Using the Laws of Property to Respond to a Federal or State Tax Collection Notice, Form #14.015

Throughout this website, we refer to the process of taxation as a process of converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property.  See, for instance:

1. Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004, Section 6
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf
2. Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.1.3
   https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
3. Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404 (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/

Using the laws of property referenced in the above to respond to tax collection notices provides a powerful defense. The following text derives from:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025, Section 39
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

Note that we don’t advocate the non-filer approach if people are having information returns filed against them.  However, the filing must define terms so as to retain the CONSTITUTIONAL context and exclude the STATUTORY/FRANCHISE context in accordance with the following:

1. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
   https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf
2. How to File Returns, Form #09.074 (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/filing-returns-form-09-074/
3. Procedure to File Returns, Form #09.075 (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/procedure-to-file-tax-returns-form-09-075/

Below is the text, for your copying and reuse:

Dear sir,

This letter is a response to your tax collection notice in which you allege, without evidence or even a valid signature of a real, accountable, living person who has a personal knowledge, that I have a liability under the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A income tax franchise as a public officer engaged in a statutory “trade or business” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) while doing business on federal territory in the statutory “United States” defined geographically in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia and excluding the constitutional states of the Union which I presently inhabit , excepting possibly where consent and comity are involved, which are NOT involved in this case. .

This letter represents an honest attempt under the Beard Test to comply with the requirements of civil law applicable only to domiciliaries of the statutory geographical “United States” per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), which I am not:

1. It must purport to be a return.
2. It must contain enough information to calculate a tax liability (even $0 is a tax liability for these purposes, just as 0 counts as a number) and
3. It must contain some affirmation of the correctness of the return (we seem to recall SCOTUS saying something like “magic words are not necessary” but we think the Beard Test says the return must be signed “under penalty of perjury” and
4. Finally it must be an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with the REQUIREMENTS of the APPLICABLE law.

I therefore hereby certify under penalty of perjury in response that this is a NON-STATUTORY return submitted by a non-resident party with the following civil status to both the PAYMENTS involved and the ABSOLUTE OWNER of the payment, which is me:

1.I am a “nonresident alien” not engaged in “the functions of a public office” or “trade or business” excise taxable franchise described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26).  I do not consent or “elect” to “effectively connect” any of my earnings to a “trade or business”.

2. I am NOT an “alien” because I am a “national” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) or “U.S. national” under 26 C.F.R. §51.1 owing allegiance to a state of the Union and not the national or federal government.  Thus, I am not subject to the presence test under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and may not lawfully be kidnapped into your exclusive jurisdiction as a privileged alien “resident” or have a “residence” (26 C.F.R. §1.871-2(b)) within the statutory geographical “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) or 4 U.S.C. §110(d).

3.All earnings are EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from STATUTORY “gross income” by 26 U.S.C. §872, 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2(f), 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(4), and 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i)  because they do not originate from either the  District of Columbia (statutory geographical “United States”) or from the U.S. government (“United States”) federal corporation as a legal fiction.

4.I don’t need to file an income tax return or claim exemptions to reduce taxable earnings because I don’t have STATUTORY “taxable income” or “gross income” under the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise documented in:  The “Trade or Business” SCAM, Form #05.001; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf.

5.  There are no VOLUNTARY agreements or “elections” in place between myself and any third party to convert my PRIVATE earnings into excise taxable PUBLIC “wages” as described in 26 U.S.C. §3402(p).  Any evidence you have in your possession from third parties to the contrary is FALSE and a product of ILLEGAL duress by my business associates and are hereby declared VOID and a product of criminal extortion.  Being threatened by a business associate to either be FIRED or not hired for not signing and submitting a W-4 certainly counts as criminal extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 41, recruitment into peonage to pay off public debt, and involuntary servitude to a third party in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §1589.  The product of such a CRIME cannot serve as useful evidence of any lawful form of “consent”.  Further, unalienable rights cannot be surrendered, even WITH consent, in a geographical place protected by the constitution, so any such agreements are void except where the constitution does not apply, such as on federal territory or abroad, which I do not work in. Further, it is a violation of my delegation of authority order direct from God (the Bible) to consent to such agreements as His full time agent, representative, and His property. Therefore such agreements can be of no binding force and effect and therefore would constitute theft of religious property and a violation of the First Amendment.    I can’t logically consent to give away property that doesn’t belong to me but belongs to my Principal as His agent.

