Doc id # 7010 1870 0000 1934 9255 complaint



Download 58 Kb.
Date06.07.2018
Size58 Kb.

Doc ID # 7010 1870 0000 1934 9255

***COMPLAINT***

United States Treasury

Inspector General

Internal Affairs

1125 15th Street, NW, Suite 700A

Washington, DC 20005

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

John Doe, Private Citizen

Complainant, = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


V.
Ms. Jane Doe, Employee of U.S. Treasury/

Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20220



Respondent,
__________________________________________________________
Comes now John Doe, a living man, the Complainant hereinafter, and a private citizen of Florida one of the 50 states of the Union, and in Full Possession of all His absolute rights and liberties specifically the Complainant’s right(s) to redress of grievances, due process, equal protection under the law, and all other right(s) protected by the First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments of the organic Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of Florida, and further, and without prejudice to any of the Complainant’s right(s) supra, hereby submits this COMPLAINT against Ms. Jane Doe, an employee of the Internal Revenue Service/Department of the Treasury/United States Treasury, the Respondent hereinafter, and that notice to principal is notice to agent, and notice to agent is notice to principal, and that the Complainant never knowingly, voluntarily or intentionally relinquished His status as a private citizen and/or absolute rights to any agency, political subdivision or instrumentality of the United States, and that the Complainant never knowingly, voluntarily or intentionally relinquished His absolute and/or substantive rights, supra, to the Respondent or any government agency, to wit:
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Complainant, in error, under protest and without prejudice to any of His rights, supra, filed a Form 1040 for tax year ending December 2009 requesting a full refund of all monies withheld from the Complainant’s paycheck for that year because of the Complainant was a private citizen and was not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia or any of its political subdivisions or instrumentalities for the tax year ending December 31, 2009 or any other tax year since the Complainant’s discharge from the U.S. Army (See Fed. Reg., Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1943, Sec 404.104, pg 12267; 26 U.S.C., Section 3401 (c)), and that Complainant was clearly entitled to a refund for tax year 2009 because one who voluntarily pays tax has no legal claim for its repayment, but one who pays more tax than law requires, under duress, has such a claim, and that duress could still be implied from institution of administrative or legal proceedings (See Lincoln Nat’l. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 632 S.W.2d 227 (1982));
Complainant subsequently received a letter from the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate’s Office dated October 6, 2010 which is joined to this affidavit by direct reference, and that the letter was signed by the Respondent, an employee of the Taxpayer Advocate’s Office, and that in said letter the Respondent alleged that my filing was frivolous and that the Complainant was subject to a penalty of $5,000.00, and that the Respondent’s claim that the Complainant’s filing was frivolous was clearly wrong because a claim or defense is frivolous if a proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense (See Liebowitz v. Aimexo, Inc., 701 P.2d 140, 142), and that the Complainant presented a preponderance of evidence to support His claim(s), for instance, there is no evidence in the Respondent’s possession that the Complainant was an officer, employee, or elected official of any agency or instrumentality of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any of its political subdivisions for the tax year ending December 31, 2009, or for any tax year after the Complainant’s honorable discharge from the U.S. Army, and that for that reason alone the Complainant should have been given a full refund, and that the Respondent’s action(s) were fraudulent, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of process, abuse of discretion, and the Respondent violated Her oath of office, the organic Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of Florida, 26 U.S.C., 18 U.S.C., and further, and the Respondent showed a reckless and callous disregard for the Complainant’s rights, supra, and that the Complainant suffered great physical inconvenience and discomfort, loss of time, mental suffering, distress, and anguish, humiliation of mind, embarrassment, shame, and that the Respondent clearly violated the due process clause of the organic Constitution of the United States of America, and further, also, there is no documentation in the Respondent’s possession bearing the Complainant’s signature whereby the Complainant gave the Respondent, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States any authority to restrain the Complainant’s liberties, and that the Respondent committed fraud, and that fraud is defined as deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended, by inducing him to part with property or surrender some legal right, also, anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a word, silence, the suppression of the truth or other device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty (See 23 Am J2d, Fraud, Section 2);
Complainant then filed a COMPLAINT, in affidavit form, against the Respondent with United States Treasury – CID, dated April 2010, Certified Mail #7010 1870 0000 1934 9224 (Joined to this document by direct reference) asserting that the Respondent’s action(s), (sending a letter to the Complainant threatening to impose a $5,000.00 penalty), was unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, an abuse of process, abuse of discretion, and that the Respondent acted outside the scope of Her authority and jurisdiction, and further, and that neither the United States Treasury – CID or the Respondent ever refuted any of the allegations in the COMPLAINT, and that uncontested allegations of fact in affidavit must be accepted as true (See Morris v. National Cash Register Co., 44 S.W.2d 433), Complainant is asserting that unknown employees of the United States Treasury – CID, in failing to respond to the Complainant’s COMPLAINT, violated the prohibitions imposed upon them by the First (redress of grievances clause), Fifth (due process clause) and Ninth Amendments to the organic Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of Florida, their oath(s) of office, and further, by denying the Complainant’s absolute rights, without due process, to redress of grievances, due process of law, equal protection under the law, and further;
Since then the Complainant has received two documents from the Respondent (both documents were unsigned and that is assumed as “fact” that they were initiated and sent by the Respondent), one form was an IRS Notice of Penalty Charge, Notice Number CP15 dated May 30, 2011 (See Exhibit A), the second one was an IRS bill Notice CP503, dated July 4, 2011 (See Exhibit A) alleging that the Complainant owed the Respondent $5,019.21, and that the Respondent’s allegation(s) that the Complainant owes this money is clearly wrong, and that the Complainant discovered that Section 6702 of Title 26 U.S.C. governs frivolous filing penalties, and that Complainant noticed that there was no implementing regulation for 26 U.S.C., Section 6702, and that for federal tax purposes, regulations govern (See Dodd v. United States, 223 F.Supp. 785 (1963); See also United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431; 4 L.Ed 423), and that the Respondent clearly acted outside the scope of Her authority and jurisdiction, and that the Respondent’s action(s) were fraudulent, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of process, an abuse of discretion, and that the Respondent violated the prohibitions imposed upon Her by the organic Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of Florida, Her oath of Office, USC 18, USC 26, and further, and that the Respondent is required to follow the Laws of the United States of America, and that the IRS with its expertise is obliged to know and realistically apply their own statutes (See Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Const., et al., 713 F.2d 1405 (1983));
On page two of the attached correspondence(s), the Respondent threatened to file a Notice of Federal Tax Lien against the Complainant if the Complainant did not pay $5,019.21. to the Respondent by July 14, 2011, and the alleged authority for filing a Notice of Federal Tax Lien is 26 USC, Section 6321, and its Implementing Regulation 27 CFR, Part 70 (Alcohol, Tobacco Products & Firearms), and that the Respondent(s) violated the prohibitions imposed upon Her by Her Oath of Office, the due process clause of the organic Constitution of the United States of America, the organic Constitution of Florida, and the Respondent violated United States Postal Laws by sending a threatening letter to the Complainant through the US mail, and further, and that the Respondent(s) also violated 27 CFR, Parts 53, 70, which relates to Alcohol, Tobacco Products & Firearms (See Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules), and that the Respondent(s) acted outside the scope of their authority and jurisdiction, and that the Complainant affirms under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the Complainant was never involved in any excise taxable activity relating to alcohol, tobacco products & firearms during tax year 2009 or any tax year for that matter, and that the Respondent clearly acted outside the scope of Her authority and jurisdiction, and that the mission of district offices is to administer the internal revenue laws (except those relating to alcohol, tobacco and firearms) within a geographically defined internal revenue district and to provide services to, and contact, with taxpayers (See 1112.41, Internal Revenue Manual - Administration);
On page two of the correspondence listed in Exhibit A, Respondent threatened to seize (levy) the Complainant’s private property if the Complainant didn’t pay the alleged penalty totaling $5,019.21 to the Respondent by July 14, 2011, and that the Respondent’s alleged authority for levy falls under 26 USC, Section 6331, and its Implementing Regulation 27 CFR, Part 70 Alcohol, Tobacco Products & Firearms), and that the Respondent violated the prohibitions imposed upon Her by Her Oath of Office, the due process clause of the organic Constitution of the United States of America, the organic Constitution of Florida, and the Respondent(s) violated United States Postal Laws by sending a threatening letter to the Declarant through the US mail, and further, and that the Respondent(s) also violated 27 CFR, Parts 53, 70, which relates to Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (See Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules), and that the Complainant affirms under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that He was never involved in any excise taxable activity relating to alcohol, tobacco products & firearms during tax year 2009 or any other tax year for that matter;
The Respondent never provided the Complainant with proof that She, or Her agency(s) had jurisdiction and authority in Florida or any of the 50 states of the Union, and that the United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state (See NY RE: Merriam, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1973); 19 C.J.S., Corporations, Section 886), and that the Complainant was exempt from the Federal Income Tax in 2009 and every other year He filed because an income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax (See Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720), and that an excise tax is not one directly imposed upon persons or property (See New Neighborhoods v. W. Va. Workers Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714 (4th Cir. 1989)), and that the income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax (See House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg 580);
Please note that the Complainant has relied in good faith upon prior decision(s) of the court(s) (See U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973); U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263), and that the Complainant provides additional case law to support His claim(s) that the Complainant was exempt from the Federal Income Tax for tax year 2009 and years preceding 2009:
Federally created corporations engaged in business in the States were subject to state laws (See Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154 U.S. 413 (1894));
Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful building (See 18 U.S.C., Section 451);
The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government (See Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 215);
Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority (See Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244);
Congress does not have the authority and jurisdiction to regulate commerce within the 50 states of the Union (See United States v. Scarborough, 431 U.S. 563);
The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world (See T.D.O. No. 150-01, 51 Fed Reg 9571, 2-27-86);
And the Constitution itself is in every sense a law (See Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 140, 296 (1935));
No matter how equitable a tax may be, it is void unless legally assessed (See Joyner v. School Dist. Number Three, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 567);
The taxes imposed by provisions 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau shall be collected by regional directors (compliance), the Chief, Tax Processing Center, and other ATF officials designated by the Director of the Bureau (See 27 CFR, Section 70.51);

Remedy



  1. Investigate and prosecute this COMPLAINT and see that the Respondent is charged criminally for Her unlawful acts upon the Complainant, and to notify the Complainant periodically as to the status of the investigation and results of said investigation pursuant to redress of grievances clause of the organic Constitution of the United States of America;

  2. Order the Respondent to refund the balance of the monies owed to the Complainant for tax year 2009 and to amend the administrative record accordingly;

  3. Order the Respondent(s) to amend the administrative record to reflect that the Complainant was exempt from the Federal Income Tax for all other tax years on record and to refund any monies paid by the Complainant to the Respondent for said tax years as the Complainant was not involved in any excise taxable activity relating to alcohol, tobacco products and firearms for those years;

  4. Order the Respondent to send a letter of apology to the Complainant and to confirm to the Complainant that the remedies in this COMPLAINT have been carried out;

  5. Notify the US Post Office that the Respondent sent a threatening letter, through the US mails, to the Complainant and ask the US Post Office to investigate for possible criminal activity and to file criminal charges against the Respondent and prosecute accordingly;

  6. Order the Respondent to stop referring to the Complainant as a TAXPAYER in future correspondences and to address all further correspondences to Michael Ernest Solivan;

Complainant affirms under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief. Complainant is also attaching a “Notice of Process” and “Claim of Exemption” pursuant to Florida Statute 222.11 & 222.12 (See Exhibit B).


Respectfully,

By:____________________________

John Doe. Private Citizen

c/o 123 Main Street

Anywhere, Florida state [00000]

Non Domestic Mail without the US

Without Prejudice UCC 1-308
JURAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
In the presence of:
State of Florida )

) Scilicet

County Of Hillsborough )
Subscribed and sworn before me a Notary on this ________ day of _________________ 2011.
___________________________________ _________________________________

My Commission Expires Notary Signature






Share with your friends:


The database is protected by copyright ©dentisty.org 2019
send message

    Main page