Attachment F - Jeffrey Thomas Maehr

"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." - Reid v Covert 354 US l, 1957

Sec. 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list.
TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 61, Subchapter A, PART II, Subpart A, Sec. 6011.

STATUTE

(a) General rule
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

In complete research of the IR Code, and after repeated requests to the IRS, I have found NO code section or law which makes me personally liable for income taxation or to make a return as the IR Code states.

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)

Treasury regulations make a distinction between "citizens" and "residents" of the United States, and define a "citizen" as every person born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to its jurisdiction.. 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(a)-(c).

Sec. 6020. - Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary

(a) Preparation of return by Secretary

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"...),

(IRC 26 - Section 22 - Definitions) Trade or business: term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

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.)

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.

* 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...

"Inclusion units 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)

But it cannot be 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.

"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)

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."

In fact, the term "income" is NOT defined in the entire IR code:

"The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." US v Ballard, 535 F2d 400, 404, (1976)

In other words, income taxation is legally and constitutionally ONLY on privilege, i.e. Corporate profits (after expenses and salaries) and unearned income "from whatever source derived" - 16^th amendment, and is also ONLY on those serving in a public office or working for the government.

(30): United States person

(A) a citizen or resident of the United States, (the corporate entity, NOT the de jure United several states - "...a Sovereign is not a "person" [United Mine Workers vs. United States, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)]).

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.

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.

Person: "An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being." Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., def. (2):

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. persons."

"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

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.

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, LLC's, etc.), and that position imposes a duty upon him to conduct certain acts, on behalf of the fiction, (See Attachment N). 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 [7203].

Constitutional Issues:

"Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequence." Brady v. U.S. 397 U.S. 742 at 748.

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:

"Whatever the form in which the government functions, 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 {1947)

"Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation." Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lavin v Marsh, 644 f.2D 1378, (1981).

"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large...  It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority." Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981)

IRS mission statements: (With my comments)

1.2.1.2.1 (Approved 12-18-1993)
P-1-1

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).

"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." 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 destroys the validity of everything into which it enters," Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426;

"Fraud vitiates everything,"Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210;

"Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments," U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.

Since IRS silence on these issues and previous documentation requests is deafening, it can only be reasonably presumed that fraud is involved, and this vitiates any relationship between myself and the IRS.

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.

4.10.7.2 (05-14-1999)
Researching Tax Law

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.

1.2.1.6.2 (Approved 11-26-1979)
P-6-10

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.

(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...).

1.2.1.6.7 (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.

"[p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited." United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).

"INSOFAR AS A STATUTE RUNS COUNTER TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND, IT IS SUPERSEDED THEREBY." (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256).

"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

"It may be said that the Constitution executes itself. This expression may be allowed; but with as much propriety, these may be said to be laws which the People have enacted themselves, and no laws of Congress can either take from, add to, or confirm them. They are Rights, privileges, or immunities which are granted by the People, and are beyond the power of Congress or State Legislature... It may be laid down as a universal rule, admitting to no exceptions, that when the Constitution has established a disability or immunity, a privilege or a Right, these are precisely as that instrument has fixed them, and can neither be augmented nor curtailed by any act or law of Congress or a State Legislature. We are more particular in stating this because it has sometimes been forgotten both by legislatures and theoretical expositors of the Constitution." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1870, pp. 622-625.

"But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the fundamental (constitutional) law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it." Yakus v. U.S. 321 U.S. 414 pg 468 (1944).

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!

TITLE 26

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.

And

(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.

476 of the Victory Tax Act stated: "The taxes imposed by this subchapter shall not apply with respect to any taxable year after the date of cession of hostilities in the present War [WW II]."

On May 29, 1944 (58 Statutes at Large, Chap 210, pg 234) the Victory Tax and Withholding were repealed! There is no longer a law making a Citizen of the 50 states liable for paying income taxes on their compensation! There is no memorialized law authorizing an employer to withhold, and turn over to the government, a significant portion of compensation earned by a Citizen of the 50 states.

Sec. 6 REPEAL OF VICTORY TAX.

(a) IN GENERAL-Subchapter D of Chapter 1 (relating to the Victory Tax) is repealed."

"THE CLAIM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

"It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional... A state [or federal government] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution." - Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113; 480-487; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).

"...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.

"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 government's own official publication No. 21 "UNDERSTANDING TAXES,"issued by the Internal Revenue Service (1982) states that "you must make the decision if you are required to make a return and liable for the tax."

I have done so and found that I am NOT liable according to the IR Code, and the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution.

How can the IRS demand taxes and penalties when its own manual states it is up to us to determine if we owe taxes? The income tax laws are so vague and contradictory, that it has become an impossibility for a law person to comprehend in order to abide by under penalty of perjury. One can not be bound to do what is impossible. Even tax experts can no longer positively ascertain a proper amount due.

Commissioner Roscoe Egger, Jr., IRS, admitted to an audience on November 30, 1984 , in Baltimore, that he didn't understand the IR Code:

And the common citizen of America is expected to know what it says? Are we to take what the IRS says it is when the IRS itself doesn't know what it says and can't help us to understand the law?

An article published in the Anchorage Daily News, Thursday March 22, 1993 , was brought to my attention, the heading of the article was, "IRS Demand Letters Are Wrong Nearly Half of the Time." The article states "Nearly half the 36 million letters the IRS mailed to taxpayers last year demanding additional tax and penalties were erroneous." The article went on to say, "Taxpayers confused by the law and afraid of challenging the Internal Revenue Service forked over $7 billion that they did not owe. Clearly, individuals are caving into questionable demands for more money that would propel them to the phone in a second if the bill came from some bank or credit-card company."

Former President Reagan, while he was president, attested to the fact that the Code is impossible to understand. The President said in a 1984 Associated Press (AP) release:

"The government has the nerve to tell the people of the country, 'you figure out how much you owe us - and we can't help you because our people don't understand it either and if you make a mistake, we'll make you pay a penalty for making the mistake."'

The income tax laws contradistinctions exist throughout. The complete Internal Revenue Code, January 1993 Edition, contains 2115 pages. Thus, fundamental fairness requires that, "no man be held responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." (Schull v Virginia, 359 US 3448.)

"The Constitution does not require impossible standards." United States v Petrillo, 332 US 1, 1591 L ed 1877, 67 S Ct 1538.

"The law does not compel impossibility." Boyden v Untied States. 13 Wass 17.

"No man can be obliged to perform an impossibility." Jones v United States, 96 US 24.

"Contracts against public policy or morality or contrary to statute as to consideration or thing to be done, are unenforceable." Burke v child 21 Wall 441. 22 L Ed 623.

In publication #334, I read where the IRS states, "We follow Supreme Court decisions."

In the Legal Reference Guide for Revenue Officers, at 332, Constitutional Limitations, it states in part... "However, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights must not be violated."

I am attempting to apply law and the Constitution in the very best way I can given the convoluted, deceptive and misleading code as written. I have ONLY the constitution to tell me what the laws say about income taxation.

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment (See Attachment D) 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. Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers... The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital." Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) stated at 238: (Referenced in United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 Fwd 585, at 589 (1972)).

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.  They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers.  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are 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 the subject nor the object of the revenue laws."   Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238

"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 (See Attachment K) 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 pretence, 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.

I provide this brief as "Prima facie" evidence that the income tax, as being applied, is both fraudulent and deceptive:

Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Copyright © 2006, 2007, All rights reserved.