Sovereignty is mentioned below
--------------------------------------

Misc RM 60    Misc reference material
Reference Material - For Information Only!
 
Over time we have collected a lot of reference material. 
We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.
If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.  
Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

 
I felt that while absolute Truth would be ineffectual in accomplishing the desired result with the County Clerk since she would not have recognized such authority. If she will not recognize the Supreme Authority of the Almighty, I discerned, perhaps she would recognize the authority of a Presidential Executive Order.
 
I know of two. There may be others that may be pertinent, but these should have been sufficient. 
 
Presidential Executive Order 12612 : …"All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people." 
And 
Presidential Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999 :…."(b) The people of the States created the national government and delegated to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people."
 
In addition, I know of some Supreme Court rulings on the matter:
"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." 
Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 [1886] 
 
"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process ..." 
Rodriques v Ray Donavan [U.S. Department of Labor,] 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 [1985] 
 
Thus, the sovereign people reign sovereign over the government of states [including political subdivisions] and the United States while states retain sovereignty over and independent of all other states and the United States. That the County Clerk, and most other public servants, do not understand who or what is the sovereign does not take away from the fact that - in this country - the people are the sovereign.

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

(Name All Plaintiffs and Defendants)             ________________ DIVISION
CIVIL NUMBER ___________________
 
Complete the following if judgment
was rendered in another District:
vs.
District: _____________________
Docket Number: _____________________
Date Entered: _____________________
 
ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
In the above entitled and numbered cause a judgment was rendered in this Court, or other United States District Court as indicated above and registered herein, on the ____ day of  _____________,______, in favor of ________________________________________________________________________ against _____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________in the sum of $ __________________________________________ with interest at the rate of _____ per cent per annum from the ______ day of ____________, _______.
 
Costs have been taxed by the Clerk of Court in the sum of $ ____________________________________.
 
Credits reflected by returns on execution in the sum of $_______________________________________.
 
The birth date and driver's license number of the defendant available to the Clerk are: ________________
____________________________________________________________________________________.

The address of the defendant shown in this suit in which said judgment was rendered: _________________
____________________________________________________________________________ or nature of citation and date and place citation served: _________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________.
 
I certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct abstract of judgment rendered or registered in this Court.
 
Witness my hand and seal of the Court this _____ day of _______________, 20____. 

XXXXXX XXXXXX, CLERK
By ________________________
Deputy Clerk

 
Notice and Choice of Law
The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution of the United States secure due process in the course of the common law to the American people, which necessarily includes the right to trial by jury. See Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed. 253, 10 Wheat 1 (1825). 

Therefore, you are hereby provided notice that as a precaution, I am invoking the saving to suitors clause (28 U.S.C. § 1333(1)) in order to secure and proceed in the course of the common law in the event that there is controversy within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
 
Under rules of common law procedure, acquiescence to stipulations of fact and law set forth in attending fact, claim and/or complaint affidavits, along with conclusions of law included or incorporated by reference in conditional acceptance, protest and/or rebuttal documents, will have the effect of a common law Retraxit by Tacit Procuration, whether for purposes of administrative or judicial due process remedies. In the event of acquiescence, stipulations secured by tacit procuration may constitute the basis for counter-claims and other appropriate remedies.
 
The Internal Revenue Service mandate for timely resolution of controversy is articulated in one-stop service policy, Policy Statement P-6-13, published at § 1.2.1.6.5 of the Internal Revenue Manual:
(1)     One-stop service defined: Assistance and information to taxpayers contacting the Service will be sufficiently timely, complete, and accurate to minimize the need for further contact by the customer on the same issue(s).
(2)     One-stop service is defined as the resolution of issues during the taxpayer's initial contact or as a direct result of that contact. One-stop service complements and promotes the Service's three key objectives: reduce taxpayer burden, improve voluntary compliance and improve customer satisfaction and quality-driven productivity. Service employees will take the necessary steps to provide one-stop service in all types of contacts initiated by the taxpayer whether the contact is by telephone, correspondence or face-to-face.  
 
All property, activities, events, transactions and particular facts giving rise to any controversy that might arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States have occurred in or otherwise have situs on land within one or more States of the Union; there is no nexus giving rise to special territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 7. 

Further, Internal Revenue Service personnel have venue standing and subject matter jurisdiction solely within internal revenue districts of the United States established in compliance with requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7621 and Executive Order #10289, as amended (See also, 26 U.S.C. § 7601 and 26 CFR § 601.101). The Secretary of the Treasury has never established internal revenue districts of the United States within States of the Union. 
 
Therefore, in the event Internal Revenue Service personnel exceed venue and subject matter jurisdiction prescribed by law, or abridge substantive and procedural due process rights, they are personally liable for unlawful acts and omissions under law of the venue, i.e., since there are no internal revenue districts in States of the Union, IRS personnel are subject to remedies prescribed by the constitution and laws of the forum State. See 26 U.S.C. § 7804(b), published as a note following § 7801 since enactment of the Internal Revenue Service restructuring and reform act of 1998. Original jurisdiction of state law does not foreclose remedies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
 
There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III § 2, U.S. Constitution, "arising under" clause). See Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U.S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1864; 152 L. Ed. 2d 962, decided March 28, 2002, and cases cited therein. The following elements are indispensable:
1.       When challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record;
2.       Facts of the case must be established in record;
3.       Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition or direct oral examination);
4.       The law of the case must affirmatively appear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See United States of America v. Menk, 260 F. Supp. 784 at 787 and United States of America v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 79 (10th Cir., 1964));
5.       The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts; and
6.       The trial court or decision-maker, whether administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law. The exception to this requirement is the decision of juries in common law courts.

 
 
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS
 
I, ______________________, Prosecutor for the County of xxxxx, State of xxxxxx, do hereby swear to or affirm the following statements:
1.       I sought and obtained a signed arrest warrant for Defendant, signed by Judge _____________________________.
2.       I obtained said arrest warrant for the arrest of Defendant on the date of _____________.
3.       I presented sworn evidence and/or sworn witnesses to the Honorable ______________ to show that there was probable cause for such arrest.
4.       The sworn witness(es) that presented testimony, to show probable cause for arrest, to Judge _______________, were ______________________________________ (names)
5.       Judge __________________ issued the arrest warrant for Defendant on the basis of sworn testimony or sworn evidence.
6.       I requested or ordered that Defendant be notified that there was an arrest warrant out for him by an unsigned postcard sent in the US mail on the following date _____________.
7.       I, or one of my agents, ordered the Ingham County Sheriff's Department or other agency to investigate the incident that led to the arrest of Defendant. 
8.       The investigation of the incident, that led to the arrest, was done by Officer(s) _______________________________ and such investigation established the fact that Defendant was identified as the driver of the vehicle that was involved in incident that led to the arrest of Defendant.
9.       Before seeking and obtaining the arrest warrant for Defendant, I, or one of my agents, determined that a citation had been issued to Defendant on the date of _____________.
10.     A preliminary hearing was held on the date of________________ by ________________ _____________________ (name) from my office and during that hearing it was determined that Defendant was not the individual that was involved in the incident that led to his arrest.
11.     There were three witnesses to the preliminary hearing, who were there on behalf of Defendant, who stated to the agent, named in item (10), that Defendant was not involved in any incident leading to his arrest and that Defendant was with one or more of them throughout the day of the alleged incident and could prove his innocence.
12.     At the end of the preliminary hearing, the agent stated, after doing some fact checking, that it was not Defendant that was involved in the alleged incident, leading to his arrest, and that statement was made before several of the witnesses that were present.
13.     The Prosecution, knowing that Defendant was not the individual involved in the alleged incident, continued the prosecution of Defendant until the night before a jury trial was scheduled on the date of ___________________. 
14.     On the date of ________________, the Prosecution issued a statement of "Nolo Prosequi" to the attorney hired for the defendant for the reason that ___________________________________.
15.     The defendant was forced to hire an attorney to present his case before the jury.

I swear to or affirm, under the penalty of perjury and the laws of the United States and (State), that the above enumerated statements are true to the best of my knowledge, except as to those items that I have crossed out and affixed my initials to in the margin.
 
