Attachment F - Jeffrey- Thomas: Maehr
Constitutional, and Code Issues:
Title 5 USC 552a. Records maintained on "individuals"
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section -
(2) The term "individual" means a "citizen of the United States" or an "alien" lawfully admitted for permanent "residence." (See Attachment B)
Sec. 6020. - Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary
(a) Preparation of return by Secretary
If any "person" (defined as "U.S. person" in IRC 7701 (30) below) 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.
ONLY what someone signs and confirms as their "income" can legally and Constitutionally be used to validate any "income" and any Tax on said "income."
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 hereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
I am not an "employee, per the IR Code, and signing a 1040 form is to commit perjury and falsify a document. (See Attachment L).
3401(d) Employer: For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an "individual" performs or performed any services, of whatever nature, as the "Employee" (as defined above) of such "person"...),
(26) Trade or business: term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office."
I am not performing any function of a public office, and therefore NOT involved in any "trade or business" taxable under IR Code.
3121)(e) United States: The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.)
I am NOT within the jurisdiction of "this" de facto United States, but a sovereign of the "Several (de jure) United states."
These definitions state clearly that ONLY people working for the government as a government or state official... or performing the function of a public office... are possibly liable for "income" taxes. I am none of the above.
It also must be understood that once a law or statute is defined or explained ONCE, anywhere in the IR Code, subsequent words do NOT have to be defined again, and can, thereby, mislead one in the "common" understanding of common terms used in the IR Code.
* The word "includes" in the above definitions does NOT mean "what is written and anything else you might imagine to be a part of this clause." It means what it says...
"Include," or the participial form thereof is defined to comprise within "to hold," "to contain," "to shut up," and synonyms are "contain," "enclose," "comprehend," "embrace." J.S. Supreme Court, Montillo Salt co. v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452, at 466.
"Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition...
"Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. "Russello v. United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983)
"The united States Supreme Court (and the IRS) cannot supply what Congress has studiously omitted in a statute." Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co., 360 US SS, p. 55, 475042/56451 (1959)
"Includes is a word of limitation. Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, 'including' the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement. Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under 'limitations'."
Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as:
"(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace(2) To enclose within; contain; confine But granting that the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language. The word 'including' is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing."
"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen." Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153.
In other words, "includes" means ONLY what is stated in the code section as defined and DOES NOT presume to include those things which are NOT specifically stated. These definitions clearly show who is subject to the "income" tax and who is NOT. So we are left to wade through case law precedent to try to understand what is actually legally taxable "income."
Further misdirection takes place with the following:
"We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals." House Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, Pg. 15641.
Sec. 3401. - Definitions
(a) Wages: For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an "employee" (see above definition) for his "employer,"... c) (see 3401(c) and 3401(d))
Sec. 3121. - Definitions (a) Wages
For purposes of this chapters the term "wages" means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including beneath) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include ... [various pre-tax deductions]
3401(c) "Employee: For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes (see above definition of "includes") an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision hereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
For purposes of this chapters the term "employment" means any services of whatever nature, performed (A) by an "employee" for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (I) within the "United States," or (ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft.. . or (B) outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States as an employee for an American employer (as defined in subsection (h)), ... (e) State, United States, and [Puerto Rican] citizen
IRC 3121 - For purposes of this chapter,
(e) State, United States, and citizen For 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 Samoa.
(2) United States: The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a "citizen" of the United States...(the corporate entity, NOT the de jure United several states).
h) American employer
For purposes of this chapters the term "American employer" means an "employer" which is
(1) the United States or any instrumentality thereof
(2) an "individual" who is a "resident" of the United States, a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are "residents" of the United States,
(4) a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the United States, or a corporation organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.
(30): United States person
The term "United States person" means:
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States, (the corporate entity,NOT the de jure United several states).
(B) a domestic partnership,
(C) a domestic corporation, (See Attachment N).
(D) any estate (other than a foreign estate, within the meaning of paragraph (31)), and
(E) any trust if
(I) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
(ii) one or more United States pennons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust.),'
The term "State"shall be construed to include (See definition of "include" above) the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
"Income" taxation is a valid and Constitutional form of taxation when applied Constitutionally and legally, without fraud and deception. This jurisdiction is ONLY within the legally and constitutionally defined "borders" of the "United States," and subject to the other provisions of the Constitution for legal taxation.
There are a number of legal definitions used to allude to a possible tax being required by the IR Code on income taxes, discussed below, but are deceptive in application and intent.
Sec. 6012. -"Persons" required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
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 which equals or exceeds the exemption amount.
The definition of "person" at IRC 7701(a)(1) makes it very clear that this
term embraces BOTH human beings AND other things which are NOT human beings.
Form 1040 is not for "individuals" in general (sovereigns) but for "U.S.
individuals." Those are defined to be federal citizens and resident
aliens. "U.S. individuals" are the living, breathing variants of "U.S.
"U.S. person" is defined at IRC 7701(a)(30); as such, this definition further qualifies and LIMITS the scope of "person." Note that some "U.S. persons" are also artificial, juristic entities - (read NOT human beings.) So, some "U.S. persons" are human beings, and other "U.S. persons" are NOT human beings.
The "individual" kind of "U.S. person" ONLY embraces federal citizens and resident aliens, both of whom are human beings and neither of which are artificial, juristic entities.
TITLE 26 Subtitle F CHAPTER 79 7701
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof-
The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
The above states clearly that ONLY people working for the government as a government or state official... or performing the function of a public office... are liable for "income" taxes. It also must be understood that once a law or statute is defined or explained ONCE in the IR Code, subsequent "elaboration" of the definitions does NOT have to continue the same definition and can, thereby, mislead in the "common" understanding of common terms used in the IR Code.
Who is actually subject to prosecution for willful failure to file income taxes?
26 USC 7203 [Willful Failure to File]:
Any "person" "required" under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both
7203 is a part of Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). While most IRC chapters contain between 3 and 10 sections, Chapter 75 [entitled, "Crimes, Other Offenses, & Forfeiture"] has 59 sections! 7203 is the third section of the chapter - right up at the front. So where might we find the definition of "person" as used within the third section of the chapter? Where else - in the 58th section of the chapter - 55 sections after the offense statute!
26 USC 7343 [Definition of the term "Person"]:
The term ''person'' as used in this chapter[chapter 75] includes an 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 holds a position within a statutory fiction of law (e.g. corporations, LLPs, etc.), and that position imposes a duty upon him to conduct certain acts, on behalf of the fiction, in accordance with the internal revenue laws of the United States.
Based on this definition, an ordinary American Citizen who is under no duty to perform any act on behalf of another, under the internal revenue laws of the United States, is not a "person" for the purposes of Willful Failure to File .
The law is clear that anything repugnant to the constitution is NOT a law and cannot be forced upon any sovereign individual or can said individual be penalized for NOT obeying such a law. It is up to each of us to know what the law says and requires:
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority." The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380-388 L1947)
IRS mission statements: (With my comments)18.104.22.168.1 (Approved 12-18-1993)
1. Mission of the Service: Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.(I have personally sought to understand the IR Code, and made repeated requests for answers to various code and other questions sent to the IRS. To date, NO answer to ANY question has been forthcoming. This suggests that the IRS is not being sincere about it's mission).
2. Tax matters will be handled in a manner that will promote public confidence. All tax matters between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service are to be resolved within established administrative and judicial channels. (Does this mean coercion, fraud, theft and intimidation?) Service employees, in handling such matters in their official relations with taxpayers (that is NOT me) or the public, (that would be me) will conduct themselves in a manner that will promote public confidence in themselves and the Service. Employees will be impartial and will not use methods which are threatening or harassing in their dealings with the public.
(Does anyone believe this to be true about the IRS?)22.214.171.124 (05-14-1999)
1. Conclusions reached by examiners must reflect correct application of the law, regulations, court cases, revenue rulings, etc. Examiners must correctly determine the meaning of statutory provisions and not adopt strained interpretation.
(The Attachments to this Affidavit provide ample legal, court case and other evidence that proves that the IRS is NOT reflecting correct application).
126.96.36.199.2 (Approved 11-26-1979)
1. The public impact of clarity, consistency, and impartiality in dealing with tax problems must be given high priority: In dealing with the taxpaying public, Service officials and employees will explain the position of the Service clearly and take action in a way that will enhance voluntary compliance. Internal Revenue Service officials and employees must bear in mind that the public impact of their official actions can have an effect on respect for tax law and on voluntary compliance far beyond the limits of a particular case or issue.
("Voluntary" compliance is based on public MISUNDERSTANDING of said IR Code... a misunderstanding which the IRS does all it can to perpetuate at any costs. I have NOT volunteered to continue paying income taxes BECAUSE of the law).
188.8.131.52.4 (Approved 03-14-1991)
1. Timeliness and Quality of Taxpayer Correspondence: The Service will issue quality responses to all taxpayer correspondence.
(I'm still waiting for such a response, even after 3 years...).
2. Taxpayer correspondence is defined as all written communication from a taxpayer or his/her representative, excluding tax returns, whether solicited or unsolicited. This includes taxpayer requests for information, as well as that which may accompany a tax return; responses to IRS requests for information; and annotated notice responses.
(I've only received IRS unsigned forms with no named individual taking personal responsibility, meant to threaten, intimidate and continue the ignorance of the public).
3. A quality response is timely, accurate, professional in tone, responsive to taxpayer needs (i.e., resolves all issues without further contact).
(Again, no such response to my sincere and legitimate questions has been forthcoming...).
184.108.40.206.7 (Approved 11-04-1977)P-6-20
1. Information provided taxpayers on the application of the tax law: The Service will develop and conduct effective programs to make available to all taxpayers comprehensive, accurate, and timely information on the requirements of tax law and regulations.
(I'd be VERY happy, as would hundreds of thousands of others, to help the IRS with this portion of their "Mission." Just let me know when we can work on this...).
The IRS claims its "mission" is to help us to understand and comply with the tax laws. This has been, in and of itself, conclusively dis-proven, and the IRS is failing in that mission miserably.
