Zip Code, Good or Bad?

Posted on April 5, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

IS THERE A FEDERAL ZIP CODE JURISDICTION?

In an Internet Newsletter identified only as Vol. I, No. 6, and entitled, “ZIP Code Use Invokes Federal Jurisdiction,” by  Richard McDonald, the following claim appears: “The federal  government utilizes the ZIP code to prove that  you reside  in a ‘federal district of the District of Columbia.’   This is  why the  IRS and  other government agencies (state  and   federal)  require  a  ZIP  Code  when  they  assert jurisdiction by  sending you  a letter.”

 

BODY OF THIS POST AVAILABLE ONLY TO ENROLLED STUDENTS

 

Rather than place you within federal territory, Zip Codes can place you outside federal territory.  For example, the Veteran’s Administration Hospital in West Los Angeles is all federal and has its own exclusive Zip Code.

 

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera

drrivera.com

Posted in Zip Code / Good or Bad? | Leave a comment

Mailing / Notice, what is good evidence?

Posted on April 1, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

Below is a formate that gives evidence of mailing, certified mailing is worthless unless a statute requiers it.

I have been in court many times, used certified mailing as evidence, the opposing side just says; “I do not reconize that document.”

All certified does is prove mailing not content.  Save your money, just use the below.  Use some one that is subpoena-able at a low price.

>>>>

Template >       www.courts.wa.gov/forms/documents/dv9_​040.doc

WWW. >   http://www.bing.com/search?q=proof+of+mailing&pc=ZUGO&form=ZGATBR

 

 

Paul John Hansen

FOR

  
 

___________________________________________

Petitioner                                              DOB

vs.

___________________________________________

Respondent                                           DOB

 NO.

 

PROOF OF MAILING

(AFML)

I certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that I am 18 years of age or older and I am not the Petitioner or the Respondent, and that on (date) I deposited two copies of the following documents:

Petition for Order for Protection

Temporary Order for Protection and Notice of Hearing

Order Transferring Domestic Violence Case and Setting Hearing

Order for Protection

Reissuance of Temporary Order for Protection

 Order Realigning Parties and Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing

Motion to Modify/Terminate Order for Protection

Order Modifying/Terminating Order for Protection

Other:

in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, one first class and one certified (return receipt requested), addressed to the  Respondent  Petitioner at the last known mailing address of:

.

 

Signed on __________________________ at ________________________________, Washington.

(Date)                                            (Place)

Signature                                                               Address

SERVER: 1) Complete and return this form to

(court)

and 2) deliver a copy to the law enforcement agency where petitioner lives.

Print Name

 

 

 

Posted in Notices | Leave a comment

Blank

Posted on March 31, 2011 by Paul John Hansen
Posted in Right To Travel, Automobil v. Motor-Vehicle, Travel / A Right / MSO | Leave a comment

Territorial Jurisdiction Brief, for Kent Hovind

Posted on March 31, 2011 by Paul John Hansen
Posted in Jurisdiction / Territorial | Leave a comment

IRS, 6203, 4340 Caution, demand sworn originals.

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/60/60.F3d.834.94-16037.html

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm    < required documents must be sworn statements.

 

60 F.3d 834

76 A.F.T.R.2d 95-5587, 95-2 USTC P 50,413

 

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Joseph STEPARD; Malania Stepard, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-16037.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 1995.*

Decided June 30, 1995.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

2

Joseph and Malania Stepard appeal pro se the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in the Stepards’s action seeking to quiet title to their property pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410. The Stepards challenge the validity of tax liens placed on their property by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for tax liabilities for 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1985. The Stepards also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a continuance pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), and denial of their motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Huff v. United States, 10 F.3d 1440, 1443 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2706 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.

3

* Quiet Title

4

The Stepards contend that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the United States on their quiet title claim because the IRS (1) failed to make determinations of deficiencies; (2) failed to properly assess their taxes pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Sec. 6203; (3) failed to issue notices of assessment and demands for payment pursuant to IRC section 6303; (4) failed to respond to their request for copies of the record of assessment; and (5) failed to properly certify the certificates of assessment.

5

Section 2410 provides that “the United States may be named a party in any civil action or suit in any district court … to quiet title to … real or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage or other lien.” 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410(a). The taxpayer may challenge only the procedural aspects of tax liens, not the merits on the underlying assessment. Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 1990).

6

Here, the Stepards’s claim that the IRS failed to make determinations of deficiencies addresses the merits of the assessment and are thus not actionable under section 2410. See id.; Huff, 10 F.3d at 1445. The Stepards’s remaining claims present procedural challenges to the validity of the IRS’s tax lien and are therefore cognizable under section 2410. See id.

7

1. Assessments and Requests for Copies: Section 6203

8

The Stepards contend that the IRS failed to properly assess their taxes pursuant to section 6203. The Stepards also contend that the IRS failed to respond to their request for copies of the assessments under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6203. These contentions lack merit.

9

“Generally, courts have held that IRS Form 4340 provides at least presumptive evidence that a tax has been validly assessed under section 6203.” See Huff, 10 F.3d at 1445.

10

Here, the government submitted a Form 4340 for both of the Stepards. These forms set forth, for each of the taxable years: their names and social security numbers; the amounts of tax, penalties, and interest assessed; the type of tax assessed; the period for which the tax was assessed; the date on which the tax was assessed (the “23C date”); and the dates various notices were issued.

(((Where is the blue ink signature of the assessment officer, done under penalties of perjury?)))

11

Thus, the IRS submitted presumptive evidence that it properly assessed the Stepards’s taxes for the years in question. See id. at 1446. Furthermore, because the Forms set forth all the information that section 6203 requires, the IRS submitted presumptive evidence that the Stepards were given all the documentation they were entitled to under section 6203. See Koff v. United States, 3 F.3d 1297, 1298 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (citing James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 755 (10th Cir. 1992) (“notices [of assessment] also satisfy 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6203, the requirement that the IRS provide a copy of the record of assessment”)), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1537 (1994). The Stepards failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the assessments were valid. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the IRS on these issues. See Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 536 (9th Cir. 1992).

12

2. Notice of Assessment Pursuant to Section 6303

13

The Stepards contend that the IRS failed to properly issue the notices of assessment and demand for payment pursuant to section 6303. This contention lacks merit.

14

Section 6303 requires that a notice of assessment must be sent to the taxpayer within 60 days after making an assessment pursuant to section 6203. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6303. “Form 4340 is probative evidence in and of itself and, in the absence of contrary evidence, [is] sufficient to establish that notices and assessments were properly made.” Hansen, 7 F.3d at 138.

15

Here, Form 4340 supports the government’s contention that timely notices and demands were sent to the Stepards for the tax years in question. The Stepards contend that they never received the notices of assessment. They failed, however, to present any specific facts showing that the IRS did not send the notices and demands. Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the IRS on this issue. See id.

16

The Stepards also contend that the district court erred by considering the certificates of assessment because (1) the IRS failed to properly certify them, and (2) they were submitted under the Second Declaration of Eric Casper, the government’s attorney who lacked personal knowledge regarding the certificates. These contentions lack merit.

17

First, Certificates of Assessment are admissible as self authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(1) when they are accompanied by a Form 2866 certification that is under seal and bears the appropriate signature. Hughes, 953 F.2d at 540. Here, the Director of the Ogden Service Center, who signed the certifications, is a proper person to sign the documents, and the certificates are therefore self authenticating. See id.; Long v. United States, 972 F.2d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 1992) (rejecting taxpayer’s argument that the District Director of the Ogden Service Center was ineligible to certify the Form 4340).

18

Second, Mr. Casper’s declaration merely states that he possessed the original Forms 4340 and the original Forms 2866 certifying them, and that the copies he submitted were correct. An attorney’s declaration may be submitted with a motion for summary judgment under these circumstances. See e.g., Lockwood v. Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 603, 611 (9th Cir. 1980).

(((They should have demanded the originals INK signed document, when originals are demanded they must be produced, if not demanded by opposition (Defendant) a (some times fake) copy can be submitted to be placed in evidence.  It is highly possible that no original assessment even existed, if it did it would have been placed in evidence.  This is the IRS way of stealing, and if caught, oh surprise surprise a fake assessment, why who could have put that in the file, no one will ever know.  This is often by design.  God calls it a great evil.)))

II

Other Claims

19

The Stepards contend that the district court erred by granting summary judgment without allowing them additional time to conduct further discovery. This contention lacks merit.

20

The Stepards failed to show how allowing additional discovery would preclude summary judgment. See Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Stepards’s motion for a continuance. See id.

21

Finally, the Stepard contend that the district court erred by denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment. This contention also lacks merit.

22

Here, the Stepards failed to meet the requirement for relief under Rule 59(e). See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See id.

23

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Posted in IRS / TAX COURT / NO | Leave a comment

IRS, Lie EXposed, One Juror Held out for the truth.

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

http://milkhouse-mouse.blogspot.com/2007/03/ill-courts-failure-to-show-jury-federal.html

The above site has great article and clip.

My friend knew the family of Arron Russo who produced this film.

Arron died of a vary rare cancer, this cancer just does not appear in families not accustomed to it, the family believed that some how Arron was injected the rapid growing cancer cells and died soon after.  Special US Government black operations men have told us that they sometimes enter room of hotels, gas the individual inject the necessary product associated with their mission.

In this case one patriot juror understood due process, demanded that the Defendant’s question be answered and put on the record.  What law required him to file or pay a federal or state tax.  You see there is no law for a Federal Tax Duty that applies to a non-US citizen (free inhabitant).

 

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Territorial Jurisdiction, for Kent Hovind

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

Brief, USA v. Kent Hovind, Territorial Jurisdiction:

Attorney Karl, my research shows that the USA (the Confederation) only has permission of jurisdiction “only” exclusively on land owned or ceded to it.

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 17:  “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And”

They can not extend it further. They are bared. Any further claim must be done with a court that does have jurisdiction on land that they do not own.

There is only two types of land in America between the borders of Canada and Mexico, that is: 1. land owned by the USA,  2. land not owned by the USA.  All jurisdiction is proprietary.

Such a trespass can be challenged in a civil court setting.  Where there’s damage – there must be a remedy.

The people have forbid jurisdiction of the USA to any land they do not own.

What one must make clear the following:

a. A civil hearing, common law, will be called some day in the future, Hovind v. USA.

b. Witnesses shall be subpoenaed with duces tecum.

c. Witnesses will be asked if they are well trained and are qualified to do their job.

d. Witnesses then shall be called to testify and present evidence of what is in the USA’s possession as to fact evidence that they have jurisdiction on the land that Kent was raided on.

e. When and how was the land that the charges where claimed to have taken place on, where purchased, making them a constitutional “Places purchased”?

[They always submit a deed, but deeds are only presumptive evidence, they must have a witness in the stand that will testify that the USA owns such and such land that the subject acts took place on.  Just because a attorney created deed says it is in city, county, state, does not change the fact that the property is not owned by the USA. ]

f. They will have none.

g. The jury will be left with calculating damages.

The USA government has no place to hide.

But without that US agent subpoenaed in the stand you have little chance of winning, or getting the fatal record against them.

Every case that I have followed is failing distinction of land owned and land not owned.

The cases start talking of; in the city, in the state, in the county, all of which are possessions of the USA.

There is only one government of/in the USA of legal entities, that is the USA / US.

The other government is of/on land not owned by the USA, and only associated with non-legal entities, such as man, family, church, free inhabitants = non-citizen of the USA, etc.

Motion to vacate judgment due to no place in the record that Plaintiff gives evidence to territorial jurisdiction as constitutionally required.

We can even bring in some type of document from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), they know if the USA owns any given piece of land.

Exculpatory, or evidence that was not then known, or evidence that if would have been presented would change the outcome of the trial, acquittal.

If argued correctly with “another” reason to give the court an escape route, I suspect they will vacate for fear of exposure.  (We must give them a way out, they will not expose the truth of territorial jurisdiction with out a sudo-civil war.)

Congress could, eventually, be called to answer the jurisdictional question.

Paul   3-25-11

>>

Kent:

I have heard that if a magistrate did your arraignment that is simulating judicial process and is a due process violation, all act after that violation is a nullity.  I do not want to be a cloud without rain, but maybe we can seed this one and get a down poor.  We are working on it.

>>

Briefing on promulgation of proprietary authority.

Declaration of Independence 1776         Separation from King George = Power. Proprietary.

The word constitution does not appear.

Articles of Confederation 1777 –  Article I. The stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.”       [one court mentioned – disputes between states (not people).]        Consent, Agreement, a more perfect Union.

The word constitution does not appear.

Northwest Ordinance 1787-

Are/is the people/land of those States of the Northwest Territory, which have not been admitted into the perpetual Union.

The Constitution of the United States

Preamble -  “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (The Confederacy).          Not changing or creating but “Aid” to the Confederacy. Not directly for the people but for the Confederacy.

“this Union,”  “the Union.”

“do ordain and establish Land, People, Laws, for the United States of America.

So in Kent’s case, and in all territorial jurisdiction challenges, there must be fact evidence on the record, or produced when challenged, at [a]ny time, of ownership of the subject land by the USA for it’s USA laws to have force and effect of law.

Even with the Kent’s pulling $9500.00 out structurally, they must prove that the structurally related “money laundering” was committed on a USA possession.  When/if challenged by Kent, such evidence must be factually on the record, or be brought before the judge ASAP.  If we have proof that the USA does not own the subject land, such offered proof must be controverter for the court to maintain that jurisdiction is/has been present.

Any claim of income must be proven to have develop on USA land, or a resident of USA land.

All claims of the USA must have an admiralty claim- “PORT” of entry.  (Territory includes water and land.)    Resident of USA, or done on USA land.

“In” as to > City, County, State of Nebraska, Federal Territory, District.

Incorporated / Chartered City of Omaha;

Douglas County;

District – US District, School District, Municipal District, Federal District;

State of Nebraska is one of the states of the United States;

Federal lands;

all the above are possessions of the USA.

Resident of the above.

Live in = live on.

National, National Citizen, National Bank.        (Some tax cases state- “Defendant never rebutted he was not a national citizen.”)

My mailing address styled as: Paul John Hansen, 1548 N 19, Omaha, Nebraska, not a resident address.

A TAX PAYER must… – Socialism can be imposed by the “Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” on the People of the United States, but not on the “one People” of the Declaration of Independence.

>>>>>>

The sentence: “Sections 81 – 131 of this chapter shows the territorial composition of districts and divisions by counties as of January 1, 1945,” was added to Title 28 by the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, so it would conform to the statute law on the judiciary and judicial procedure of the United States.    (Essentially gave scope of jurisdiction, promulgation.)

The sole appearance of the word “district” in the Constitution of September 17, 1787 confirms the meaning it was given in the Declaration of Independence and Northwest Ordinance.  “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square), as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

Sections 81 through 131 of Title 28 consist of, in alphabetical order,  the 48 States, the two Territories, Alaska and Hawaii, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as of  January1, 1945.   Section 81a is Alaska.  Section 88 is the District of Columbia.  Section 91 is Hawaii and Section 119 is Puerto Rico.

No territorial investigation beyond Section 88 should be needed, however, to put to rest any question that the territorial composition of the districts and divisions is only the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America, let us examine Title 1 of the United States Code, General Procedures, for its definition of “County,” which we find encrypted in Section 2: The word “county” includes a parish, or any other equivalent subdivision of a State or Territory of the United States.”   Translated into plain English, the word “county” of  Section 2 of Title 1 of the United States Code means the/a kind of county (land) found in Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico on January1, 1945, which is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America.

 

81.         Alabama.

81A.        Alaska.

82.         Arizona.

83.         Arkansas.

84.         California.

85.         Colorado.

86.         Connecticut.

87.         Delaware.

88.         District of Columbia.

89.         Florida.

90.         Georgia.

91.         Hawaii.

92.         Idaho.

93.         Illinois.

94.         Indiana.

95.         Iowa.

96.         Kansas.

97.         Kentucky.

98.         Louisiana.

99.         Maine.

100.        Maryland.

101.        Massachusetts.

102.        Michigan.

103.        Minnesota.

104.        Mississippi.

105.        Missouri.

106.        Montana.

107.        Nebraska.

108.        Nevada.

109.        New Hampshire.

110.        New Jersey.

111.        New Mexico.

112.        New York.

113.        North Carolina.

114.        North Dakota.

115.        Ohio.

116.        Oklahoma.

117.        Oregon.

118.        Pennsylvania.

119.        Puerto Rico.

120.        Rhode Island.

121.        South Carolina.

122.        South Dakota.

123.        Tennessee.

124.        Texas.

125.        Utah.

126.        Vermont.

127.        Virginia.

128.        Washington.

129.        West Virginia.

130.        Wisconsin.

131.        Wyoming.

_________

52                   < total, so we have 50 states and 2 possessions.

If no port of entry upon USA possession = only common law proceeding, the written law of the USA does not apply.

>>

The Preamble to the Constitution of September 17, 1787 and the first clause in Article VII of “this Constitution” will provide the solution to a runaway federal government, yet Note- the Preamble is not an officially part of the Constitution.

Here’s how to make the constitutional connection between, “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”  “We the People of the United States” and the “Conventions of nine States” are the same.

>>

USA District Court Judge must reside on a possession (US District) of the USA to have standing as a USA District Court Judge.  If we can find that any of Kent’s judges did/does not reside on land owned by the USA their orders are possibly void.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and the weakest link is the federal jury selection process.  No one can be prosecuted for a serious federal crime without a qualified federal grand jury, a federal trial jury and a federal judge of the State and judicial district “wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

The 1812 federal law, which is **attached, making it a misdemeanor for a district court judge not to reside in the district has not been repealed.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990),

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) – the court rejected as a “twisted conclusion” the contention “that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States,” and affirmed a tax evasion conviction.

Barcroft v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-5, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1666, 1667, appeal dismissed, 134 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 1997) – Barcroft claimed that he was not “a ‘U.S. citizen,’ subject to federal jurisdiction, such as ‘officers, employees, and elected officials of the United States,’” and did not “reside within a federal territory such as Washington D.C., or a federal enclave within a State, or a U.S. possession.” The court noted that Barcroft’s statements “contain protester-type contentions that have been rejected by the courts as groundless,” the court sustained penalties for failure to file returns and failure to pay estimated income taxes.

The above cases are losses due to the fact that the Defendant made the claims, could not prove a negative therefore lost support of such unsupported claims.  The Defendant failed to subpoena-duces tecum an IRS agent (his accuser) and demand answer the same support.  Must keep the burden on the USA at all times.

Definition of US citizen is > Persons who are citizens of the United States are qualified to be prospective jurors.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines “citizens of the United States” as “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”   So one can be born in the US and yet become a non-citizen of the US.  Such born type can expatriate to the free inhabitant standing. (“In” is as saying on land owned by the USA.)

The type of people of the Declaration of Independence are foreign to the land owned by the USA, and the US citizen is foreign to the said free inhabitants land.

Kent Hovind is foreign to the US lands.

Hit them hard, give them a way out that they can save face, get Kent out.

A walk in the park, aJ

If you comprehend all this you are now a legal-genies.

Brief written by Paul John Hansen, pauljjhansen.com

 

** STATUTE II.

Dec:. I8, 1812. CHAP. V. An Act concerning the District and Territorial Judges of the United States.

Be it enacted by the  Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter it shall be incumbent upon the district and territorial judges of the United States, to reside within the districts and territories respectively for which they are appointed, and that it shall not be lawful for any judge appointed under the authority of the United States, to exercise the profession: or employment of counsel or attorney, or to be engaged in the practice of the law. And any person offending against the injunction or prohibition of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.

APPROVED, December 18, 1812. ·

 

Posted in Jurisdiction / Territorial | 2 Comments

TAX COURT, the trap, IRS

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

Tax Court is not nothing new on the horizon, we deal with it often.

The thing to remember is that the US government is a for profit organization, more money is the primary goal, and they hate those who interfere with the flow.

A US Tax Court is associated with revenue for the US Treasury and is a court that is “limited” to consenting “only” participants. You will notice no subpoena to appear is issued, you were invited in such a way, that to the untrained legal mind, it sounds and looks like something you should go to, this is by design.

One would ask; why would they go to such lengths to get you into a court like this.

Can you say Money, it’s on the top of their list, they love taking your money, and they love taking all the money from those that do not want to give money to them, and especially those who teach other that they may not have to give money to them.

Essentially if one truly has a tax duty the court is there to sort out how much duty is due.

So if the court is only to sort out how much you owe why would you go if “you” do not owe money?

By going a record is established that you consented to letting them determine how much you owe, not if you owe, but simply “how much”. This could be ok if you owe, but very bad if you have no duty to file or pay any taxes in the start.

So if you do not go they must go to plane “B” to collect the tax legally, this is easy if you owe a tax, or have a legal duty to file.  But if you do not owe a tax, or have a legal duty to file, and do not show up at a tax court party you just made there job much harder.  Now they have the burden of proving factually “if” you owe.  You see if you show up no “if” is required to prove because you gave it to them by showing up.

Attorneys are instructed to get you to show up, and if they do not they will have to answer to those that gave them their high paying racket. The number one way they keep them in line is again money, big money.  Attorneys that beat the IRS are blacklisted, and sometimes killed.

The best way to beat the IRS is to demand a 6203 Certified Assessment.

I have a friend who once upon a time, that lived far far away, he was attacked by the IRS for failure to file.  This wise man “said” Mr. IRS, you say I owe a tax, you say that I have not assessed myself with a 1040 form, you say I must, you say every taxpayer does.

Mr. IRS, I am a dumb sheep I can not add or understand your forms, and never have had no money for an Accountant,  I want you to do the assessment, beside you are the experts, not me.  Why if I have you do it you have to even sign it under penalties of perjury, that is something a CPA will not even do for me. So assess me, now!  I have asked you to assess me “ever” time you sent me a request for tax information. You say you do not have that in your file, well I have always been a dumb sheep and have always asked you to assess me. Send me the bill if you want me to pay!

My far far away friend is dumb yet shrewd enough to always stay out of their courts unless forced, and never assess himself, but always “claim” he asked for a 6203 Certified assessments, where are they? I want to see them, signed!  How can I pay with out a bill.  That “claim” will keep the alpha dogs off your front porch.

 

I, Paul John Hansen have done it for 11 years without one problem.  They claim I owed Close to $200K just for one year, and yet they will not come after me, why? 6203.

 

Matthew 10:16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves … “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

The Wise Friend said; “If you “claim” that you “always” demanded an certified 6203 assessment I believe that that is an innocent act among these murderous, thieving, tyrants.

Posted in IRS, IRS / TAX COURT / NO, Tax, Taxes | 2 Comments

How to vacate judges ORDERS, Dr. Fine, Attorney

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

Short Clip-

http://fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/96.php

Dr. Fine, an attorney, tells how to investigate any relationship between any judge and your opponent. Most county cases are going to have interaction with their judges to the extent that that judge can not hear cases if the/your county is a plaintiff or defendant.  Very Good Clip

Did the county/opponent ever give the Judge money.

Does/did your opponent ever have any witnesses related in any business, employment, or personal connections (Golf, etc.) with the judge.

If so the ORDER is void.

 


Posted in Judicial / Tyranny, Vacate Court Orders | 1 Comment

Counsel vs. Self Representation, You can have it your way, by RIGHT

Posted on March 19, 2011 by Paul John Hansen

FIRST CINGRESS – Session1, Chapter 20, year of 1780, (sec. 35)   “AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, that in all the courts of the United Stats, the parties may plead and manage their own cause personally or by the assistance of such (personal) counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” (Added for clarity.)  Can only be found in the archived books.

>>>  Note never claim “self-representation”, but rather I’ll “manage” my own court matters.

A law student said that in this United States Code it provided for your right to have “counsel” not a hamstrung attorney.  Soon I’ll have the USC that states the right to have counsel.

Note- The Constitution states “counsel”, not stand by counsel (a potted plant), not a foreign agent such as a Bar Card Packing Attorney, who is an Officer of the court.

Counsel of your choosing, or even one provided by the state.

>>>

RE:

Greetings:

Thank you for your willingness to provide me with the assistance of Counsel that I require. I intend to speak in court when I decide it necessary to give an answer, and at all times make decisions pertaining to myself and handle my affairs directly and not through agency, until and unless specifically and expressly so stated otherwise. I have NOT so stated otherwise, except for the specific limited needs expressed in this letter.

My defense, if any, will vary depending upon the jurisdiction of law that the prosecution invokes accordingly, due to the form of the following possible jurisdictions claimed: If Admiralty and Maritime, Equity, or at Common Law – is its civil, criminal, or civil with criminal penalties including the specific statute, subsection, part and clause being applied to me.

1. I direct you to ensure the prosecution verbalize on the record to the court and the court verbalize to me which jurisdiction above is claimed and have the prosecution provide the authority at law to support it.

2. I will need a Bill of Particulars from the Plaintiff/Prosecutor. I herein direct you to obtain this from the prosecution. The Bill shall contain, answer to all information requested in my “Foreign Plea in Abatement / Counter Forfeiture’ on file in this cause.

3. I will need a complete copy of all information, communication and full Discovery with verification from the prosecution of what that Discovery contains. I herein direct you to obtain all the items listed as well as any you know that will benefit me.

a. A certified copy of the tape of the voice transmissions between the arresting officer and his dispatch officer/dispatcher, also between the arresting officer and his supervisor concerning the incident leading to and at the time of arrest i.e. inquiry at stop and executed citations.

b. The arresting officer’s incident report, notes and memos.

c. A copy of all reports and evidence acquired, including written affidavits by all the officers at the scene, including all the involved agencies whether generated and/or gathered by way of computer, hand written requests and/or other data transfer methods, pertaining to all records searches.

d. A manual to interpret all coded/abbreviated reports provided.

e. A complete list of all witnesses the prosecution intends to call at any stage of any proceeding.

f.  A complete list of all evidence the prosecution plans to use against me at any stage of any proceeding.

g.  A complete list of all charges the prosecution intends to charge the accused at any stage of any proceeding.

4.  I will need a complete copy of the Docket (index of what has been filed with the Court). Everything is to be sent directly to me in a timely fashion so that I may view and scrutinize it myself. No decisions are to be made or action taken on my behalf without my direct approval.

Your participation implies a Pledge of Loyalty that, while your are my assistance of Counsel, your loyalties in this matter are wholly towards me and that you have no conflicting loyalties to anyone else but me. I forbid you to communicate with any members of the Plaintiff or officers of the Court about this case without my direct instruction and/or supervision.

If you are either unable or unwilling to provide me with assistance in this case, as outlined above, please notify the Court immediately so that competent, active, zealous, and effective assistance of Counsel can be assigned in a timely manner.

Sincerely, _____________

cc; Court Records Clerk

Court Judge

Plaintiff / Prosecutor

 

Page 2 of 2

Posted in Counsel / Right to, Right, Self Representation | Leave a comment