challenge of authority john doe

7/28/2019 Challenge of Authority John Doe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/challenge-of-authority-john-doe 1/29

John; Doe, Sovereign American Nationalc/o 1234 Main Street, Santa Ana, California [92701]

Constructive Notice of DemandFor

Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

August, 2nd 2006

Mark EversonCommissioner

Internal Revenue Service Certified Mail # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

1111 Constitution Ave., NWWashington, DC 20002

Scott PrentkyField Director, Compliance Service

Internal Revenue Service Certified Mail # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Ogden, UT 84201-0030

To Include: Any and All agents and/or employees of the IRS.

PURPOSE: Constructive Notice of Demand for Verification of authenticity of authority.

RE: Letter July 17, 2006 (LTR-3175C), originating with Scott Prentky, Field

Director, Compliance Service – response to alleged correspondence fromJohn; Doeh on April 12th 2006.

This Notice of Demand shall include Any and All past, present or future

actions, criminal or civil, by ANY and ALL IRS agents or employees.

Dear Mr. Everson and Mr. Prentky,

This letter and affidavit is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights of the

National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments, andThe Bill of Rights of the California Constitution, in particular, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 and 18,

and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subjectmatter. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity andspecificity, by means of your own sworn and notarized affidavit, everything in this letter and

affidavit, with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and

admission to the fact that everything in this letter and affidavit is true, correct, legal, lawful and

binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or thatof those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General

Constructive Notice of Demand For Direct Challenge to Personal Authority of 29



Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of

due process of law.” Also, see: United States v. Tweel , 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be

equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry leftunanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

This a response to your letter dated July 17th

2006, which allegedly is supposed to be aresponse to my correspondence to the IRS from April 12 th 2006. However, I have not sent any

such correspondence to the IRS on or, around that date. As a matter of fact, I have not sent any

correspondence, whatsoever, to the IRS at any time in the year 2006.

After reading your letter and after considerable review of the Internal Revenue Code,Treasury regulations, published Internal Revenue Service policy, Administrative Procedure Act

requirements and Supreme Court decisions upholding these requirements, it is my conclusion

that you are operating outside of the venue and subject matter jurisdiction of the InternalRevenue Service.

Per Ryder v. United States, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, I am

required to initiate a direct challenge to the authority of anyone representing himself or herself as

a government officer or agent prior to the finality of any proceeding in order to avoidimplications of de facto officer doctrine. When challenged, those posing as government officers

and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of

proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty is a gift endowed to every living man, woman and child by the Creator. Thisgift coming from the Creator, no man, woman, person, entity, agency or individual has a right to

take that gift from another man or woman without explicit, fully informed, and willful consent

by the one who is giving it up. That is reflected in the 13 th Amendment to the Constitution to the

united States of America, which states:“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the

party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place

subject to their jurisdiction.”

To become a “taxpayer”, a man has to voluntarily give up his gift of Sovereignty. If theman has no knowledge of this, if it is deceptively and unlawfully imposed upon him without his

knowledge or his consent, it is not done voluntarily and with his full understanding of the

consequences thereof; and, therefore, the man is put into involuntary servitude, and whoever has

committed such an act has committed criminal violation of the Constitution for the united Statesof America.

1. “In the United States the People are sovereign and the government cannot sever itsrelationship to the People by taking away their citizenship.” Afroyim v. Rusk , 387 U.S.

253 (1967).

2. “The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by

his prerogative.” Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829)




3. “In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is

too commonly acquired by force or fraud or both…In America, however the case is

widely different. Our government is founded upon Compact. Sovereignty was, and is, inthe People.” Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6.

4. “It is a Maxim {an established principle} of the Common Law that when an act of

Parliament is made for the public good, the advancement of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and wrong, the King shall be bound by such an act, though not named; butwhen a Statute is general, and any prerogative Right, title or interest would be divested or

taken from the King (or the People) in such case he shall not be bound.” The People vs. Herkimer , 15 Am. Dec. 379, 4 Cowen 345 (N.Y. 1825).

5. “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the Government of theUnited States. In this Country, Sovereignty resides in the People. … Congress can

exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is

withheld.” Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

6. “Here in America, Sovereignty rests with the People Chisholm.” Ex’r. v. Georgia, 1 L.

ed. (2Dall) 415, 472.

7. “The words ‘People of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean

the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our Republican

Institutions, form the sovereignty…They are what we familiarly call the ‘SovereignPeople,’ and every citizen is one of this People, and a constituent member of this

Sovereignty.” Wong Kim Ark. Page 914, quoting Dred Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. 393, 19

Howard 577.

8. “Under our system the People, who are there [in England] called subjects, are here theSovereigns. Their Rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a

sentiment of loyalty to the person of a Monarch. The citizen here [in America] knows no

person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he needyield the Rights which the Law secures to him…” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at

208;

9. “While sovereign powers [i.e. ‘ownership powers’] are delegated to agencies of the

government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by whom and for whom allgovernment exists and acts.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins & Woo Lee v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.

10. “Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, states [through the sovereign people] possessed

unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever afterward. Upon

entering the Union they retained all their Original power and Sovereignty, except such aswas surrendered to the government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by

the United States Constitution.” Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249. S.P. & People v.Coleman, 60 D. 581.

11. “Under our form of government, the legislature is not supreme. It is only one of theorgans of that absolute sovereignty which resides in the whole body of the People. And

like other bodies of government, it can only exercise such powers as have been delegated




able to govern their actions accordingly. The termination of the emergency loan program

was without any notice, and was in violation of the statute,” Id., at 155. Berends v. Botz ,357 F. Supp. 144 (D. Minn. 1973).

19. “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” M arbury v.

Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174,176.

20. A law that “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the

Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76;

Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 312.

21. A law that improperly infringes on Constitutional Rights is void from its inception and no

person can be obligated to obey such a law. 16A AmJur2d Constitutional Law, Section203.

22. “A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law.” Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298U.S. 238.