__________, Prosecutor for the County of xxxx, state of Xxxxxx.
 
Signed ___________________________________________
Witness printed name _______________________________
Witness signature __________________________________
On this date; ______________________________ 

 

Response to Levy Complaint
XXXXXXX
XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX
January 30, 20xx
 
XXXX XXXX 
Collection Branch 
IRS Service Center BRPP. O. Box 9949 
Ogden, Utah 84409 
 
COMPLAINT
Re: Form 668-A(c) dated 01/14/01
Sir;
Take note that a levy is not a legal document, it is an administrative notice. The Internal Revenue Manual says that a notice of levy may be served on government employers regarding their employees. The Treasury Financial Manual says the same thing. Neither says anything about banks. This should not be surprising, in that Section 6331, which authorizes the issuance of a notice of levy, says "notice may be served on employers (as defined in Section 3401)…." It says nothing about banks. Section 3401 also defines "employee" as one who works for the government.
 
Seizures are made pursuant to the police powers of the government. The federal government exercises no police powers within a State. All property laws are State laws, and in order to deprive a Citizen of his property, he must be afforded the protection of his State's laws, courts, and procedures. The only 2 ways the federal government can deprive a Citizen of property without a court order are 1) if the property is the governments to begin with, or 2) it is in the hands of a government employee or official. See your Legal Manual. It says State property law prevails. Title 28 says that State procedures rule. Property is protected from seizure by our garnishment laws, and you have no garnishment. The authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to "levy" is given at Title 31, under warrants of distraint. The Secretary is authorized to issue an administrative, non-judicial levy only against a government official who is in possession of money that is owed the government, such as a collector of the revenue. The current "warrant of distraint" form is Form 668-B, which authorizes the issuance of the levy notice.
 
"Under the 1939 Code, effective with respect to distraint and seizure and sale actions prior to January 1, 1955, levy or distraint on personal or real property in the possession of a taxpayer was authorized by a signed Warrant for Distraint, Form 69, which commanded the collection officer to take the necessary distraint action. Under the 1954 Code, effective with respect to all collection actions after December 31, 1954, the levy and distraint action will be authorized by a new form, Levy, Form 668-B, January 1955. This form, properly executed, directs the collection officer to levy upon, and to sell so much of the property and rights to property, either real or personal, of the taxpayer liable, as may be necessary to satisfy the taxes enumerated in the levy." 
Henderson v. Internal Revenue Service, KTC 1994-486 (S.D.Ind. 1994)
 
Note that the taxes must be enumerated in the levy. 1040A is a form, not a tax, so your notice fails to provide even its most fundamental required element. 668-B is THE underlying requirement for a notice of levy, as is explained in your IRM and the Treasury Financial Manual. 
 
When it comes to seizing property from Citizens, you need a court order, because no government has more right to seize than any Citizen. Your order must be in the form of a Writ of Garnishment, issued by a Superior Court of the State of Washington, or it has no effect within the State. To pretend that your Form is a legal substitute for a writ is both absurd and fraudulent. For a County Sheriff, the highest law officer in the County, to garnish my bank account, he needs a writ. So do you. For your document to have the force of a writ, the constitutional guarantee of due process would first have to be abolished. It would violate States' Sovereignty over their internal affairs, as guaranteed by the Constitution. If a County Sheriff cannot seize property without a Court order, neither can the federal government or any of its officers or agents.
 
Unless you can forward me a certified copy of your Form 668(B), you cannot establish a basis for sending any notices of levy to anyone. If you cannot do so, please certify your lack of documents on Form 3050, Certificate of Lack of Records. In the event that you lack authority, I demand that you send letters of correction to the parties to whom you mailed your forms.
 
I am sending a copy of this complaint to my Congressman, ______, and am reporting this event to TIGTA. I believe you have committed a fraud, and are malfeasant in your duty to apply the law as written and regulated, or be subject to the provisions of Section 7214 of the Code.
 
XXXXX XXXXX 
Cc: District Director, IRS 
915 Second Avenue, M/S 600 
Seattle, WA 98174 
 
Director, IRS Service Center 
Ogden, Utah 84201 
 
Congressman Norm Dicks 
2467 Rayburn House Office Bldg. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
 
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 
P.O. Box 589 Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, DC 20044-0589 

The rights of property
 
1866 constitution
SEC. 20. The rights of property and of action, which have been acquired under the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Texas, shall not be divested; nor shall any rights or actions, which have been divested, barred, or declared null and void, by the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Texas, be reinvested, revived, or reinstated, by this Constitution; but the same shall remain precisely in the situation which they were before the adoption of this Constitution. 

 
 
REPORT CONCERNING LIABILITY OF CERTAIN US CITIZENS IN REGARD TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.
 
The First Consideration – The Constitution
 
The Constitution of the United States forbids the imposition by the federal government a direct tax without apportioning it in accordance with the census. The first thing to consider then is what constitutes a direct tax and what apportionment means.
 
The subject of what constitutes a direct tax has been addressed by the Supreme Court in several cases. We'll examine these cases and examine what the Court said concerning the 16th Amendment.
 
It must first be understood that there are some basic principles of law. One important principle is that because a case is old, does not mean that it is invalid or not reliable. It is exactly the opposite. An old case, which has never been successfully challenged nor overturned, is the best of all cases, having withstood the test of time.
 
       There are other principles which must be considered…such as… a person does not have to do what an IRS agent tells him to do; he only has to do what the law tells him to do. The law is expressed by Constitution, court ruling, statute, and regulation. The lowest on the pecking order is regulation. In order for a regulation to have the force and effect of law, it must cite a statute on which it is based. Sometimes a regulation is overturned by a court ruling on the basis that the regulation did not properly reflect the statute. 
 
There are 3 types of regulations; Interpretive, Procedural, and Legislative. An agency can have a regulation demanding that employees shine their shoes or wash their hands. These obviously would not have the force and effect of law but would only be a condition of employment. There are also interpretive regulations that guide the employees in their work. The last type of regulation is the legislative regulation, which has the force and effect of law by the citation of a statute or ruling on which it is based. At the end of each regulation, you will see a number of citations, such as a Treasury Department Decision, etc. The regulation must cite a statute, such as IRC sec. 6331, in order to have the force and effect of law. 
       
So one of the main considerations which must become a part of your thinking would be to question any statement made by an IRS agent or government official as to whether a regulation has the force and effect of law. A supreme Court case states a principle which you would do well to remember…that is, if you accept an agent's statement concerning the law and if his statement is incorrect or deceptive, then you are taking a risk. DON'T take that risk!! Always ask to be shown the statute and regulation!!! That ruling was given in "Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v Merrill, 332 US 380-388" and has never been overturned. 
 
"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to the IRS agents… Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights." US v Dickerson, 413 F.2d 1111, (1969)
 
If a regulation does not cite a specific court ruling, statute or other law, it does not have the force and effect of law. If a statute does not have an implementing regulation, it is a benign statute. Both of these conditions do occur and occur often. So CHECK, CHECK, CHECK.
 
The prohibitions against a direct tax are in Article 1, sec. 2, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this union, according to their respective Numbers…" and also in Article 1, sec. 9, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." These 2 prohibitions were never repealed and remain in force in the main body of the Constitution. The income tax is a direct tax on an individual and must be levied under the rule of apportionment, according to the Supreme Court. However, there actually was levied an excise tax on corporations, in 1909 and later, which was measured by the size of their incomes and limited by their profits. That tax cannot be levied on an individual.
 
"Direct Taxes bear upon persons, upon possession and the enjoyment of rights; Indirect Taxes are levied upon the happening of an event." Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900). 
 
"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruit, is an Indirect Tax which Congress undoubtedly may impose." [Tyler et.  al., Administrators v. United States, 281 US 497, 502 (1930)].
 
Just what is an excise tax? There are more statements by the rulings of the Supreme Court but before we get into those, let me state the following… Excise taxes used to be commonly referred to as luxury taxes. The basis for that was that an excise tax was levied on an item of consumption or a privilege, which could be avoided by the buyer or subscriber. No one refers to excise taxes as luxury taxes anymore because the establishment would not want this concept to take root in the public mind. There are an awful lot of citizens who would disagree with the notion that the telephone or gasoline are not necessities of life and can be avoided, thereby rendering them as luxuries. So it is best that the "masses" not be reminded of this concept.
 
We will now look into the 16th Amendment. You will be surprised at what you will discover.

 

To the Law firm of ________________
Address: _________________________
City, state: ________________________
 
From: ___________________
           _____________________
          _______________________
Dear Sirs and Madams;
I am engaged in my defense for a charge of alleged "tax evasion". Currently I am attempting to find legal representation to present my defenses against all charges. I would like to engage one of your attorneys to represent me in this matter. If you are willing to provide such assistance, I would ask you to answer the following questions and agree to the following terms.
 
In order to present an adequate defense, it is imperative that my attorney be familiar with the Internal Revenue laws. Accordingly, I find it necessary that the attorney who represents me, shall first certify that he can identify the following:
1.       The section of the IRC that makes me liable as per sections 6001 and 6011.
2.       The legal definition of "income" as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as pertains to the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
3.       The 16th Amendment and the effects of the Amendment on new taxing powers delegated to the federal government. If none, please so state. If the Amendment authorized new taxing powers to the federal government, please state the new taxing powers and the subjects brought under such new taxing powers.
4.       The taxing authority in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes an "income tax" on citizens, living and working within the 50 states.
5.       All Statutes-At-Large in Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code and provide me with such copies. (Note: It should be a very short list.)
6.       All implementing regulations of 26 CFR for statutes in subtitle "A" and "C" in the Internal Revenue Code and the means by which implementing regulations are identified.
7.       The Table of Parallel Authorities and their application to the Code of Federal Regulations and to the statutes of the Internal Revenue Code.
8.       The difference between 26 CFR and 27 CFR and where in the Internal Revenue Code those regulations obtain their authority.
9.       The relationship between the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department.
10.     The method by which authority is granted to the Internal Revenue Service.
11.     The court rulings or acts passed by Congress that pertain to whether the Internal Revenue Service is a private corporation or a government entity.
12.     All agents authorized, by title, to take collection actions under subtitle "A" or "C" of the Internal Revenue Code. See IRC section 7608. Please identify any additional IRC sections that authorize agents, by title, to take such collection actions.
13.     The "Intelligence Division" of the Internal Revenue Service and whether the Criminal Investigative Division is included in the Intelligence Division. If affirmative, provide the lawful authority that changed the name and authority of the Intelligence Division to the Criminal Investigative Division.
14.     All delegation orders from the Secretary of the Treasury to Internal Revenue agents or departments.
15.     Pocket commissions issued to Internal Revenue agents, and whether such commission are entitled "enforcement" or "non-enforcement" pocket commissions. 
16.     Please state whether or not my prospective attorney has knowledge of; (a) Statutes At Large as being applicable to the general public, (b) the difference between Statutes At Large and statutes that do not apply to the general public, (c) whether the Internal Revenue Laws are laws pertaining to the general public and if they have been published in the federal register, (c) the necessity of implementing regulations in the Table of Parallel Authorities and how implementing regulations can be identified, (d) Agent's Pocket Commissions and the importance of "enforcement commissions", (e) Delegation Orders from the Secretary of the Treasury and why such delegation orders are required to authorize IRS agents to act, (f) the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in regard to the definition of the word "income" as used in the 16th Amendment, (g) the statute that makes a non-corporate person liable for the "income tax", (h) the regulation and statute that make me liable for the "income tax". (j) the difference between an excise tax and a direct tax, (k) the taxing clauses of the U.S. Constitution, (k) the "apportionment provision" of the U.S. Constitution, (l) the difference between the corporate income tax and an individual income tax, (m) statutes that authorize an agent's authority to perform specific acts, and limitations on IRS agents' authority.
17.     Please state whether any prospective counsel, provided by your firm, will or will not use every legal defense available to me.
18.     Please state whether your firm will provide restitution for any damages that accrue to me or my family as a result of your negligence or failure to provide a legitimate defense or incompetence by any prospective counsel, provided by your firm.
 
Please respond by signed letter from an authorized attorney in your firm to fax number 1-000-000-0000. Please let me know if you have a qualified attorney to represent me and if such attorney is willing to represent me, in this matter. 
 
Signed: ___________________________
Printed name: ______________________
Address: __________________________
City, state, zip: _____________________
Dated: __________________________
 
Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information. 
We are not a group or organization. 
We are not a company or corporation or association.  
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.
To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".