no? Simple question)…

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

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

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

The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the I.R.S. must use in
submitting its request for approval of the 1040 Form and an OMB
Control Number, require each agency to submit with the form
a “Supporting Statement” which is also to “Identify any Legal or
Administrative Requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a
copy of the appropriate Section of each Statute and Regulation
mandating or authorizing the collection of information”. The
Supporting Statement must also include information regarding
the “Burden” imposed upon the public as a result of the “collection
of information”. Interesting, no?

To date I can honestly say that, by Law, I have never seen
a “Legal/Lawful” 1040/1040A Form in my life given the information I
have just provided.

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

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

So I must find that I aggree with the summations of Devvy Kidd, who,
through extensive personal research has more than adequately
determined that the I.R.S. has never been created by an “Act” of
Congress and therefore has no power to “lawfully” lay any “Taxes”
upon the “American Peoples” as it is an entity specifically designed
to operate “Outside” of the “Union” we know as the United States of
America.

“I” believe that the Law should be plain and easily understood by
the people to whom it applies.
I also believe that the Government must obey and not be above the
Laws according to such intent as is clearly expressed by the Framers
of the Law — the Representatives of the “People”.
To allow Government agencies to just “do what it takes”, in spite of
the clear intent of the Law
or because the Law itself has been made “Incomprehensible”, is to
abandon honesty, to act cowardly, and to betray future generations
into a State of helplessness and hopelessness at the mercy of an
unrestrained government and a system of “Law” which is
arbitrary, “Incomprehensible”, and largely misapplied or
downright/willfully ignored.

I have been “dismissed” by agents of your organization in the past as
for wanting to “Debate” the Law. I merely present the facts as I have
come to understand them. This is where the “true” “evasion” occurs,
by personnel at your agency who totally/completely deny me
my “guaranteed” 5th Amendment Rights to FULL DISCLOSURE.

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

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

Based upon your recent activities in wrongfully/unlawfully assessing
a “Tax” against me through apparent misuse/misapplication of the
Codes and Regulations of which you are supposed to be aware, and upon
which your salary depends, it appears to me that you are acting upon
the “Assumption” that I am a “Taxpayer” who has “Delinquent Tax
Liabilities”.
To that end I hereby formally request, yet again, and for the
umpteenth time, that you provide me with a legal basis derived from
Title 26, United States Code and its implementing regulations for
this “assumption” on your part. Absence of such a legal basis throws
the legality of your attempts at collection under no small amount of
doubt, and is little more than extortion under the color of Law –
Indeed, a flagrant violation of 26 USC 7214.
If you are unmoved by this line of thought and the incontrovertible
evidences I have carefully considered and presented, then would you
please explain to me how you justify your behavior before the letter
of the Law, before God, and perhaps even your own conscience?

During my intensive study of the tax code (preciptated by what I
consider to be false/illegal assumptions on your part and the parts
of others) I find that I can only find the word “Liable” used clearly
and specifically in Sections 4401(c), 5505(a), and 1461 which create
unmistakeable liabilities for wagering tax, distilled spirits tax,
tobacco tax, and “income” tax,
respectively. Section 1461 is the ONLY Section in the Internal
Revenue Code specifically “Imposing” a “Liability” for “Income” tax.
That Section applies toward “withholding agents” only
(those “required” by 1441 to deduct and withhold from payments
of “Income” owed to foreign persons), therefore it is incumbent upon
you to administer the Laws as the Laws specifically apply and not as
you “assume” that they do.

Are you a “Criminal Investigator”? Yes or no?

If so I would refer you to Internal Revenue Manual 1132.75 (12-21-
87). According to this Section of the Internal Revenue Manual the
Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute…
involving United States Citizens residing in foreign countries and
non-resident aliens subject to income tax filing requirements…”.

26 USC 7214(a) clearly imposes substantial penalties upon any Revenue
Officer who is guilty of willful oppression under the color of Law,
knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by Law
(like the nearly 3 Billion dollars I “allegedly” owe according to a
letter I received from the Treasury Department), or attempts to
collect… …except as expressly authorized by Law to do so.
These are very strict and legal constraints that you must carefully
consider before any further attempts on your part to assert your,
apparently, unfounded “assumtions” wherein you seem to have
arbitrarily concluded that “I” have a “Tax” Liability.

For the record I want to say that I take umbrage at the lable you
have likely hung me with, such as a “Tax Protestor”. I do
not “Protest” the “Tax”, per se. I “Protest” your attempts at the
apparently misguided/unlawful attempts to collect same from me as I
have neither a tax liability nor a filing requirement as you purport
to understand them under the “Law” where these “alleged”
(assumed) “taxes” are concerned.

Given what I have come to understand I find I can only rely upon my
own, extensive study of the “Tax Laws and Codes” (especially since no
one within your organization will comply to my Lawful requests for
Full Disclosure of informations that are my Right, by Law, to have).
To that end I feel I can safely say that I am most certainly NOT
a “Taxpayer” as that term is defined in 26 USC, and the “alleged”
liabilities which you are trying to collect from me have been
concocted through gross misapplications of Internal Revenue Laws.

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

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

Inasmuch as your recent “Notices of Levy” that I received I believe I
pointed out that there was a complete disregard for 26 UCS 6331(a), I
felt the need to reiterate this as it seems to continue to pertain to
the “Scope” of which you are mandated by Law to follow. And what
would you “Levy” anyway, my food stamps?
As I am still in recovery and still in need of another surgery so I
don’t see how such levies (which I recently discovered have to be
renewed monthly to be lawfully in effect) can possibly be effectual
even if they were based in legality, which, of course, they are not.

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

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

Apparently, and according to my recent findings where “Tax” Laws are
concerned, we are only “subject” to the laws of JURISDICTION which
we “Volunteer” to accept. In the “Law” governing “Income”
tax, “Income” is defined as foreign earned income, offshore oil well,
or windfall and war profits.
I fall under none of these and therefore cannot possibly be
a “Taxpayer” as defined in the specifications of the Law mentioned
above.

Be advised that, if taken to trial, I shall (not to be construed
as “May”) take the necessary steps to ensure that the Federal
Register is admitted into evidence.
Rule 44 CFR 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” (which cannot broaden, extend, or narrow any
provisions of any “Laws”) there is no implementation of said “Law”.
There is NO REGULATION governing “Failure to file a return”. There is
no “computer Code” for “Failure to file”. The ONLY thing I could find
was a requirement stating “where to file” an income tax return. It
can be found in 26 CFR, Section 1.6091-3, which states that, “Income
tax returns ‘required to be filed’ with the ‘Director’
of ‘INTERNATIONAL’ Operations” (takes us back to that whole United
Nations/Interpol thing again, doesn’t it? You remember, the one that
continuously sends all “American” “Income Tax” dollars to other
countries as directed by the United Nations and the International
Monetary Fund…).

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY: NO ONE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO
ANYTHING UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN SPECIFIC, WRITTEN AUTHORITY, OR
SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY WITHIN THE “LAW”, GIVES THAT
PERSON A DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDER SPELLING OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY
CAN AND CANNOT DO UNDER THAT SPECIFIC ORDER.

To that end I ask from whence you, specifically, have derived
your “Duly Delegated Authority” to “levy” and “assess” to my
detriment and provide me with the pertinent information regarding
same forthwith so that I might better understand/appreciate your
position or see to your potential prosecution for what you
have “assumed” to be my alleged liabilities.

Delegation Order Number 115 (Rev. 5) of May 12, 1986 is the ONLY
delegation of “authority” to conduct an “audit”. It states that the
I.R.S. and the B.A.T.F. can ONLY audit themselves and only for the
amount of $750.00 or less. Any amount above that amount MUST BE
AUDITED BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL according to Title 31 USC. No other
authority to audit exists (so therefore you cannot
have “Legally” “Audited” me). No I.R.S. or B.A.T.F. agent, or
representative seems to be able/willing to furnish any Law, Rule, or
Regulation which gives them the specific authority to audit anyone
other than themselves. Order Number 191 states that they can levy on
Property, but ONLY if that Property is in the hands of third parties.
So since I not only, quite literally, have nothing you could “Levy”
to begin with, I, especially, don’t have anything in the hands of
any “Third Parties”, so you might want to reconsider any attempt at
such an enforcement (not just because it is “Illegal” on its face…)
because it will be a huge waste of your time and some foreign
countries’ (”American”) money.

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

I have heard that there are proposed changes to Rule 29 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures before Congress. Can you tell me
if there have been any changes made to said rule or is the letter of
its’ “Law” still, effectively, in place as it was during the trial of
Former Criminal Investigator for the Internal Revenue, Joe Bannister,
who was, essentially, forced to quit the I.R.S. after coming to a
personal revelation that it (the I.R.S.) was crooked to its core and
he could no longer, in good conscience, continue to “work” for same?

It can be said that the I.R.S. has a moral responsibility, however,
in reality, there is a difference between a moral responsibility, and
a legal obligation. Therefore, ethical questions may be reduced to
the actual “intent” or the “frame of mind” of any given agent who
mistakenly exercises such authority. Certainly, the I.R.S. Agent has
a moral responsibility to refrain from misusing authority, but if he
or she is unaware of the limitations (remember “Incomprehensible”?)
of that authority, then technically, that actual legal obligation to
make a correct dertermination and accept that authority (if
appropriate) or not accept that authority (if inappropriate) remains
that of the third party.
Would you please comment on this for me?

It is equally important to understand that despite this
ethical “loophole ” which would seem to exonerate and provide an
escape for an Agent “errantly” exercising a “presumed ” authority,
there are other provisions that do hold them responsible for its
administration. Specifically, these provisions deal with what is
called “delegation orders ” (as mentioned earlier) because no Agent
may administer a provision of Law without a proper order “Duly
Delegating” such “Authority”.
The authority to “administer ” the provisions of 6331, regardless of
its applicability, is further restricted by national and
local “delegation orders ” designed to ensure Agency compliance with
the limited applications of the law.
The “limited applications of the law”. I think we both know what that
means now.

As long as there is an “Illusion” of “Authority” it is easy for an
I.R.S. Agent to justify (in his/her own mind) that certain “actions”
are within the “scope” of their “presumed” authority, and as
mentioned previously the “delegation orders ” do list
another “authority “. Specifically the “IR Manual “. But now that
new research has revealed that at least six courts have ruled that
the “Manual” does NOT have the force of Law then it stands to reason
that these rogue agents are going to be forced to swallow yet
another “wake-up” pill, or as I like to put it, John Q. Public is now
finally getting what they need to open up a can of “Act Right” where
it comes to the reckless I.R.S. abuses and the organizations
overzealous and/or downright ignorant agents (like the one that
assessed a nearly 3 Billion dollar debt against me…).

Lurhing v. Glotzbach, 304 F2d 360 (4th Circuit, 1962); “The courts
have correctly ruled that the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
are only “directory in nature ” and NOT “Mandatory” (if this has been
changed or overturned please advise me as to the specific “case law”
to which said changes may have occurred).
I could go on, but I have to just open the door for the submission of
these kinds of cases in court before fully presenting them to you via
witnessed/certified and attested mail, I just want to drive the point
home that while you think “I” am “Chum” swimming with Sharks, you
are, in fact, swimming with a growing number of informed Orcas, so it
boils down to a simple choice. Prosecute me for what you contend I am
guilty of, or recheck your data, acknowledge your limitations, and
adhere to the letter and the true intent of the Law and then act
accordingly.
It is my hope that my discernations will prove to you that I am (now)
more than just “aware” of the Laws and Regulations as they apply to
me, that I am completely aware of the “Limitations” placed upon you
by that “Law”, and that I am in no way in violation of any “Laws”,
but the same, I am afraid, cannot be said for you and I will most
certainly prosecute you and your organization to the fullest extent
of the Law should you continue in your illegal and unwarranted
harassments of my person by telling me I am “Liable” for what I am
clearly not “Liable” for, and by sending me any more of
your “alleged” “Deficiency” letters or threats of “Levy” ever again.
Inasmuch as these are concerned, you can either provide me with the
Full Disclosure I seek and which is mine by Rights of Due Process
under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of these United States or
you will “Cease and Desist” from any further contact regarding my
person in any way, shape, or form or I will unquestionably initiate
proceedings against you and your organization in a true Court of Law.

In regard to your “Notice and Demand” which you feel you have sent to
me (but is not the “required” form 17 or 17A - set as a “condition
precedent” in “Shapiro v. Secretary of State”), the “non-judicial ”
collection authority is wholly dependent on a statute (Section 6321)
which provides for a lien to automatically arise when a taxpayer
fails to make a payment of a tax that is demanded via a “Notice and
Demand ” under Section 6303. If such “Demand ” is not or cannot be
made then a lien cannot automatically arise and subsequent collection
activity cannot occur. All of the available Case Law confirms this.
In Linwood Blackstone et.al., v. United States of America, (778
F.Supp 244 [D. Md. 1991]), the Court held that “The general rule is
that no tax lien arises until the I.R.S. makes a (lawful) Demand for
payment”, and “Without a VALID “Notice and Demand ” there can be no
tax lien; without a tax lien, the I.R.S. cannot levy against the
taxpayers property… …this court concludes, consistent with the
views found in Berman, Marvel, and Chila that the
appropriate “sanction ” against the I.R.S. for its’ failure to comply
with the 6303(a) notice and demand requirement is to take away its
awesom non-judicial collection powers”. Think about that.

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

Full disclosure of every step of how you prepared your “assessments”
against me are mine by right of the Disclosure Laws as Guaranteed to
me by the 5th Amendment of these United States, and as a citizen of
the great State of Indiana, known to be a part of that marvelous
Union, so I hereby formally request all information, interrogotories
and admissions and, yet again, I hereby make another
official, “formal” 6203 request that (I’m hoping) might reflect
something other than the nearly 3 Billion dollar debt I “allegedly”
owe, which, to me, is nothi