“You were bought [as property by God] at a price [by the blood of Jesus Christ]; do not become slaves of men [and by implication a GOVERNMENT of men].”
[1 Cor. 7:22; Bible, NKJV]

WHERE is separation of church and state when you need it, keeping in mind that my delegation of authority order says my BODY is God’s Temple and property?  1 Cor. 6:19.  Separation of church and state, according to the Bible, means separation of PRIVATE, which is God’s, from PUBLIC, which is Caesar’s.  See: 

Separation Between Private and Public Course, Form #12.025;
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf.

6. All payments during the reporting period, including those documented on information returns in your custody for the applicable reporting period are expressly EXCLUDED but not EXEMPTED from being reportable as statutory “wages” under 26 U.S.C. §3406 because:

6.1.  All services were performed outside the “United States”  and therefore expressly EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from statutory “wages” per:
6.1.1. 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(b)-3(c)(1) in the case of Social Security.
6.1.2. 26 C.F.R. §3.3401(a)(6)-1(b) in the case of income tax.
6.2. The payer cannot unilaterally make legal determinations or conclusions about the status of the payment.  Only the OWNER, which is me, can.  Christiansen v. National Savings and Trust Co., 683 F.2d. 520, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1982), Langbord v. U.S. Department of Treasury, CIVIL ACTION No. 06-5315, at *22 (E.D. Pa. July 5, 2011), and also Form #04.001 referenced later.

7.All payments during the reporting period, including those documented on information returns in your custody, are expressly EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPT from income tax reporting under:
7.1. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(b)(5)(i).
7.2. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(e)(1)(ii)(A)(1).
7.3. 26 C.F.R. §1.6041-4(a)(1).

8.  All earnings are EXCLUDED rather than EXEMPTED from either W-2 “wage” withholding per 26 C.F.R. §31.3121(b)-3(c)(1) and 26 C.F.R. §3.3401(a)(6)-1(b) or “backup withholding” per 26 U.S.C. §3406.  My earnings are not subject to backup withholding because they are not “reportable”.  They can only be reportable if:
8.1.  They are connected with the “trade or business”/public office excise taxable franchise per 26 U.S.C. §6041(a).
8.2.  They are from “sources within the United States” in the case of IRS Form 1042s as ALLEGED “gross income”, but even THAT is “trade or business” income per 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(3).  The implications of this provision are that everything from “sources in the United States” is government payments and you IMPLICITLY agree as the recipient of the payment to in effect CONSENT or “elect” to “effectively connect” the earning to the “trade or business”/public office excise taxable franchise, even though it TECHNICALLY is NOT.
Otherwise, they are NOT reportable, per 26 U.S.C. §3406 and 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(g)-1(e).

9.If you are in receipt of information returns for the reporting period referenced in your communication(s) such as the W-4, 1042, 1098, 1099, etc., then these reports are FALSE as described by reference in:
W-2CC: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/3-Reporting/FormW-2CC-Cust/FormW-2CC.pdf
1099-CC: https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/3-Reporting/Form1099-CC-Cust/Form1099-CC.pdf

10.Because the earnings documented on the FALSE information returns are not “gross income” or “wages”, they are therefore PRIVATE property protected by the Constitution and earned by a constitutionally protected PRIVATE party, not a PUBLIC officer.

11.The submitter of these false information returns has NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY over me as a NONRESIDENT party and NO DIRECT PERMISSION from me to convert these PRIVATE earnings to PUBLIC earnings by connecting them to a civil status such as “gross income” or “taxable income” or “reportable income”, because the earnings are NOT THEIR property but MY absolutely owned exclusively private, constitutionally protected property.  Therefore any records in your possession falsely representing my PRIVATE earnings as having any civil status within the Internal Revenue Code are in error and I demand IMMEDIATE correction of all such records.  Failure to NOT correct your records is a criminal offense  under 18 U.S.C. §§1001 and 1030 (fraud generally and in connection with computers), and 18 U.S.C. §§911 and 912 (false personation) for which I demand that you be criminally prosecuted and civilly penalized personally.

12.Any false information returns in your possession relating to the reporting period DO NOT document the CIVIL STATUS of the payment absent my consent, because the submitter is NOT AUTHORIZED to make legal determinations about:
12.1.  My STATUTORY civil status as a “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, etc or
12.2.  The STATUTORY civil status of my earnings as “income”, “gross income”, etc.
12.3.  Whether the earnings were paid from the STATUTORY geographical “United States” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) or the “United States” federal corporation as a legal person and fiction of law.

All such determinations can only be made by the OWNER of the payment as an exercise of his First Amendment right to associate or disassociate and his/her constitutional right to contract or not contract and his right to control the use of his absolutely owned private property.

13. Since the human parties made directly liable on their worldwide income are “citizens and residents” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a), then those civil statuses must be privileges and voluntary or else slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, peonage, and even international human trafficking will be the result. I choose not to volunteer, so the only status left that does not have direct liability attached is “nonresident alien”. If those parties are actually physical and geographical parties, they would be tied to the “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as far as I can tell, and I’m not domiciled or present there or doing business there, so they can’t be me.

14. Insofar as “sources in the United States” is concerned, it appears to me that the United States in the I.R.C. is mostly referring to the FICTIONAL corporation as a public officer and not the geography, because slavery, peonage, and human trafficking are unconstitutional and possibly even criminal everywhere in the Union and even the world, not just within a physical state protected by the Constitution. Any other interpretation would lead to an interference with the private right to contract and associate.  The U.S. Supreme Court held in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) and Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L.Ed. 98 that an income tax on the District of Columbia, which is what “United States” is defined as in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), is a tax upon THE GOVERNMENT and not upon the GEOGRAPHY, and extends wherever and ONLY where that GOVERNMENT extends.   To claim that I am IN THIS “United States” or worst yet that I am rendering “services in THIS United States” is to falsely claim that I am a public officer participating in an excise taxable franchise, which I am not in this case and which the national government cannot even lawfully do within the borders of a constitutional state per the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) without unconstitutionally INVADING them in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.

15. Under common law rules, I have a right to refuse ANY and ALL “benefits”, and by implication privileges. You are a business that only delivers ONE product: Protection. I am the customer and I get to decide if what you offer is a “benefit”, and it isn’t so I resign as the “customer” of your “protection racket”. A refusal to recognize that right is a trespass upon private, constitutionally protected property. The basis of all just powers of government is CONSENT according to the Declaration of Independence, and I DO NOT consent or “elect” to receive or to PAY FOR any “benefit”:

Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.
Potest quis renunciare pro se, et suis, juri quod pro se introductum est. A man may relinquish, for himself and his heirs, a right which was introduced for his own benefit. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; https://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

16. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, when I am incapable of receiving “benefits”, then anything you collect outside my FOREIGN domicile in a constitutional state is “EXTORTION” as legally defined. The states and not the national government protect private property where I have my domicile. I don’t need you to protect me from THEM. I want THEM to protect me from YOU and the constitution says in Article 4, Section 4, that you are INVADING the states by trying to setup a “benefit” or “social insurance” business there not expressly authorized in the constitution.

“The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares — such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 ; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499 ; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358 . In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519.”

[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]

________________________________

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties]

17.  The amount of tax owing for the affected tax year is therefore ZERO.

Only I under the First Amendment and as the ORIGINAL and EXCLUSIVE owner of the remuneration I earned and accrued in exchange for my private labor, and as a result of a private agreement between myself and the payor may lawfully create admissible legal evidence of the civil status of any affected property. This right is an outgrowth of my right to “make all needful rules” respecting my absolutely owned, constitutionally protected, PRIVATE property.  Any attempt to interfere with or supersede that right is a violation of my right to privately contract, a constitutional tort, and a common law trespass.  See:

Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001; https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/0-CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf.

I readily acknowledge that if my PRIVATE earnings had been CONSENSUALLY and VOLUNTARILY connected to a taxable civil status by ONLY ME, then I would have a legal duty to “return” the government/public funds in my possession and could be penalized for refusing to do so by virtue of YOUR authority to “make rules” for government property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.   See, for instance, Calif. Civil Code Sections 2223 and 2224:

2223 One who wrongfully detains a thing is an involuntary trustee thereof, for the benefit of the owner.

(Repealed and added by Stats. 1986, Ch. 820, Sec. 8. Operative July 1, 1987, by Sec. 43 of Ch. 820.)

2224 One who gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, the violation of a trust, or other wrongful act, is, unless he or she has some other and better right thereto, an involuntary trustee of the thing gained, for the benefit of the person who would otherwise have had it.”

HOWEVER, there are no such PUBLIC funds in my possession or anyone ELSE’S possession and any withholdings you are in receipt of from third parties are UNLAWFUL and continue to be MY absolutely owned constitutionally protected private property.  None of the parties to the transaction involve the government, in fact, and no government payments or officers are directly involved.  As such, I have a right to make “all needful rules” respecting such property while in your TEMPORARY possession, control, or “benefit” just like you do under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2.  For your information, those rules are documented in:

Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027; https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf

Civil penalties and PROPERTY rental fees apply to your continued custody and “benefit” of all UNLAWFULLY withheld PRIVATE property in your possession per the above agreement. Similarly, my labor and services in educating you about what the law requires and forcing you to obey the laws stated herein also have fees and obligations attached in the above agreement, because negligence in dealing with the issues raised herein constitutes common law fraud that you cannot be allowed to benefit from or be rewarded for or punish me for directly or indirectly.  You don’t have to expressly consent to the agreement because your acceptance and continued “benefit” of the use of my private property, labor, or services in ANY form including in responding to your collection notice is sufficient to make the agreement enforceable per the U.S. Supreme Court and in conformance with the Uniform Commercial Code, where I am the “Merchant” offering you my services and property FOR SALE at a price.     The above agreement, like the Internal Revenue Code itself, therefore behaves as what the U.S. Supreme Court a “quasi contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935).

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

A denial of the SAME EQUAL right you exercise over government property to me over my property is a violation of the constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment.

WHAT I REQUEST FROM YOU:

I request that ALL withholdings of every kind deducted from my pay and documented on any kind of information return be immediately refunded, including Social Security, Medicare, income tax, etc. because they are my absolutely owned private property and are not STATUTORY “wages” or public property of any kind.  I do not consent or “elect” to donate them to a public use or a public purpose of any kind and thus to convert them from PRIVATE to PUBLIC. I also request that any amounts withheld by the payer be returned to them as well. I do not wish retain eligibility for any government benefit or pay for any government “benefit” or privilege.  I have/will submit SSA Form 7008 corrected reported earnings and IRS Form 843: Abatement to get the SSA/Medicare portion of the withholdings back.  This correspondence shall also serve as formal notice to request the same thing as these two forms.   I am NOT eligible for Social Security or any other federal benefit per the following proof:

Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001; https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf

If you believe that I HAVE indeed expressly consented to convert my absolutely owned, constitutionally protected, PRIVATE property earnings to TAXABLE PUBLIC “gross income” or “wages” or STATUTORY FRANCHISE “income”, please present legal evidence of same signed by me under penalty of perjury and executed on federal territory where constitutional rights or unalienable rights don’t exist.  If you do not present such evidence in your immediate response, then you forfeit your right to do so in the future.  Third party reports or even your own determination that my earnings are derived from “sources within the United States” and PRESUMING or acting AS IF “United States” means THE GOVERNMENT does not constitute my consent in any form to occupy an office within said government as a franchisee because that would be impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912.

Your obligation and burden of proof at this point is then:

1.To identify exactly HOW my earnings were made to fall in the list of things that the government can tax and regulate directly through legislation as listed in 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2).

2.Identify exactly WHICH of the five U.S. Supreme Court rules for converting property from PRIVATE to PUBLIC were exercised in determining that I have your property in my possession, as listed in:
Property View of Income taxation, Form #12.046, Section 6
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf

Until such time as you prove the above, my property and earnings are presumed to be absolutely owned, private, constitutionally protected and therefore BEYOND taxation and CIVIL regulation:

“The compensation which the owners of property, not having any special rights or privileges from the government in connection with it, may demand for its use, or for their own services in union with it, forms no element of consideration in prescribing regulations for that purpose.

[. . .]

“It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.”

[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

The Internal Revenue Service is acting in a private capacity as debt collector for the Federal Reserve and are doing so by consent and contract.  As such, you are on an equal footing to me as a PRIVATE party and may not assert official, judicial, or sovereign immunity in response.  There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY whatsoever to even assert sovereign immunity.  For proof, see:  Origin and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/OrigAuthIRS.pdf.

Anything in response NOT signed under penalty of perjury by a living human being whose FULL printed legal birthname and detailed contact information is provided for service of legal process shall constitute: 1. A non-response; 2.  Legal evidence of a default and agreement to the facts asserted herein per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6); 3.  A nihil dicit judgment against you.  This is our method of ensuring “justice”, which is the right to be left alone, and it also serves to prevent what the IRS calls “paper terrorism”.

The following form is incorporated into this form by reference as an attachment in order to save space:  Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201; https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf

I declare under penalty of perjury under the COMMON LAW and equity alone of my constitutional state and NOT under federal or state statutory law from WITHOUT the geographical “United States” documented in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and from WITHOUT the “United States” federal corporation per 28 U.S.C. §1746(1) that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete. Any commercial use of this information to benefit YOU constitutes implied consent by the Recipient to the Injury Defense Franchise, and Agreement, Form #06.027, previously mentioned.

Signed,

John Doe

After reading the above, some members have asked why one’s earnings AREN’T “wages” as described in the Internal Revenue Code.  Our answer to their question was as follows:

They are “wages” in an ordinary sense, but not a statutory sense. Any attempt to regulate or tax private property is a common law trespass. It must be donated to a public use before it can be regulated or taxed.

“It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC PROPERTY] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

The GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC property described above MUST fall within 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) or it cannot convey a power of direct legislative control by Congress over the person in custody, receipt, or “benefit” of the property.

Here’s the Shepards report on Munn:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/PropertyPrivacy/Property/PublicVPrivate/
Shepard_s__report_Munn%20v.%20Illinois%2094%20U.S.%20113_%204%20Otto%20113_%2024%20L.%20
Ed.%2077_%201876%20U.S.%20LEXIS-20201228.pdf

Enforcing or imputing a civil statutory status against the PRIVATE earnings is an act of eminent domain, because the status comes with civil statutory obligations. Those obligations are property and represent a TAKING.

So there must either be:

1. Consent demonstrated to convert in some form.
2. Compensation per the Fifth Amendment.

…or the status AND the civil enforcement MUST  be terminated.

If it is NOT terminated and the obligations continue to be enforced, there is a common law trespass AND a crime after they have been notified of same. The interference then becomes deliberate and malicious.  It’s called “mens rea”

For further details on how to write income tax response letters, see:

1. Tax Fraud Prevention Manual, Form #06.008, Chapter 6:  Response Letter Templates (Ministry Bookstore)
   https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/TaxFraudPrevMan/TaxFraudPrevMan.htm
2. Writing Tax Response Letters, Form #07.008 (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/writing-tax-response-letters-form-07-008/
3. Writing Effective Response Letters, Form #09.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/07-RespLtrs/0-Guidance/ResponseGuidance.htm