Attachment Q - Jeffrey Thomas Maehr

"Frivolous" penalty: IRS illegal actions under "color of law" of "Notice of Levy." Title 18 - Bank Fraud

"...a statute which imposes a tax upon an assumption of fact which the [presumed] taxpayer is forbidden to controvert is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it cannot stand under the Fourteenth Amendment." United States Supreme Court, Heiner v. Donnan 285 U.S. 312 (1932)

"...irrebuttable presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments." United States Supreme Court, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973)

"A fundamental requirement of due process is "the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394.

It (Due Process) is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." United States Supreme Court, Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965)

"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)

"If [a provision of the Constitution] will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." United States Supreme Court, Escobedo v. Illinois 378 U.S. 478 (1964)

The IRS is responsible for forced extracting of funds by placing the bank under duress and intimidating THEM into breaking the actual laws. All such mailings constitute prima facie evidence against the IRS of mail fraud. In addition to this, the IRS claims to use IRC section 6331 as their authority to levy on private citizens, when it only applies to government employees,(See Attachment T) and the IRS regularly uses the U.S. Mail system to illegally demand "income" taxes from NON-government employees.

The IRS, in 2005, sent a "Notice of Lien" to me and to my bank. This "Notice of Lien" is NOT an actual lien which can be acted under according to law. This was brought to the attention of the IRS and my bank. The IRS acted to coerce/threaten me, and my bank, into releasing funds, totaling $577.32, to them under the color of law. The following documented evidence is entered as proof which stands unrebutted to date and by default is fact, making the IRS/ Treasury department liable for assets and damages per affidavit. Bank affidavits available.

July 5, 2005 Certified Return Receipt Request # 7005 0390 0005 6810 8853

Marvin Otero
Internal Revenue Service SSN#: - - - - - - - - -
P.O. Box 145585
Stop 8420G Subject: Tax Lien
Cincinnati, OH 45250-5585 Tax Period(s): 12/31/2002

RE: Jeffrey T. Maehr

After receiving a recent Supreme Court and Appellate Court ruling on Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv, I am once again providing your office with documentation showing your illegal position in filing the lien on my property in Archuleta County. (Bold emphasis below is mine).

In the Schulz v IRS case (Schulz v. IRS, Case No. 04-0196-cv), and subsequent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court upheld its original ruling against any IRS summons as having power over citizens without a federal court order.

Most significantly, the Court held, relying on a 1920 decision by the United States Supreme Court, that the principles of due process apply to ALL IRS administrative orders and any levy or lien is an "administrative order" and therefore NOT a judicial action. We take that to mean the Court's order applies not only to IRS first party summonses, but also to IRS third party summonses, and to IRS levies and liens.

The court states:

"...the government appears to argue alternatively, or in combination, that: 1) the government may use the federal courts to punish taxpayers who disobey an IRS summons even if the summons is never enforced by court order; 2) if an IRS summons is enforced by a court order, the court may punish disobedience of the IRS summons before providing the taxpayer an opportunity to comply with the court's order; or 3) if an IRS summons is enforced by a court order, the court may punish disobedience of the IRS summons even if the taxpayer complies with the court's order. In our view, expressed in Schulz I, none of these proposals is consistent with the comprehensive tax-enforcement scheme in which 26 U.S.C. sections 7210, 7604(a) and 7604(b) are situated, constitutional due process, or the relevant precedents of this Court and the United States Supreme Court..." [ page 5].

"...the IRS summons is administratively issued but its enforcement is only by federal court authority in an adversary proceeding affording the opportunity for challenge and complete protection to the witness." [page 9] (italics emphasis in the original).

In what may be the most significant sentence in the 13-page decision, the court stated:

"The rule of due process upon which we relied in Schulz I, and upon which we rely now, can be stated thus; 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." [Page 10].

Although the objects in contention in Schulz were IRS administrative summonses, it is unavoidable that the Due Process issues raised and articulated by the Court in Schulz have direct implication for all forms of routine IRS administrative process including liens, levies and seizures. This decision reiterates those constitutional principles.

The Court's reaffirmation of Schulz I is clear: any legislative scheme that forces a taxpayer to make a Hobson's choice" between either capitulating to an IRS administrative demand, or risk bearing the pains of IRS's wrath if they refuse to comply -- without access to judicial review, violates the Constitution.

Based on this case law, and on previous mailings of questions and evidence to your office against this lien, I am once again requesting that your office remove this lien from my property immediately and to issue a letter to me stating this action has been taken. I am also requesting that your office provide a letter to the Archuleta County Recorder's office stating that all liens and levies against ANY property in our county be removed, or I will begin a class action law suit with all such property owners in this county, and go out from there to other areas as well.

I want to remind you that this is conclusive evidence that creates a definite personal liability for your actions as an IRS representative, C. Sherwood's personal liability who signed the lien letter on your behalf, as well as the IRS's liability in supporting your unconstitutional actions. I again request your removal of said lien and provide a letter stating this has been done.

I look forward to your response within the allotted legal time frame in which to respond.

Jeffrey T. Maehr


John W. Suthers
Colorado Attorney General
1525 Sherman St., 5th floor
Denver, CO 80203

Riggs, Abney Law Firm, Denver, CO


May 11, 2005 Certified Return Receipt Request # 7004 1160 0000 8685 5443

Marvin Otero
Internal Revenue Service SSN#: - - - - - - - - -
P.O. Box 145585 RE: Jeffrey T. Maehr
Stop 8420G Subject: Frivolous Penalty
Cincinnati, OH 45250-5585 Tax Period(s): 12/31/2002

This document and all attached Enclosures and Exhibits are to be filed as a permanent part of Treasury/IRS system of records numbers 24.030 Individual Master File (IMF), 24.046 (BMF), and 24.070 (DMF). If such record(s) have/has been deleted or substituted, this demand still applies. IT SHOULD BE NOTED that willful suppression of incriminating evidence constitutes misprision of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4 and makes you into an Accessory After the Fact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3. It also constitutes an offense against 18 U.S.C. 1018, False Writings and Fraud. This Affidavit, Rebuttal, Enclosures, and Exhibits will stand as exculpatory evidence in any court proceedings that may or will be attempted against you individually or your employer, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Dear Sir:

Received your letter dated 4-28-05, signed by C. Sherwood., regarding a Notice of Federal Tax Lien illegally and unconstitutionally applied to my property. This letter is to place you on notice, and to request specific information regarding your authority by statute and constitutional law to have done this act.

Please provide the following:

1. Your Pocket Commission information.

2. C. Sherwood's Pocket Commission information.

3. The legal statutes authorizing you to bypass Due Process of law and place this lien against my property with NO legal authority, court order or justification.

4. The authority and statutes by which you ignore and bypass my IMF file and affidavits regarding this frivolous attempt at extortion.

5. Documentation that this lien, in fact, applies to said SS number, that said SSN is indeed mine and mine alone, and the evidence you are using to claim said $500.

I am providing a copy of this to my attorney. I will also be corresponding with the Archuleta County Recorder and convey their criminal act in recording this illegal and unconstitutional lien against my property. Should this lien, in any way, cause financial difficulty, there will be a lawsuit naming you as an individual, C. Sherwood individually, the IRS collectively and Archuleta County, and employees, and will seek all damages, if any, and punitive damages regardless of any credit damages which you warn about in your letter.

I am requesting that you immediately contact the Archuleta County Recorder office and have them remove this lien and copy me on your correspondence to that affect. If this is not accomplished, I will seek legal remedy. I will also use all my IMF records in a court trial regarding the attempted $500 extortion, with a jury, and this will be publicly declared and fought.

You have made a determination that the information previously given to you is frivolous and you purport to impose a "Civil Penalty" against me, under 26 USC 6702, via the lien against my property. Pursuant to 44 USC 1501(a), the Federal Register Act, the law requires that any order, regulation, or rule that prescribes a penalty must be published in the Federal Register. Would you please provide me with the volume, date, and page number of the Federal Register where the regulation supporting your proposed penalty is located?

Your Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), which is reflective of the ruling case law on this subject, states that your agency lacks authority to issue a civil penalty without a judgment:


Only filing a suit in the name of the United States, naming the taxpayer as a defendant and securing a judgment, may impose the civil penalty for non-compliance.

Unless the IRS has filed a suit in the name of the United States and secured a judgment against Jeffrey T. Maehr, no authorization exists for any determination, assessment, (Courts have held that an unsigned substitute return such as those typically filed by the IRS when a 1040 return has not been filed " no return at all." (Vaira v. C.I.R., 444 F.2d, citing Dixon v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 388); "Since the 'returns' prepared by the IRS contained no information from which a tax could be determined, they were not returns" (U.S. v. Verkuilen, 82-2 U.S.T.C., Schiff v. Commissioner, U.S.T.C. 1984 223) or enforcement of collections against me for any Civil Penalty. I hereby demand that you send me a copy of the lawsuit filed in the name of the United States naming Jeffrey T. Maehr as a defendant, along with a copy of the court order and judgment in favor of the United States against me. This demand is made pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, which states in part:

5 USC 551 et seq., particularly Section 556(d).

Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.... A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

To proceed further after this notice or attempt to enforce collections against me, will be considered as a failure to adhere to agency regulations, which may amount to a denial of due process of law if the regulations are required, by the constitution or a statute. See Curley v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 52 (1992); U.S. Constitution, Article V and Amendment XIV. As a matter of law, it appears that authority is lacking for 26 USC 6702, as there is no implementing regulation supporting it. For the Internal Revenue Service to impose any civil penalty(s) with respect to Subtitle A taxes against me, the code must be supported by a Title 26 implementing regulation.

The burden of proof in this matter is now upon the Secretary as provided by the following:

26 USC 6703. Rules applicable to penalties under sections 6700, 6701, and 6702.

(a) Burden of proof.

In any proceeding involving the issue of whether or not any person is liable for a penalty under section 6700, 6701, or 6702, the burden of proof with respect to such issue shall be on the Secretary.

According to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Section 1203, titled Termination of Employment for Misconduct, IRS employees must be charged with misconduct and terminated if it is found that IRS agents are violating IRS policies including the Internal Revenue Manual and regulations. If further disregard for my rights is continued, I will be forced to file a complaint with the Treasury Inspector General.

Based upon all of the foregoing, until you have provided copies of the documents requested, you have no authority to demand a Civil Penalty against me, as its application and enforcement lacks authority in law, and therefore, any lien against my property is also lacking legal authority.

You will also note that tax records constitute records about debts owed, and that the Internal Revenue Service must comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act codified in 15 U.S.C., Chapter 41, Subchapter V. This Act requires in 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a), among other things, that the debt collection has an obligation to validate any imputed debts. Tax debts constitute "debts" for the purposes of this provision. The validation demanded within this correspondence shall consist of the original IRS Form 23C assessment (See Attachment D) Certificate for all imputed penalty and tax assessments appearing in my Individual Master File.

This is a demand for you to cease and desist all collection action against me, until I have received the aforementioned documents. Please respond to these issues within twenty (20) days from delivery of this notice on a point-by-point basis so we may settle this disputed matter as soon as possible. I have also attached a Test for Federal Tax Professionals. This further supports many position and you are expected to rebut the information contained in it if you do not agree with the findings and conclusions draw in this affidavit. Your denial to answer any of the questions will be deemed as your admission to facts contain and a default will be filed against you, forever stopping you from any further collection activities.

I look forward to a speedy response.

