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 Quatloos;

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 Hoffmans 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.

Peoples' Law Association/Julian: at 

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.com> writes:
 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/23/business/23IRS.html?ex=983990570&ei=1&e n=4 ae3b05e50969a64 -----Original Message----- From: xxx Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:24 AM To: xxx Cc: xxx, et al;Subject: Re: REAL MONEY STILL RULES Julian: As best I can figure, we do have "real money" today, it is interest free and debt free, and it is the "coin of the realm" commonly known as U.S. Treasury minted coin. You cannot say that about the Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) script. The problem is, most people think of the FRN's as "money" when in fact FRN's are a "debt transfer" document, and are traded as "money." Just remember, we were on the "gold standard" when we had the worst money problem in the history of the nation, the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing depression. The real solution is a balance between "interest free, debt free" money and "debt created money". xxx c/o 8916 Datapoint Suite 3225 San Antonio, Texas 78229 210-614-4206 210-614-5698 (fax) email: web page:xxx  

xxx wrote: Every State(2) has a Money of Account Provision (I'll bet) I just figured CaGovC 6850. Real money is provided for so the "judges" and the public employees can decline to accept transfer of debt (They do not have to allow their "checks" to "clear"). They can require gold or silver from the Controller and/or the Treasurer! This must be so even though 3 USC 1- 21 makes the States(2) (and all county voting precincts ) = the District of Columbia. The administrative governments for the 50 provinces (States(2)) must accommodate the 50 union States(1) respectively. When we invoke (if we know how) their State(2) courts onto the law side, the judge and jury are deemed capable of being paid real money. (If we don't invoke the court in forma pauperis but transfer debt for fees we will get the fiction-equity-UCC State(2) court regardless of what we plead.) Got spare change? Run an ad in your local Shopper. JURORS Get your ($)25 per day in Gold [Your phone # and/or e-mail or web page] Provide a networking source, forms and information to enable jurors to demand and obtain their real money. ( ) for $ is because in CA jury service is now 5 dollars a day (There is talk of raising it). So 5 dollars are "purchased" for about 25 in ($), i.e., in FRNs. I figured for silver because I have a general idea of the exchange value, but "gold" is a better trigger for an ad. (I get the foundation for principles settled then I can adjust the particulars -That's how I work!-JS) Jurors are summoned by ALL CAPS "commercial names" so they must be voir dired for the capacity they will accept for sitting as jurors. They can still accept transfer of debt but they must affirm they will judge the evidence in their flesh and blood capacity (They must be educated on the fly that they have a fiction identity and a real identify. -Such education is never permitted on the fiction-equity-UCC side of the court.) So how are Money of Account provisions rationalized when the treasurers, court clerks, county collections receive "cash"!!!!? For checks I imagine they are accounted for as dollars but once the county accepts the privilege of letting the debts be discharged over at the bank how are the bank balances reported back in the county controller's office!!!!!? Oh! Maybe they just report the amounts they sent over and are oblivious to what has happens. They just write checks and warrants to pay out but folks keep accepting discharge by transfer of debt but the county never catches on!

Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit