Losthead Thillum Unhappium - Robert Souza

[Joey Smith]

hillum



Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 6

Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: HELP! Being charged $5000 Penalty under Section 6702
I've successfully received all overpayments for 2008.

This whole ordeal completely negates logic.

The second to last letter I received from the IRS was a notice of refund for $435 (chump change), which amounts to the income tax owed to me for 06 and 07, yet I did not receive the SS and Medicare. Therefore, in response I wrote as follows:

(Note: In hindsight, I erred in stating it was unconstitutional. My next mistake, apparently, was threatening them...)

____________ _____ ___ __
8 October, 2009

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888-0025

ATTN: Maureen Green
RE: 89254-624-12385-9, Dated August 31, 2009

To Whom it may concern,

I just received this letter this last week (at the time: Oct 1-7/09, convenient that they don't date the envelope..) that is dated August 31.

In this letter I am purported to be credited $488.00 and should be receiving a check in the mail. I have not received any check and the amount is incorrect.

You have failed to include a copy of the assessment for 2006-2007 as requested in my previous letter; In accordance with TITLE 26, § 301.6203-1, Method of assessment.

The total of $488.00 is incorrect. The sum to which you have arrived includes income tax for said years, but fails to include the SS and Medicare that was deducted from my pay in those years also.

As I have previously mentioned in a past letter, in order to include SS or Medicare you must be able to “assess” any source of income. Yet you attempted to refund me the income tax that was unconstitutionally placed on my hard work for 2006-2007, therefore implying that you can refund me the legal tender that was deducted for SS and Medicare also as it has no validity if I do not incur wages and therefore am not eligible for income tax as defined under TITLE 26, Subtitle C, CHAPTER 24, § 3401 (a).

The total for 2006 and 2007 that was deducted from my pay amounts to: $1005.50, as my records show. If you fail to address this notice I will investigate what avenues are available to me in dealing with this conspiracy using full force of the law.

I am tired of being deflected and not accepted. By nature of agreement, if you and/or whichever collective you represent were an entity of integrity the light would be seen, that is to say the virtue of our trade would be discussed openly. Yet you fail to acknowledge the records on file for ROBERT D SOUZA in accordance with the law as I have re-presented on numerous accounts in par with my status and how it equates within the confinement of legal affairs.

Notice that all information has already been submitted to you in previous correspondence allowing you to verify the due process of a refund for the years 2006-2007, amounting to $1005.50. I am requesting a complete refund for 2006 and 2007.

I vow that the above information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge, under the principles bestowed upon truth.

Robert Souza
____________ _____ ___ __



About a week ago, dated Nov 16, 2009, I receive a Notice of Penalty Charge for $5000 because "when a person files what purports to be a return but-

A. 1. fails to include information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged or
2. includes information that on its face indicates that the self assessment is substantially incorrect and

B.1. the penalty applies when the underlying conduct in relation to filing such return is based on a position that the internal revenue service has identified as frivolous (see Notice 2007-30) or
2. the underlying conduct reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws."

I do not know how to proceed. With the predicament I find myself in, I can not contest the assertion of this penalty until I "fully pay the entire penalty and file a claim for refund with the IRS within three years from the time a return associated with the penalty was filed or two years from the date the penalty was paid, whichever period expires later."

Interestingly enough, given their previous response, I already resolved that the 1040X's, W-2s and F4852 that I submitted for 2006 and 07 were not frivolous. The letter ascribing the $488 attests to this because the letter I had received prior from this one was the generic threat about my claims being frivolous and the $5000 penalty (the pamphlet about taxes and the constitution included).

I am confident that, with patience, aid and divine support, I will find the means to overcome this atrocity. Yet I am unaware of the best means of action. I'm not one to stand down when I know beyond a doubt the undeniable truth.

If anything, I am having difficulty understanding the following which was included on the back of the 'Notice of Penalty' letter:

"If your refund claim is pending for six months or more and the IRS has not issued a notice of claim disallowance with regard to the claim, you may file suit in the United States District Court or United States Court of Federal Claims to contest the assertion of the penalty at any time. Once the IRS issues a notice of claim disallowance, however, you must file suit in the United States District Court of The United States Court of Federal Claims within two years of the date the IRS mails a notice of disallowance to you denying the redund claim."

...If I'm reading this correctly, this notice is altogether meaningless or at the very least, I just have to wait 6 months from when I requested a refund for my 2006-07 overpayment, before I can file a suit in the United States District Court or United States Court of Federal Claims (My initial request for a 2006-2007 refund of overpayment began on December 10, 2008 and included the amended (2) 1040X and (4) F4852).

For those who are willing to assist me in this specific case, I have some very selective information that could very well assist all of us in ending this propagation of ignorance or at the very least modestly weaken their financial coffers. For you see, in response to their initial claim that my 2006-07 returns were frivolous, I sent them this letter included below. In response they sent me the 'Notice of Balance' letter with the $488 overpayment refund dated August 31, 2009

Whats interesting about this letter is that if they were to have chosen the first option, they would be violating TITLE 18 §1001, because they KNOW the law and to choose option one, as stated in my letter, would mean that they have elected to, as defined under TITLE 18 §1001:

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;


Ironically, I did not become aware of this until after I sent the letter. In any case, here is the letter:

____________ _____ ___ __

4 June, 2009


Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888-0025

ATTN: Maureen Green
RE: 0469704218 LTR 3176C, Dated May 08, 2009

Dear Maureen,

I want to thank you for handling my special case. I have a special request. I find myself at a crossroads, I cannot discern which way is the highest path in following the truth. On one side, I have my family who is alienated from me by fear and submissively requests that I conform and submit my returns in par with the system as presented by your request. On the other hand, I abandon my family and completely pursue the highest ideal of truth that I yearn and ache for in my heart by representing the obscured due process of the law.
I am unclear of discerning the right path with the imposing limitations on time, therefore in order that I don't deny the truth, I ask that you act on yours'. I've included two options for you that allow you a choice in how you wish to assess my taxes. I humbly ask that you please bear with me and review this letter in its entirety. I ask that you make the assessment using your highest judgment by following the truth you feel in your heart.

Option 1:

Here are the 1040X's that you requested.

Option 2:

In reference to your letter, you made the allegation that my returns were frivolous and has no basis in the law, based on the position that the information is frivolous as defined under Section 6702(c) and that the information reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws.

You are misapplying the law; IRC §6702 lacks regulatory authority in pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 44 U.S.C.A. §1504-1507. Before a citizen of the several states of the United States can be bound by, or adversely affected by a law or regulation, any law having general applicability to such Citizens, must be published in the Federal Register.

As stated under 26 U.S.C. §7805(a), you must prescribe all needful rules and regulations in order to enforce said title. The Internal Revenue Code is not self-executing. Without an implementing regulation, applicable to a particular type of tax, a statute has no force of law, and imposes no duties or penalties.

According to the Supreme Court ruling in Calif. Bankers Assoc. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 25, 44, 39 Led2d 812, 94 S Ct 1494, the court stated, "…The Act's [IRC] civil and criminal penalties attach only upon the violation of a regulation promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone…only those who violate the regulations (not the Code) may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which is to be tested against the standards of the 4th Amendment."

Heretofore your automated claim and enforcement are lawless and defective, unless you are able to furnish proof that §6702 is a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.

In accordance with TITLE 26, § 301.6203-1 Method of assessment, I request a copy of the record of assessment that you purport is frivolous.

According to the Supreme Court's decision, Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386 (1984); Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172 (1934); and Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States, 280 U.S. 453 (1930)), my return is valid, not frivolous, if it meets all of these four conditions: (1) contains sufficient data to calculate the tax liability; (2) purports to be a return; (3) represents an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (4) is executed under penalties of perjury.

In accordance with the court ruling for Long, 618 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1980), the forms 4852 and W-2's, submitted on the 10th of May 2009, fulfill condition one as ruled in Beard v. Commissioner. The two 1040X's submitted on the 10th of May 2009 fulfill condition two. This letter fulfills condition three and four.

Finally, I wish to inform you of the potential consequence of your purported positions elsewhere that you have taken violate TITLE 18 §1001 and can lead to a fine or imprisonment.

I have provided all the information in order for you to make a lawful assessment on my taxable activity.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to increase my awareness and uphold the law.

I vow under penalty of perjury that the above information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge, so help me God.

As-Salamu Alaykum - Peace be upon you.

Namaste,


ROBERT SOUZA


Enclosures: (2) 1040X
____________ _____ ___ __

Well, I would greatly appreciate everyone and anyone's assistance in this affair. Any piece of information that in anyway correlates would be of great service to me.

Although I lack more than $200 in my name at this time, I would feel greater peace in donating half of the penalty to this movement than to the fraudulent IRS. I vow, at the very least to donate $2500 at some point in my lifetime or, if I do find that my state of affairs is sound and do proceed with a law suit, I intend to donate half of the gains to be enumerated by the Federal Court. Let it be known that it is not my intention to receive compensation, but to altogether end this fraudulent propagation of ignorance.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. I sincerely look forward to any insights.

Peace be with you.

-Robert


--
- In Lak'ech - I am Another Yourself -
Back to top


SkankBeat



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Posts: 497

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:58 am Post subject:
SAY YOU.....
Back to top


PeacefulKancer



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 794

Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:03 am Post subject:
Thillum,
First, I would like to warn you to not put out too much personal information on this board. It is an open board and you can bet that the IRS and/or it's narks are browsing it. At first glance it appears that you have put out just a little too much (Name), but even little things like dollar amounts can key them in too. you can always go back and edit your post.

Secondly, welcome to the 6702 club. I hope you are willing to fight this out. No silver bullets are laying around so don't look for them.

Third, with that said, nobody really knows how to proceed. It seems that if you have been refunded sums of money and they are now charging you, that you owe $5k on paper. If you pay it now, the timer starts for 2 years for you to fight for it back. If you don't pay it then you have 3 years. Seems more beneficial to wait and fight it and if needbe, pay it before you go to court.

Fourth, I suggest you check out a few of the other threads. Look at the other threads and you will find a lot of information.

Also, time to start FOIA'ing...
Back to top

[wserra]

First, I would like to warn you to not put out too much personal information on this board. It is an open board and you can bet that the IRS and/or it's narks are browsing it. At first glance it appears that you have put out just a little too much (Name), but even little things like dollar amounts can key them in too. you can always go back and edit your post.

Too late. Pete's already painted a target on the guy's ass (eighth one down).

Nice guy, Pete.

[bmielke]

He talks about $488 he should have gotten back, and the check on LH is for $1200, did he really just spend $5000 to make $1600?

[Gregg]

He talks about $488 he should have gotten back, and the check on LH is for $1200, did he really just spend $5000 to make $1600?

Well, not exactly. It's only $5,000 so far because he's obviously looking for more ways to rack up even more friv pens.

[bmielke]

He talks about $488 he should have gotten back, and the check on LH is for $1200, did he really just spend $5000 to make $1600?

Well, not exactly. It's only $5,000 so far because he's obviously looking for more ways to rack up even more friv pens.

True, then if he decides that this injustice must not stand and goes to tax court they can add on the big $20K penality, so I suppose we could be looking at $25K+.

[Gregg]

Well, I was touched by his sincerity, so let's look more closely at that last letter again....

Dear Maureen,

I want to thank you for handling my special case. I have a special request. I find myself at a crossroads, I cannot discern which way is the highest path in following the truth. On one side, I have my family who is alienated from me by fear and submissively requests that I conform and submit my returns in par with the system as presented by your request. On the other hand, I abandon my family and completely pursue the highest ideal of truth that I yearn and ache for in my heart by representing the obscured due process of the law.
I'm willing to toss out my family for a stupid belief and $400

I am unclear of discerning the right path with the imposing limitations on time, therefore in order that I don't deny the truth, I ask that you act on yours'. I've included two options for you that allow you a choice in how you wish to assess my taxes. I humbly ask that you please bear with me and review this letter in its entirety. I ask that you make the assessment using your highest judgment by following the truth you feel in your heart.

I'm trying hard to rationalize my greedy desire to not pay taxes, bear with me

Option 1:

Here are the 1040X's that you requested.

Option 2:

In reference to your letter, you made the allegation that my returns were frivolous and has no basis in the law, based on the position that the information is frivolous as defined under Section 6702(c) and that the information reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of federal tax laws.

You are misapplying the law; IRC §6702 lacks regulatory authority in pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 44 U.S.C.A. §1504-1507. Before a citizen of the several states of the United States can be bound by, or adversely affected by a law or regulation, any law having general applicability to such Citizens, must be published in the Federal Register.

As stated under 26 U.S.C. §7805(a), you must prescribe all needful rules and regulations in order to enforce said title. The Internal Revenue Code is not self-executing. Without an implementing regulation, applicable to a particular type of tax, a statute has no force of law, and imposes no duties or penalties.

According to the Supreme Court ruling in Calif. Bankers Assoc. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 25, 44, 39 Led2d 812, 94 S Ct 1494, the court stated, "…The Act's [IRC] civil and criminal penalties attach only upon the violation of a regulation promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone…only those who violate the regulations (not the Code) may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and not the broad authorizing language of the statute, which is to be tested against the standards of the 4th Amendment."

Heretofore your automated claim and enforcement are lawless and defective, unless you are able to furnish proof that §6702 is a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury.

In accordance with TITLE 26, § 301.6203-1 Method of assessment, I request a copy of the record of assessment that you purport is frivolous.

According to the Supreme Court's decision, Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386 (1984); Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172 (1934); and Florsheim Bros. Drygoods Co. v. United States, 280 U.S. 453 (1930)), my return is valid, not frivolous, if it meets all of these four conditions: (1) contains sufficient data to calculate the tax liability; (2) purports to be a return; (3) represents an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law; and (4) is executed under penalties of perjury.

In accordance with the court ruling for Long, 618 F.2d 74 (9th Cir. 1980), the forms 4852 and W-2's, submitted on the 10th of May 2009, fulfill condition one as ruled in Beard v. Commissioner. The two 1040X's submitted on the 10th of May 2009 fulfill condition two. This letter fulfills condition three and four.

Finally, I wish to inform you of the potential consequence of your purported positions elsewhere that you have taken violate TITLE 18 §1001 and can lead to a fine or imprisonment.

I have provided all the information in order for you to make a lawful assessment on my taxable activity.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to increase my awareness and uphold the law.

I vow under penalty of perjury that the above information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge, so help me God.

sovereign gibberish

As-Salamu Alaykum - Peace be upon you.

new age gibberish

Namaste,

new age salutation


ROBERT SOUZA
greedy idiot

[bmielke]

Why give option two?

Could it because Option one's returns were useless?

[Tax Man]

Losthead in Space wrote:

By nature of agreement, if you and/or whichever collective you represent were an entity of integrity the light would be seen

I'm almost positive the IRS represents the collective that occupies the Delta Quadrant. From what I've heard, resistance is futile.

[The Observer]

I'm almost positive the IRS represents the collective that occupies the Delta Quadrant. From what I've heard, resistance is futile.

So prepare to be collected from?

[LPC]

My next mistake, apparently, was threatening them...

Ya think?

May I suggest that his third mistake was attempting to explain "the law" to the IRS?

Like most scams, CtC depends on deception and misdirection. Specifically, it results in a return that *might* be legitimate, but which is actually false and fraudulent. And the return only looks like it *might* be legitimate because they don't disclose what they're really doing. But once they actually begin to *explain* what they're thinking and doing, then the proverbial cat is out of the bag.

You are misapplying the law; IRC §6702 lacks regulatory authority in pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 44 U.S.C.A. §1504-1507. Before a citizen of the several states of the United States can be bound by, or adversely affected by a law or regulation, any law having general applicability to such Citizens, must be published in the Federal Register.

As stated under 26 U.S.C. §7805(a), you must prescribe all needful rules and regulations in order to enforce said title. The Internal Revenue Code is not self-executing. Without an implementing regulation, applicable to a particular type of tax, a statute has no force of law, and imposes no duties or penalties.

This is the old "implementing regulation" canard, which is refuted at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#regulations

According to the Supreme Court ruling in Calif. Bankers Assoc. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 25, 44,

Which was not a tax case, of course.

According to the Supreme Court's decision, Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986)

I don't think I've ever before seen a Supreme Court decision reported in a volume of Tax Court decisions, and then affirmed by the a Circuit Court of Appeals. Usually, Circuit Court decisions go to the Supreme Court for review, not the other way around.

[Pottapaug1938]

According to the Supreme Court's decision, Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986)

I don't think I've ever before seen a Supreme Court decision reported in a volume of Tax Court decisions, and then affirmed by the a Circuit Court of Appeals. Usually, Circuit Court decisions go to the Supreme Court for review, not the other way around.

Could it be that the only cites these fools have for the Beard case are those from lower courts, because they haven't found (or couldn't find, assuming that it exists) a Supreme Court citation?

[bmielke]

Could it be that the only cites these fools have for the Beard case are those from lower courts, because they haven't found (or couldn't find, assuming that it exists) a Supreme Court citation?

Searching Google I can't find a SCOTUS Citation, I think as far as it went was the 6th where they ruled against him (affriming the TC decision) but they did not sanction him VICTORY! The issue was about a summary judgment.

[Quixote]

According to the Supreme Court's decision, Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986)

I don't think I've ever before seen a Supreme Court decision reported in a volume of Tax Court decisions, and then affirmed by the a Circuit Court of Appeals. Usually, Circuit Court decisions go to the Supreme Court for review, not the other way around.

Could it be that the only cites these fools have for the Beard case are those from lower courts, because they haven't found (or couldn't find, assuming that it exists) a Supreme Court citation?

Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986) is the complete citation for the case. Certiorari (sp?) was never petitioned. TPs routinely refer to opinions they think support their particular delusion as Supreme Court cases, even opinions by state courts. Iirc, the Credit River decision, delivered by a JP, has been cited in TP literature as a Supreme Court decision.

[Thillum]

I appreciate the attention, somewhat. I can't say derision serves any good what so ever. If you want to scrutinize, by all means go ahead. Know that by attacking or insulting me or anyone else you in effect you are lowering yourself to that realm of creation, therefore insulting your own intelligence. Action is a direct reflection of expression which can be defined as the presence of being. Therefore to speak as such implies the affinity within one's own being. Readily, you cannot experience what you are not, yet you create to the best of which you are capable.

Interesting to find my post on another forum, namely, this one.

So, what comes to mind is what avenues would you or anyone recommend in order of finding 'official' supreme court rulings? FOIA? I've realized with greater clarity how to go about resolving this issue.

FYI: Gregg, your testing my patience, thank you. But the truth of the matter is I am not greedy. You are biased. Understand that less than 1% of the world's population controls more than 50% of the worlds wealth... and I'm sure you might be familiar with the federal reserve act of 1913. Besides you sound like a hater; your positions delve within the realms of existence that register below the level of integrity. Meaning, to be blunt you are wasting life. To be of service, be productive, meaning provide something that will benefit the greater whole and or situation at hand.

I will admit that I am, through conflict, gaining a greater understanding of the mechanics and axioms with which regulatory authority is given.

LPC, very valid point. I am noticing that as it pertains to legal contracts, the issue is resolved by evidence. Inherently implying that for a case to be present, a certain binding legal agreement has come into question. Therefore, the directive is to ascertain the legal regulations in effect and identifying whether one qualifies to the extent of the law.

Truth does not need to be defined, its expression is self revealing.

And on a final note, you all sound like wolves. Baaah.

Riddle me this. Is FEDERAL INCOME TAX a direct or indirect tax and why?

[Paul]

Riddle me this. Is FEDERAL INCOME TAX a direct or indirect tax and why?

It doesn't matter, because indirect taxes have only one limitation (they must be uniform throughout the states), and the income tax meets that requirement, and direct taxes have only one limitation (they must be apportioned), and the 16th Amendment says the apportionment requirement doesn't apply to income taxes.

So riddle me this: why do you think it matters?

[Judge Roy Bean]

What Thillium has yet to grasp are the following:
...
Learn it. Live it. Deal with it.

That's an unacceptable alternate universe for those who aren't willing to engage in the time-consuming, sometimes menial, often expensive heavy lifting of changing the status quo via legitimate political means.

The short cut to the hard work is to climb onto the nutball bandwagon and see if the mob will follow.

[Thillum]

Lets keep our egos in check please. Otherwise this discussion is futile and a mute point. We are then arguing with the mistaken believe that one must inevitably be wrong.

Judge Roy Bean- legitimate political means? I concur, the system adheres to the guidelines, but lets not so quickly assume that they are efficient..

Damn, I have yet to post you all quip back so fast...

I appreciate the input. I want to stress that my intention is to identify the law and its binding legal meaning and not purport claims that achieve no greater end result other than creating conflict and separation.

In fact, your positions greatly support ignorance of the law and 'frivolous arguments.' Think of it like this, the advice and/or threats confront the argument and not the underlying issue at hand brought into question with the claim. Arguing about an argument is, again just arguing for the sake of arguing. Redundant nonsense.

If anyone knows where to find the official reports on Pete Hendrickson's case, I would be very appreciative.

Pete Hendrickson, CtC aside, lets open up perspective here.

Figuring out what your arguing about gives rise to why your arguing to begin with. Sounds like you want to be right. We'll believe me when I say that I want us all to be right. I'm stubborn for all the right reasons.

I want you to ponder why do we have a constitution to begin with.

Rights, liberties and justice one should presume.

But Clearly its purpose is in defining the power of government, or rather, the Rights of the people and the limits of government. It is by the constitution that the statutes dictate the extent of the law, whereas the regulations dictates the due process of law as it adheres to the constitution.

All in all, I for one believe that a revision is due. Inherently the essence should reiterate the purpose of governing. Readily, if the emphasis shifts we in turn can begin to mirror the implications explicit in nature as to the purpose of governing. Therefore we as a people can justify intrinsic symmetry or the logistics of cycles within a given paradigm. Laws of nature exist for a reason, they guide us. Why the Fuck are we still ignorant of this and violating them? Argue about that ffs.. =P

Back to point,

So, Indirect tax, is an excise tax that must be apportioned equally among the states

Understand, that if FEDERAL INCOME TAX was a direct tax, this inherently would imply that the freedom to pursuit life, liberty and property is a farce, because in effect what you make is to a lesser degree in servitude, aka slavery.

Although indirectly implied by definition, indirect tax supports the position that one volunteers to participate in an 'excise' privilege.

Understand that wherein the law pertains to a person, we must distinguish whether we are talking about a legal person or a natural person. Legal persons are most easily defined as legal entities or legal corporations, which maintain all the rights of a human being--thanks to our constitution.

With mistaken identity, we volunteer and perpetuate the system unknowingly. In fact the system is so ingrained that it becomes increasing difficult to acknowledge the intrinsic principle of law, and not argue for the sake of being right, which is moronic and destructive.

The system has been created as such that You as a human being, are indoctrinated into this binding legal system the day you were born. Your birth certificate is proof of this. Therein is the legal entity known as you written in all capital letters; ROBERT SOUZA is not Robert Souza. Yet in order to participate and agree with anything within our society we as a conspirator and on demand speak as the representative of this legal entity and bind yourself to this legal entity by signing a contract.

Extracting yourself then becomes the issue, because all the surmounting evidence speaks in favor of ROBERT SOUZA volunteering to comply with the law and pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

Truth does not need to be defined for by its very nature it is self revealing. Truth is..

And thanks for the advice, I will definitely apologize to the IRS for being unprofessional and a punk ass kid. But I intend to resolve the discrepancies.

[.]

Why the Fuck are we still ignorant of this

I think that's it's safe to say that if your brand of the King's English doesn't improve, you and it are not long for these parts.

More generally, what is it with these semi-literate morons who don't know the difference between 'moot ' and 'mute' anyway? That sort of basic ignorance seems to be a constant across TP-types, regardless of flavor.

[wserra]

I want to stress that my intention is to identify the law and its binding legal meaning

Were that your intention, you would have accomplished it by now. While the law occasionally is not black and white, it is in regard to Hendrickson's BS. Hendrickson himself has lost every time he has litigated his own nonsense, both civilly and criminally. If you have a question about a specific point, I would be glad to answer it - but how much more do you need to know than that the creator of the hocus-pocus can't get it to work?

If anyone knows where to find the official reports on Pete Hendrickson's case, I would be very appreciative.

Please define what you mean by "official reports". All of the court opinions shooting Hendrickson down have been posted right here, usually within 24 hours of decision. The links to them are still on the board. Again, if you want something specific, ask. This isn't Hendrickson's board, where folks get banned for doing stuff like that. Gotta stay focussed, y'know.

I snipped the remainder of your post. If you wish to make a legal point, it helps a lot to cite law.

[LPC]

I appreciate the attention, somewhat. I can't say derision serves any good what so ever. If you want to scrutinize, by all means go ahead.

Thanks for your permission.

And I hope it's all right with you if I just skip over your attempts at self-serving and condescending BS and limit myself to responding to (a) questions and (b) statements that are verifiable as either true or false.

So, what comes to mind is what avenues would you or anyone recommend in order of finding 'official' supreme court rulings? FOIA?

There are no such things as "unofficial" Supreme Court rulings, so the real questions are (a) how to find rulings and (b) how to tell the difference between Supreme Court opinions and opinions of lower courts.

There are several possible answers to (a), but I would recommend Google Scholar as a good source of federal court rulings, both Supreme Court and lower court.

The answer to (b) is to READ THE FREAKING DECISION.

Is FEDERAL INCOME TAX a direct or indirect tax and why?

Why do you care? The 16th Amendment says that taxes on incomes don't need to be apportioned, so what difference does it make whether you call the income tax "direct" or "indirect," because it doesn't need to be apportioned either way?

And why are you changing the subject?