Top 148 IRS Admissions – Forced Tribute Upon Human Livestock

Dave Robinson
Tue, Nov 18, 2014
Subject: Top 148 IRS Admissions
www.MorningLiberty.com

UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
1 of 15
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not a lawful bureau or a department of the U.S. Department
of the Treasury.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution (Art. 4, Sec. 4) guarantees the Rule of Law to all
Americans ; We are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Since there was no organic Act creating it, the IRS is not a lawful organization.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The IRS is a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under
color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The FAA was declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court when
Prohibition was repealed.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The IRS is a money laundry extortion racket and conspiracy engaged in a pattern of racketeering
activity in violation of 18 USC 1951 &1961 et seq.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
There is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving the IRS lawful jurisdiction to
operate within ANY of the 50 States of the Union.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The presence of the IRS within the 50 States stems from “Agreements on Coordination of Tax
Administration” (ACTA) which some officials in those States made with the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
By defining the IRS as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury those ACTA
agreements perpetuate fraud.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Those ACTA agreements violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service
contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The IRS cannot legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
148 ADMISSIONS RE: THE IRS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
2 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from the IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address,
is one count of mail fraud per 31 USC 333.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) does NOT have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal
court because the IRS is not a federal “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of
Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal “agency”
by Act of Congress per 5 USC 551(1)(C).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The IRS is excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ
because it is domiciled in Puerto Rico.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Chief Counsel of the IRS, appointed by the President under authority of 31 USC 301(f)(2), can
appear or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief
Counsel, and not to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The so-called 14th and 16th amendments were not properly ratified.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The so-called 16th amendment contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses
mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Repeals by implication are not favored by both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The so called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American
People.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Utah Supreme Court proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the so called 14th amendment
is likewise a major fraud upon the American People.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
3 of 15
The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the
several States, and as such their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S.
Constitution per Art. 4, Sec. 1.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated — particularly
Section 1 — the so called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in
American history.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject
to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is
provably vague and therefore unconstitutional.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for
taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Aside from the statutes of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) which apply only to federal government
employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific
liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at
IRC 7701(a)(16).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W4, the
payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of
all taxes withheld from that worker’s paycheck.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding
agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker per IRC 7809.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with
IRC 3402(n), the payroll officer is NOT thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
No federal regulation can create a specific liability when no specific liability is created by its
corresponding statute.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
4 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Agencies of the Executive Branch — and federal Courts in the Judicial Branch — are prohibited
from making law.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for a tax imposed by such Act, then there is no
liability for that tax.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a
liability.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
“An administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the
lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.”
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Before the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Now there are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The first class [State Citizen] originates in the qualifications clauses of the U.S. Constitution where
the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPERCASE
“C” in “Citizen”.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “United States” in these clauses is used to mean “States United”, i.e. “Citizen of ONE OF
the States United”.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The second class [federal citizen] originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act where the term “citizen of
the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 USC 1983. Notice the lower-case “c”
in “citizen”.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for
members of the Negro race who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation
(a war measure), and later by the 13th amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Compelling the payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary
servitude and extortion.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
5 of 15
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen” as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition,
the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these
two classes of citizens. They attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status by proposing
a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposed amendment was
never ratified.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Numerous court cases have attempted to clarify the important difference between the two classes.
Pannill v. Roanoke (1918) clearly held that federal citizens have no standing to sue under the
diversity clause because federal citizens were not contemplated when Article III of the U.S.
Constitution was first being drafted in 1787.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
In Ex parte Knowles (1855) the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as
a “citizen of the United States” as of 1855. Federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 USC
1983 [Civil action for deprivation of rights] whereas State Citizens do not. (See Wadleigh v.
Newhall (1905)).
You can be a State Citizen without also being a federal citizen.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited
areas of “the federal zone” where Congress is the “state” government of the District of Columbia
with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.”
(Think of “the federal zone.” as the blue field on the American flag where the stars on the flag are the
50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act has no effect on the lawful status of State Citizens,
then or now.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal
citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina
v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom
of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44
Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Since the Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution does not require the federal government to
guarantee a Republican Form of Government for the federal zone, Congress is free to create a
different form of government there, and so it has.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice
Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
6 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative
democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars
on the American flag; not the blue field).
The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the
statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck,
and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis; per
IRC 7809.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from
their paychecks, which is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W4 “Employee’s
Withholding Allowance Certificate.”
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
By signing a Form W4 a worker designates themselves as “employees” and certify that they are
allowing withholding to occur.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If workers do not execute a valid W4 form, a payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal
income taxes from their paychecks; the payroll officer does not have “permission” or “power of
attorney” to withhold taxes, unless and until workers authorize or “allow” such withholding by
knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily signing Form W4.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A properly executed Form W4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated
as “employees” of the federal government.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal
fiction at best.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A “Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative choice to signing Form W4, authorized by
IRC 3402(n) and executed in lieu of Form W4.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Although IRC 3402(n) authorizes this Withholding Exemption Certificate, the IRS has never added
such a corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed Products Catalog”).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of IRC 3402(n) to create their
own Withholding Exemption Certificates.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
7 of 15
The worker may certify that s/he had no federal income tax liability last year and anticipates no
federal income tax liability during the current calendar year.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
This certification is easy to justify because there are no liability statutes for workers in the private
sector.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
“Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax; in the context of federal income taxes, this crime
can only be committed by withholding agents, who have a legal liability to pay.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If you are not employed by the federal government, your are not subject to the Public Salary Tax
Act, unless you choose to be treated “as if” you are a federal government “employee,” typically by
executing a valid Form W4.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A Form W4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the federal government.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign” corporations with
respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded “as
if” they are by the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of
Congress.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its
capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are “domestic” corporations
only under pertinent federal laws.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such authority would invade States’
rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic
corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine
case supra.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to federal government agencies; an
“employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
At 28 USC 1746, Congress authorizes written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury
without the need for a Notary Public to witness one’s signature.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
8 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
28 USC 1746 identifies two different formats for such written verifications: those executed outside
of the “United States” and those executed inside the “United States”; these two formats correspond
to USC 1746(1) and USC 1746(2), respectively.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
For verifications executed “outside of the United States” 28 USC 1746 adds the qualifying phrase
“under the laws of the United States of America”.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The terms “United States” and “United States of America” — as both are used in 28 USC 1746 —
are not the same; “United States” refers to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution and most
federal statutes, and “United States of America” refers to the 50 States united by and under the U.S.
Constitution.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
28 USC 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 USC that utilizes the term “United States
of America” as such.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Verifications made under penalty of perjury executed inside the “50 States of the Union” (the State
zone) are executed outside of the “United States” (the federal zone).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Verifications made under penalty of perjury executed outside of the “United States” (the federal
zone) are executed inside the “50 States of the Union” (the State zone).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The signature required on Form 1040 is for verifications made inside the United States (federal
zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “United States” may be used as the name of a sovereign analogous to other sovereigns in
the family of nations.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “United States” may be used as the name of the territory over which the sovereignty of
the United States extends.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “United States” may be used as the name of the collective States united by and under the
Constitution.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The sovereign “United States” refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating
in its municipal capacity. For example, whenever it creates a federal domestic corporation, such as
the United States Postal Service.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
9 of 15
It is revealing of fraud that the definition of “United States” has now been removed from Black’s
Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The general term “income” is nowhere defined in the Internal Revenue Code.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Supreme Court has told Congress it could not legislate a definition of “income” because the
U.S. Constitution refers to that term.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Ratification of the 16thamendment would have introduced the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution
for the very first time, only if that amendment had been properly ratified.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Supreme Court defines “income” to mean profit or gain derived from corporate activities.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law enacted to govern the internal affairs of the
sovereign State — also known as Private International Law.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
American legal encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean “internal” and for this reason the
“Internal Revenue Code” is actually the “Municipal Revenue Code”.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The meaning of “State” at IRC 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of the
District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “State” at IRC 3121(e) and in all similar federal statutes includes ONLY the places expressly
named and no more.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers; if a power is not enumerated in the U.S.
Constitution, Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If Maine is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force
or effect in Maine; this is true of all 50 States.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
10 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
The omission or exclusion of any one or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the
omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress; as stated in Latin as follows: Inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius; inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [not mentioned].
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The many different definitions of the term “State” found in federal laws are intentionally written to
appear as if they include the 50 States plus other places mentioned; this is not the correct way to
interpret or to construct these statutes.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from
a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress; Congress knows how to define the term
“United States” to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC 4612(a)(4)(A).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal
definition for the term “income” is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax “on
everything that comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth. “Income” is decidedly
not “everything that comes in.” (See item 74)
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that
the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the
nature and cause of any accusation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. A
statutethat is void for vagueness, is the same as if it had never been enacted at all and for this
reason, it can be entirely ignored.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A less obvious case of deliberate deception is IRC 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions
of Subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of “this title”; because the term
“this title” is not defined anywhere in 26 USC, least of all in the section dedicated to definitions.
One is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning or to derive its meaning from the context.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Throughout Title 28 USC — the laws which govern all the federal courts — the term “this title”
refers to itself, Title 28 USC, which tends to suggest a conclusion that the term “this title” as it is
used in the IRC refers to Title 26 USC. However, Title 26 USC has never been enacted into
positive law as such.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of “this title”, they are men and women
of uncommon intelligence. The U.S. Supreme Court’s test for vagueness is violated whenever
men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
11 of 15
application of a vague statute. See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391
(1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong testors for vagueness.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect. (“F” is for enForcement!) This
subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for
failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons
enforcement and so on. In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth and as
such, it imposes no legal obligation upon anyone.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district
courts to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle F has
ever taken effect. For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything
at all.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Federal criminal Code 18 USC grants authority to the District Courts of the United States (DCUS)
to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code. (18 USC 3231).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
District Courts of the United States (DCUS) are not the same as United States District Courts
(USDC).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
DCUS are Article III constitutional courts, — while USDC are Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
territorial tribunal legislative courts.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
USDC belong in the federal Territories, and as such lack any lawful authority to prosecute income
tax crimes; they are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Under federal statute 28 USC 1292, U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review
interlocutory orders issued by the United States District Courts.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Federal judges who preside in the Article III constitutional District Courts of the United States are
immune from taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of the undue influence
of the IRS appearing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which
they are NOT), the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
12 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
principle of Separation of Powers, which in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal government
confined to their respective areas and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that
rightly belong to the other two branches.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553
(1932); however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by defining “Party” to mean only Plaintiffs
in Article III, contrary to the definition of “Party” is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The federal judiciary of the organic U.S. Constitution was intended to be independent and unbiased.
These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non, of judicial power, i.e. without which there is
nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against so-called “illegal tax protesters” for there
is no such thing; protest has never been illegal in America. The First Amendment guarantees our
fundamental Right to express our objections to any government actions, both in written and in spoken
words.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “illegal” cannot modify the noun “protesters” because to do so would constitute a violation
of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The term “illegal” must modify the noun “tax” for the term “illegal tax protester” to survive a constitutional
challenge; an “illegal tax” protester is someone protesting an illegal tax; such an act of protest is
protected by the First Amendment and cannot be a crime.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Protest is recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial Code; the phrase “under protest” or
“without prejudice” is sufficient to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law (See UCC 1-308).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The federal UCC is also municipal law.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries by misrepresenting themselves under oath as
lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government, and by misrepresenting the
provisions of subtitle F as having any legal force or effect.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, codified at 15 USC
1125(a). Title 15 USC has not been enacted into positive law.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
13 of 15
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by acting as if “income” is everything that “comes in”, when
there is no such definition anywhere in the IRC; a violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority
to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records; bank signature cards do not constitute competent
waivers of their customers’ fundamental Rights to privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment; the
high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent pretenses
that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the
50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent pretenses
that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have legal force and effect inside the 50
States of the Union, when those provisions do not.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
These are all forms of perjury, and possibly misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal
offenses.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
There is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of
the President with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury
against an illegal tax protester; these kickbacks range from $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH; they
violate the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal
government subcontractors. See 41 USC 8701 et seq.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor
that is subject to this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable
cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the
year 1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 USC 1 et seq.)
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The evidence of the “kickback racket” was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page
within the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”), the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS
employees.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
14 of 15
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority
whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail. See 18 USC 1702.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law; Due Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of American constitutional
practice; put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any property can be seized by any
federal government employees, agents, departments or agencies.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property, i.e. of the funds on deposit in that
account; no such seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its course; this means
notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Only after due process of law has run its proper or “due” course, can a valid court order be issued.
The holding in U.S. v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS can
only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court Order. And, of course,
no court Order could ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their “day in
court.”
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The money trail is difficult to follow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a
domicile in Puerto Rico (See 31 USC 1321(a)(62) and as such, their records are protected by laws
which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust
is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The IRS is technically not an “agency” of the federal government, as that term is defined in the
Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act, therefore the governments of
the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of “agency” in those Acts of Congress.
See 5 USC 551(1)(C).
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
All evidence indicates that the IRS is a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in
a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 USC 1951 & 1961 et seq; they appear to be
laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the
Vatican. See national policy on money laundering at 31 USC 5341.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted
that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government
services; the Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the
federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal
pension plans.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143
UNITED STATES vs. F. WILLIAM MESSIER & DAVID EVERETT ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH
15 of 15
The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to
maintaining the freedom of the American People; the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), at
5 USC 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount
of effort by the People.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA,
a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document(s).
If the requested document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding weekends and federal
holidays), the requester need only prepare a single letter of appeal.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the
appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States
(Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) to compel production of the requested document,
and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 USC 552(a)(4)(B). The general
rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a
certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the
IRC; of course, by now we already know the answer to this question, before asking it. (Good
lawyers always know the answers to their questions, before asking them.)
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Such FOIA requests should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an “agency” as that
term is defined at 5 USC 551(1)(C). Address them instead to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure
Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, District of Columbia,
USA. This is the format for “foreign” addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.
Admit ( ) Deny ( ) No knowledge ( )
Date: ___________________
By: ____________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.


Related Articles:


Show US the Law! – Taxes Paid to the IRS Are Voluntary

Paying Queen Elizabeth – IRS Not an Agency of Federal Gov’t

Patriot’s Demands – USofA, IMF, Federal Reserve, IRS Fraud & Identity Theft Must Stop

Top 10 IRS Evil Secrets – By Contract, Voluntary Sureties

IRS Foreigners – Tribute Paid to Foreign Corps is Unlawful

IRS Seizing Money from Bank Accounts of Innocent Americans

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply