Quatloos! > Tax Scams > Tax Protestors > EXHIBIT: Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases

Tax Protestor Cases Exhibit
("Damn, We Lost Again! And why is it that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")

---

Dear xxx, xxx, and xxx:

This is my firm promise to promptly donate ($)10,000.00 to the Free Congress Foundation
717 Second Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 immediately upon confirming that Mr. O'Drudy or any associate of his has furnished me competent evidence for the following:

 1) Congress has pursuant to US I, 8, 18 provided for courts in the States of the union and given them authority to adjudicate the internal revenue laws of the United States.

2) Congress has authorized the Attorney General to prosecute offenses against the United States.

3) The federal income tax as generally applied in the 50 States is anything more than a proposition or plan suggested for acceptance.

4) The court of the United States authorized and empowered to enforce the F.OI.A. (I'm in Calif.) 

5) The Article III court for the United States having original jurisdiction for my claim against State of California employees for false imprisonment and other claims (this is not barred by the 11th Amendment as the State of California is not a State of the union and I am no one of its citizens).

6) Reasons why the matters I claim to be settled by default to the Right to Petition attachments (summarized below) are not matters for mandatory judicial notice to judge and to jury in court. Upon notice that you accept this offer I will mail you this agreement over my signature. -JS As stated in reply to quatloos.com (of the fraud buster web site) in reply to information on the Henderson case:

The highest officials of the United States are with conclusive admission to the following with 26 and 12 and more business days opportunity to refute by post. Key members of Congress condone this silence and accordingly admit and confess that these matters are absolutely true. Specifically the United States is with the conclusive and voluntary admissions that 26 USC 861 means contrary to the meaning attributed to 861 by Attorney Donald Dorfman and concurred to by Judge Burrell.

Please note that the United States is not with compliance with its duty for the response to the F.O.I.A. requests. On matter pertaining to the authority for liens and levys by the IRS in California the Secretary is not with his duty for over six months.

If commissions for the USDC judges and the Clerk for San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose cannot be produced it stands to reason  commissions for Judge Burrell and the clerk for Sacramento can not be produced.

You are interested that truth prevail (you are dedicated to the abatement of frauds); will you please inform me of the court that possesses the lawful authority to compel compliance to the dated F.O.I.A. requests?

Can you provide me the location, phone, e-mail for the attorney Donald Dorfman so that we can furnish him evidence for having the judgment against the Hendersons declared void?

[We concur on one point. I do not see the merit in the Hendersons selling trust protections -JS]

Among the facts and propositions the United States agrees are true are the following:

The basic admission of the United States which we settle here under our right to petition and by the doctrine of admission by silence if that be your choice is that the income tax law as generally applied in the 50 states of the union is a mere PROPOSITION, is a matter of public indoctrination, and is not a mater of law. In other words the income tax as generally applied constitutes nothing more than a plan suggested for acceptance.

The only courts authorized by Congress for civil and for criminal matters within the boarders of any of the 50 states are district courts of the United States; [name game confusion Þ ] United States District Courts covertly stand in place of the district courts specified in the United States Code [The designated courts for criminal and civil prosecutions, income tax and citizen civil rights actions.] [USDC ~. DCUS]

United States war powers do not extend to the American people [By reservation of the 10^th Amendment and by the close scrutiny of the Act 12 USC 95(a)&(b) now in the appendix.]

The core issue we present is the 5^th stepping stone Þ 26 CFR §1.861-8(f)(1)(vi). Therefore refute; and do not reply to this matter with rhetoric / generalities. Our claim is that the 5^th step is the "specified Federal payments". We believe the government is not with a ruling on this matter; neither supreme court, regulatory provision nor decision, nor executive finding, order or decision. If we are wrong, please provide us the specific authorities on this matter.

The concordant issue we present is the matters pertaining to the nature and scope of the income tax alleged in United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988). These are like and parallel aspects of the revenue laws of the United States. The action pleadings are included herein by reference.