23. “Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded

thereby.” 16 Am. Jur. 2nd 177 late Am. Jur. 2nd, 256 .24. “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently

unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.

25. “The court has flatly rejected the imposition of a tax upon a right secured by the Bill

of Rights.” Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943).

26. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or

legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.

27. That court proceedings must be within Constitutional provisions has been forcefullyestablished by the Supreme Court. Smith v. United States, 360 US 1; Muskrat v. United

States, 219 US 346.

28. “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Miller v. United States, 230 F, 2d 286, 489.

29. “Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be done voluntarily, they must be

knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances

and consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748.

30. “But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the

fundamental law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it.” Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S., 414 pg. 468.

31. “The government of the United States does not come by inheritance, or succession into

any judicial power,” … “The government of the United States may, therefore, exerciseall, but no more than all the judicial power provided for it by the constitution .” …“if the party and the controversy, and the rule for deciding the merits of the controversy

are, by the constitution, given to this Court; there can be no impediment to its action in

this particular” … “A judicial power means, therefore, a power to interpret, and not

to make the laws” State of Rhode Island v. COM. of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1838).




32. “That which violates the spirit of the constitution is as much unconstitutional as one that

violates its letter.” Sinking Fund Cases, 99 US 700 dis op.

33. The court has insisted “that the language Congress used provides an adequate warning asto what conduct falls under its ban...”, United States v. Petrillo, 332 US 1 (1947).

Where the record is wholly void of any necessary element of a crime, the case is

“constitutionally infirm.” Thompson v. Louisville, 362 US 199.

34. Indeed, there may be a heavy presumption against validity where a right is explicitlysecured by the constitution. Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1979); Capital Cities Mediav. Toole, 463 US 1301 (1983). Under some circumstances, a constitutional challenge to a

statute must be made during pleading.

35. “Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressedin such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade

them, are now after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those

great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people

would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to

accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional libertywould be in peril unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had

taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. TheConstitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace,

and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all

circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great

exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” Ex parte Milligan. 71 US 124 (1866).

36. “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled tocarry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes

no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since hereceives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are

such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organizationof the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance

with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the

immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of thelaw. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

Hale v. Henkel , 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

37. “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void.” World Wide Volkswagon v.Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980); National Bank v. Wiley, 195 US 257 (1904); Smith

v. Uited States, 360 US 1 (1958); Pennoyer v. Neff , 95 US 714.38. “If this requirement of the (Bill of Rights) is not complied with, the court no longer has

jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction pronounced by a court without

jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain release by habeascorpus.” Johnson v Zerbst , 304 US 458, 468 (1938)




39. “... the requirements of due process must be met before the court can properly assert in personam jurisdiction.” Wells Fargo v. Wells Fargo, 556 F2d 406,416.

40. “It is beyond question, of course, that a conviction based on a record lacking any relevantevidence as to a crucial element of the offense charged violates due process.” Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 US 478.

41. A law that “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the

Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” Mobile v. Bolden, 446 US 55, 76;

Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 312.

42. That court proceedings must be within Constitutional provisions has been forcefully

established by the Supreme Court. Smith v. United States, 360 US 1; Muskrat v. United States, 219 US 346.

43. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Connallyv General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391 (1926)

44. “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently

unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618.45. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or

legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.

46. “A legislative act contrary to the. Constitution is not law.” Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298U.S. 238.

47. The court has had no problem in declaring a law must be clearly communicated to the

citizen to be enforced: “(A) statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in

terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaningand differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”

Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 US 385, 391 (1926).

48. “If it is law, it will be found in the books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law .”

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616.

49. “Whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court is obliged

to dismiss the action.” Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37; U.S. v. Texas, 252

F. Supp 234, 254.

50. “Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be done voluntarily, they must beknowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances

and consequences.” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748.

51. “But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the

fundamental law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it.” Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S., 414 pg. 468.

52. “Only by due process of law may courts acquire jurisdiction over parties.” The legal

encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum volume 16D, section 1150 on Constitutional Law

16D CJS Const. Law, §1150.




53. Due process is violated if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in

the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Snyder v. Massachusett s, 291 US 97, 105 (1934).

54. “When the existence or the content of a law is called into question, the court must

necessarily decide the question the same as it decides any other question of law.” Walnut

v Wade, 103 US 683, 689 (1880).

55. The prosecutor is not allowed to write, or assume, provisions in a statute to obtain aconviction. Rabe v. Washington, 405 US 313 (1972). “(T)he record of his conviction

should show distinctly, and not by inference merely, that every step involved in due

process of law, and essential to a valid trial, was taken in the trial court; otherwise, the

judgment will be erroneous.” Crain v United States, 162 US 625, 645 (1896).

56. “This court has repeatedly stated that criminal statutes which fail to give notice that an

act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due

process of law.” Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 US 223, 230 (1951).

57. “It is beyond question, of course, that a conviction based on a record lacking any relevantevidence as to a crucial element of the offense charged violates due process.” and

reversed the conviction. Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 US 478 (1973).

58. “No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the

specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in

all courts, state or federal. If, as the State Supreme Court held, petitioners were charged

with a violation of §1, it is doubtful both that the information fairly informed them of that

charge and that they sought to defend themselves against such a charge; it is certain thatthey were not tried for or found guilty of it. It is as much a violation of due process to

send an accused to prison following conviction of a charge on which he was never tried

as it would be to convict him upon a charge that was never made.” Cole v Arkansas, 333US 196, 201 (1947).

59. Defendant must be given adequate notice of the offense charged against him and for

which he is to be tried. Smith v. O’Grady, 312 US 329 (1941).

60. “Conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process.” De Jonge v.Oregon, 299 US 353, 362. (1937).

This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and it's agents

and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS's own manual stating:

“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations

of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”

“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by theU.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of

lower courts. The internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For

examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.”




Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) – OMB Control Number

The 1040 is a tax form, therefore subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

61. In Section 3512 of the Act, entitled “Public Protection,” it says that no person shall be

subject to any penalty for failing to comply with an agency’s collection of

information request (such as a 1040 form), if the request does not display a valid

control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in

accordance with the requirements of the Act, or if the agency fails to inform the personwho is to respond to the collection of information that he is not required to respond to the

collection of information request unless it displays a valid control number.

62. In Section 3512 Congress went on to authorize that the protection provided by Section

3512 may be raised in the form of a complete defense at any time during an agency’s

administrative process (such as an IRS Tax “Court” or Collection and Due Process

Hearing) or during a judicial proceeding.

63. In sum, the PRA requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control

numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the

public is requested to file. In a recent action brought by the United States in the UnitedStates District Court, For The Central District of Illinois at Peoria, captioned United States of America v. Robert Lawrence, Case No. 06-10019, the Government moved todismiss the case, with prejudice, due to the fact that Defendant’s attorney, Oscar Stilley,

threatened exposure of the IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. Lawrence's

sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an

invalid OMB control number.

64. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being

used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the

enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women

and child in America.65. Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory

authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control

number. If a control number were issued for such a form, the form would be invalid and

of no force and effect.

66. Under the facts and circumstances of the last 26 years, it is safe to say that IRS Form

1040 is a fraudulent, counterfeit, bootleg form. Government officials responsible for this

fraud should be investigated and face indictment for willfully making and sponsoring

false instruments.

a. IRS Form 1040 violates the federal Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and is therefore

a legally invalid form.

b. Under the Public Protection clause of the PRA, no person can be penalized for

failing to file a 1040 if the IRS fails to fully comply with the PRA.

c. The PRA statutes explicitly provide that a PRA challenge is a complete defense andcan be raised in any administrative or judicial proceeding.




d. The IRS Individual Form 1040 has not and cannot comply with the requirements of

the PRA because no existing statute authorizes the IRS to impose or collect the

federal income tax from individuals. That lack of bona fide authority makes itimpossible for IRS to avoid violating the PRA.

e. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appears to have been complicit with

IRS in deceiving the public and in helping perpetuate the 1040 fraud by promulgating federal regulations that negate the plain language of the PRA laws passed by Congress and by allowing the IRS to continually skirt the explicit

requirements of those statutes

67. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3506(c)(1)(B)(iii). The section mandates that

the 1040 form must inform the recipient of:

i. the reasons the information is being collected;

ii. the way such information is to be used;

iii. an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the collection;

iv. whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required toobtain a benefit, or mandatory; and

v. the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a 1040 form unless it displays a valid control number (i.e., issuedin accordance with the requirements of PRA).

68. IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3507(a)(1)(C). The section mandates that the

IRS shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information via a 1040 unless in

advance of the adoption or revision of the 1040 the IRS has submitted to OMB the proposed 1040 form along with copies of pertinent statutory authority and regulations

authorizing the IRS to collect the information on the 1040 form. The clearance packages

that the IRS submits to the OMB make no mention of IRC Section 1, 61, 63, 6011, 6012,6091, 7203 or any of the other sections federal judges alternately cite as “the” authority

that authorizes IRS to collect information via the 1040.

69. The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section

1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after threeyears, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has

had the same OMB control number for 26 years. Under Section 3507(g), every OMB

control number must expire every three years, or sooner. OMB approves a 1040 for onlya three year period so as to ensure that at least once every three years the IRS reviews the

1040 form, publishes its review in the Federal Register, and seeks public input.

Apparently, the IRS has not submitted a certification to OMB with an explanation of whyit would be inappropriate for OMB to issue a control number with an expiration date.

70. The IRS has continually violated PRA Section 3512 ("Public Protection"). This section

prohibits the IRS from penalizing any person for failing to file a “bootleg” 1040. The

1040 form falls into the “bootleg” class if it does not display a valid OMB controlnumber and the disclaimer that no response is required without such a control number.

The 1995 amendments strengthened this provision by making clear that IRS victims can




invoke this protection “in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time

during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.” In spite

of this, the IRS routinely penalizes and prosecutes people for failing to file the 1040 taxreturn. Although required by law, IRS never informs people about the bootleg nature of

the 1040 form, nor the fact that its hapless victims have no legal obligation to file such

bootleg forms.71. Section 3512 of the PRA, titled “Public Protection” reads as follows:

a. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any

penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this

subchapter [44 USCS § 3501 et seq.] if--

b. the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by theDirector in accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS § 3501 et seq.]; or

c. the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of

information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of

information unless it displays a valid control number.

d. The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a completedefense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or

judicial action applicable thereto.

72. The instructions for OMB Form 83-I, which the IRS must use in submitting its request

for approval of the 1040 form and an OMB control number, require each agency tosubmit with the form a “supporting statement” which is to “identify any legal or

administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the

appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collectionof information.” The supporting statement must also include information regarding the

“burden” imposed upon the public as a result of the “collection of information.”

73. This issue, then, is whether the PRA allows the approval of a Form for 26 years utilizing

the same approval number. The tenth Circuit also took this issue with this in Collins v.Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) wherein it stated that:

“Assuming arguendo, that the Paperwork Reduction Act mandates that all federal forms

contain expiration dates, this requirement plainly would be satisfied by the dates provided

on the 1040 forms at issue.”

“On the other hand, the IRS 1040 forms at issue in the present case were explicitlydesignated as either 1982, 1983, or 1984 tax returns with their effective dates of coverage

clearly denoted.”

74. This means that the “expiration date” for the OMB control number appearing on a 1040Form is the year of the form on the cover page. Since the OMB control number on the1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return in 1984 was 1545-0074.

75. Furthermore, in Collins v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) wherein it stated that:

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C § 3501-20, requires that federal agencies submit

all ‘information collection requests’ to the Director of the Office of Management and




Budget (OMB) for review, 44 U.S.C. § 3507. Typical information collection requests

include tax forms, medicare forms, financial loan applications, job applications,

questionnaires, compliance reports and tax or business records. Dole v. Steelworkers,494 U.S. 26, 33 (1990) 110 S.Ct. 929, 933, 108 L.Ed.2d 23 (1990). Once the OMB

director approves the information collection requests, he must assign it a control number,

44 U.S.C. § 3504. An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of informationunless the information collection request has been submitted to and approved by the

Director, 44 U.S.C. § 3506(a), and shall not engage in a collection of information without

obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the informationcollection request, 44 U.S.C. § 3507(f).

Moreover, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide

information to any agency if the information collection request involved was made after

December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control number assigned by theDirector, or fails to state that such request is not subject to this chapter.

[31] 44 U.S.C. § 3512. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092, 1098-99 (9th

Cir. 1989) (prosecution for failure to file a Plan of Operations with the Forest Service

barred under § 3512 of the Act because the filing requirement was imposed pursuant toan information collection request which lacked an OMB control number.)

76. In United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10th Circuit 1991) the Tenth Circuit stated:

“The 1040 form is the information collection request which arguably must comply with

the PRA. It is through the 1040 form that the government obtains all of the tax

information it requires.”

“They are subsidiary to and mere administrative appendages of the tax form. Theyfunction only to aid the taxpayer in providing the information required by the 1040

form.”

“As long as the 1040 form complies with the Act, nothing more is required.”

77. The Supreme Court stated in Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990) that:

“The Act prohibits any federal agency from adopting regulations which impose paperwork requirements on the public unless the information is not available to the

agency from another source within the Federal Government, and the agency must

formulate a plan for tabulating the information in a useful manner.” at 32-33

Dole further explained that:

“After an agency has satisfied itself that an instrument for collecting information - termedan ‘information collection request’ - is needed, the agency must submit the request to

OMB for approval. See: 44 U.S.C. § 3507(a)(2) (1982 ed., Supp. V). If OMBdisapproves the request, the agency may not collect the information. See 44 U.S.C. §3507(a) at 33.

Also:

“The Act applies to ‘information collection requests’ by a federal agency which are

defined as a written report form, application form, schedule, questionnaire, reporting or




recordkeeping requirement, collection of information requirement, or other similar

method calling for the collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. § 3502(11) (1982 ed., Supp.

V).

“Collection of information,” in turn is defined as

“the obtaining or soliciting of facts or opinions by an agency through the use of writtenreport forms, application forms, schedules, questionnaires, reporting or recordkeeping

requirements, or other similar methods calling for either” - Dole at 34.

The Supreme Court went on to say that “[W]hile the grammar of this text can be faulted,its meaning is clear: the public is protected under the Paperwork Reduction Act from

paperwork regulations not issued in compliance with the Act, only when those

regulations dictate that a person maintain information for an agency or provideinformation to an agency.” Dole, 494 U.S. at 40 (1990)

Administrative Procedure Act

In reviewing the Administrative Procedure Act, it has come to my attention that the IRS

does not publish all of their regulations in accordance with the Act. For instance, codification of Part 600, except § 600.l (b) has been discontinued. This was published in the Federal Register inOctober, 1948 and reads:

Federal register, 13 Fed. Reg. 7710:

1. The headnote of Subchapter F is amended to read “Records and Procedure.”

2. Codification of Part 600, except § 600.1 (b), is discontinued. Future amendments

to the statement of organization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will appear in

the Notices section of the FEDERAL REGISTER.

If you will consult § [5.1] 11.9 of the Internal Revenue Manual, you will find the IRS

personnel do not have delegated authority to execute Form 1040 (individual), 1041 (trust) &1120 (corporation/business) substitute returns under provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b). It

follows that if IRS personnel do not have delegated authority to unilaterally execute thesereturns, Form 1040, 1041 and 1120 returns are not mandatory.

Further investigation of assignment of OMB control numbers reveals for example, 26

C.F.R. §20.6091-1 (estate tax) was assigned control number “1545-0015,” which is the number

for estate tax Form 706. Number 1545-0020 was assigned to 26 C.F.R. §25.6091-1 and§25.6091-2 (gift tax); this is the number for gift tax Form 709. Clearly, the IRS cannot deny that

it knows that any regulations implementing §6091 require the assignment of control numbers.

Upon review of Form 1040 NR, 26 C.F.R §1.6091-3 (“International”) displays a control

number, which is 1545-0089. However, Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return does notdisplay a control number.

So again, we must turn to the courts and see what rulings have been made on this issue.

78. “However, the regulations are incomplete in this case without the forms, because the

regulations do not set forth the information a traveler will be required to furnish on the




82. “The acts set up the procedure which must be followed in order for agency rulings to be

given the force of law. Unless the prescribed procedures are complied with, the agency

(or administrative) rule has not been legally issued, and consequently is ineffective.” - in

Hotch v. United States, 212 F.2D 280, 283 (9th Cir 1954)

As well as

83. “In adopting the directive of December 27, 1972, defendants did not comply with even

one of these mandatory requirements, despite the fact that the directive would have asubstantial impact on those regulated, and hence is a ‘rule’ as contemplated in the

statute,” Id., at 154. - Berends v. Botz , 357 F. Supp. 144 (D. Minn. 1973).

“Inherent in these provisions is the concept that the public is entitled to be informed as to

the procedures and practices of a government agency, so as to be able to govern their actions accordingly. The termination of the emergency loan program was without any

notice, and was in violation of the statute,” Id., at 155. - Berends v. Botz , 357 F. Supp. 144

(D. Minn. 1973).

And yet again

84. The Supreme Court established that, inter alia, persons could be held accountable andliable in accordance to the long established practice of the common law. “... that when it

came to tax law, because of the complexity of tax law, that the rights of such persons

were different, were not the same as with the common law, but were gerater as to theright to know and understand the tax laws on a more through basis.” - Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)

85. ‘Typical information collection requests include tax forms, Medicare forms, financial

loan applications, job applications, questionnaires, compliance reports, and tax or business records.” - Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990)

86. In United States v. Dawes, 951 F.2d 1189 (10

th

Circuit 1991) the Tenth Circuit stated:“The 1040 form is the information collection request which arguably must comply with

the PRA. It is through the 1040 form that the government obtains all of the tax

information it requires.”

“They are subsidiary to and mere administrative appendages of the tax form. Theyfunction only to aid the taxpayer in providing the information required by the 1040

form.”

“As long as the 1040 form complies with the Act, nothing more is required.”

Constitution for the united States of America

87. The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the bureau of Internal Revenue, was notcreated by Congress, as required by Article I § 8, clause 18 of the Constitution of the

United States; so cannot legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United States in

States of the Union. (See Statement of IRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg . 11572,1974-1

Cum. Bul. 440, 37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the Internal Revenue Manual 1100 through the1997 edition)




88. Article I § 8, clause 18 vests Congress with complete responsibility for facilitating power

of Government of the United States via legislation: [The Congress shall have Power] To

make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution theforegoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of

the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

89. In the historical statement, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue admitted that Congressdid not create a Bureau of Internal Revenue via the 1862 act in which the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created, but alleged that Congress intended to

create a bureau. In reality, the 1862 legislation created the offices of “assessor” and

“collector”, in addition to the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Assessors andcollectors were appointed for each revenue district somewhat as U.S. Attorneys are

appointed today. Those appointed to these offices continued to collect internal revenue

within States of the Union until the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was implemented Thetwo offices were administratively abolished via Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950. The

name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to Internal Revenue Service via

Treasury Order # 150-27, which was not published in the Federal Register in compliance

with requirements of the Federal Register Act. (See 44 U.S.C. §§1501 et seq., particularly§1505(a))

90. United States v. Germaine 99 U.S. 508 (1879); Norton v. Shelby County. 118 U.S. 425,

441, 6 S. Ct 1131 (1886), and numerous other cases that reinforce the determination

“there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill.”

91. The Internal Revenue Service operates in an ancillary or other secondary capacity under

contract, memorandum of agreement or some comparable device to provide services

under original authority delegated to the Treasury financial Management Service or some

other bureau of the Department of the Treasury; the contracted or otherwise authorizedservices extend only to government employees and employers, as defined at 26 U.S.C.

§§3401(c) & (d). The authorization is essentially intragovemmental in nature; it does notextend to private sector enterprise in States of the Union.

92. The pocket Commission Handbook, located in Chapter 3 of Internal Revenue Manual§1.16.3 Authorized Pocket Commission Holders, lists IRS personnel who are authorized

to have pocket commissions. By cross-referencing to the delegation of authority to issue

summonses, it appears that all IRS personnel authorized to issue summonses are under the assistant Commissioner (International). If the authorities are accurate, your proposed

examination would constitute a sham preceding under color of authority of the United

States. To the best of my knowledge, I have never received income from sources andactivities subject to jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International).

93. Further, if you will consult Part 14 of the Internal Revenue Manual, "International", at§114.1, “Compliance and Customer Service Managers Handbook”, you will find that

examination, collection, criminal investigation and customer service functions are allcategorized under the Assistant Commissioner (International). There is no corresponding

categorization that might qualify as “domestic” operations.




94. If you will consult 26 CFR §601.101, you will find that IRS personnel have jurisdiction

for examination and collection only within internal revenue districts; all other

functions fall under jurisdiction of the foreign district director, now the AssistantCommissioner (International). The Secretary of the Treasury has never established

internal revenue districts in States of the Union, as required-by 26 U.S.C. §7621 AND

Executive Order #10289. Therefore, you must be operating under presumption of Assistant Commissioner (International) jurisdiction.

95. Federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers. But

the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agency’s field structure

which affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register.The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of

the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the

domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wageearner living and working at home. However the IRS claims that the 16th Amendment

places a liability on my labor but continues to ignore the fact that I am not or have ever

been a corporation, resident Alien, or working abroad. The courts settled the issue of the

16th Amendment as the cases below will show but again, the IRS refuses to follow it'sown rules and abide by the courts rulings.

16 th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America

In IRS Publication 2105 states in paragraph 1

“The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, states ‘The Congress

shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises to pay theDebts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.’”

However, IRS has deceptively omitted the full text of the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

which states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to

pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the UnitedStates; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United

States;” (emphasis added)

Next in paragraph 2 is states:

“The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution , ratified on February 3, 1913, states,

‘The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to

any census or enumeration’.”

96. However, close examination of the certified archival records of the 48 states (the number of states in the union in 1913 when the 16 th Amendment was proposed) shows that this isnot true and that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America

has not been lawfully ratified.




97. These archival records show that the necessary quota of two thirds of the states passing

the Amendment as required by the Constitution for the united States of America was not

there.

98. At best, 33 states may have passed the Amendment. Only three states have passed this

Amendment without any controversy, errors, and alterations.

99. Both the Judicial branch of government and the Legislative branch of Government have

refused to answer the question as to the ratification of the 16th Amendment by which theIRS has its purported authority to collect taxes on income.

100. The evidence collected by Bill Benson and others and submitted to the Federal Judges

and United States Congress clearly shows that the 16 th Amendment was never ratified and

the Certification by Philander Chase Knox that said the Amendment was ratified is basedwholly on fraud.

101. If this belief is true, which I believe it is, the 16 th Amendment and the income tax is

purely political in nature, deserving of political action by the people, i.e., a political

process under the First Amendment, for the redress of grievance.

102. In the Stahl decision, not only did the Courts find the fraud behind the 16 th Amendment to be political in nature, but, additionally, after reviewing the evidence, the Court itself

noted several states which did not ratify the 16 th Amendment as alleged by Stahl. -

Footnote 1 on page 1439 of United States vs. Stahl .

103. Courts have declared the 16th Amendment, and the fraudulent ratification thereof, to be a“political question.” Congress refuses to entertain this political question because in their

opinion, the Courts should decide the question. This is a chicken and the egg game

played by the courts and legislators with the purpose of confusing and misinforming theSovereign American People about the true nature of the income tax.

However, courts have ruled that the 16

th

Amendment did not impose any new taxes, asshown in following rulings:

104. “... the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16 th

Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levyan income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of

apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this

erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advancedin argument to support it...” - Brushaber v. Union Pacific R Co., 240 US 1.11 (1916):

105. “... it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the

provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..” - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103, 112 (1916):

106. “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collecttaxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the

several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose

or effect of that amendment to bring any new su bject within the taxing power.” -

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.. 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):




107. "The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and

may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing

power to new or excepted subjects, ...” - Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165,173 (1918):

108. “An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (The 16 th Amendment) make it

plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mer e

conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organizedfor profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations.” - Doyle v. Mitchell Bros, 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918):

109. “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the

original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was

adopted.”

“As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects ...” - Elsner v. Macomber , 252 U.S. 189, 205, 206 (1920):

110. “Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant

diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretoforeexcepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government

say: ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this amendment rendered

anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before’.” - Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S.

245,259 (1920):

Wages and Income

Just as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court decisions, the IRS

chooses to look the other way. What the Supreme Court established in Evans v. Gore was that

not only did the 16th Amendment NOT confer new taxing powers to Congress to tax the

American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it alsoacknowledged the definition of INCOME as defined by the Supreme Court in Flint v. StoneTracy Co.

111. “A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 corporation tax act) shows the purpose and

design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once

apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or

associations which are organized for profit and have a capital stock represented by

shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, havemany of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges.” - Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,220 U.S. 107, 144 (1911)

112. “There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word ‘income’ must be given the

same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the

Corporation Excise Tax Act and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court” - Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509,

519 (1921)

113. “Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise TaxAct of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently

passed” - Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271 U.S. 170 (1926)




114. "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income

within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without tax that

which is not income within the meaning of the 16 th Amendment.” - Helvering v. Edison Brothers’ Stores, 8th Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)

115. “We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation

Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government thatall receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term‘gross income’. Certainly the term ‘income’ has no broader meaning in the Income

Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is

no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.” - Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe,247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918)

116. "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are

innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time

immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions.The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all

persons of the same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their

birthright. It has been well said that the property which every man has in his own labor,as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most of his own hands,

and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper,

without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a

manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.” - Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746,

757 (1814)

Taxation

117. “If there is no legal requirement for an individual to pay a tax, the citizen is free to do as

he wishes.” Flora v. United States, 362 US 145 (1959).118. It is a “well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is

imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law

is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to

be laid...” Spreckles Sugar v McClain, 192 US 397 (1904).

119. “(I)t is elementary knowledge that one cardinal rule of the court of chancery is never to

decree a discovery which might tend to convict the party of a crime, or to forfeit his

property. And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party’s oath, or compelling the

production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts

of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of American. It may suit the purposes of

despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personalfreedom.” Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 631-632 (1886).

120. A person who is not legally required by an unambiguous statute to pay a tax is not a

taxpayer. Spreckles Sugar v. McClain (1904), 192 US 397; Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine, 284 US 498 (1931); Gould v. Gould , 245 US 151 (1917).




121. Further, the IRS does not have authority over any individual who is not a taxpayer, or is

claimed to be a taxpayer, or holds information on a putative taxpayer. Botta v. Scanlon,

288 F2d 504 (1961); Economy Plumbing v. US , 470 F2d 585 (1972).

122. Enforcement of a revenue summons “is not (to be) in derogation of any constitutional

right.” US v. Euge, 444 US 707, 711, 718 (1980); Up john v US, 449 US 383, 398

(1980). A tax on the right to one’s own property in his labor and the fruits thereof derogates this Constitutional Right.

123. In the opinion of Hassett v. Welch, 303 US 303 (1937): “If doubt exists as to the

construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer” id.

p314 (ref. 82 CJS Statutes §385).

124. It is a violation of due process to put the burden of proof on the individual to showexclusion from a tax. Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles, 357 US 545 (1957).

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.(2002)

The following elements are essential:

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 viatestimony (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.

6. The trial court, whether administrative or judicial, must render a written decision thatincludes findings of fact and conclusions of law.

As you have not complied with these elements, I am duty bound to demand that you now

prove your Personal Authority as an authorized government agent.

Please rebut the following statements under penalty of perjury:

1. A free Sovereign live man is not a “taxpayer”.

2. There is no factual time line as to when, where, why and how, I, the free, Sovereign live

man became a “taxpayer”.

3. I have never volunteered to give up my Sovereignty and accepted involuntary servitude.




4. To subject me to involuntary servitude is a violation of the 13 th Amendment to the

Constitution of the united States of America.

5. The 1040 individual return is a worksheet for tax form 2555, for Foreign Earned Incomeand applies to residents of the Virgin Islands, not to American Citizens or American

Nationals.

6. Please give proof based in facts and in certified records that the 16 th Amendment to the

Constitution of the united States of America was duly and lawfully ratified.

7. The OMB number on the 1040 Personal Income Tax form is not valid. Cite the validOMB number.

Please provide me with certified copies of the following:

1. Your precise title (“revenue officer”, “revenue agent”, “appeals officer”, “special agent”,

etc.) and cite the section of the act of Congress that created the office you occupy;

2. Your constitutional oath of office, as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the

Constitution for the united States of America and 5 U.S.C. §3331;3. Your civil commission as agent or officer of Government of the United States, as

required by Article II § 3 of the Constitution for the united States of America and

attending legislation;

4. Your affidavit declaring that you did not pay for or otherwise make or promiseconsideration to secure the office (5 U.S.C. §3332);

5. Your personal surety bond; and

6. Documentation that establishes your complete line of delegated authority, including all

intermediaries such as the Assistant Commissioner (International), beginning with the

President of the United States.

These documents should all be filed as public records. See 5 U.S.C. §2906 for requirements concerning filing oaths of office. In the event you do not have a personal surety

bond, you may provide a copy of your financial statement, which you are required to file

annually. Your financial statement will be construed as a private treaty surety bond in the eventthat you exceed lawful authority.

Collateral issues other than the above requests intended to document your personal

standing will be addressed separately from this request.

You may provide the requested items within a reasonable period of twenty (20) calendar

days from receipt of this request. See the Administrative Procedures act for deadlines. In theevent you do not formally answer this demand, you may be considered a party to any past or

subsequent adverse action. You may withdraw, in writing, any and all claims, demands and/or

encumbrances issued directly or indirectly within the scope of your alleged administrativeauthority.




Failure to comply with this constructive notice of demand to verify authenticity of

your authority will be an admission that all parties are willfully, with evil intent -

engaging in criminal activity against me.

NOTICE: I reserve the right to enter this demand and all evidence attached within,

to be preserved as evidence under Rule 902 (4), (5), (8), (9) and (10) of the Federal

Rules of Evidence, upon the records of such public recorder's office at such place or places as I alone determine, which as a matter of public record shall be subject tosubmission and use in any legal proceeding thereafter as utilized by any person having

cause to rely thereupon for evidence purpose, under the aforesaid Federal Rules of

Evidence, and as for any other reasons that a public record of debt may be used,accordingly.

Record Notice Act: When an instrument of conveyance or a mortgage is recorded in the

appropriate public office, it is constructive notice of its contents to the whole world. - Black's

Law, Sixth Edition, Page 1275




Affidavit/Declaration of TruthI, John Doe, a Sovereign American National, the undersigned, make this Affidavit of my

own free will and hereby affirm, under my oath, and penalty of perjury, that the information

contained in this Affidavit is true and correct and based in facts and law, and attest to the facts

stated on the Constructive Notice of Demand for Direct Challenge to Personal Authority to

be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

This Affidavit of Truth is lawful notification to, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and

any all agents thereof, pursuant to The Bill of Rights of the National Constitution, in particular,

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Amendments, and The Bill of Rights of the CaliforniaConstitution, in particular, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 17 and 18, and pursuant to your oath, and

requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Notice to agents is notice to

principals; notice to principals is notice to agents. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, asstipulated, and rebut, by your own sworn affidavit of truth, with particularity and specificity,

everything in this sworn Affidavit of Truth, with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and

binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit of Truth istrue, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without

your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence.

See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal

responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: United States v. Tweel ,550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to

speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”

I, John Doe, the undersigned, hereby make the following statements of fact and law with

the intent of stating and declaring my status for the purpose of clarifying my relationship in lawwith the state, United States government and Internal Revenue Service:

1. I am a lawful American National and free Sovereign Natural live man.

2. Sovereignty was and is given to me by the Creator God/Goddess All That Is with thegift of life.

3. I was born free and endowed with the inalienable Rights of free will, freedom, liberty, privacy and pursuit of happiness.

4. My Law is the Law from God/Goddess All That Is.

5. No authority exists, nor have I given authority to anybody, to impose upon my

sovereignty or my life other than the Creator God/Goddess All That Is.

6. I am not under explicit, implicit, known or unknown contracts, agreements with anybody,

or any individual, or agency, or institution, or corporation, or government other than theCreator God/Goddess All That Is.

7. I have not given my free will, my sovereignty, my loyalty, my Rights, my freedom, to

anybody other than Creator God/Goddess All That Is.

8. I do not belong to anybody else but to the Creator God/Goddess All That Is.

9. I am not surety, or bond, or serf, or slave, or “taxpayer” to anybody or anything.

Affidavit of Truth of 29



10. I have not been informed by anybody that I have at any point in the past, present of future

become a “taxpayer.”

11. I am temporarily sojourning on this Planet Earth as a free Sovereign man under theguidance and protection of the God/Goddess All That Is.

12. I have not volunteered or pledged myself, my possessions, my wealth, or fruits of mylabor knowingly, or unknowingly to anybody or anything.

13. I am not a RESIDENT or CITIZEN of the UNITED STATES or of any of the federal

enclaves or possessions or FEDERAL DISTRICTS, or FEDERAL STATES, or THESTATE.

14. I have filed Cancellatura of Foreign Instruments with proper authorities and gave notice

of who I am and informed them of my status. This can be verified through the Iowa

Secretary of State Apostille No. 06-041208.

15. My name is spelled as John (that is capital ‘J’ then small ‘o h n’) and my family name isspelled Doe (that is capital ‘D’ then small ‘o e’). Any other spelling is not my name, nor

it is related to me in any way, shape or form.16. I hereby assert and state that I will only handle, possess, or otherwise use Federal Reserve

Notes as a Tender in Payment of Debts, under threat, duress and coercion, with all myunalienable and inalienable Rights including those enumerated above, reserved, and

17. This claim asserts the above limitations and Rights on the several States and the United

States, their officers, agents, assigns, affiliates and counterparts whomever, according to

my status as a Sovereign Natural live man, set out above, and

18. The Constitution of the united States of America is the highest and the Supreme Law of the land, namely this Nation, America.

19. Pursuant to the referenced Constitution, all lawful courts in the united States of America,

must be conducted as judicial forums, under Article III, in any actions pertaining to

American Nationals/Citizens.

20. No court, other then Article III court, is lawfully authorized to conduct any kind of

judicial proceedings against an American National/Citizen.

21. All officers of a Court, including but not limited to, all officers and agents of the IRS, all

government witnesses and prosecuting attorneys, and all government publicofficials/officers are required, pursuant to the Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, of referenced

Constitution, to have sworn oaths to support the Constitution of the united States of

America, bound by surety bond.

22. All aforementioned officers and agents are required to abide by their sworn and boundoaths in the performance of their official duties.

23. If any officers were to perjure their oaths, they will have invoked the self-executing

Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, vacate their offices and forfeit all salaries,

pensions and benefits.




24. Specific limited Constitutional authority is delegated to governments and the courts, but

no Constitutional authority is delegated to the IRS or any of its officers/agents.

25. What is not specifically authorized by the Constitution is prohibited by the Constitution.

26. Limited Constitutional authority delegated, by and through the Sovereign People, to

government and the courts can never supersede the powers of and the Rights of theCitizens guaranteed in the Constitution.

27. Since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this land, all laws, rules, codes and

procedures are subservient to and cannot supersede the Constitution. There exists nohigher authority than the Constitution.

28. All public and government official are bound to honor, uphold and abide by the oaths

taken by them, including the presiding judges and attending court officers, pursuant to the

Constitution for the united States of America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, andConstitutional requirements thereof.

a. The American Nationals/Citizens, in the instant case, John Doeh, are Sovereign in

this Nation, and the government officials serve the American Citizens/Nationals pursuant to:

b. limited powers delegated in the Constitution, which delegated powers are derivedfrom the People;

c. oaths taken to uphold the Constitution;

d. the Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights;

e. powers authorized only by the Constitution or laws in full compliance therewith,

specifically, the Bill of Rights, and

f. lack of Constitutional authority precludes any action and voids any ruling by the

Court.29. No court and no judge in any State has jurisdiction over or can issue a court order against

an American Citizen/National if that court and/or judge fail to:

a. provide due process of law;

b. provide equal protection under the law;

c. respect and uphold the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens/National, and inthe instant action, the Rights of John Doeh, a Sovereign American National, pursuant

to the Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions for the united States of America and the

California Republic;

d. uphold the powers of the National and state Constitutions;

e. honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge and attendingcourt officers, pursuant to the Constitution for the united States of America, Article

VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and the Constitution for the California Republic, Article 20,

Section One;




f. provide due process of law, pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution for the united States of America,

and pursuant to Article II, Sections 2, 4, 12 and 18 of the Constitution for theCalifornia Republic, and as required by the aforementioned oaths taken by the

presiding judge and attending court officers;

g. provide equal protection under the law, as required by the National and stateConstitutions and pursuant to the referenced oaths;

h. respect, protect and uphold the Rights of John Doeh, an American National, in this

matter, which Rights are guaranteed in the National and state Constitutions, pursuant

to referenced oaths;

i. acknowledge and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America as theSupreme Law of this court, in this matter, pursuant to the mandate, in Article II,

Section One, of the Constitution for the California Republic, that the National

Constitution is the Supreme Law of California;

j. acknowledge and so rule that any court and/or judge which denies a AmericanCitizen/National to present evidence in any hearing or trial in total support of his

position fails due process, denies the Constitution, violates the Citizen/National’s

Rights and forfeits jurisdiction;

k. read, consider, comprehend and rule upon all motions and pleadings filed with thisCourt, with Court rulings based only in and supported by laws, statutes and case law

in agreement with, and not in opposition or contradiction to, the Constitution,

specifically, the Bill of Rights, also fails due process, denies the Rights guaranteed to

the People in the Constitution, and forfeits jurisdiction;

30. The IRS has no Constitutional authority to exist, therefore, no authority over the

American National/Citizen and no authority to issue summonses by which to violate the

People’s Constitutionally guaranteed Rights to privacy and security in their personal, private effects.

31. Title 26, which is a “mirror image” of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which was

specifically created only to apply to government employees, was never voted into

positive law by the Congress of the United States. Therefore, Title 26 has no lawful force

or effect upon an American Nationals/Citizens and they are not subject to or liable toTitle 26, or to any law not passed into positive law by Congress or not Constitutionally

compliant.

32. No law exists which, was passed by Congress that makes the American National/Citizen

subject to the so-called “income tax”. A law must be valid to exist and must exist to be

enforced. No such valid law exists, and since it does not exist, it cannot be enforced.Thus, any procedures, rules and regulations of the IRS, with respect to collecting “income

taxes” from the American National/Citizen, are invalid, fraudulent, withoutConstitutional or Congressional authority, as are administrative, third-party summonses

issued by the IRS to banks.




33. The IRS, as previously stated, has no Constitutional or Congressional, therefore, no

lawful authority for the IRS to impose “income taxes” upon the American

National/Citizen. Therefore, it follows that:

a. there is no lawful or legitimate purpose for the IRS to conduct an investigation of an

American National/Citizen;

b. no lawful or legitimate authority to make inquiries to the private bank accounts of

American Nationals/Citizens;

c. no lawful or legitimate authority for the IRS to acquire the summoned material fromthe bank accounts of American Nationals/Citizens;

d. thus, the “administrative steps” initiated by IRS are irrelevant and immaterial and

unlawful;

e. there is no lawful or legitimate authority for the IRS to have made a “criminal

referral” of an American National/Citizen to the Department of Justice, since thatAmerican National/Citizen has violated no valid law;

f. all legislative authority is vested ONLY in Congress, and the American People areonly subject to and liable to those Constitutionally-compliant laws passed by

Congress;

g. as previously stated, Title 26, was never voted into positive law by Congress;

h. the IRS has never rebutted this statement or proven that Congress ever voted Title 26

into positive law.

34. Anything not given in this Affidavit cannot be assumed, presumed and is non-assumpsit.

This Affidavit of Truth, fully based in fact, valid law and case law is true, correct, legal,

lawful, and if not rebutted by Respondent, as stipulated, herein, is Respondent’s irrevocable

admission attesting to this, fully binding upon Respondent in any competent court of law inAmerica, without Respondent’s protest, objection or that of those who represent Respondent. If

Respondent disagrees with any statement made in this Affidavit of Truth, then, Respondent mustrebut, by sworn and notarized affidavit, that with which Respondent disagrees, with particularity

and specificity, using valid fact, law and evidence to support Respondent’s rebuttal, within 30

days of Respondent’s receipt of this Affidavit of Truth.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America that tothe best of knowledge foregoing is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1), 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

All Rights Reserved

________________________________ _________________

John; Doe, Date

Sovereign American National, Affiant (sui juris)


August 2nd 2006



In the California state,

Orange county,

I swear that on this 2nd

day of August, 2006, the above named Affiant, John Doe, a SovereignAmerican National, appeared before me, and of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of Truth.

___________________________________ Notary Public

My Commission Expires:______________

Seal:


challenge of authority john doe

Documents