"S" RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY CM (Updated May 5, 2008)
From: "Cheryl Marie (CM)"
To: <bellringer@fourwinds10.com>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Linlar Services
Message:
I join others in appreciation of the central resource that the fourwinds10 website has become. I wish to address this question to \"S\", if possible.
Given the recent launch by the IRS of ITS "National Tax Defier Initiative" (TAXDEF), what simple statement can be made about the applicability of this initiative to men and women claiming sole
allegiance to the united States of America, and who have not interrelated with the IRS and COURTS at all (in other words, not "taxpayers" or "tax-defiers")? Does "sovereign-immunity" apply in response to a first-offer received from the IRS pertaining to ITS "initiative", should that occur? Thank you. CM
(Response)
Dear Cheryl Marie:
One idea: Please go to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC, 1331(1) as part of provisional remedy, ie. give "NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR 'SAVINGS TO SUITORS'". This is a very good question, but I simply do not have time to address it or do justice to correct and comprehensive response. The 'key' is in your status, standing, capacity, and if you know how to use their own 'law' authority against to 'rebut' their undisclosed presumptions as to WHO YOU ARE.
Their own U.S. courts have already determined, for tax 'information collection', 'assessment' of "liability", 'duty' and payment purposes, that [paraphrased] "if anyone claims to not be a U.S. citizen, [thereby not being subject to requirements under IRC which bear on U.S. citizens as "taxpayers", self assessment or 'substitute assessment' by the IRS in absence of self assessment, including 'reporting' and/or payment of any tax liability under or pursuant to Title 26, IRC], that person must present a 'preponderance of evidence' that they are not a U.S. citizen [thereby not subject to the IRC provisions set forth]. Title 26 is not positive law which includes American nationals of the several states. It is non-published [in Federal Register] but is an 'adopted' Title as 'law' of Congress for the federal legislative territories and 'States' of the UNITED STATES.
The issue is: WHO ARE YOU to yourself, and to the UNITED STATES/DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY-IRS/IMF, ETC.. Can you produce a preponderance of evidence that you are not a U.S. citizen, person, individual, resident or resident alien, or non resident alien who has 'elected' to be treated as one who is domiciled within the Title 26 7701(a)(9)(10) definition 'UNITED STATES', ie. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?
Good question, no easy answer, and you must do your own administrative process to create your own administrative RECORD, to be able to show, as a matter of commerce and 'law' that you are not who they presume you to be, or by presumption compel or coerce you to be/become by 'compelled association' to hidden contracts, and to perform for the U.S. or IRS for undisclosed
third parties to contract(s) that you are not aware of. All of this is, in their terms, 'frivolous', unless you grow the teeth to assure them that you are not to be reckoned with as a 'frivolous person'.
Their system is not set up to accommodate these arguments, but provisions are made within their system to cut loose of those who know too much and
who may be compelled under their duress to bring things out in public records, or in judicial proceedings, that they do not want getting out.
Sorry, I cannot say more at this time, but I wish you well. Go to SEDM.org and use that site as resource base for addressing your issues of concern.
"S"
(Reply)
Message:
Patrick,
This is in regards to " S responds to questions by CM"
The single best way to understand the IRS and the \"Income Tax\" is a book called \"Cracking the Code\" from www.losthorizons.com . There are close to 3 MIllion $ worth refund checks posted on the site, along with a wide range of support material. I took this book to a friend of mine that has been an IRS auditor for 25+ year, and asked him to read it and tell me what he thought. He came back 2 days later and told me it was " 100% correct.