Let's now go to the Constitution of the United States of America and Case Law to see what it tells us about law:
"UNCONSTITUTIONAL." That which is contrary to the constitution.
"When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void." 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.
"The courts have the power, and it is their duty, when an act is unconstitutional, to declare it to be so; but this will not be done except in a clear case and, as an additional guard against error, the supreme court of the United States refuses to take up a case involving constitutional questions, when the court is not full." 9 Pet. 85. Vide 6 Cranch, 128; 1 Binn. 419; 5
Binn. 355; 2 Penns 184; 3 S. & R. 169; 7 Pick. 466; 13 Pick. 60; 2 Yeates, 493; 1 Virg. Cas. 20; 1 Blackf. 206 6 Rand. 245 1 Murph. 58; Harper, 385 1 Breese, 209 Pr. Dee. 64, 89; 1 Rep.
Cons. Ct. 267 1 Car. Law Repos. 246 4 Munr. 43; 5 Hayw. 271; 1 Cowen, 550; 1 South. 192; 2 South. 466; 7 N H. Rep. 65, 66; 1 Chip, 237, 257; 10 Conn. 522; 7 Gill & John. 7; 2 Litt. 90; 3 Desaus. 476. Bouvier's Dictionary
The US House of Representatives' Office of the Law Revision Counsel observes that of the 50 titles in the US Code, only 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49 have been enacted as positive law, leaving a 27 title majority both un-enacted, and often lacking published rules for significant sections. This means it is NOT actual law, and title 26, the "income tax" title, is NOT positive law!
Subtitle F > CHAPTER 80 > Subchapter B > 7851 7851. Applicability of revenue laws
(6) Subtitle F (A) General rule
The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title.
(C) Taxes imposed under the 1939 Code
After the date of enactment of this title, the following provisions of subtitle F shall apply to the taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1939,
Since Title 26 was NEVER enacted as positive law, this clearly means that the IRS is acting illegally and without authority or jurisdiction, under the color of law.
Notice these Supreme Court rulings:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
"THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.
"...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding." Article six of the U.S. Constitution.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.
"The construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has refused to alter the administrative construction, and such deference is particularly appropriate where an agency's interpretation involves issues of considerable public controversy and Congress has not acted to correct any misperception of its statutory objectives." CBS, INC. v. FCC, 453 US 367 (1981)
There are countless "compelling" indications that the income tax system, as being implemented and enforced, is not only "wrong," but illegal, and thus far, no corrections to this have been forthcoming, despite years of repeated attempts to bring the law and facts to Congress and the IRS.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of act in terms so
vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due
process of law."
United States Supreme Court, Connally v. General Const. Co,. 269 U.S. 385 (1926)
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and
collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter
are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers and no
attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of
law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the
subject nor of the object of the revenue laws."
United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 Fwd 585, at 589 (1972)
"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
In the year 1992 A.D., Paul Mitchell authored a popular classic book entitled "The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue." The following comes from this source:
TITLE 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
The term "USA" is mentioned only once in Title 28 at section 1746 and there it is clearly distinguished from the "United States" the proper legal term that is used for the federal government throughout Title 28:
The DOJ is pretending to represent the "USA" in all civil and criminal cases, intentionally to avoid exercising the judicial power of the United States. This includes IRS issues.
Under Article III in the U.S. Constitution, this power must be exercised in constitutional courts that guarantee cherished fundamental Rights, like the Right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Article III courts must be convened to hear Controversies to which the United States is a Party (singular).
To make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has also erred by ruling that the term "Party" as used in Article III means "Plaintiff" but not "Defendant." See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933). In Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the term "Party" embraces both plaintiffs and defendants.
By substituting the "USA" as Plaintiffs (plural), the DOJ has perpetrated a fraud by switching to legislative courts where fundamental Rights are not guarantees, but merely privileges granted (or denied) at the discretion of arbitrary judges, sitting on legislative tribunals. Mitchell describes these courts as operating in legislative mode as opposed to constitutional mode.
Glaring proof of this fraud can be seen at section 132 of Title 28. In this section, Congress attempted to broadcast into all 50 States a territorial tribunal - the United States District Court ("USDC"). Congress did this under another pretense, namely, that those States could be treated as if they were all federal Territories:
More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invented a false doctrine by which the U.S. Constitution did not extend into U.S. Territories and Possessions. Mitchell later refuted this doctrine, after discovering two Acts of Congress that expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into the District of Columbia in 1871 A.D., and then into all federal Territories in 1873 A.D. See 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34; and 18 Stat. 325, 333, Sec. 1891, respectively.
We provide this brief as "Prima facie" evidence that the income tax, as being applied, is both fraudulent and deceptive:
"Evidence that is sufficient to raise a fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted." Lectric Law Library;
"A fact presumed to be true unless displaced by some evidence to the contrary." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition)
I present this as further evidence of crimes being committed on a daily basis, and require responsible parties to act on this criminal knowledge by commencing a Grand Jury to publicly investigate this or be personally liable.
Jeffrey- Thomas: Maehr, Copyright (C) 2006, All rights reserved.