A Reply to the IRS

Hey you, “Taxpayer“…

Related Resources: AVR #73 “Public Notice…”,

---

DISCLAIMER: The following is opinion and is neither intended as advise nor any recommended strategy for use by anyone other than this author. I post the actions I have taken myself for review, education, and discussion on a website purposed to those ends. “We the People” of the united States of America are meant to be “self-governing”. I can only govern myself and that property and the chattels which belong to me. What any other American or “U.S. Citizen” and federal property interest chooses to do is their own choice for which they alone bear full responsibility.

---

We each bear the right of self-determination. With such right I and others among the States Assemblies have declared and corrected their political status back to such status which they held on the day of their nativity. Such “State Nationals” can make the following claims. “U.S. Citizens”, who consent to federal government association, can use some of the principles here, but proceed carefully. As U.S. Citizens, however, you may still be subject to federal jurisdiction, especially if dragged into the federal court system as it is currently being run.

My directives to the Secretary of the Treasury to settle accounts and correct for the entity “JOHN QUINCY PUBLIC” [sample all CAPS assigned vessel] accompanying form 56 were answered by means of a letter from the district director of the IRS letting me know that my “frivolous claims” are likely to be defeated by their federal courts as has been done in the past. It only took them nineteen [19] months to get around to responding to my directives.

What I know, that the “button pusher” at the government desk who treats every case with the same disdain and lack of respect because nobody stands up to their assumed “authority” may NOT know, is this:

• Title 26, and the rest of “United States Code” is foreign to my declared status, and therefore i stand without their jurisdiction
• the “law” to which the agent refers is not “LAW”, but statute, without jurisdiction
• Title 26 refers to “persons” or “PERSONS”, which may not likely refer to “you”
• valuable consideration you receive by “trade” for goods or service in private, has nothing to do with government’s regulation of “interstate commerce”. Goods and services offered to the public, or commerce among corporate entities, are a different matter.

In addition, I realize his threats are hollow because:

• federal courts are not the “people’s courts” (non-Article III court of record)
• these are run by the BAR Association as “private guild meetings” for profit
• such courts have no jurisdiction over people, men and women, as “living souls”
• these courts summon “JOHN QUINCY PUBLIC”, a fictitious entity which isn’t “you”.
• such court summons are “offers to contract” which need not be accepted
• while you need not accept their offer to contract, you MUST properly respond!

Therefore, defending against such hollow aggression and presumption is fairly simple (but not easy) when organized around a few rather obvious points. A straight path, but steep grade up the mountain.

The letter below [redacted] is posted as an example for your review, learning, and comments. It is a scan of the actual letter sent to the regional IRS agent. I do NOT recommend simply copying and pasting the content. Rather, learn the touchstones by which I turn their assumption and presumption to hold me to their agenda, because these are trespasses made in error!

I use these obvious errors to paint the “officer” [a post with an area of responsibility] into a corner, stating the truth of the matter with citing and reference, adding “… additional time further explaining my status, my rights, or defending such position…” will result in billing your office and such “U.S. Person” in their private capacity along with charges for the United States Code violations which they are likely trespassing; which I also listed for their convenience. This is no responsive threat, but a redress of grievance and information on which to base a claim for remedy! The officer is offered both notice of the errors and opportunity to correct.

Why? Because the people working for government can commit fraud and felonies as often as they breathe in and out. Such government employees don’t tend to thoughtfully consider the “patterns, policy, and practices” (a Monell claim) they are pursuing, hence they tend to be “button pushers” (Alphonse). They show up for work and do what they’re told… actions which aren’t always “lawful”, routinely trespassing people’s rights, without the people standing to lawfully refute their actions. And so the abuse continues unabated by means of ignorance (lack of information) on both sides.

NOTE: Mobile users will have a better experience downloading the images (~150-350kb each) and viewing them enlarged. Desktop computer users will have a better experience either opening each image to it’s own tab (R-Click, “open image in new tab”) or by downloading each image and viewing them separately.

Analysis: the IRS utterance

How do we arrive at the reasoning in our response?

And If not “of the U.S.”, then to what “Treasury” is the “IRS” subservient to? What organization is this “Treasury” the treasury for? And if NOT an agency of American “government” in association with the “fifty several states”, or contractors to such, who then is behind this?

Is not the IRS an agent for revenue collection, allied with INTERPOL, under the authority (if any authority truly exists) of the United Nations? Is this an undeclared foreign agent (enemy combatant) aggressing peaceful civilians (assault) under color of law (fraud) in a time of national emergency (read as: “war footing”). Sounds very much like “war crimes” to me.

“correspondence received”: the declaration and directive I issued to the Secretary of the Treasury along with IRS form 56 addressing the correction of the fraudulently established vessel “JOHN QUINCY PUBLIC” [example].

“no basis in law”: the assumption made is that the U.S. Code is “LAW” rather than statute and corporate by-law which only applies to those over which its authors may lawfully claim authority. The arguments against such to which the agent’s letter refers are likely raised by “U.S. Citizens”, a class of “federal citizen” either employee, subject, or dependent of federal government. “You control what you create” (a maxim of LAW), and the federal government has created the status “U.S. Citizen”.

“reputable tax practitioner or attorney”: these agents of government, licensed either by government (tax pro) or the originating infection with government (BAR Associations) are internal to the corrupt system. The stance and standing taken in the response is that “I stand outside of any such jurisdiction” having elected status other than “U.S. Citizen” and federal property interest. There is no reason to consult agents of a corrupt system from which I have disassociated and which bears no authority over me.

“legal duties”: Primarily, without jurisdiction, bearing status outside the jurisdiction from which this speaks, there is no “legal duty” which they can press. In addition, that which is “legal” is only written, with statutes, ordinance, and code only applying to whom it is written to address and over whom it’s authors bear any authority. None of which is true for a “non-resident alien” who is no longer a “U.S. Citizen”.

“Internal Revenue Code”: referred to is part and portion of the statutes, ordinance, and code established for federal public officials, elected officials, employees, and dependents of federal government. None of which apply to those holding “non-resident alien” status. So, the examination of “books, papers, records, or data” without express permission and consent is trespass upon private property. Summons likewise only pertain to federal property interests as “federal citizens” within a court system which has no authority to achieve parity with “the living”. These can only summon corporations, corporate agents, and “the dead”, deal with the contractual agreements among them, as fictitious entities created and existing only upon paper. None of this applies to “man” on land and soil jurisdiction.

“encourage others”: I encourage you nor anyone else to do any thing. I simply post the actions I have taken myself for review, education, and discussion. See the above disclaimer. Americans are to be “self-governing”. I can only govern myself and that property and chattels which belong to me. What any other American or “U.S. Citizen” and federal property interest chooses to do is solely up to them.

If there is no compliance from the source office for required public information, you can expect to see the following listed in a formal claim for remedy. Upon review, a grand jury is empowered to issue indictments to answer charges for such actions. Be careful in all communication; as a litigant, an affiant, or testator we can only state facts, review actions, and compare them to existing statutes which exist to govern the actions of our public servants. With everyone due their “day in court”, it isn’t up to us to levy accusation; just state the facts. Their errors and trespasses are rather obvious:

• 18 USC §241: Conspiracy Against Rights
• 18 USC §876(d): Mailing threatening communications
• 18 USC §878(c): Threats and extortion against…internationally protected persons
• 18 USC §1503: defines obstruction of justice to include, “by any threatening letter or communication”
• 18 USC §1589: Forced Labor, specifically (a)(1) and (a)(3)
• 22 USC §7102: for definition of “coercion”, especially:
  (3)(A): threats of serious harm to or physical restraint* against any person
  (3)(B): scheme, plan, or pattern intended to [foster belief] that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint*
  (3)(C): the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process
  *”imprisonment” would be “physical restraint”.
• 42 USC §3617: Interference, coercion, or intimidation
  

Title 26 of the United States Code”: applies to those for whom it was written, and not to “non-resident aliens” who have elected a status apart from “U.S. Citizen” status; who thereby disassociate with the federal government as the “United States”, “The United States of America”, and the “District of Columbia”, each a government service corporation. Therefore, I reason none of Title 26 applies. That statement stands un-rebutted.

IRC Section 6702(a): “a person shall pay”… It is easy enough to substantiate that I, a man and living soul, am no “person”, nor “PERSON”, the office willingly assumed which bears a scope of authority, and addressing me with such titles without my consent is a trespass and assault upon my private property.

I contend, by established state statute, the means by which public official bonds proceed, that such information is “due upon demand”. Likewise with an officers “oath of office”, if one exists for the given office. Neglecting to provide it is likely a malfeasance or non-performance of the office and “vacates” such office leaving the man in his private capacity outside the scope and authority of such office and subject to answer in their private capacity.
see 42 USC §1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights

As for specific information identifying the responsible associated IRS office, the officer lists on his letterhead the non-descript information. Asking for a clarification and fully transparent specification of this information which originated from his office is the officer’s responsibility. And don’t miss the fact that this utterance did not issue from an “Internal Revenue Service” or “IRS” office, apparently, but from something calling itself, “Frivolous Return Prog.”, whatever that is. My question: “who gave birth to this bastardization of authority and miscarriage of justice?”

According to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution(s), our right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” is protected and guaranteed. I’d like to know precisely who this “person” is that is making such assumptions and so frivolously throwing threats at me through the United States Postal Service. [insert mic-drop here]

“questions”: an invitation to call a number, whereby you are offering consent for this process. I offer no consent to this process nor the organization which sponsors such. These have nothing to offer which pertains to my living being or my chosen political status; which I believe they likely know absolutely nothing about.

“write”: again, a consent… I openly refute their claim for any “authority”

“offer to use your phone number”: also a consent and offer of your authority to participate in their process and system.

“Sincerely yours” accompanied by the officer’s name and signature. While that is a step in the correct direction, many government offices signing their uttered directives with the name of their organization rather than the man or woman acting within the scope of authority of such office, as for example: “Sincerely yours, the Internal Revenue Service”. By this means the officer is also taking credit for all the errors contained in this utterance. Not a good place to be standing considering the potential for error and trespass if that officer presses forward with such presumption in error.

“Enclosures”: are more government garbage for “U.S. Citizens” as property interest of the federal government which has nothing to do with “non-resident aliens”, “foreign nationals”, and “State Nationals” of a jurisdiction foreign to the “United States”, “The United States of America”, or the “District of Columbia”.

“the law provides”: the “law” of which he continues to refer are the statutes, ordinance, and code of a government service contractor, corporate bylaws which apply to its own elected officials, appointed officials, employees, and dependents as “U.S. Citizens”.

“criminal prosecution”: a bold-faced threat without jurisdiction, outlined in the response as: a mismatch of status: corporation to man (two sentient parties competent to contract), and a cross into jurisdiction of land and soil where neither this officer, his organization, his likely for-profit enterprise, the parent corporation, nor IT’s parents be they the “United States”, “The United States of America”, or the “District of Columbia”, each a governmental service corporation, bear any jurisdictional authority.

“delay a refund”: as if I were required to file, and a threat of “we’ll hold value which we know belongs to you (refund) hostage”

“Interest may be charged”: more threats of levying “fines” where they have no authority to levy them. These only proceed and succeed because people, ignorant of their rights, don’t question nor resist such tyranny; nor do they understand a return to the original status of their nativity so that they can stand to resist such.

30 day Follow-up

The officer or agent issued the originating communication to me, I did not contact him, I did not petition his input nor his assistance. He therefore bears responsibility for that which he “uttered”. In his communication he assumes certain authority and presumes my “status”, errors for which I offered him correction in the first response.

Associated with his initial utterance, is the responsibility to justify his “standing” by which he can claim the authority he is professing, along with the “threats” issued therein. To be valid, such manifestation of penalty or due process would need to be issued to one over which the authority from whence it originates is valid. To answer such claims, the recipient, or perhaps respondent, needs further information, an action which might be called “discovery”. In my correspondence, I assert the fact, “you contacted me…”. With that action comes some significant responsibility. I afforded the “agent” 30 days to produce proof.

I requested several items of information, two in my initial response, and the remainder in the follow up; each which I believe to have a lawful right to request as a portion of the officer’s responsibility to their office:

• a copy of their oath of office, the authority by which they act
  (a copy of the “standard operating procedure” for his post; I missed this one…)
• a copy of the public official bond, indemnity and surety honoring their office
  (a guarantee of remedy for errors committed in office)
• a clarification of the parent organization for the enterprise from which he “utters”
  (what the heck is a “Frivolous Return Prog.” anyway?)
• the officers complete lawful given name, that they can be addressed “lawfully”
• I could also likely require a copy of the “directive” the agent received to initiate this action, see who initiated it (likely the Treasury Secretary or their staff), and the grounds upon which they proceed.

When this information, lawfully requested with a deadline, is not received within the time afforded, clearly stated, I have a grievance and can stand for remedy for trespass of my rights to public information requested of a public official. That public official, having neglected the responsibilities of their office, has “vacated” such office and would then stand outside any protection or immunity of such office. While in office, the officer must remain “lawful” or they are no longer within their “scope of authority”, in which case they stand outside the protection of their office, subject to liability in their private capacity. [42 USC §1983]

No public officer, elected, appointed, or “dropped on a rock and hatched by the sun” has ever been granted any authority to “damage the people” without due process of law.

– dp

As this matter proceeds, I’ll update this post as an item for discussion and further education. I hope the information serves you well.

LEARN MORE:

To learn more about changing your status and the historical events, information, and process involved:

VISIT the homepage on this site, at:
https://wtpuninc.wordpress.com/
and click the [LEARN MORE] button.