Attachment D -Jeffrey Thomas Maehr

Laws which the IRS is consistently violating, and related Case law against IRS actions;

Recent Adjudicated Evidence entered against IRS position as further evidence of this affidavit position

The IR Code is NOT POSITIVE LAW (See Attachment T), but is acting under the color of law, and does not have jurisdiction over most Americans who do NOT work for the federal government.

Supreme Court Justice Brandeis spoke, in the case of Olmstead v United States when he said: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will he imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by it's example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of criminal laws the end justifies the means to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. ...And so should every law enforcement student, practitioner, supervisor, and administrator."

"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people. . . . The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction of limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members." See: U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1.

The IRS has repeatedly ignored all questions and requests for verification, documentation and other facts under FOIA. Silence, or lack of responding to good faith questions, requests and responses can ONLY equate to attempted fraud, deceit and theft:

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.

"Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud." McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307.

Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983).

More case law:

"The right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society." United States Supreme Court, Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951).

"The judicial power of the United States (and therefore states) is limited by the doctrine of precedence." Anastoff v. United States (8th Circuit, 2000).

"Keeping in mind the well settled rule, that the citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid." Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. vs. McLain: 192 US 397

"As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intent to convey; the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution and the people who adopted it must be understood to have employed the words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said." See: Gibbons v. Ogden, 27 U.S. 1

But it cannot he assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it did not intent that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free from all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid hardships of particular cases, we must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign powers. See: State v. Sutton, 6.3 Minn. 147, 65 W.X. N.W., 262, 101, N.W. 74; Cook v. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

Treasury Order 150-1, Paragraph 5 States: "US Territories and Insular Possessions. "The commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue law [small i ] in the U.S. territories and insular possessions (See Attachment B) and OTHER AUTHORIZED AREAS OF THE WORLD."

Treasury Order's 150-1 thru 150-29 are the Delegation of authority orders for the IRS from the Dept. Of Treasury. No section or paragraph is found in any of these which authorize the Commissioner to administer the internal revenue laws anywhere other than the above paragraph.

Bente v. Bugbee 137 A. 552, 553, 103 N. J. Law 608 . In that case the court held: A tax is a legal imposition exclusively of statutory origin (37 Cyc.724, 725), and, naturally, liability to taxation must be read in the statute, or it does not exist.

"The taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." [Boathe v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1405, at 1414 (1983).

"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that... if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..." 1938: Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303.

"The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal in arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory: It is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government; yet only his fellow citizens can convict him. They are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all powers of congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." See: 2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267.

"It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute's language." DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984).

The IRS is guilty of the following minimum illegal activities:

18 U.S.C. 241:* Conspiracy against rights. Collusion by all of the revenue agents to interfere with the First Amendment, free speech, right to assemble, and right to petition our government.

18 U.S.C. 242:** Deprivation of rights under the color of law. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that I am being forced, if I comply with the IRS' demands, to go contrary to my religious beliefs by lying, and personally committing fraud, and countering the Constitution.

18 U.S.C. 872: Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.

18 U.S.C. 876: Mailing threatening communications. (This includes all the threatening notices regarding levies, liens, and letters that refuse to justify why they think I am liable for income tax).

18 U.S.C. 880: Receiving the proceeds of extortion. Any money collected from Americans through illegal enforcement actions and for which the contributors are not "liable" under the law is extorted money, and the IRS is in receipt of the proceeds of illegal extortion.

18 U.S.C. 1581: Peonage, obstructing enforcement. They are obstructing the proper enforcement of the tax laws, which require that they respect those who choose NOT to volunteer to participate in the federal donation program identified under subtitle A of the I.R.C.

18 U.S.C. 1583: Enticement into slavery. They are trying to enlist me to rejoin the ranks of other peons who pay taxes they aren't demonstrably liable for, which amounts to slavery, plain and simple.

18 U.S.C. 1589: Forced labor. Being forced to expend my personal time (valued at 100 silver dollars per hour and amounting to date of approximately 1000 hours since 1969) responding to IRS demands for 1040 forms under the color of law, requesting answers to volumes of questions, (which have yet to be answered) answering the IRS' frivolous notices and other correspondence, and paying taxes on my labor that I am not liable for. (total taxes extracted fraudulently since 1969 unknown at this time, not counting interest and civil and criminal penalty.)

This checklist provides a list of a few more of the provisions of the Code that the IRS appears to be ignoring in its day-to-day administration of the Code.

26 USC 6020
26 USC 6201
26 USC 6065
26 USC 6212
26 USC 6303
26 USC 6330
26 USC 6331(a)
26 USC 6331(h)
26 USC 6331(d)
It is another violation of law for the IRS to be using the U.S. Mail system to commit fraud.

Title 18 United States Code 245 Provides:

"Whoever whether or not acting under color of law, intimidates or interferes with any person from participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; [or] applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year or both."

Title 18 United States Code 1983 Provides:

"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."

TITLE 18, U.S.C. CHAPTER 63 1341. Frauds and swindles

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretence, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

TITLE 18, U.S.C. CHAPTER 63 1349. Attempt and conspiracy

Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.

Crimes under:

TITLE 18, U.S.C. > PART I > CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
TITLE 18, U.S.C. > PART I > CHAPTER 41 - EXTORTION AND THREATS
TITLE 18, U.S.C. > PART I > CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
TITLE 18, U.S.C. > PART I > CHAPTER 95 - RACKETEERING
TITLE 18, U.S.C. > PART I > CHAPTER 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING

Unauthorized use of 1040 forms by IRS:

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, (PRA), each and every government form that is used to collect information from the general public under law must be linked to its authorizing statutes and implementing regulations** and have a valid Office of Management and Budget "OMB" Form number. This requirement of law provides an orderly means to identify which statutes, regulations and forms are related.

In Section 3512 of the Act, titled "Public Protection," it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency's collection of information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section 3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency's administrative process (such as an IRS Tax Court or Collection and Due Process Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding.

IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore a legally invalid form. Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA. The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense and can be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding. The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes it impossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.

In U.S. v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1991) the Court said: "Where an agency fails to follow the PRA [Paperwork Reduction Act] in regard to an information collection request that the agency promulgates via regulation, at its own discretion, and without express prior mandate from Congress, a citizen may indeed escape penalties for failing to comply with the agency's request." Id. (citing United States v. Hatch, 919 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989)).

"...You are not required to provide the information requested on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number." ...

44 U.S.C. 3512. (4) prohibits agencies from penalizing those who fail to respond to Federal collections of information that do not display valid OMB control numbers. The Act also prohibits agencies from penalizing those who have not been informed that a response is not required unless the collection of information displays a valid control number. Both of these public protections "may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto."

The wording of Subsection 3512, "Public Protection," is as follows:

§ 3512. Public protection

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if -

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

Also, the following case law is taken from 919 F.2d 1394, UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard K. HATCH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 89-10233. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 16, 1990. Decided Nov. 29, 1990.

"The Senate Report analysis of Sec. 3512 states that 21 [i]nformation collection requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not, are to be considered 'bootleg' requests and may be ignored by the public.... These are the only circumstances under which a person may justify the failure to maintain information for or provide information to any agency otherwise required, by reliance on this Act. S.Rep. No. 930, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6241, 6292.

See also 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1320.5(c) ("Whenever a member of the public is protected from imposition of a penalty under this section for failure to comply with a collection of information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency directly, by an agency through judicial process, or by any other person through judicial or administrative process.").

Another item of evidence; a stamped copy of a 1987 Treasury Department document entitled, "Request for OMB Review" which is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request was for IRS Form "1040-NR," the tax form used by Non-Resident Aliens to report their "income."

PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB control number must expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a three year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS reviews the 1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a control number with an expiration date.

Several things about this document are noteworthy:

1. The form used for the request is OMB Form "83."

2. On line 5 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the statutes actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing statutes are, in fact, cited.

3. On line 27 of Form 83, the administrative requester is required to cite the regulations actually authorizing the collection of the information. The authorizing regulations are, in fact, cited.

The "Challenge of Authority" document also contains a similar Treasury PRA request from 1996, but this one is for the "regular" IRS Individual Form 1040 that millions of Americans file each year.

This Treasury administrative request is not made on OMB "Form 83" ---- but rather using an alternate OMB form, "83-1" titled, "Paperwork Reduction Act Submission".

Several very important differences between the OMB request forms need to be noted:

1. OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of statutory authority.

2. OMB Form 83-1 does NOT require any specific citation of regulatory authority.

3. In the "Certification" box found on page 2 of Form 83-1, there are specific references to both PRA Regulations "5 CFR 1320.9" and "5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)."

