| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Jul 2003 : 22:36:09
|
There's an interesting article found at 1215.org entitled Understanding Jurisdiction. Until you sign "under penalties of perjury," the government has no jurisdiction over you - or at least that is the author's opinion.
The only flaw I see in that article is that the author doesn't cite the court case which he claims was the court decision that ended all income taxation. (Page 5)
IRS on the Internet refered me to BJohn Williams regarding the phraseL: "under penalties of perjury". I didn't send the letter certified mail, so I don't expect a reply.
June 14, 2003
B. John Williams, Jr.,
Chief Counsel, National Headquarters,
Office of the Chief Counsel,
1111 Constitution Ave. Washington, D.C. 20224,
Dear Mr. Williams,
Internal Revenue Service referred me to your office regarding the definition of “under penalties of perjury”, which is found on all income tax forms.
My understanding is that the phrase “under penalties of perjury” means “under oath”; that is, two oaths. My question to you is this: What two oaths am I swearing to?
In addition, please provide me with the authority that compels me to affix my signature “under the penalties of perjury”, and also please include the law or statute that exempts IRS employees from IRC section 6065 (below).
Section 6065: Verification of returns. Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the Internal Revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by, a written declaration that it is made under penalties of perjury.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Livefree
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 01:41:26
|
As has been witnessed in many a trial, the IRS is not obligated to follow either the Internal Revenue Codes or the Federal Statute Laws, until they are under oath in a court that is actually a law court and not an equity court.
There is another tactic used by many, and that is to draw a box around the portion where you signature goes after you have signed the form. In contract law, anything inside a box is removed from the contract and is there only as information. Have you ever wondered why it is that a Judge can overturn the verdict of a jury? Well, where does the jury sit? Is it not in a jury box? Therefore, they are removed from the contract and are there only for information purposes.
For information only and not to be construed as legal advice.
Peace to all,
Lewis |
 |
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 13:28:47
|
"As has been witnessed in many a trial, the IRS is not obligated to follow either the Internal Revenue Codes or the Federal Statute Laws, until they are under oath in a court that is actually a law court and not an equity court."
Then why do we redemptionists bother to ask the IRS sign anything under penalities of perjury?
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2003 : 21:53:19
|
| I sent Mr Williams very short (certified return receipt requested)letter on August 7 regarding the definition of the plural phrase "under penalties of perjury". I asked him to define the phrase and tell me what the "two" penalties are. No response as of today. The green card was signed on August 10. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
19 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2003 : 13:21:57
|
Livefree- I'd put a dollar dough-nut up agaist a dough-nut hole that your Mr. Williams does not answer. Great thing is that your Certified proof of question might just cover you if you claim "ignorance of the law" in the future(concerning that one point, which no doubt will envelope other points).
More seriously though, Why would one even entertain the idea of APPEARING to enter into a contract with these entities? Why sign anything? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
19 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2003 : 13:26:54
|
Livefree- I'd put a dollar dough-nut up agaist a dough-nut hole that your Mr. Williams does not answer. Great thing is that your Certified proof of question might just cover you if you claim "ignorance of the law" in the future(concerning that one point, which no doubt will envelope other points).
More seriously though, Why would one even entertain the idea of APPEARING to enter into a contract with these entities? Why sign anything? |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2003 : 18:43:01
|
Why sign anything? I like to eat, that's why I sign.
|
Edited by - Livefree on 20 Sep 2003 18:47:36 |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2003 : 19:52:32
|
Daniyl-Yaseph, you're right, I won't receive reply from Mr. Williams.
How obvious is it now that the phrase "under penalties perjury" is two oaths? One oath is clear, but the other oath remains a mystery. Why would anyone want to argue with you for not signing?
Sounds like a winner reason not to sign anymore tax forms to me. :-)
|
Edited by - Livefree on 20 Sep 2003 19:54:10 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