Jeffrey T. Maehr
without prejudice

CC: Colorado Attorney General
Riggs, Abney Law Firm


June 29, 2005 Certified Return Receipt Request # 7000 1670 0001 1568 1988

Marvin Otero
Internal Revenue Service SSN#: - - - - - - - - -
P.O. Box 145585 RE: Jeffrey T. Maehr
Stop 8420G Subject: Frivolous Penalty
Cincinnati, OH 45250-5585 Tax Period(s): 12/31/2002

Under the Freedom of Information Act, and after contacting the District Court in Denver, I am requesting copies of the following documents which the District Court stated you should have and must provide if the lien filed by the IRS is legal. These records were NOT filed with the County Recorder and were NOT on file with the District Court or Secretary of State:

1. A federal Judge's signature on the said lien.

2. A 23c, Record of Assessment form, (or Form 4340), signed by an IRS officer.

3. Form 66, A through E.

Please forward these copies to the following address:

Jeff Maehr
924 E. Stollsteimer Rd
Pagosa Springs, Colo [81147]

I am also providing the enclosed "Demand for verification Evidence of Lawful Assessment," with legal code authorizations as provided by law.

I look forward to your response within the allotted legal time frame in which to respond.

Jeffrey T. Maehr


John W. Suthers
Colorado Attorney General
1525 Sherman St., 5th floor
Denver, CO 80203

Riggs, Abney Law Firm, Denver, CO


Jeffrey T. Maehr
ID - - - - - - - - - (no longer active)
924 E. Stollsteimer Rd
Pagosa Springs, CO 81147
Phone: 970-731-9724

Cert Mail# 7004 1160 0000 8685 1797

October 28, 2005

Internal Revenue Service
Legal Staff of District Director
P.O. Box 5758
Farmington, NM 87401


STATE OF Colorado

(COUNTY OF Archuleta)

Affiant, having first hand knowledge concerning the facts contained herein, provides this Verified Affidavit of Default to David Rehbein of the Internal Revenue Service. Affiant hereby deposes and states the facts as stated herein and attests that this Affidavit is true, correct, and complete.

1. That the affiant, Jeffrey T. Maehr, did mail to the Internal Revenue Service Affidavit(s), via certified mail, dated May 11, 2005, June 29, 2005 and July 5, 2005, to Marvin Otero, IRS agent, address listed as P.O. Box 145585, STOP 8420G, Cincinnati, OH 45250-5585. These affidavits included reference to documents included in my Individual Master File (IMF) and a legal claim of no tax liability.

2. Said Affidavit(s) by Agency as evidenced by Certified mail receipt number's 7004 1160 0000 8685 5443, 7000 1670 0001 1568 1988 and 7005 0390 0005 6810 8853 respectively.

3. No response by the Internal Revenue Service, or any other lawfully delegated representative of the said Agency and/or department has ever been received refuting the claims made in the aforesaid Affidavits or prior documentation added to my IMF.

4. The Internal Revenue Service was granted 45 days in which to respond to the facts stated in the Affidavit(s) and did not refute them during that time period, thereby "defaulting."

Default having occurred, whereas the Internal Revenue Service employee(s) failed to respond to said Affidavit(s), the following facts are hereby established in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code, section 1-205:

1. Divestiture, dispositive facts are established by the Internal Revenue Service, respecting facts stated in said Affidavit(s), wherein they had the opportunity and "failed to plead," and thereby have extinguished the right to proceed against Claimant in this matter.

2. The facts and claims are contained within the said Affidavit(s) are considered accurate, as they have not been rebutted, by counter-affidavit, by someone competent to know the law, within the forty five (45) days required. All matters not denied are affirmed.

3. Agency/Department failed to issue or maintain documents as required in response to said affidavit.

4. Internal Revenue Service, by defaulting to the said Affidavit(s) has been deemed to have waived all rights allegedly claimed against _____________________(your name) respecting unlawful assessment or collection of alleged taxes or penalties owed for said tax years and agrees to refund all taxes paid and waive right of collection for any back taxes.

The following is a by no means complete summary of the facts established by failure of the Internal Revenue Service to respond to all the issues and claims made in said Affidavit:

1. Fiduciary Duty

1.1. Employees of the Internal Revenue Service have a fiduciary relationship with the citizens that they serve and are agents of a public trust.

1.2. This fiduciary relationship establishes an obligation to act in the best interests of the public at large, and for the general welfare of the citizens they serve and to put the interests of the public above their own private interests and the government agency that they work for..

1.3. It is in the best interests of the citizens that they serve for them to be well-informed about the legal basis justifying their tax liability so that it can be fully and promptly satisfied.

1.4. Said Affidavit fully and completely identified the responsibilities and liabilities of said citizen according to the years of research conducted by affiant and hundreds of other learned tax professionals, including CPA's and at least three tax attorneys.

1.5. An opportunity to satisfy the burden of proof imposed on the Internal Revenue Service as the moving party to demonstrate tax liability of affiant and the inaccuracies of his findings was afforded by said Affidavit to the IRS.

1.6. The IRS failed to refute the claims of the affiant and failed to respond to said Affidavit and legal notice, and thereby established and determined the extent of the legal tax liabilities of the affiant, which are thereby established as "not liable and due a full refund" for the years in question.

2. Jurisdiction

2.1. Affiant is not a "person" in the context of the Internal Revenue Code.

2.2. N/A

2.3. Affiant does not live in the "United States" defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9).

2.4. The Internal Revenue Service and the federal government have no jurisdiction under the Constitution to enforce or impose direct taxes on natural persons outside of federal enclaves and inside the sovereign 50 states. This restriction is imposed by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution and these restrictions were NOT removed by passage of the Sixteenth Amendment.

2.6. Subtitles A through C income taxes are considered indirect taxes according to the Internal Revenue Service. Indirect taxes are taxes on other than natural persons.

2.7. The Internal Revenue Service has no authority to overrule the determinations of the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of Subtitles A through C income taxes as indirect excise taxes.

2.8. The "United States" is defined in the Fourteenth Amendment as the territory over which the sovereignty of the "United States" extends, which includes only the District of Columbia, enclaves within the states, and other territories and possessions of the United States.

2.9. The United States Treasury Secretary has no delegated authority to impose or enforce "direct taxes" upon citizens living in the 50 states.

2.10. The Department of Justice has no delegated authority to defend IRS agents against criminal prosecution for wrongdoing in connection with the administration of the Internal Revenue Code.

2.11. The Department of Justice has no delegated authority to civilly or criminally prosecute Americans Citizens living inside the 50 states for noncompliance with I.R.C. Subtitles A through C income taxes.

2.12. "U.S. citizen" status, which is one of the prerequisites of income tax liability found in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, means 14th Amendment citizenship and birth or naturalization in the federal United States (areas over which the federal government is sovereign).

2.13. The status of being a "U.S. national" rather than a "U.S. citizen" relieves persons from federal tax liability under "U.S. citizen" status.

2.14. The word "includes" (See Attachment F)as used throughout the Internal Revenue Code is a word of limitation and not enlargement. The purpose for using it is to restrict rather than enlarge the definition of a word to the terms it introduces. Any other interpretation of the word constitutes a violation of due process of law, an illegal and unconstitutional enlargement of federal jurisdiction, and a satisfaction of the Supreme Court's "void vagueness" doctrine in the context of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

2.15 The affiant is neither a "citizen" nor a "resident" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code, because of his declared status as both a "U.S. national" and a "nonresident alien".

3. Income Tax Liability

3.1. The Internal Revenue Code "imposes" a tax in section 1, but "imposing" the tax does not make a person liable or specify the situs under which a person is liable.

3.2. There is no code section anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code that makes a natural person such as myself liable for the payment of Federal personal income taxes.

3.3. "Gross income" means income derived from whatever source derived.

3.4. The IRS have no constitutional authority to define income as other than corporate profits, and no authority to define "income" at all. Only the U.S. Constitution can define income.

3.5. "Income" as properly defined by the U.S. Supreme Court means "corporate profit".

3.6. Affiant is not a corporation and has no corporate profit.

3.7. 26 U.S.C. Section 863 provides a means of allocating gross income to specific sources that are taxable based on the location where they were derived. There is no other authority for allocating items of gross income to specific taxable sources.

3.8. 26 CFR 1.863-1 identifies how to determine taxable income from specific sources within or without the United States.

3.9. The legal authority for determining the taxability of a source of income (not an item of gross income, but a source or situs of income) is 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)

3.10. 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) defines income that is not considered tax exempt. This section does not list the income of most American Citizens. Therefore, affiant is exempt from federal income tax.

3.11. Affiant is not a "taxpayer" within the context of Subtitles A through C or the California Revenue and Taxation Code because no liability for the payment of such income taxes has been or can be demonstrated.

3.12. The IRS has no authority to exercise levy or distraint against American Citizens in connection with payment of Subtitles A through C federal income taxes. The enforcement codes found in Subtitle F do not have any implementing regulations that apply distraint for enforcement of Subtitles A through C income taxes.

3.13. IRS has no authority to assess an American with a Subtitle A through C income tax liability. Only the Citizen can assess himself with an income tax liability. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court said in the case of Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 that: "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." Voluntary assessment means self assessment in this case.

3.14. The IRS does not have in their possession a valid assessment. All self-assessments have already been invalidated, which means that all monies paid in taxes for the years in question must be returned to the affiant.

3.15. 26 USC 31.3121(e) is the only place in the Internal Revenue Code or 26 CFR where the term "citizen of the United States" or "U.S. citizen" is defined.

3.16. The IRS has no lawful authority to violate the Constitutional rights of the affiant.

3.17. The Internal Revenue Service has no evidence in their position that proves that the affiant is a "U.S. citizen" subject to the taxes "imposed" in I.R.C. Section 1.

3.18. The revenue officer in receipt of the questions does not have an enforcement pocket commission and therefore has no lawful authority to institute distraint against the affiant.

3.19. Income means "corporate profit" according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

3.20. Affiant is not a federal corporation subject to the federal income tax.

3.21. The federal income tax authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment is an indirect tax on federally chartered corporate privileges.

3.22. IRS has no lawful authority to define the term "income" and only the U.S. Constitution can define it.

3.23. To have "gross income,"one must have income from federally chartered corporate activities, which the affiant does not.

3.24. The only definition of the term "individual" found anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code or 26 CFR appears in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).

3.25. A person who fills out a 1040 form by law must either be an alien or a nonresident alien under 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3).

3.26. A person cannot be a "U.S. citizen" and an "individual" at the same time because they are mutually exclusive, based on the definition of "individual" found in 26 CFR 1.1441(c )(3).

3.27. Only "aliens" as defined in 26 CFR 1.1441-1(c )(3) are required to fill out and submit IRS form 1040. Nonresident aliens are supposed to use the IRS form 1040NR and not the 1040.

3.28. U.S. citizens are not required by law to complete or file any income tax form, including the 1040 or the 1040NR.

4. Penalties and criminal enforcement jurisdiction

4.1. The only "persons" against whom penalties may be instituted under Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code are defined in 26 CFR 301.6671-1(b), which are defined as officers or employees of corporations or members or employees of partnerships.

4.2. Affiant is not the "person" against whom penalties can be levied under Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code.

4.3. There are no implementing regulations for the Internal Revenue Code Section 1 income tax that authorize the imposition of penalties against anyone for refusing to pay these taxes.

4.4. The only authority to impose civil penalties by the IRS is through filing suit in federal court. Liens and levies may not be used against American Citizens to collect penalties.

4.5. Our tax system is voluntary. Penalties can't be applied for noncompliance because it is voluntary.

4.6. All documents submitted with tax returns constitute compelled testimony. Because the testimony is compelled and submitted under duress, it is not admissible as evidence in a court of law because it was illegally obtained as per the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).

4.7. The imposition of penalties for refusing to communicate with the government on a tax return is a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech of the affiant.

4.8. The IRS has no delegation of authority order authorizing them to compel the affiant to commit fraud on his tax return.

4.9. The Fourth Amendment right of privacy is unlawfully infringed by the tax laws, in that maintaining one's privacy by not declaring deductions results in an additional tax assessment. Such an addition tax assessment amounts to a penalty for the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is unconstitutional.

4.10. A "tax shelter" is defined an investment which reduces the existing tax liability of a "taxpayer" and which is registered as an investment security with appropriate Federal and State authorities.

4.11. A "tax shelter" is an "abusive tax shelter" only if it is sold or marketed or promoted to a "taxpayer".

4.12. The affiant does not sell or promote "tax shelters" as they are defined in 26 U.S.C. 6111 and 26 U.S.C. 6112. The government is not in possession of any evidence that would suggest otherwise, because they were asked for such evidence and did not provide any.

4.13. Even if a "person" were selling, promoting, or marketing an investment that could be legally described as a "tax shelter,"that investment could not be legally described as an "abusive tax shelter" if it were sold only to persons who claimed that they were "nontaxpayers" and not liable for the tax in question.

5. Collections

5.1. Only elected or appointed officials of the United States government are the proper subject of an IRS levy.

5.2. Affiant is not a proper or lawful object of an IRS levy.

5.3. Seizure of property to satisfy tax debts can only lawfully occur if it is ordered by a neutral and disinterested magistrate.

5.4. The IRS issues Notices of Levy without proper orders from a magistrate. Therefore, such notices cannot be a legal or lawful means of seizing or obtaining property in satisfaction of alleged tax debts. Only a court order provides legitimate authority to seize property under the Fourth Amendment. Use of such notices constitutes extortion under the color of office, fraud, and subjects the issuing person to personal criminal liability.

5.5. In the context of a Notice of Deficiency, there is not legal basis or delegated authority to establish a tax liability absent a valid self-assessment by the affected Citizen.

5.6. IRS has no lawful authority to send out a Notice of Deficiency absent a valid self-assessment.

5.7. IRS has no legal authority to call affiant a "taxpayer" because they have not demonstrated tax liability.

5.8. 26 CFR 301.6303-1 is not a legislative regulation, but a procedural regulation, and therefore may not be used to institute collection actions or distraint against American Citizens.

6. Employment Tax Withholding

6.1. The affiant does not meet the definition of "employee" to which IRC Subtitle C employment taxes may be applied.

6.2. All employment taxes deducted from one's pay are treated legally as gifts to the U.S. government and fall into tax class 5. The reason is for this is that a valid assessment is not done until the Citizen voluntarily assesses himself by filing a tax return.

6.3. IRS has no legal or Constitutional authority to tell private employers to withhold at the single zero rate absent consent from the Citizen and is committing fraud and extortion under the color of office in doing so.

6.4. The affiant does not earn "wages" as they are defined in 26 U.S.C. 3401(a) because he is not an "employee" as that term is defined in 26 CFR 31.3401(c ).

7. Social Security

7.1. The term "United States" in the context of Social Security means the federal government only, which consists of the District of Columbia, the federal enclaves inside the 50 states, and other portions of the "federal zone" subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government under Article 1, section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

7.2. The term "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means the exclusive sovereign jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

7.3. The federal government does not have exclusive jurisdiction or sovereignty over the 50 states of the union but it does have such jurisdiction over Washington, D.C. and U.S. territories.

7.4. Persons "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth" as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment means that they do not have full constitutional protections and the Bill Of Rights that private citizens in the 50 states who are not U.S. citizens have.

7.5. The SS-5 does not provide a wide range of citizenship choices. Only "U.S. citizen" (e.g. 14th Amendment citizen).

7.6. The SS-5 form does not define the term "U.S. citizen".

7.7. Declaring one's self to be a "U.S. citizen" on an SS-5 form subjects a person to the exclusive sovereign jurisdiction of the U.S. government no matter where they live.

7.8. SS-5 form does not warn natural persons completing it that they are surrendering their constitutional rights and therefore constitutes fraud.

Based on the above, all collection activities are illegal and violation of my rights under law and must cease immediately.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746(1), I do hereby attest and affirm, under the penalties of perjury from without the "United States,"under the laws of the United States of America that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above Affidavit is true, correct, and complete.


All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207

Jeffrey T. Maehr
sovereign individual, UCC-1 filed and accepted by Colorado and Iowa Secretary of State offices.

October 31, 2005

David Rehbein
P.O. Box 5787
Stop: 5313FAR
Farmington, NM 87401

Dear Mr. Rehbein,

This is a follow up F.O.I.A. request to previous documents provided you, for the following information in response to your "Notice of Levy" received by me and my bank on 10-27-2005.

I am requesting the Original lien and the 'non master file record' under Treasury system of records 26.009 for the assessments related to all collection activity.

Also, section 6751 of the IR Code requires that a document containing at least two signatures is

required in order for the frivolous penalty to be imposed, which penalty you are now trying to extort from me.

Also, IRC 6751(b) requires that all penalties assessed after June 30, 2001, must first be personally approved in writing by either the immediate supervisor of the individual making the determination or a designated higher level official. See IRM

Demand To Cease and Desist Collection Activities

Prior To Validation of Purported Debt

This constitutes legal notice under federal law that regulates the activities of collection agencies and their representatives.

You are hereby notified, under the provisions of Public Law 95-109, Section 805-C, THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT to hereby Cease and Desist in any and all attempts to collect the above alleged debt.

Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, 15 U.S.C.A. sections 1601.1692 et al., this constitutes my timely written notice that I am not liable for and have disputed the alleged debt to the collection agency and they have failed to respond or rebut my statements. The alleged debt was presented under false and fraudulent representation by an alleged agent in a defective Notice Of Levy.

15 USC section 1692(e) states that a "false, deceptive, and misleading representation, in connection with the collection of any debt" includes the false representation of the character or legal status of any debt. I have no liability for the alleged debt, the agent has not verified the alleged debt, and there is no judgment for the alleged debt.

Said Notice contains false, deceptive, and misleading representations, and allegations intended to pervert the truth for the purpose of inducing you, in reliance upon such, to cause me to part with property belonging to me and to surrender certain substantive legal and substantive rights, whereby causing injury to me.

Pursuant to 15 USC section 1692(g) (4), Validation of Debts, you are required to present any evidence that the alleged debt is valid and does not constitute fraudulent misrepresentation by the alleged agent and the Notice Of Levy. You have 15 days to present such evidence or affidavits that the alleged debt is valid. If you cannot verify the alleged debt, I demand that you turn all property or money over to me, which you are holding pursuant to the Validation of Debt.

Third Party Checklist For Validation Of Debt, with request for answers to questions, and copies of all related validating documents.

1. Is there a copy of a court ordered Warrant Of Distraint?

2. Is there a copy of a verified levy, giving authority to the Notice Of Levy?

3. Has the alleged agent signed the Notice Of Levy?

4. Is there a printed name of the agent accompanying the signature?

5. If one agent signs for another agent, is there a power of attorney to act as a representative, on file?

6. Is there an address of the alleged agent on the Notice Of Levy?

7. If the agent has cited IRC section 6331 as authority to levy, has the agent included paragraph (a) of 6331 on the notice and/or verify that I am a federal employee?

8. If the agent has cited IRC section 6321 as authority to lien or levy, has the agent verified that I am engaged in the sale of alcohol, tobacco, or firearm, subject to levy under 27 CFR 6321?

9. Has the agent verified that he has a delegation order from the Secretary of the Treasury, authorizing him to take enforcement actions under subtitle A or C of the Internal Revenue Code?

10. Has the agent identified his title correctly as being authorized by IRC section 7608 to take collection actions under any subtitle other than subtitle E?

11. Has the agent presented a copy of a Warrant Of Distraint ordered by a court?

Please forward copies of these documents as soon as possible, and prior to the deadline for the "Notice of Levy" received by my bank recently.

This is also placing you on notice as a party to the fraudulent attempt to extort finances from my financial institution. Documents provided to Commercial Federal bank are enclosed for your review. Your signature on the letter requesting payment of the alleged amount owed provides material proof that you are an accomplice in this illegal and unconstitutional action.

UCC1-207, without prejudice

Jeffrey T. Maehr
924 E. Stollsteimer Rd.,
Pagosa Springs, Colorado [81147]
SSN: - - - - - - - - -


The IRS persisted in its illegal and unconstitutional actions even after being placed on notice multiple times.

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.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 63 > 1344
Bank fraud

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution; or

(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretence, representations, or promises; shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, Copyright © 2006-2008 All rights reserved.