4. The attachments to this OMB Form 83-1 request consist primarily of a list of Title 26 (Income Tax) regulations and statutes that are merely (quoting) "associated" with IRS Form 1040.

IRS Form 1040-NR (for Non-Resident Aliens) is certified as complying with the requirements of the PRA found at regulation 5 CFR 1320.8. In its request to the OMB for IRS Form "1040-NR," the Department of Treasury (IRS) clearly cites both the statutory and regulatory authorities authorizing the use of the form to collect information and certifies its request as such.Please specifically note that for the Treasury's request using alternative OMB Form 83-1 for IRS Individual Form 1040, the Treasury has formally certified the request under regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, which is explicitly reserved for "PROPOSED" government forms.

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 5, Volume 3] [Revised as of January 1, 2005]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 5 CFR 1320.9] [Page 155]

TITLE 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL

CHAPTER III--OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

PART 1320_CONTROLLING PAPERWORK BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC--

Sec. 1320.9 Agency certifications for proposed collections of information.

As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior Official, or their designee) shall certify and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information [...]

In short, if IRS Individual Form 1040 was actually authorized under U.S. law, the Department of Treasury would have submitted it for OMB certification using OMB "Form 83" which requires explicit citation of the Form's authorizing statutes and regulations.

Instead, the IRS used alternative OMB Form "83-1" -- which is designated ONLY for "proposed" government forms - and which does NOT require any formal citation of legal authority allowing its use.

Furthermore, even though an attachment to the Treasury's request for IRS Form 1040 (on OMB Form 83-1) contains a lengthy list of statutes and regulations, and "Box 12" on the form is marked indicating the form is "mandatory," a careful reading of the submission to OMB will make it clear that the Department of Treasury is ONLY certifying that:

-Form 1040 is a "proposed form" and that, IF authorized, it would meet the collection criteria established by regulation 5 CFR 1320.9, and

-That Form 1040 is only "associated" with the statutes and regulations cited in the 1040 request, and If Form 1040 were actually authorized by law, it would be "mandatory".

As a final observation, it should be noted that both the 1987 Form 1040-NR request as well as the 1996 Form 1040 request were signed by the same IRS officials, one Garrick R. Shear, the IRS Reports Clearance Officer and one Lois K. Holland as/for the Departmental Reports Management Officer.

In short, the Department of Treasury's clear and willful intent to use OMB Form 83-1 (rather than OMB Form 83) to legally certify IRS Individual Form 1040 as a valid government document, is compelling proof establishing that IRS Form 1040 is merely a PROPOSED tax form, and that there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that authorizes its use.

Examples of IRS violations of the PRA and its implementing regulations that invalidate Form 1040 include these:

1. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The section mandates that the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:

(I) the reasons the information 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) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or 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 (i.e., issued in accordance with the requirements of PRA).

2. IRS has continually violated of PRA Section 3507(a)(1)(C). The section mandates that the IRS shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information via a 1040 unless in advance of the adoption or revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the proposed 1040 form along with copies of pertinent statutory authority and regulations authorizing the IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The clearance packages that the IRS submits to the OMB make no mention of IRC Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012, 6091, 7203 or any of the other sections federal judges alternately cite as "the" authority that authorizes IRS to collect information via the 1040.

3. The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB control number must expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for only a three year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS reviews the 1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and seeks public input. Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation of why it would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a control number with an expiration date.

4. The IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3512 ("Public Protection"). This section prohibits the IRS from penalizing any person for failing to file a "bootleg" 1040. The 1040 form falls into the "bootleg" class if it does not display a valid OMB control number and the disclaimer that no response is required without such a control number. The 1995 amendments strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS victims can invoke this protection "in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto." In spite of this, the IRS routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing to file the 1040 tax return. Although required by law, IRS never informs people about the bootleg nature of the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims have no legal obligation to file such bootleg forms.

IRS Audit Manual and The Handbook For Agents:

AGENTS "THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THIS MANUAL IS CONFIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER IT IS--NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS OUTSIDE THE SERVICE."

Constitutional Law 342.12

(1)Constitutional protections are provided in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, as follows:

(a)Fourth Amendment - "The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no Warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, the persons or things to be seized."

(b)Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless by a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, (xi the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.."

(Note: McCarthy v. Arndstein, ruled that: "The Fifth Amendment applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings.")

(c)Sixth Amendment- "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

2) "The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a taxpayer to refuse to obey a summons issued under WC 7602 or a court order directing his/her appearance. He/she is required to appear and cannot use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse for failure to do so, although he/she may exercise it in connection with specific questions. [Landy v. U.S.] He/she cannot refuse to bring his/her records, but MAY DECLINE TO SUBMIT THEM FOR INSPECTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. In the Vadner case, the Government moved to hold a taxpayer in contempt of court for refusal to obey a court order to produce his/her books and records. Vadner refused to submit them for inspection by the Government, basing his refusal on the Fifth Amendment. THE COURT DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO HOLD VADNER IN CONTEMPT, holding that disclosure of his assets would provide a starting point for a tax evasion case."

Further the IRS Supplement published on 1/10/79 in Section 6 states: "...A summons of a taxpayers books and records for return of information is not recommended"

"It does not require the actual entry upon premises and search for a seizure of papers to constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A compulsory production of a party's private books and records, to be used against himself or his property in a criminal penal proceeding or a forfeiture, is within the spirit or meaning of the Amendment." - Boyd vs. U.S., 116 U.S. 616.

"The Fifth Amendment provision that the individual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself cannot be abridged." Miranda vs. U.S., 424 U.S. 648.

"The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for the purposes of Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a witness." Government compels the filing of a return much as it compels, for example, the appearance of a `witness' before a grand jury." 1975: Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648.

"There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment." Sullivan v. U.S.. 274 U.S. 259.

* TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 241 Conspiracy against rights

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

"Purpose of Congress was not to protect rights and privileges under 14^th amendment but to protect rights and privileges of citizens under Constitution and laws of the U.S." Williams v U.S. (1950, CA5 Fla) 179 F2d 656.

"Constitutional Liberty or Freedom. Such freedom as is enjoyed by the citizen of a country or state under the protection of its constitution (state/federal). The aggregate of those personal, civil, and political rights of the individual which are guaranteed by the Constitution (state/federal) and secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies." Blacks Law Dictionary, sixth edition.

** TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 13 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Color of Law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. The misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under 'color of law.'" Blacks Law Dictionary, sixth edition.

** Implementing Regulations:

26 USC 780 5(a) "...the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title."

"For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern." Dodd v. United States, 223 F Supp 785, Lyeth v. Hoey. 305 US 188, 59 S. Ct 155.

"... the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulation promulgated* by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone...The Government urges that since only those who violate these regulations (not the Code) may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation 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." Calif. Bankers Assoc. v. Shultz. 416 US 25,44, 39 L Ed 2d 812, 94 S Ct 1494. *Promulgate - to put into action.

7201 Tax Evasion, 7203 Willful failure to file, 6020 Substitute for Return, 6201 Assessment Authority, 6301 Collection Authority, 6303 Notice and Demand Authority, 7602 Summons Authority, 6321 Lien Authority, 6331-~6343 Levy and Distraint Authority, 6601 Interest on Under payments, 667 1 Assessment Penalties, ALL have NQ implementing Regulations pertaining to Individual Income Taxes (Part 1 taxes)! All implementing regulations are for mandatory alcohol, tobacco and firearms taxes!

"Although the relevant statute authorized the Secretary to impose such a duty, his implementing regulations did not do so. Therefore we held that there was no duty to disclose..." United States v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 142, 1431.

"The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no duties until implementing regulations have been promulgated." California Bankers Ass'n v Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S. Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L. Ed. 2d 812.

"Failure to adhere to agency regulations [by the IRS or other agency] may amount to denial of due process if regulations are required by constitution or statute..." Curley V. United States, 791 F. Supp.52.

"An Individual Cannot be Prosecuted for Violating the Act Unless He Violates Implementing Regulations.'- United States v. Reinis, 794 F. 2d 506, 508 (9th Cir. 1986) United States v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1987)

"Criminal penalties ...can attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary." U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506

Conspiracy. Key 33(2). "Where regulations...did not impose duty to disclose information, failure to disclose was not conspiracy to defraud government." 18 USCA, 31 USCA~5311

United States. Key 34. "Individual cannot be prosecuted for violating Currency Reporting Act unless he violates implementing regulations." 31 U.S.C.A. 5311 et. seq.

"Because Congress has delegated to the Commissioner the power to promulgate "all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of (the Internal Revenue Code) 26 U.S.C. 7805(a), we must defer to his regulatory interpretations of the Code so long as they are reasonable." National Muffler Dealers Assn.. Inc. United States, 440 U.S. 472, 476-477, 99 S. Ct. 1304, 1306-1307, 59 L. Ed. 2d 519

Internal Revenue. Key 3947. "Internal Revenue manual does not have force and effect of law..."

Because the Internal Revenue Code is broad and general in scope, the regulations provide the clarity that give the statute the force of law. Otherwise such statutes could be voided for vagueness.

"Due process requires that penal statutes define criminal offenses with sufficient clarity that ordinary person can understand what conduct is prohibited." U.S.C.A Const. Amend 5

Without the statute there is no authority for implementing a regulation and without the regulation, no civil or criminal penalties can be imposed. Further Regulations cannot change the statute but only clarify it.

"To the extent that the regulations implement the statute, they have the force and effect of law... The regulation implements the statute and cannot vitiate or change the statute..." Spreckles v. C.I.R. 119 F.2d, 667.

INTERNAL REVENUE MANUAL

CURLEY V U.S. 791 F. Supp 52 (E.D.N.Y. 1992), at 55

(6) "Plaintiff relies heavily on the Internal Revenue Manual ("IRM") in her argument that the assessment is procedurally invalid. However, the IRM does not have the force and effect of law." United States v. New York Telephone Co. 644 F. 2d 953 959 n. 10 (2d Cir. 1981). Since the IRM is not law, any alleged failure to adhere to its provisions will not necessarily result in an invalid assessment. See Foxman v. Renison 449 U.S. 993, 101 S. Ct. 530, 66 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1980). 449 U.S. 1119 101 S. Ct. 932, 66 L. Ed. 2d 848 (1981) Kopunek v Director of Internal Revenue, 528 F.Supp. 134, 137 (1981).

(7) However, failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to a denial of due process if the regulations are required by the constitution or statute. Arzanipour v Immigration and Naturalization Service, 866 F. 2d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1989).

In Bothke v. Fluor Engineers, 713, F.2d 1405 (1983), the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that if a taxpayer has informed an IRS agent that he believes that there is an error in assessment and the agent continues levy action without first determining if the taxpayer's argument has merit, such agent losses immunity from a suit. Most IRS agents do not realize that if they act without authority, they are personally liable!

Assessment of tax is entirely a government function. The law makes no provision allowing people to assess themselves a tax. Girard Trust Bank v. U.S., 643 F.2d 725, 727

Electing the option of estimating a speculated tax and sending accompanying deposit via use of Form 1040, or should surmised assessment not be made by appropriate authority within the time restraints of three (3) years, reasonable assumption exists a tax is not owing. 26 USC Section 6501

"We believe that the holding of the court that money paid to the Internal Revenue Service prior to the imposition of a valid assessment is a deposit rather than a payment, should have he same meaning regardless whether it is the Government who seeks to preclude suit by the taxpayer or whether it is the taxpayer who seeks to recover a refund."

Estate of M. Karl GOETZ v US. 286 F. Supp 128, 131 (WD. MO. 1968).

IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 - Tax Regs in Plain English
3102 - Civil Damages for Collection Action

A. Provision covered: Section 3102 Civil Damages for Collection Action (LR.C. §~ 7433, 7430, 7426)

B. Background: Under prior law,. taxpayers could recover damages up to $1,000,000 under section 7433 for reckless or intentional disregard of the Code and regulations. Third parties and debtors in bankruptcy could not recover damages under section 7433. Also, under prior law, there was no exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement, although the courts could reduce the damages award if administrative remedies were not exhausted. Congress believed that expansion of the circumstances in which damages could be obtained from the Service was appropriate.

C. Change(s): The provision allows taxpayers to recover up to $100,000 in damages as the result of the negligent disregard of the Code or regulations by Service personnel. This provision also amends section 7426, regarding actions for wrongful levy, and allows third parties to recover damages up to $1,000,000 for reckless or intentional disregard of the Code or regulations, or up to $100,000 for negligent disregard of the Code or regulations.

1203 - Termination of Employment for Misconduct

A. Provision(s) covered: Section 1203, Termination of Employment for Misconduct

B. Background: This new provision was enacted in response to the widespread perception that IRS employees are not held fully accountable for improper conduct affecting taxpayers. The section provides that IRS employees must be charged with misconduct and terminated if there has been a judicial or final administrative determination that the employee committed any of the following acts or omissions:

1. willful failure to obtain the required approval signatures on documents authorizing the seizure of a taxpayer's home, personal belongings, or business asset;

2. providing a false statement under oath with respect to a material matter involving a taxpayer or taxpayer representative;

3. with respect to a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service, the violation of any right under the Constitution of the United States;

The IRS has recently been corrected on the issue of all administrative orders it issues WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, which is virtually every order it issues:

"...absent an effort to seek enforcement through a federal court, IRS summonses apply no force to "taxpayers," and no consequence whatever can befall a taxpayer who refuses, ignores, or otherwise does not comply with an IRS summons until that summons is backed by a federal court order [a taxpayer] cannot be held in contempt, arrested, detained, or otherwise punished for refusing to comply with the original IRS summons, no matter the taxpayer's reasons, or lack of reasons for so refusing." (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv)

"We do not overlook those constitutional limitations which, for the protetction of personal rights, must necessarily attend all investigations conducted under the authority of Congress. Neither branch of the legislative department, still less any merely administrative body, established by Congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen." Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 196 (26: 377, 386).

In conjunction with this, the Court included ALL administrative actions by the IRS:

"Any legislative scheme that denies subjects an opportunity to seek judicial review of administrative orders except by refusing to comply, and so put themselves in immediate jeopardy of possible penalties 'so heavy as to prohibit resort to that remedy,' Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U.S. 331, 333 (1920), runs afoul of the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." Schulz v. IRS and Anthony Roundtree.

"It will be noted that our decision here is based upon our holding the Government's lien was irregular, insufficient and valueless from a procedural standpoint for failure to serve the statutory notice and demand in connection therewith and for failure to comply with required procedures."

"In developing that conclusion many circumstances tend to show that not only were these required procedures not complied with, but that Coson was not a taxpayer and not liable for the tax to begin with..."

"... and what we hold here ... involved plaintiff may attack the Government lien for taxes as irregular or valueless 'from a procedural standpoint, and may raise the question whether the Government 'complied with required procedure*** or whether by error the assessment was made against a taxpayer other than the one intended."

"In holding as we do that the lack of proper notice or demand was fatal to acquisition of the government's lien against Cohon, the emphasis here is somewhat different than that employed by the trial judge who held that the assessment itself was void as against Coson because the taxes were never assessed as to Coson, the record of assessment in the office of the Bureau making no reference whatever to Coson. The government argues that there is no requirement that an assessment be made against any person. Although our decision as to the lack of proper notice or demand is sufficient to dispose of this case, it would appear that the trial court was right in holding the assessment was insufficient, for failure to comply with statutory requirements." (n. 17, page 464) U.S. v Coson, 286 F.2d 453 (9th, 1961) See also Hans Bothke v. Flour Engineers Construction, Inc, and Terry, 713 F.2d 1405 (9th, 1983)

"We think it clear that the term "assessment" referred to in this section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 has a technical meaning spelled out in the code and that meaning is binding on the court." U.S. v. Miller, C.A. Ind. 1963, 318 F. 2d 637, at 638, 639.

"Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability. For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment... (Section 301.6203-1, title 26 CFR. Assessment... 1. Name, 2. ID number, 3. nature of assessment 4. year of assessment, 5. amount, 6. signature of assessment officer, 7. Verification under penalty of perjury or seal), either a voluntary one by the taxpayer (See Attachment A) or one procedurally proper by the IRS..." Bothke v. Flour, 713 F. 2d 1405, pg 1414, [14, 15]

Section 6203: "The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment."

Said request has been made with no response forthcoming from the IRS or Secretary.

The Court's decision in Bivens v. 6 unknown named federal agents 403US388, 91SCT1999, 29LE2d 619(1971) that a violation of a specific constitutional amendment by a Federal employee was recognized as a cause of action for monetary damages.

My constitutional rights are being violated by the IRS through intimidation, coercion, threats and other actions against me in regard to income taxation, and subjects said agency and employees, to litigation.

The IRS has consistently used "terrorist" procedures to force, coerce, intimidate, and perform unconstitutional and illegal searches and seizures in its approximate 90 years of existence. It's own code comments on such "TERRORISM":

Terrorism = "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce... the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 CFR 0.85(l)).

Here is a court ruling against the IRS for its customary practice of trying to enforce an illegal summons:

The IRS has recently been corrected on the issue of all administrative orders it issues WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, which is virtually every order it issues:

In conjunction with this, the Court included ALL administrative actions by the IRS:

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.