Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 34

[KBCraig]

Donna, if you haven't already sent that, you might want to change "reverberate" to "reiterate", which I'm pretty sure is what you meant.

[keith in RI]

"I am emailing you to ......... has been handling my husband's (Cirino Gonzalez) case."

"The CO's also falsely stated that my husband "

Thank you,
Donna VanMeter-Gonzalez

donna i wasn't aware the two of you got married..... congratulations?? when did this happen??

[DonnaVanMeter]

"I am emailing you to ......... has been handling my husband's (Cirino Gonzalez) case."

"The CO's also falsely stated that my husband "

Thank you,
Donna VanMeter-Gonzalez

donna i wasn't aware the two of you got married..... congratulations?? when did this happen??

Thanks Keith
Since the late part Aug. 2007 under Texas common law. We are not the kind to ask permission from the state in the forms of license, believing that the state/govt has no place in peoples personal relationships. We had a informal ceremony/agreement here at the house in front of his younger brother Lee, a police officer and at the time a Notary Public. From there on out we have addressed each other as our spouse. Jose introduces me as his nuera (daughter in law) Cirino's wife, and I address Jose as my suegro (father in law) publicly.

To have a common law marriage in Texas, you must do three things:
(1) have an agreement to be married
(2) hold yourself out to a third party as being married, and
(3) live together

Remember, while common law marriage in Texas has the same legal status as a ceremonial marriage, you have to get a formal divorce with either common law or ceremonial marriage.

[LordBaltimore]

This website says Texas has four requirements.

http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

[thinkliberty]

This website says Texas has four requirements.

http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

If you are the type that believes that the state/govt has no place in peoples personal relationships, then it does not matter what the state of Texas requires. 

[DonnaVanMeter]

various websites say various things, 3 or 4, depending on your particular county. Regardless, we hold ourselves out as a married couple. Not to mention the fact that my suegro is not only a family and marriage counselor but also went through the process of becoming an ordained minister, residing over wedding ceremonies.

And you are correct ThinkLiberty, I dont care what the state requires. I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, so therefore we don't have to have their paperwork to say we devoted to each other.

[LordBaltimore]

And you are correct ThinkLiberty, I dont care what the state requires. I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, so therefore we don't have to have their paperwork to say we devoted to each other.

When were you raided???

[DonnaVanMeter]

And you are correct ThinkLiberty, I dont care what the state requires. I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, so therefore we don't have to have their paperwork to say we devoted to each other.

When were you raided???

We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas. Are you not familiar with the story of the arrests of the four Browns Supporters?

[JosephSHaas]

...I require a warrant when they showed up to raid us and they didn't produce one, ....

When were you raided???

We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas....

And Attorney David Hugh Bownes of Laconia, N.H. was the federal attorney appointed by the judge as the cover-up agent to fly down there to make sure that certain questions were NOT asked, like WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?

I've been told that his office has been shut down, and him what? having moved to his house for an office space there?

He never asked the court to order that the prosecution provide the proof of jurisdictional authority for the Texas Feds to turn over Reno to a bunch of federal thugs in New Hampshire operating as outlaws outside the law of 40USC255 to 40USC3112 for their failure to file said documents to do business in THIS State of New Hampshire as REQUIRED by the "shall" word, as a must to-do duty by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution that they ALL in BOTH states take an oath to obey, but dis-obey and so WHO and WHERE to argue this than at first in the very court of corruption, and then as Reno has learned, by a Rule 63 collateral attack in another federal court but only AFTER a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed with the sentencing court and denied.

So WHEN might this occur?  AFTER Sven files Danny's Brief later this month and THEN with that info to copy the Concord court either by a courtesy copy for a case to be opened sua sponte for such relief and witHIn THE case, or to file such a Petition, or await what happens in Dover, N.H. in my case of SAME criteria in them using these federal policies as an over-ride to our N.H. Article 12 rights per that last sentence.      Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. David did not want to rock the federal boat, or $ gravy train $ as they say because his mother, as the widow of Hugh Bownes of the First Circuit in Boston from N.H. was and still is collecting a nice retirement check every month of to what? 75% of the $100,000+ per year his father made as a federal judge? And he stands to collect some of this as she saves for his inheritance. He definitely had a conflict of interest! A violation of his RSA Ch. 92:2 and 311:6 oath but that the P.C.C.-N.H. doesn't care: they're a cover-up group for the cover-up man.

[LordBaltimore]

We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas. Are you not familiar with the story of the arrests of the four Browns Supporters?

Sorry, when I hear "raid" I think search warrant, which they have to show you.

The only person they had to show an arrest warrant to was Cirino, since he was the one arrested. 

So let me start again.  They never showed Reno an arrest warrant?

[DonnaVanMeter]

We were raided and Cirino was arrested on September 12th 2007 in Alice, (Jim Wells Co) here in Texas. Are you not familiar with the story of the arrests of the four Browns Supporters?

Sorry, when I hear "raid" I think search warrant, which they have to show you.

The only person they had to show an arrest warrant to was Cirino, since he was the one arrested. 

So let me start again.  They never showed Reno an arrest warrant?

Nope, Never! Not for his arrest, nor for the firearms that were removed from the property. And we were not shy to ask for them to produce one, all of us at the home that day asked several times for a warrant and for why there were here. Reno, his brother (whom was a police officer), and myself ask on multiple occasions. We were told, "We don't have to show you anything!" "Its on file at the Sheriffs Department" "Mind your own Business" and when asked of the local boys there if they had even seen the warrant, they told us, "No, its in Corpus Christi, that its on file somewhere but have not physically seen it with their eyes!" "They don't bring paperwork along when they raid and arrest" "They are just doing their jobs!" "The Federal agents have higher authority, they are just here to help an aid them in their arrests." Which I tried to ask them if they knew they had higher powers of Jurisdictional authority over the federal agent outside invaders whom they should be protecting us from, not serving these jackbooted thugs and baby killers!

[JosephSHaas]

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091207/NEWS01/912070325

entitled: "A Tax is not a debt "owed" but to be contested on legal grounds."

of: "Pay up with what? A check is an order to pay, and a note is a promise to pay.  Does the City really get the quality of coin as required by law? The law in Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 as annotated in our N.H. Constitution, Part the Second and in Chapter 28 of The Laws of N.H. for 1794 in Vol. 6 @ page 155 for the reason as described in Ch. 7 Laws of N.H. for 1793 @ page 109 of "for settling the depreciation of the paper currency."

Yes, since then the Feds have enacted The Coinage Act of 1965 for the Commerce Coin to circulate "together" with the Constitutional Coin, per the speech by L.B.J. to Congress that year, and so WHERE is this co-mingling? Does your local bank take your order to heart, or flips over just debased coins of commerce to the government? It's all a secret to us because the Legislature, our State Reps had it in their wisdom per suggestions from certain strong-arm lobbyists to keep us in the dark, and so exempted all government financial transactions from the RSA Chapter 91-A Right to Know.

But not to worry: there's an Accounting Firm of: _______________ Address: __________________, Telephone # (___) _____ - ___________ that conducts an annual Audit and certifies that the City is in compliance with all laws; right? Last one conducted by Mr. __________ with his signature affixed next to the corporate seal of his company.

And "you people" work for the green paper that "they" the Fed (as in the Federal Reserved Bank) buys from the U.S. Gov't for only 6-cents per note of ANY and ALL denominations, BEFORE it is supposedly monetized, as by the recording of the serial numbers per pallet of FRNs (Federal Reserve Notes) by the supposed deposit of the gold bullion per Part 15 in Section 16 of the Act, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 in their contract with us.  And so I ask again: WHERE IS THE MONEY?  Not the legal tender/ paper dollar bills, but the actual "dollar"s as defined as so many grains of silver.

But THEY say to us that if you're working in commerce you get the commerce coin, and so yes, that WOULD be the case of THAT 1965 Act over us but that the Feds have FAILED to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. See the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Our June 14, 1883 conditional consent or offer has NOT been accepted, as so that we go by the CURRENT law of 1792.

So do YOU want to continue to fork over your rights to the 94-cents difference in value of the note of for the silver dollar to let the Fed benefit thereby? making it Fiat Money!?  I say no! "A tax, in its essential characteristics, is NOT a debt" (Henry Campbell) Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307.  I challenge the City to prove that they DID (past tense) do business by law and WILL (future tense) do so, before any current/present tender of what is supposed to be there for the transfer.

Plus: BTW, WHY hasn't the City Assessor sent over her tax bill to the Feds on Pleasant Street, since by RSA Ch. 123:2 their land is exempt, but not their buildings! At about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation on 111 million dollars, that's an extra $2.2 million to the City. I'd offset my bill of $x,xxx with a photocopy of this printout, in that you will pay your fair share when your employee does her job! to "mitigate" the bill down to a more reasonable and fair, plus lawful and legal $amount. This info dedicated to Bill Burns, R.I.P. of Amherst who first started this assignment back in the early 1980s and made front page news at The Union Leader. "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: RSA 91-A (not 93, as in Ski 93 - me thinking of snow).

[JosephSHaas]

Update: I did meet with the County Commissioners today (Thu., July 16th), and they said for me to call Gary D. again to see if the road issue is still bothering them, and if so for WHERE to meet to talk about it OFF federal turf was my reply as to "parley" with the enemy on neutral territory like Reme's.  So Gary, if you're reading this out-of-state as Wayne said you were on a mission south to please call the Jail and tell Dowaliby that Ed can put me down on his visiting list for to start sometime next week. Like to discuss this Motion to Arrest the Judgment that I still have yet to research at the Law Library.*

* ....

This is from page 24 of my Archives here.  When the guards told me on the phone on both August 9th + 16th that I could visit with Ed, I thought that Gary or another from the Feds had called the Super. at the facility who delegated down the message that I was now allowed to visit Ed.

The Assistant County Attorney did write the Superior Court this past Monday, December 7th a "DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY STATEMENT" that: "The claim arises from an ALLEGED incidents that occurred at the Strafford County House of Correction (hereinafter 'the HOC') on August 9th and 16th, 2009, where the Plaintiff claims he was denied visitation to a federal inmate. (emphasis ADDed as to the word ALLEGED from allege of to assert (affirm or claim) to be true withOUT proof, defined as "The EVIDENCE establishing the validity of a GIVEN assertion".  (emphasis ADDed) And that assertion word defined as: "A POSITIVE statement withOUT support* of proof. (emphasis ADDed.)

* The word support defined as "To corroborate** or substantiate***."

** To corroborate = to strengthen or support, "To make or become strong or stronger."  as in solid = "Not hollowed out", substantial = "of or having substance" and thus back to my N.H. Article 8 Claim for Accountability of for the guards to account for the truth of what I claim, to get away from this hollowness from the council or counsel of cavity to that of validity, as from the word valid of not only a grounded claim, but well-grounded, the word well defined as  thoroughly, as in well cooked for example, and so to bake this case with the heat of their breath from the guards to have already said and/or written into their accounts and/or now tell or write to the Board/Counsel/Plaintiff/Court that my claim is true and thus beyond a mere alleging to having been substantiated*** from the word substantiate = "To support with proof or evidence; verify." The word proof defined as: "The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion." To verify = "The condition**** or quality of being true."

**** And since this case be a master - servant case whereupon the master has called upon the servants to TRY to counter what is claimed by challenging them in TRYing to give an otherwise account by Article 8 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights then the "condition" or prerequisite or prior condition is that of the master OVER the servant in what is a prima facie case of what I do write and say IS the truth! So help me God Almighty, let those who deal in evasion from the word evade of to try to avoid by cleverness or deceit succumb as in to yield or submit to this overpowering force, the word succumb from the Latin word succumbere meaning to lie down under, and so here you have the truth by me standing, and this counselor for the Board trying to evade  this Article 8 requirement, and so I find it disgusting to have him standing there behind his Defendant table in court next Tuesday morning @ 9:00 a.m., when he should be ashamed of himself and so either default by not showing up, or slither into the courtroom like a snake!

The disgust upon him AND The Board for putting him up to this, and so a copy of this to BOTH of them!!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

pc: Edward-Lewis: Brown, Strafford County H.O.C., 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310.

P.S. In paragraph #3 the Assistant County Attorney writes that "Discovery in this matter is pending".  What a bunch of crap! And then in his "PROPOSED STRUCTURING ORDER" paragraph #3 he wants "Discovery track: Standard" and in #7 he details this want in  "e) Completion of discovery by July 15, 2010".  Again, this is crap! The N.H. Constitution is clear: for this Art. 8 accounting to be done in a "prompt" time frame as required by Article 14. Prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post = after, pone = meal, and so BEFORE he next eats any meal of breakfast, lunch or dinner.

In paragraph #6 of the "PROPOSED...ORDER" he goes on to try to get away from this Respondeat Superior status in TRYing to deviate the blame away from the Board of officers as over-seers of their employees by writing that: "If the defendant's claim unnamed parties are at fault (See DeBenedetto v. CLD Consulting Engineers, Inc., 153 N.H. 793 (2006), defendant's shall disclose the identity of every such party and the Basis of the allegations of fault no later than April 15, 2010.  Plaintiff shall have 60 days from that date to amend the initial pleading."

[JosephSHaas]

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091210/FRONTPAGE/912100302&template=single

entitled: "A  "major industry is above the law"."

of: "Right on Frank! reference: page 2 of 3 here of: ""To say a major industry is above the laws* of the state, I don't agree with that," he said. "

* What exact laws (in the plural) are you talking about?

THE law is in Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and in detail, the very last sentence: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." as in the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large.  WHEN, if ever, have they ever been "consent"ed to by us?

Answer: Never!  Yes by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm we gave the Feds our Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" back on June 14, 1883, but what TYPE of Consent was it?  Answer: A "conditional" consent, because by 40USC255 to 40USC3112 an offer not accepted is not consent, and that even their U.S. Criminal Code* is not supposed to be OVER us UNTIL this Federal filing!

See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm  * plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 for 40USC255.

* """In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

See also: RSA Ch. 123:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm from:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm  So WHEN is the Concord City Tax Assessor going to send them the bill? for over $2.2 million/year  for their "buildings" over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street assessed at $111 million at the $21.00 per $1000 of valuation.

JSH / P.S. The score so far: 3 votes for Merrimack County Savings Bank, and 1 vote for Laconia Savings Bank. That BTW are BOTH "Mutual" Savings Banks, v.s. this and these other stockholder banks.

footnote: Neal: When is your Public Hearing on this HB #____ of 2009? http://www.state.nh.us/  Suggestion: You might want to amend it to alter RSA Chapter 123:1+2 also so that if and when the Feds finally file, that there be this banking exemption, like there is for "land". "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste.  Maybe somebody here can research the court files in Concord for the Fed to see IF they have complied with all the requirements for publications and hearings as outlined in The Federal Register. Sort of like an audit.  Maybe to contact your Federal Rep. and/or U.S. Senator for to conduct this audit through their Legislative Services? as these courts are supposed to be Article III, Section 1 U.S. Constitution inferior Courts of Congress, and so accountable to us when we ask if all the i's have been dotted and t's crossed like these mandatory notices for to hear from us as to WHY that local rule shall NOT be implemented until AFTER the Feds comply with the local law! N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. since as stated in the Adams case in 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court,  for 40USC255 to 40USC3112, an offer of conditional consent is NOT a Consent until they comply! 5th + 14th Amendments for procedural due process of law! So until then they have no jurisdictional authority over us N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants"!

"
RE: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Jerold Barringer Summons Case 3:09-cv-430 - USDC S.Dist. Illinois?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 12/11/09 11:28 AM
To:    Wayne _______
Cc:  ______________
Bcc:    ______________
   
Attachments:    3 attachments | Download all attachments (74.9 KB)
   USA.jpg (39.1 KB), Joker.jpg (18.1 KB), Picture 1...png (17.7 KB)
Thanks Wayne.  Sending to Bill for Danny to get his Attorney Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth, N.H. to maybe put this in his Brief due later this month for his Appeal in Boston at the First Circuit. Best wishes, -- Joe

cc: also to Jose and Donna for Reno, and Keith for Jason.

#___ "Local Rules" used in their case, but like it says below, were they ever put out to public comment by a 30-day notice? I doubt it, and call upon the Feds to prove it by documentation, re: that local Rule that reads that non-party contacts to the court of error are forbidden to have their affidavits presented to the judge by the clerk. Reference my affidavit of the Feds in my case #M.83-50-D there in that same court, the D for then Chief Judge Shane Devine, since deceased, signed by a N.H. Notary given to the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch who returned it to me saying it was against the local rule. Re: of when Judge McAuliffe told the jury in Ed's case that ALL of the Internal Revenue Code has been declared valid by ALL the courts in this country when he knew or should have know, and that I tried to notify him that Section (5) for Rents from Landlords (like myself back then in 1983) was already declared unconstitutional! Thanks to the info from both books by Otto Skinner thru the mail, and Martin J. "Red" Beckman at the N.H. Highway hotel in Concord where I first met Ed after those 1/2 hour info-mercials on Channel 9 WMUR-TV during the game-show hour after dinnertime from Manchester, N.H. when he was running for President of the United States of America.  I bought the transcript excerpt of such from the transcriber and gave all of this to Ed & Elaine for a DIRECT rebuttal on an appeal to Boston that they did NOT do as they gave NO jurisdiction to this court, but as we all know, the American way of case-law of to have to prove jurisdiction has been turned topsy turvey, then I did TRY to provide this truth but was REFUSED, and so by the information below, refused by a local rule never given its public hearing to become effective is my claim that THEY/ the court and/or prosecutor prove same, and so maybe to have the First Circuit judges require the lower court to hold a hearing on this truth to offset what McAuliffe said as incorrect, and so to call a mis-trial on the original trial.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

P.S. BTW I won that 1983 case as for when the IRS was asked by me of WHO the Director was who was supposed to have delegated some powers down through channels to whoever at the regional and local levels (of Joe Stella at their Portsmouth office to Frank Lungarelli of Laconia, where a car ran him over and I visited him at his hospital bed, and when Stella called he got all upset). This was done at a hearing conducted by Wm. Barry, former Clerk turned Magistrate of when I did ask the IRS agent WHO the "Secretary" was and he coyuld NOT answer the question, and so with this AND that (as indicated) above, plus the offer of receipts at the U.S. Forestry Building in Laconia of having to go through the motions as the judge said to do, I won the case as them getting not one red cent for the $63,000 wanted from me.

From: __________________
To: _______________
Subject: FW: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Jerold Barringer Summons Case 3:09-cv-430 - USDC S.Dist. Illinois
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:49:49 +0000

This is FYI.

To: _________________
From: ralph at jusbelli.com
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:15:07 -0900
Subject: [citizensoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica_news] Jerold Barringer Summons Case 3:09-cv-430 - USDC S.Dist. Illinois

Attachments of references cases, etc contained herein - Special List only.
Docket of Case.
Answer - Docket 14.  IRS Docket 11 response is total BS.

I have been looking at some of the work of Barringer and this case is very interesting in that Barringer has put in the Answer  that the IRS in this summons case is abolished the "internal revenue districts" and the "district director."  Good source for PRA argument (Doc. 14 - answer).

I have taken issue with Barringer only on the issue of "force and effect of law."  Forwarded this to him.  Very unusual for an attorney to get this far into the fighting the IRS.

First the "force and effect of law" on page 14 is incorrect (Doc 9), as you  must first (always) check the Federal Register to affirm that statement. See Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) for "substantive regulations" and the best summary case is Production Tool Corporation v. Employment & Training ..., 688 F.2d 1161, 1165 (7th Cir. 1982) for "force and effect of law."

To have the "force and effect of law" in the IRS world, the mandates of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)(D) must be met (all regs must published in the FR and in particular "substantive rules"); and then the mandates of 5 U.S.C. § 553§(b)(c)(d) must be met (notice and comment + 30 days & 30 days to become effective) - remedy is in (d).  In the Federal Register compliance must state 553(b) in the proposed rule and the final rule.  The IRS hasn't done a Part 1 (Individual Income Tax) "substantive rule/regulation" since 1981 - far back as I checked.

553(b)(c)(d) is the jugular of the IRS on all actions - criminal and civil, as all of the Part 1 "substantive regulations" [that have the "force and effect of law"] as found in 601.702 and as published in the Federal Register November 19, 2002 at 67 FR 69673-69688, ibid. 69675.  Use judicial Notice of 44 U.S.C. § 1507 of FR.

553(b)(c)(d) is found in numerous cases but the one at the 9th is in one paragraph proves the courts know the truth.  See Paulsen v. Daniel, 413 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2005).

All of the other regulations are agency material and clothed under "interpretative regulations."  See 553(a)(2) and other "for cause" exceptions in 553.  There can be no violation, enforcement or legal action using "interpretative regulations."  See Drake v. Honeywell, Inc., 797 F.2d 603, 607 (8th Cir 1986); and, United States v. American Production Industries, Inc., 58 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1995).  Regs such as 1.6012-1 on returns are not "substantive regulations" - IMP.

The IRS attempts to use the "for cause" in 553 and the way to shut that door is several cases but American Federation of Gov. Emp. v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153, 1156 (C.A.D.C. 1981) is one of the best on-point cases.

I personally think that the PRA is probably valid but using the MANDATORY 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) and 553(b)(c)(d) is the strongest position.

Also the part 301 regulations are only for federal employees.  You will notice that the 601.702 has two authorities (actually 3, but ignore the third) of 5 U.S.C. § 301 (housekeeping statue for fed. employees) and 5 U.S.C. § 552 (APA).

The best way to prove the part 301 regulations are only for the feds is found in as published in 1994 in the Federal Register in 59 FR 39910-931, ibid.  39915.

Even criminal convictions have been overturned by the APA 553 regulation violations - this example is (d) effective date.  See United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1977).

If you want to enter the Matrix, I suggest that you read and understand the REAL problem is the creation of a headless 4th Branch of Government with the 1946 APA officially introduced.  I have attached an excerpt from the Congressional record - this is the key to all agencies - the sobs live in the FR and there is the jugular, i.e. substantive regulations. See Congressional record Vol 91 Part 2/5 1946 Excerpts.

As an example of 1.6012-1 that does not meet the requirements of 553(b)(c)(d), i.e. then is only an "interpretative regulation", I have attached the 2008 where they added in three territories.  Search on 553 and note also the effective date.  See 73 FR 19350, ibid.19357 [553 not complied with].

Ralph

  Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829--1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the following strong and frequently quoted language:
'The Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man's fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last degree important, that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or control him but God and his conscience? * * * I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.'
In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true to-day as they were then, that 'if they (the people) value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges.'  O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933).
Notice: I am not a counsellor-at-law or attorney.  All research materials provided are for you to check out and use at your discretion, and is protected under the right of free speech in all forms.  I neither suggest that people file an Individual Income Tax Return or not file - that is a personal choice for each man/woman.
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of www.jusbelli.com.  There is a special e-mail list for $120 per year donation that includes attachments - contact me via e-mail to join.  Requires a minimum of 5 meg. of e-mail storage by your server.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to
http://republicbroadcasting.org/  The show will be on Sundays (5PM - 7 PM CST).  Call in is 1-800-313-9443.
Ralph
Is this the lying despot JOKER that is
responsible for the demise
of our constitutional Republic?"