$14,000,000,000,000,000 Dollar UCC-1 lien filed against the Federal Reserve?

Wrong again. Just because someone tells you something over the phone is not a verbal contract, especially when you could not be telling them the whole truth. When you call the IRS, it specifically tells you that anything a representative may tell you is not considered the IRS opinion on your tax situation. The IRS doesnt individually audit you everytime you call. If you lie to them about your tax status on your paperwork by claiming exempt when you really arent, the CS rep will just look at the file and confirm what you told them.

You still owe taxes.

reply to post by thelongjourney


And who would that author be exactly?

reply to post by thelongjourney


That's not true....Do you even know what representative means?

reply to post by thelongjourney


By the way; that's the wrong 'Cracking the Code'...

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by thelongjourney

 

You realize what you said makes no sense, right? Why in the hell would they let someone get away with 50k, but crucify some poor bastard over 500 bucks....Can you site some sources where the IRS said those things?

The IRS is a huge behemoth of a bureaucracy, if they had a magical number below which they wouldn't come after you then everyone would tax dodge for that amount.

Im well settled with debunking tax protestors, I have provided those links 1,000 times on this board and others. I will be HAPPY to provide them to you...even though I know you wont believe them...but first I just need that ONE SINGLE court case where a tax protestor won.

Just one will do. I have to go to work, but when I come back in a few hours I look forward to seeing that court citation and I will happily provide you with my links showing that the IRS varies on the amount its chooses to go after tax dodgers for.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by thelongjourney

 

By the way; that's the wrong 'Cracking the Code'...

Sorry, there are so many crackpot tax books out there called the same thing how am I supposed to know which one you are talking about? But I'll let you show me I'm wrong: find one person who won their court case using method from whatever Tax protestor book you are specifically talking about.

Be back later.

reply to post by thelongjourney


taxprof.typepad.com...

This is who you are referring to; and that's not the same one..

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I would like to point out, the man Pete Hendrickson, who you are erroneously referring to, requested his right to a trial by jury....

The Jury asked to see the laws in the case, but the Judge refused to let that happen, and told them what his interpretation of those laws were.

The author of the book I am referring to is Jordan Maxwell.

reply to post by thelongjourney
It was not a "Failure to File Notice".
Correct terminology does make a difference.
I'm not a "tax protestor". I'm just fine with lawful taxation on those who are liable for the tax.

reply to post by thelongjourney
All communications with these acronym agencies should be done in writing. Occasionally, a phone call is ok if it's not about anything critical, or anything that would require a paper trail. I prefer it all in writing, and their signature.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by thelongjourney

 

You realize what you said makes no sense, right? Why in the hell would they let someone get away with 50k, but crucify some poor bastard over 500 bucks....Can you site some sources where the IRS said those things?

Hell, I'll cite one for him, from personal experience. IRS took 8 years to come after my father for what they said was $45,000 in taxes that he owed, but it only took them 1 year to come after my arse for $350. That one left me scratching my head, but after talking with a friend that works in the local tax commission offices, he said that its pretty much situation normal, at least from what he sees come across his desk. Thats not to say that it ALWAYS happens this way, but that is one time that I KNOW that it did

Does it make sense? From the outside, not really. Did it happen? Unfortunately yes.

Sorry I've been away, but sometimes the outside world puts demands on you, know what I mean? I've skimmed over the last several pages to get a sense of where we're going. I'd appreciate being corrected, but it doesn't look good.

There are a couple of things that have been asked for, but I don't see a response. All cases that are appealed past the trial court have a written record. Does anyone have a link to any case where the positions taken in this thread have been upheld? I ask because there have been dozens of cases at the District and Circuit level which have rejected the arguments.

Second, is there any court or federal document saying that the US government has declared bankruptcy? I have found none.

I have heard people discuss statements by "congressman" Traficant allegedly made back in 1993 where he stated in the Congressional Record that the US was bankrupt and this bankruptcy happened back in 1933. This statement has been used to support UCC arguments about the bankruptcy of the United States.
Frank F. checked the accuracy of this alleged Traficant statement and found it to be utterly false. Here is what he said in a recent e-mail:
This is 99% bogus.
You'll notice that it claims to be from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993, page H-1303, and a speech from Rep. James Traficant (D-Oh). It starts with a double quote mark and it ends much later with another double quote mark.
Except for the first paragraph (the first 66 words), it is a fake.
Traficant's own words run from "Mr. Speaker ...." to " ... our demise" and that's the only portion from him or from the Congressional Record.
Trafficant was arguing against deficit spending, and everything else in the article (starting from the words "It is an established fact ...") is fake. Traficant never said them.
In fact, if Traficant thought that the Banking Emergency Act of 1933 was Public Law 89-719, we'd all have reason to doubt his soundness of mind, because the Public Law number is clearly decades after 1933 -- in fact it is the number of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966. Ditto for the pretended title and description of HJR 192 (of 1933). All of that, including the references to canon law and maritime insurance, is fakery, falsely attributed to Traficant.

home.hiwaay.net...

Third, has anyone come up with the underlying agreement in which the US has promised to pay umptyleben gazillion as indicated in the OP? Anyone can file a UCC-1 for any reson at any time. It does not create an obligation where none previously existed.

And here's an interesting case: Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 147 (N.D. Ind. 1984). Young argues that the tax laws don't apply to him because he is a sovereign citizen, the IRS wasn't created by positive law, and a number of other silly things. The District Court ruled against him and additionally fined him $1000 for, basically, aggravated loopiness and messin' with the Court.

Consistent with that discretion, this court recognizes that the Internal Revenue Code is positive law applicable to disputes concerning whether taxes are owed by someone like the plaintiff. This court refuses to embrace the plaintiff's position that the tax laws of the United States are some kind of hoax designed by the IRS to violate the constitutional rights of United States citizens. Quite simply, the court finds plaintiff's position preposterous.

And concerning the penalties?

The doors of this courthouse are, of course, open to good faith appeals of what are honestly thought to be errors of the lower courts. But we can no longer tolerate abuse of the judicial review process by irresponsible taxpayers who press stale and frivolous arguments, without hope of success on the merits, in order to delay or harass the collection of public revenues or for other nonworthy purposes ... abusers of the tax system have no license to make irresponsible demands on the courts of appeals to consider fanciful arguments put forward in bad faith. In the future we will deal harshly with frivolous tax appeals and will not hesistate to impose even greater sanctions under appropriate circumstances.

www.quatloos.com...
I noticed one comment by a poster when looking around. He said something like: I don't have time to research through a bunch of books and write up my own forms. Sell me a program that will get me out of my tax liability, eliminate my need for a driver's license, get out of debt, etc., etc, with a written guarantee and a performance bond, and I'll buy it for $20,000 right now. Does anyone know of such a package? I don't believe it exists. So, I guess we're still looking for some evidence.

reply to post by flyswatter


Just because of the tactics already used here; you wouldn't take it too personal if I didn't believe you, would ya? I mean can you prove it?

That ^ is what I'm talking about...Nothing against you, but just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it isn't true...I would happily give you a court case; but I can't even find my own, I've looked them up in my county and state records, and these were for something far less trivial than outsmarting the government.

Look at the Libor Scandal with HSBC and gang......As far as I know, they haven't even received a slap on the wrist...Most corporations pay little to no taxes on their enormous profits...

Zip codes are crucial as well.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


en.wikipedia.org...

This isn't exactly what I am looking for, however, the only court case brought against him was not for failure to file income taxes, but for promoting an 'abusive' tax shelter. As far as I am aware he hasn't been jailed for it. They filed an injunction against him and his partners.

On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes (see Tax protester arguments); (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


en.wikipedia.org...

This isn't exactly what I am looking for, however, the only court case brought against him was not for failure to file income taxes, but for promoting an 'abusive' tax shelter. As far as I am aware he hasn't been jailed for it. They filed an injunction against him and his partners.

On August 9, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued an order including an injunction permanently barring Schulz and his We the People Foundation from (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes (see Tax protester arguments); (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


My neighbor's family was also involved in a very similar matter. They had been able to stop paying their own taxes as well, but when they started instructing other people how to do it, is when they were busted for 'tax sheltering'.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


www.irs.gov...

Go here and try a search for UCC in regards to 'frivolous' tax arguments....You aren't going to find it..

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

www.irs.gov...

Go here and try a search for UCC in regards to 'frivolous' tax arguments....You aren't going to find it..

Found it!

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-12 March 22, 2004 Rev. Rul. 2004-31

Frivolous tax returns; meritless “removal arguments.” This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, and to promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers with schemes, that there is no law, court decision or other authority that permits a taxpayer to remove himself from the federal tax system in order to avoid otherwise applicable taxes. Arguments to the contrary are not only wrong, but frivolous.

Participants in the removal schemes may rely on one or more of the following erroneous arguments, alleged facts or actions to support their frivolous claims: (a) the bankruptcy of the United States occurred contemporaneously with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the start of the Great Depression, the removal of the United States from the gold standard, or the passage of House Joint Resolution 192 (claimed to be a declaration of bankruptcy); (b) the Government’s use of birth certificates of taxpayers as registered securities; (c) the filing of documents with variations on a taxpayer’s name, (e.g., using all capital letters in some documents and standard capitalization in others) creates a “straw man” or “nom de guerre” as the debtor to the Government that replaces the individual who has removed himself from the Government’s jurisdiction; (d) the “redemption” of debts from the Government by filing UCC forms, such as the UCC-1 form;

www.irs.gov...

oops, you are wrong again!

reply to post by hellobruce


A) That wasn't the same page, so no I wasn't wrong. B) It doesn't mention why it is specifically illegal..Only mentions UCC-1 with little to no context. C) The IRS has no jurisdiction or authority to stop you from creating private and consensual contracts...

D) There are no court cases to cite, when the incidents in question never make it to court.

E) The correct UCC process has nothing to do with 'charge-back'.

Besides, that

Legal name is the name that an individual is given at birth and/or recognized by a government or other legal entity, or which appears on a birth certificate (see birth name), marriage certificate (in jurisdictions that permit or require a name change to be recorded at marriage), or other government issued document (e.g., court order) on which a legal name change is evidenced and recorded. The term is also used when an individual changes their first or full name, typically after reaching a certain legal age (usually 18 or over, though it can be as low as 14 in several European nations).

Legal name, and name are quite different.....Parents can no more dictate who you are, as defined by a name, than they can dictate what kind of job or person you become later in life...I am free to choose who I am, free of the constraint or tyranny of others.

I can choose to be addressed by a very different calling than my legal name...Legal name is just that, used for purposes of legal matters, and has no real bearing on who you are...

This is why courts will ask you to state your 'name for the court,please', due to idem sonans....But my name is not the same as my 'legal name', which people don't seem to get...I'm not even referring to the straw man...

Nor does the IRS link you provided mention a crucial step; common-law copyright of the trademark JOHN DOE SMITH....Any usage of copyrighted material without the owner's consent incurs a fee of $500,000.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.thezephyr.com...

The 'legal name' on my birth certificate is RYAN PATRICK MACLEOD; while my 'name' is Apollo James Mercury Lodbrok.

biztaxlaw.about.com...

EIN is the same as your SSN; which is applied for at birth the same time as your 'business name' is created for legal/tax purposes via RYAN PATRICK MACLEOD.