Additional documents requested are as follows: (3 - 8 with 18 full business days opportunity to comply as of today if compl;iance mailed 02-22-01 -JS)

3. Please send certified copies of the signed commissions for:

Alsup, Judge William WHA Armstrong, Judge Saundra B. SBA Brazil, Magistrate Judge Wayne D. WDB Breyer, Judge Charles R. CRB Chesney, Judge Maxine M. MMC Conti, Senior Judge Samuel SC Fogel, Judge Jeremy JF Garrett, Magistrate Judge William L. WLG Hamilton, Judge Phyllis J. PJH Henderson, Senior Judge Thelton E. TEH Illston, Judge Susan SI Infante, Chief Magistrate Judge Edward A. EAI Ingram, Senior Judge William A. WAI James, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena MEJ Jenkins, Judge Martin J. MJJ Jensen, Senior Judge D. Lowell DLJ Laporte, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. EDL Larson, Magistrate Judge James JL Legge, Judge Charles A. CAL Nord, Magistrate Judge Larry B. LBN Orrick, Senior Judge William H. WHO Patel, Chief Judge Marilyn Hall MHP Spero, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. JCS Trumbull, Magistrate Judge Patricia V. PVT Walker, Judge Vaughn R. VRW Ware, Judge James JW Whyte, Judge Ronald M. RMW Wilken, Judge Claudia CW Williams, Senior Judge Spencer SW Zimmerman, Magistrate Judge Bernard

4. Please send certified copies of the signed commission for Richard W. Wieking, called "District Clerk" (Northern California).

5. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing the establishment of and the delegated functions for what is known as the Supreme Court of the United States.

6. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing the 2001 appropriations for and documents evidencing the Clerk of the Court postal location for the original supreme court of the United States.

7. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing the year 2001 appropriations for and documents evidencing the Clerk of the Court walk in location for the district court of the United States for Northern California.

8. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing the year 1946 appropriations for the district court of the United States for Northern California.

Documents requested are as follows:

1. Please send certified documents that effect the establishment of any internal revenue district office with authority to administer Form 1040 claim for refund of resources collected under color of 26 USC normal taxes (§1) and "employment taxes" (§3402), on claim of a free Person (U.S. Const. I, §2, 3) working in San Francisco and located in Oakland city, California state.

2. Please send certified documents that effect: a) the Congressional act, and b) the commissioning of, and, c) the delegation of authority as "delegate" of the Secretary of the Treasury (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(A))published in the Federal Register in compliance with 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a), for a "district director" (i.e. a Director Foreign Operations District) to locate in California state to administer inter alia 1040 refund claims for (§1 and §3402 error) of a free Persons (U.S. Const. I, §2, 3) working in San Francisco and located in Oakland city, California state.

The matters to be settled for the removal of the vagueness,for the contract meeting of the minds:

1. "specified Federal payments": the eight statements I. - VIII. are agreed true and correct as stated.

2. "specified Federal payments": the ten summary statements a) - j) are agreed true and correct as stated.

3. The United States will not be heard to object to jury grand and/or to petite jury access to the evidence of and by these papers in any matter relating to 26 USC taxes.

For the F.O.I.A. of August 14, 2000:

For which you have replied "RE: 00-09-14" of September 13, 2000 and 11-03-00 (Reply No. 2000-4824 from undisclosed location in D.C. 20224).

1. No documents of delegation of authority as "delegate" for filing tax liens and/or levies in States of the Union responsive to our request exist. [Your 11-03-00 admission in pertinent part, "The Act however does not require an agency to . compile or collect information (i.e. documents) which does (do) not exist."]; you admit personal knowledge that no such documents exist.

2. No documents that specify certification requirements for notices of lien et. al exist; you admit personal knowledge that no such documents exist.

3. No regulations and/or policy instructions which particularize requirements for proper completion of notices of lien, notices of neither levy nor related documents exist; you admit personal knowledge that no such documents exist.

4. Your response misnomers my location "CA 94609"; your response was received not of free commercial home delivery and not with relation to legal fiction "CA 94609".

5. Your response of 11-03-00 (Reply No. 2000-4824 from undisclosed location in D.C. 20224) evidences: a) a seal of Puerto Rico, to wit "* Treasury * Internal Revenue Service". This seal incorporates the coat of arms/heraldry of the Department of the Treasury of the United States 1789, and, b) that a foreign office for Department of Treasury Puerto Rico is situated (circumstanced) in Washington D.C., and, c) the letter is not with specific source location or address (neither on the letter nor on the envelope).

6. For the admissions 1) - 5): The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States and thus is not subject to provisions of the FOIA. In this instance however the IRS has consented to request to act in capacity of an agent for the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States (the DOT).

For the F.O.I.A. of December 12, 2000; (delivered 01-16-01)

1. The United States is not with an authorized Internal Revenue Service district office located in California state for the acceptance nor for the determination of Form 1040 request for refund of wrongfully withheld resources.

2. The United States is not with: a) provision of law, b) executive order(s), c) issuance of commission, d) delegation(s) of authority or function(s) for "district directors" (i.e. Directors Foreign Operations Districts) for the administration of the 1040 claim for refund for California state inhabitants.

For the F.O.I.A. request of August 14, 2000 for the response of 11-03-00 is with the reply by me to Ms. Leslie Haywood, ID No. 50-30172 (Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 795 - Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044) and to Mr. Reubin and Ms. Johnson on 11-08-00 stating for items to be settled 1) - 6) above, "This will memorialize, unless refuted by you within ten (10) days (Rule Day Dec. 19, 2000, 6 PM PST in Oakland)." Your default is waived. This rule day is extended to coincide with the rule day for this instrument.

--------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Re: REAL MONEY STILL RULES

 Give me some substance. First show where Congress established and provided for a USDC in Sacramento 28 USC 132 [There is in my refrigerator a roast beef sandwich -only if someone has placed on there.] Where did Congress provide for the Promulgation of 28 USC 84 or 132? The Hendersons did not present 28 USC 861 for adjudication. Why do you present this case?

 On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:53:47 -0800 "Quatloos!" <quatloos0504@quatloos.comwrites: Send any paper money and other worthless script to us and we will dispose of it correctly and patriotically, so that you are no longer tainted by  it. We will even give 10 cents in HARD COIN (your choice!) for each "worthless" FRNs or any other paper purporting to be U.S. money which has a President(or Ben Franklin, which is pretty much the same thing) on it.

Quatloos!
http://www.quatloos.com

California Couple Sentenced for Helping Clients Evade Taxes

February 23, 2001

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

A California couple who helped their clients evade at least $13.8 million in federal income taxes were sentenced to long prison terms yesterday, sentences the judge extended after they said that the tax laws were invalid and did not apply to them.

 The couple, Dorothy and George Henderson of Roseville, Calif., sold trusts through which, customers were told, they could put their money beyond the reach of the Internal Revenue Service. The couple kept 5 percent of the deposits.

 Mrs. Henderson, 56, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison and Mr. Henderson, 59, was sentenced to six and a half years by Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. of United States District Court in Sacramento.

 The Hendersons did not testify at their trials, but at a sentencing hearing yesterday they told Judge Burrell that the
I.R.S. had no authority over them and that they would pursue claims against the government.

 They also said they were exempt from tax under Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, contending that the statute excludes most Americans from income taxes.

 Donald Dorfman, Mrs. Henderson's lawyer, said that he tried to show his client that she had misread the law and that rather than exempting anyone from taxes it extended the reach of American tax law to income from foreign sources.

 "She wouldn't listen," Mr. Dorfman said. "She insisted on speaking and telling the judge about the 861 position and how as a sovereign citizen of California the federal courts had no jurisdiction and all sorts of gibberish."

 Mr. Dorfman said the speech caused the judge to add five months to Mrs. Henderson's sentence beyond prosecutors' request.

 The judge gave Mr. Henderson an extra eight months.

 The 861
position is being advocated by a small but growing number of business owners and others who, calling themselves the tax honesty movement, say that the government operates the I.R.S. illegally. These business owners have boasted in ads in USA Today and on the Internet that they do not pay taxes and say the I.R.S. has not acted against them. They cite that as proof that the tax laws are a hoax.

 The case against the Hendersons began several years ago and grew out of another case in which four other Californians, including a lawyer, were convicted and are now in prison.

Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit