Is The IRS A Federal Agency? A very nice letter to the AG of Pennsylvania | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 33090 United States 11/29/2005 01:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yeah, this will give ´em a good laugh in the AG´s office. The "Lawmen" are citing the wrong source. The facts, and Court findings: Section 7801(a) of the Internal Revenue Code states that the administration and enforcement of the Code shall be performed by or under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 7802(a) then says that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury who shall have such duties and powers as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Finally, Section 7803(a) of the Code states that the Secretary is authorized to employ persons for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code. Acting under these laws, the Department of the Treasury has adopted regulations creating the Internal Revenue Service, of which the following is a part: "The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed." Treas. Reg. Section 601.101(a) Faced with the claim that the IRS is not an agency of the United States government, the courts have reached the obvious conclusion: "It is clear that the Internal Revenue Code gave the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce the Code, and the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the tax laws. Pursuant to that legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the Internal Revenue Service, so that the IRS is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, created pursuant to Congressional statute." Snyder v. IRS, "Plaintiff attempts to circumvent this conclusion by arguing that the IRS is ´a private corporation´ because it was not created by ´any positive law´ (i.e., statute of Congress) but rather by fiat of the Secretary of the Treasury. Apparently, this argument is based on the fact that in 1953 the Secretary of the Treasury renamed the Bureau of Internal Revenue as the Internal Revenue Service. However, it is clear that the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7801, and has the power to create an agency to administer and enforce the laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7803(a). Pursuant to this legislative grant of authority, the Secretary created the IRS. 26 C.F.R. § 601.101. The end result is that the IRS is a creature of ´positive law´ because it was created through congressionally mandated power. By plaintiff´s own ´positive law´ premise, the, the IRS is a validly created governmental agency and not a ´private corporation.´" Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141 (N.D.Ind. 1984). See also, Cameron v. IRS, 593 F.Supp. 1540, 1549 (N.D.Ind. 1984). "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system-including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court--has long been established." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984), (responding to, among other things, a claim that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority). "Salman´s argument that the Internal Revenue Service is not a government agency is wholly without merit." Salman v. Jameson, 52 F.3d 334 (9th Cir. 1995). (Salman has now been enjoined against filing any other lawsuits against the IRS or the United States. See Salman v. Jameson, 97-1 USTC ¶50,452, 79 A.F.T.R.2d ¶97-2667 (D.Nev. 1997).) |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 22 United States 11/29/2005 01:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well how was your thanksgiving Judas #4. Feeder and Defender of the Beast. I bet you and your family will be the first ones in line to recieve your Mark of the Beast! Then you all will zealously report other family members and anyone you know of that doesn´t recieve the Mark. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 33090 United States 11/29/2005 12:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Eyes Wide Open (OP) User ID: 22 United States 11/29/2005 12:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 17307 United States 11/29/2005 04:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Watcher User ID: 3121 United States 11/29/2005 05:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Im starting to think Eyes Wide Open and user ID4 are ALL THE SAME PERSON!!!!!!! why don´t you all take a fuckin hike and take your strawman bullshit with you. |
Eyes Wide Open (OP) User ID: 22 United States 11/29/2005 05:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Watcher User ID: 1545 You couldn´t be any more wrong. Obviously you aren´t reading or comprehending the articles or info I post. Because I respond to some idiot that trys to obfuscate the Truth doesn´t make this issue unimportant. |
The Watcher User ID: 3121 United States 11/29/2005 08:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I understand it alot more than you think, and like I said before trying to use USC against is a strawman argument. By walking into their courts and applying their law you ARE ENTERING INTO CONTRACT WITH THAT COURT!!!! once you have entered into contract with the feds they can demand COMPELLED PERFORMANCE which means that none of what you cite will have any WEIGHT OR FORCE OF LAW!!!! THIS SIR IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT THROUGH AND THROUGH!!! YOU SET EM UP AND THIS AC:4 IDIOT KNOCKS EM DOWN!!! I have already given him the right approach to dealing with these people and it flies right over his head. So a)he´s either a myopic moron who doesn´t comprehend one iota about our system of laws or b)he does and just obfuscates the matter by picking his angle countering with his parroted crap that he finds on google and the pats himself on the back proclaiming to have debunked all the subject matter at hand. like I said it´s getting to be comical and I for one am tired of seeing it. I could easily make him look like an idiot by posting more legal references and court citations than you can shake a stick at but in the end what will all that effort do me for an idiot who obviously supports the federal system?? I rather concentrate on those who have a few brain cells, get them to truly understand the law and the rights THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC protects and avails to its citizens till ultimately the tax burden is shifted to those stupid enough to still be in their system. Once that happens it will collapse under its own weight. The IRS has already gotten it´s ass kicked in court several times BUT OF COURSE THESE ARE NOT THE CASES THEY PUBLICIZE and ONLY FOCUS ON THE FOOLS WHO BRING STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT SO THEY CAN MAKE EXAMPLES OUT OF THEM AND SCARE THE REST OF THE SHEEP INTO COMPLIANCE. |
Eyes Wide Open (OP) User ID: 22 United States 11/29/2005 09:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | User ID: 1545 Well, it sounds like we´re on the same side of this issue. The whole system was designed to confuse We The People so that they can rob us under Color of Law. If the Courts won´t follow Supreme Court rulings or the Constitution, what other defense is there? You sound like you´ve been involved in the fight. If you know a better way that works in the courts, that´s what counts. By the way, maybe I have cheapened the issue by arguing with someome who doesn´t want to know the truth but confuse those that want to know more. Maybe I shouldn´t even respond to Taxman #4. |
A/C User ID: 1890 Panama 11/30/2005 02:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I´ve been watching and thinking a lot lately, and I´ve come to a conclusion. I´m not trying to be a defeatist, but please, please just listen to what I have to say. Things have changed. Take a good, hard look around. You are no longer living in a country that even remotely resembles pre-911 America. Your Constitutional rights are going... going... and soon to be entirely gone. Things have changed -- drastically, drastically changed. Yet, patriots and protesters of every stripe continue to fight as if nothing has changed at all. You must wake up to reality. You must become more adaptable, and be able to recognize when the battlefield has changed and then change your tactics accordingly. If you do not do this, you will lose. My recommendation at this point: Drop out of the system, and keep a low profile. I´m sorry if this sounds defeatist, but it´s the only way to survive at this point in the game. If you stick your head up now, it will be chopped off. If you want to keep fighting, making noise, and butting heads with Uncle Sam, then I think you should do it from abroad. Expatriate to a safe and free country that won´t extradite you, then rip into the IRS from there. Try to get your cause recognized and get any changes you want made from a safe base of operations. Do not do attempt to do it while living in the belly of the beast. |
A/C User ID: 1890 Panama 11/30/2005 02:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 33090 United States 11/30/2005 04:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | AS for the BS about tax cases being hidden, why don´t you and your crank buddies post some info on cases the IRS LOST involving ANY of your idiot theories? |
The Watcher User ID: 3121 United States 11/30/2005 05:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 33090 United States 12/01/2005 02:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 30582 United States 12/01/2005 02:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |