IRS: "Drop Dead" -- Letter to IRS

Ms. M. Evans VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
9 Franklin Road
Madison, Republic 99999

We respectfully request that this letter and its attachments be added to our individual master files maintained by the IRS.

We are in receipt of your letter dated July 23, 2003, wherein you inquired about our tax returns for 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Prior to 2000 we filed tax returns simply because we had been led to believe we had a legal obligation to file and pay the tax. We didn’t know why. We didn’t question it. We just did it. The forms would arrive every year from the government and we filled them out and sent them back. We believed we were required to file a Form 1040 and pay the tax, not because we knew anything about the tax laws, but because of the tax “culture” and the public pronouncements by the media and our government: “Everyone has to die and pay taxes,” is what we heard.

However, in 1999 we began to learn a lot more about the income tax system. We became aware of a substantial and credible body of legal evidence in support of the proposition that the income tax system was fraudulent in its origin and illegal in its operation and enforcement.

At the same time, we have watched with dismay as the Executive and Legislative branches of our federal government have refused to respond to both the most humble and straight forward questions from ordinary Americans about the legal authority behind the tax and even formal Petitions for Redress of Grievances that have challenged the origin, unlawful enforcement and the substantial constitutional abuses of the income tax system.

Attached is a statement of our beliefs regarding the origin and operation of the income tax system. It has been shaped in large part by: 1) the February 27-28, 2002 testimony at the Citizens’ Truth-In-Taxation Hearing in Washington, DC, by credentialed tax professionals, under oath, as they answered the questions the government refuses to answer; 2) our understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights; 3) by our understanding of the Statutes and Regulations; 4) our understanding of the growing body of research reports by attorneys and experts such as Larry Becraft, Bill Benson, Bill Conklin, Irwin Schiff , Joseph Banister, Larken Rose, John Turner, Sherry Jackson, Chris Hansen, Paul Chappel, Noel Spade, Lynda Wall, Victoria Osborn and others[1]; and 5) our knowledge of the arrogant and continued refusal of the Executive and Legislative branches to answer the People’s questions.

Also attached are statements of our beliefs regarding the Petition Clause and IRS’s lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Based on the attached statements of our beliefs, and particularly our 1^st Amendment Right to Petition and government’s consequent obligation to respond, we have decided to retain our money until the Executive and Legislative branches respond to the Petition for Redress of Grievances, which has been submitted to the IRS, DOJ, every member of Congress and the President.

While the Petition for Redress presents many legitimate questions which we want honest answers to before we agree to send you any more money, we call your immediate attention to the line of inquiry regarding the threshold question of jurisdiction, and particularly to its references to: 1) Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the federal Constitution; 2) 40 USC 255; and 3) United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549.

"In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court).

[Federal jurisdiction] " ...must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624(1995).

“ ‘Act of Congress’ includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.” 18 USC, Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Note: There is no reference to the 50 “states."

The question of jurisdiction is a threshold question. Given Constitution Article I, Section 8, clause 17, 40 USC 255 and Lopez and Adams, the question we ask you to answer before all others is, “What is the government’s legal authority to impose such a tax on state citizens residing in the fifty states and to prosecute citizens within Article I or Article III courts located within the fifty states?”

Beyond this threshold question, the attached materials also raise several other key questions that we respectfully request you answer. There should be no misunderstanding about these:

1) Do you believe the government owns our labor-property? Do you consider us to be peons, forced to work for the government to pay off a debt? Do you consider us to be slaves or chattel? Either we own our labor, our most essential private property, or someone else does. If we own our labor, we are free people. If another person or group of people (the federal government) can arbitrarily take our labor by force, we are slaves. Remember, if a 1 % direct tax on our labor is constitutional, so is 100%. If we don’t have the inherent power to force another person to labor for us, then we can’t clothe, or delegate to the government, the power to force others to turn over the fruits of their labor – regardless of any beneficent intent.

2) Where is our liability to file and pay under the law? We cannot find the law that specifically imposes a legal duty upon us to either file or pay a direct tax on our income. If there is such a law, please provide the specific statute imposing such a liability and we will happily pay all the taxes and penalties you allege that we owe.

3) Should we be relying on a definition of the word “income” other than what has been repeatedly defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as a “gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege”? Please note, we are not a corporation. Our wages, salaries, tips, interest income and even capital gains are not taxable because they do not arise from any such corporate activity or privilege.

4) Are we liable for the tax if our “income” does not come from one of the sources listed in Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code? Section 861 contains a short, inclusive list of “sources” of income that the federal government does possess jurisdiction over. These sources are ALL related to foreign corporate income sources and foreign international trade. Our “income,” regardless of whether we have received such as rent, salary, tips, wages, capital gains, the lottery, etc. does not come from any of the sources subject to taxation that are specified under U.S. tax law.

5) As an IRS Agent, what is your delegated legal authority to enforce Title 26 Subtitle A (Individual Income tax), or Subtitle C (Employment taxes)? We do not believe you have any such legal authority. We would strongly encourage you to personally and physically verify the extent of your limited legal authority, if any, by an examination of the source legal documents that delegate such authority within the Department of Treasury.

6) Is this lack of legal liability in the law and the lack of any enforcement authority the reason the IRS repeatedly states that the tax system is based upon “voluntary assessment and compliance”? We believe the IRS says this because it is true. We do not choose to volunteer.

In light of overwhelming evidence in support, supplied by numerous credentialed tax professionals, we have asked the government:

ISN’T THE INCOME TAX, AS APPLIED, A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED TAX ON LABOR?
No Answer!

DOESN’T CONGRESS LACK THE AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE AN INCOME TAX ON THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE U.S. TERRITORIES AND IN THOSE AREAS WITHIN ANY OF THE FIFTY STATES WHERE THE STATES HAVE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IT, IN WRITING?
No Answer!

ISN’T THE GOVERNMENT PROHIBITED BY THE 4^TH AND 5^TH AMENDMENTS FROM COMPELLING INDIVIDUALS TO SIGN AND FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN FORM 1040? No Answer!

WAS THE 16^TH AMENDMENT PROPERLY AND LEGALLY RATIFIED BY 3/4THS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
No Answer!

DOES THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ACTUALLY MAKE INDIVIDUALS LIABLE TO FILE A TAX RETURN AND PAY AN INCOME TAX? No Answer!

ISN’T IT TRUE THAT UNLESS ONE IS A FOREIGNER WORKING HERE OR A CITIZEN OF THE U.S.A. EARNING HIS MONEY ABROAD HE IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX ? No Answer!

DOESN’T THE IRS LACK THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE INDIVIDUALS TO KEEP AND TURN OVER DOCUMENTS, BOOKS AND RECORDS? No Answer!

ISN’T THE GOVERNMENT ROUTINELY VIOLATING PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS? No Answer!

With regard to the Petition for Redress of Grievances, a process that formally got underway in 1999, we have been aware and supportive of that process. Tens of thousands of People across all fifty States have been participating. Since 1999, the Petition for Redress process has sought nothing but to have the Executive and Legislative branches address the evidence and answer specific legal questions regarding the fraudulent origin and illegal operation and enforcement of the income tax system.

We believe our Petition process is well grounded, in all respects, on fundamental Rights and constitutional principles.

The remedy sought by our Petition for Redress of Grievances regarding the income tax system has merely been answers to certain specific legal questions regarding the origin and operation of the federal individual income tax system.

The record shows that during the entire Petition process we have remained true to the Constitution, exercising not only our Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances, but also our Rights to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom to Peaceably Assemble by joining with other People under the auspices of two organizations, each with a different mission and purpose related to the Petition process: the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc., and the We The People Congress, Inc.

The record shows that we have acted rationally, intelligently, and professionally at all times during the Petition process, while always showing kindness and respect toward all appointed and elected representatives of the government.

On the other hand, the record shows that during the Petition process the Clinton and Bush administrations and the Congresses have:

On September 16, 2003, at a press conference held at the Treasury Department, a New York Times reporter asked why the I.R.S. has not answered, in writing, the questions contained in the Petition for Redress. According to the Times, an I.R.S. senior spokesman (Terry L. Lemons) said that the recent spate of enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. against promoters of abusive tax schemes, and the new agreement with the states, show ways that government is answering the petition.

Please take notice, this answer is reprehensible and totally unacceptable. It reminds us of the infamous New York Daily News “DROP DEAD” headline, in 1975, quoting an answer by President Ford to a question by Mayor Beame.

Make no mistake, even if you had a legitimate claim with respect to alleged tax liabilities on our labor (which is not the case), our personal, individual, and constitutionally protected Right to Petition prevails legally, over any and all claims you think you have against us. We must receive honest answers to our Petitions before government is entitled to any more taxes based on our labor. NO ANSWERS, NO TAXES!

Based on an examination of the attached materials, there is ample evidence to assert and fully support, our personal and reasonable beliefs that the federal government has NO lawful or legitimate claim, nor authority to impose such a claim, for direct taxes upon our alleged “income.”

In summary: we have a fully justified and reasonable belief we are not liable for any federal income tax. We hereby exercise and invoke our 1^st amendment right to petition and will not pay any further taxes until the petitions are officially and honestly answered by the United States Government.

NOTICE: As stated previously, you have no legal authority to enforce IRC Subtitles A or C. Any further enforcement action taken by you against us to collect any alleged obligation relating to income related taxes will be assumed to have been exercised under “color of law.” As such, you will be in violation of federal statutes and may be held PERSONALLY and CRIMINALLY LIABLE. Remember, federal law protects federal employees only to the extent that they are properly acting within the scope of their delegated legal authority.

We stand fully upon, and fully reserve, our unalienable, constitutionally protected Rights.

[1] Banister, Turner and Jackson are former IRS Agents. Banister was a Special Agent in the Criminal Investigation Division and is a CPA. Turner was a Revenue Officer for tens and is an Enrolled Agent. Jackson was a Revenue Agent assigned to an elite IRS fraud detection unit and is a CPA and a Certified Fraud Examiner. Chappell has been a practicing tax attorney for over 40 years, including 7 years in the Chief Counsel’s Office at IRS headquarters. Becraft and Spade are tax attorneys. Osborn is a forensic accountant. Conklin is a communications specialist who has won six cases against the IRS and a decision from the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals that the filing a tax return is voluntary. Wall is a certified paralegal. Benson, Schiff, Rose and Hansen are expert tax law researchers.