Another CtC couple being criminally investigated

[Joey Smith]

Throw a couple of dozen CtCers in jail and that will (maybe) tell the others the truth: They are just flat-assed WRONG.

LoverofTruth


16 Posts
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 5:35:03 PM
-------------------

On Tuesday, June 5th, two IRS agents came to my place of labor to inform me they've begun a criminal investigation. At the same time, two IRS agents went to my wife’s place of labor to inform her they’d begun a criminal investigation. They read us the 5th and we decline to speak with them at our place of labor. I called later that day and on Friday, June 8th, we went to meet with them.

Over the last two weeks, I’ve been meditating on why we have experience so much opposition in securing the fruit of our labor? I’ve been impressed by TRUTH as to the reason. I have also considered America’s current mindset and our understanding of the constitution.

What is the constitution and what is our constitution?

[[[ snipping typical TP cut'n'pasted out-of-context drivel and pious hypocrisy ]]]

Before my wife and I went to meet with the IRS agents, we spent time in TRUTH’s presence. We were sure they intended to “scare the hell out of us” and they did; hell left and heaven came as we invoked HIS Kingdom, HIS venue and HIS jurisdiction. The meeting was non-confrontational and my wife and I had perfect PEACE. By the way…if you think they destroyed your CTC returns, I assure you…they didn’t.

Although the constitution guarantees liberty, when we make a choice not to be governed by TRUTH, the foundations are destroyed, the walls of protection are torn down, the gates are burnt and the foxes have entrance…we essentially reap what we sow. I’ve experienced a “paradigm shift” as I deeply regret going my own way for most of my life; this is defined in the Statutes of TRUTH as repentance.

I’m grateful for those of us who have made a decision to resist tyranny; our obedience to TRUTH will allow HIM to deal with all disobedience. Did you know when they could not convince Pilate to condemn TRUTH for all HE did to bless humanity; they accused HIM of teaching the people not to pay taxes? OHHHH to know HIM in the fellowship of HIS suffering…that we may also know HIM in the power of HIS ENDLESS RESURRECTED LIFE.

Don’t be too concerned if the majority of “we the people” don’t get involved…all TRUTH needs is a remnant, lest we think deliverance was wrought by our own keen intellect and understanding of law. I can either be the House of TRUTH or the Synagogue of Deception and Accusations. My wife and I have made our choice; judgment begins at the House of TRUTH and this is our constitution, we will do justly, love mercy and walk humbly before TRUTH.


richardf614


574 Posts
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 6:12:20 PM
-------------------

LoverofTruth,
Expand on your meeting with agents. Give us a brief overview of your filings. What have they claimed were your criminal activities? Filing truthful returns? Where your returns in regard to W-2's or 1099's?

What is your course of actions forward?

Many here can help you. Give us the details and many will reply.


LoverofTruth


16 Posts
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 9:05:15 PM
-------------------

Richard – just as a brief history; in October 2004, the IRS garnished my wife’s payments for labor which forced our engagement. We went to see a lawyer in hopes of stopping the garnishment. Just prior to going to see the lawyer I also received a letter about Lost Horizons, bought CTC and was in the process of reading the book. I requested that the lawyer assist in filing with the 4852s. He did not agree. We had stopped filing in 2000 so we needed to file for 2000 – 2004. I didn’t want to file the traditional filings, however at this point my wife is not fully persuaded and just wanted the garnishment to stop. So in November, the lawyer filed for 2000-2004.

In January 2005 after having a better understanding of rebutting erroneous information, we filed amended returns. Of course we got all the IRS letters and we responded to each one in a timely manner, request hearings, open office examination, etc. In April 2005, we received a refund for what was garnished in 2004.

As I continue to read through the forum and other sites, information was posted about Caha v. U.S., state jurisdiction and secretary of state certificates of standing. So at this point, I focused my attention on the Texas statute to find a remedy. I visited with my state representative, the city councilman, and corresponded with the city attorney, state attorney general and the mayor. As an ex-federal judge, the mayor was the only one who made an effort to provide true guidance. Through correspondence, he encouraged me to continue to press the issue with the entities making payments for my labor. I had already talked with the CEO, several VPs but there was no response.

In March 2006 I filed a claim under the Texas Payday law with the Texas Workforce Commission. My claim was dismissed. In September 2006, the IRS garnishing my payments for labor. In April 2007, I filed a motion for judicial review of documents purported as legally created under the constitution as described in Texas statute §51.901(c)(1). I was sure this would result in victory even though I filed pro se. However, when I stood before the judge, I realized, there was no interest in protecting “we the people.” She even stated she may sanction me. It’s like MatterofRecord stated “judges do not take the time to read more than a few pages of a pleading, looking for something to catch their eye.”

At the meeting with the IRS, they presented every return we filed including the correspondence and W2s obtained from the entities we work for…we filed several times believing they were thrown away and not processed. They also presented W4s and asked if the signatures on the forms were our signature. At this point, I realized that since I was out of town when the lawyer filed the first set of traditional returns and since my wife didn’t sign for me, that the originally filed returns did not have my signature. I confirmed that they were not my signature with the agents at the meeting. I’ve since re-filed 1040s with the 4852s for 2000 – 2004.

They asked if we were a part of any “group” who may have “induced” us to file as we had…we stated that we were 100% responsible for the filings, we assign no blame and make no excuses for filing according to what we believe. They state that they will write their report and submit it for review and a decision will be made weather to proceed with criminal charges.

It’s great that my wife has grown to trust that we are being required to stand with TRUTH. The beauty of this whole issue is that I’m not the fearful man I use to be as I’m fully persuaded TRUTH is now working to deliver us all from involuntary servitude and missing the mark. HIS nature is the mark and HE may allow us to go through difficulties, but it prepares us for reigning in TRUTH.

Finally…it’s not that we didn’t know the answer, but we asked them why they do not visit with the entities we work for and ask these entities about the filing of erroneous information returns.



MatterOfRecord


8 Posts
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 12:43:45 AM
-------------------

You may want to take a look at this book:

"Our Enemy The State," by Albert Jay Nock, circa 1935, re-copyrighted in 1962 by Samual A Nock and Francis J. Nock.

You may find yourself re-evaluating the Constitution more along the lines of it's purposes at the time and the results of it's being ratified by the Constitutional Conventions (not the actual State legislatures, see "The Power of Congress (as Congress Sees It)," edited by R.S. Radford, Copyright 1976 R.S. Radford)

If you could maybe post the state of your matter with the IRS along with a brief statement of the type of correspondence and assertions you have made to they, your employer, etc. maybe I could lend some suggestions.

Cheers and good luck otherwise.


LoverofTruth


16 Posts
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 12:15:49 PM
-------------------
Thanks for the recommended reading and your offer to lend some suggestions.

Brief statement of type of correspondence and assertions made: Letters with Affidavits of Facts or Affidavits of Political Election; We do not work for corporations that make federal payments. The corporations we work for provided erroneous information returns. Corporations are not incorporated under the laws of the U.S. government. We are not made liable as our payments are for labor. We are not engaged in a trade or business with the U.S. government. We did not knowingly elect to be political U.S. citizens. Our place of domicile is without U.S. geographical venue and jurisdiction. USSC ruled that taxable income does not mean “all income that comes in." The affidavits were also sent to U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Secretary of State and IRS Commissioner.

Here’s the state of matter with the IRS:
We filled jointly for 2000-2003. We filed separately for 2004-2006
Traditional joint returns for 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 were filed in Austin in 2004.
Amended 1040X returns were filed in January 2005
The 2000 and 2002 returns went to Ogden, Utah
The 2001 and 2003 returns went to San Antonio, Texas
Requested open office examination in San Antonio for 2000-2003 in August 2005.
We never got the office examination. I called revenue agent to discuss the returns and we received 4549A examination changes for 2001 and 2003 from the San Antonio office. We rebutted within a week with letter and affidavit.
Never received any examinations changes for 2000 and 2002 from Utah - the only correspondence received were CP22E, 3164(SC) or 3196C letters and numerous CP71C penalty letters from Austin.
All collection activity seems to be centered around 2000 and 2002 returns sent to Utah. I’ve filed appeals, receive letters scheduling a date and request for returns. I provide the returns and never heard back from them. I called and left a message but again no response.
The IRS sent single-0 filing status changes to my company in September 2004 and to my wife’s company in February 2005
We requested transcripts in October 2006 and noted that the “statutory employee indicator” status marked “NO”. I interpret this to mean we are not subject to the code as we are not “statutory employees.”
They did process the return for 2006 and applied overpayments to 2000 and 2002

The state of matter with a City of San Antonio owned corporation is as follows:
Met with payroll officer in September 2004 to request termination of withholding, provided affidavit of facts and a W-4 qualifying declaration
Meet with corporate counsel and finance manager in November 2004 requesting correct W-2 and termination of Subtitle A income tax and Subtitle C income tax.
Meet with VP over my group in December 2004
Provided correspondence to VP over finance in January 2005
Provided correspondence to CEO in February 2005
Notified by my group VP that they would consent to levy of my payments in August 2005 for tax year 2000
Submitted release of levy
Notified by corporate counsel that they would consent to levy of my payments starting September 2006 for tax year 2000 and 2002…levy continues until release obtained in November 2006.
Provide lawful notification for termination of withholding to corporate counsel in January 2007 and gave 10 days to respond. I had planned to take it to court…but this arena appears to be bias towards pro se litigants.
Provided correspondence to CFO/VP and HR VP in June 2007 to again request termination of withholding since I received evidence of a refund for 2006.
Currently, they have ignored all affidavits and requests.

We are not distracted by appearances...we are very encouraged.

[Famspear]

Notice the reference to the Caha case, a case cited over and over by tax protesters. The statement from Caha that protesters like to quote is:

------"The law of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

Citing Caha is typically a tax protester's attempt to leave the false impression that the Court's reference to "those matters" somehow restricted the Federal government's jurisdiction over matters of taxation.

Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894) was not a tax case (surprise!). It was a case involving a perjury conviction where the defendant argued -- unsuccessfully -- that the Federal court had no jurisdiction over a prosecution for the crime of perjury committed in a proceeding in a land office at Kingfisher, Oklahoma regarding ownership of real estate. The actual quote is:

-----"This statute [the perjury statute] is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

The reference to the "laws of congress in respect to those matters" was a reference to the matters of preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property. The Court rejected the argument that the Federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear a case under the perjury statute, and the defendant's conviction was affirmed. Again, Caha was not a tax case, and no issues of Federal tax law were decided. --Famspear

[Famspear]

Oh, and regarding the protester's comment:

----"We are not distracted by appearances...we are very encouraged"

The protester's message, as properly decoded: "We are not distract by reality, we are very delusional." --Famspear

[grixit]

Perhaps the wife will yet cough up the koolaide.

[Paul]

I visited with my state representative, the city councilman, and corresponded with the city attorney, state attorney general and the mayor. As an ex-federal judge, the mayor was the only one who made an effort to provide true guidance.

Someone gave up a federal judgeship to be a mayor?

[Quixote]

I visited with my state representative, the city councilman, and corresponded with the city attorney, state attorney general and the mayor. As an ex-federal judge, the mayor was the only one who made an effort to provide true guidance.

Someone gave up a federal judgeship to be a mayor?

Wikipedia says Phil Hardberger, mayor of San Antonio, was appointed to be Chief Justice of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. His bio on sanantonio.gov says he was "elected Associate Justice and then Chief Justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals". That he was elected, not appointed, strongly suggests that the Texas 4th Circuit is the court being referred to. I am assuming, of course, that the sanantonio.gov version is the more accurate.

LoverofTruth says he's from Texas, so I limited my search to Texas cities.

[Prof]

I visited with my state representative, the city councilman, and corresponded with the city attorney, state attorney general and the mayor. As an ex-federal judge, the mayor was the only one who made an effort to provide true guidance.

Someone gave up a federal judgeship to be a mayor?

Wikipedia says Phil Hardberger, mayor of San Antonio, was appointed to be Chief Justice of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. His bio on sanantonio.gov says he was "elected Associate Justice and then Chief Justice of the Fourth Court of Appeals". That he was elected, not appointed, strongly suggests that the Texas 4th Circuit is the court being referred to. I am assuming, of course, that the sanantonio.gov version is the more accurate.

LoverofTruth says he's from Texas, so I limited my search to Texas cities.

You beat me to it. The current Mayor, Phil Hardberger, after a career as a plaintiff's trial lawyer (very successful, highly regarded), was elected as Chief Justice of the 4th Court of Appeals here in San Antonio. After he retired, he was elected mayor -- two year term, with term limits to only a second two year term. He's a great guy, but his wife is more interesting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Morgan .

Lover of Truth obviously could not find it with both hands in a well-lighted room.

[LPC]

Quakers were originally known as the "Religious Society of the Friends of Truth" or just "Friends of Truth." (See John 15:14-15.)

To the best of my knowledge, no Friend of Truth has ever claimed that governments had no power to tax, or that the government of the United States could not tax the people of the United States. The only assertion of Friends of Truth is that we should "utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever." (From "A Declaration to Charles II," 1661.) Which has led many Quakers to refuse to pay taxes to pay for wars or military spending.