Another IRS Defense

Best to do ‘administrative process’ BEFORE being dragged into “court” fiction –

SPEAKER: Mr. Tony Davis 


Administratively, or in court, the IRS code is void for vagueness.

No person could possibly know what is required according to this law.

The first thing I would say were I similarly situated is that the IRS code is void for vagueness, and no reasonable person could understand this statute.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. Criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable for example are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature’s delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.  Related to the “void for vagueness” concept is the “unconstitutional vagueness” concept.

In the case of vagueness, a statute might be considered void on constitutional grounds. Specifically, roots of the vagueness doctrine extend into the two due process clauses, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The courts have generally determined that vague laws deprive citizens of their rights without fair process, thus violating due process.

The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by Justice Sutherland in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926):

[T]he terms of a penal statute […] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

The void for vagueness doctrine is a constitutional rule. This rule requires that criminal laws are so written that they explicitly and definitely state what conduct is punishable. The void for vagueness doctrine thus serves two purposes. First: All persons receive a fair notice of what is punishable and what is not. Second: The vagueness doctrine helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws and arbitrary prosecutions.[1] There is however no limit to the conduct that can be criminalized, when the legislature does not set minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement.

There are at least two ways a law might be attacked for being unconstitutionally vague:

When a law does not specifically enumerate the practices that are either required or prohibited. In this case, the ordinary citizen does not know what the law requires.[3] Also see Coates v. Cincinnati.

When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Judges must, under the doctrine, have a clear understanding of how they are to approach and handle a case.

Scienter and objective criteria that specify the harm to be protected against are necessary to limit vagueness in criminal statutes (Compare page 9 of[2]). To satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, individuals are entitled to understand the scope and nature of statutes which might subject them to criminal penalties.[4] Thus, in Skilling v. United States, it was held that a “penal statute must define the criminal offense (1) with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and (2) in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”[4]

The statutory scheme at 26 USC fails to provide notice of tax liability, and operates in a manner incomprehensible to the individual of ordinary intelligence. The tax is not imposed by clear and unequivocal language, so prosecution under 26 USC violates due process.

Defendant seeks prooof that in personam jurisdiction exists in this case. See:

  1. US v. Warner, #3:07-CR-00123-RRB US Dist. Court in Anchorage, AK (2008) – Eugene George Warner challenged s6 CFR 1.1-1 as derogation or vitiation of statutory constraint or limitations. The exchange in that case shows that the DOJ deemed Warner’s claim to be a “citizen of the United States” to be a claim that he is a nonresident alien. The court never issued a memorandum decision of the issue but rather simply rode the coat tails of the DOJ through sentencing.
  2. US v. Warner, #3:07-CR-00123-RRB – Eugene Warner’s second motion to dismiss sought dismissal of certain counts of his indictment based on the § 83 conclusion briefed herein. In opposition the DOJ cited cases that in no way considered the language of the statutes (26 USC §§ 83, 212, 1001, 1011, and 1012) at the heart of his contention. The court issued no memorandum decision of its own on this issue but rather rested on the [briefing] offered in the DOJ’s opposition pleading.
  3. In Warner, US Dist. Sr. Judge Ralph R. Beistline could only say the conclusions in both of the above motions were, “The motion is without merit on its face, for personam jurisdiction does exist in this case.
  4. US v. Arant, 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5633 (2008) (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12598) (#C-07-0509-RSL, W.D. of WA at Seattle) – In a 2007 civil tax case alleging Mr. Arant’s operation of an abusive tax shelter. Then US District Chief Judge, Robert A. Lasnik, issued this ruling which cites three utterly irrelevant decisions while seemingly holding that the assessment of a tax (26 USC § 6201) is the imposition of a tax for the purposes of Mr. Arant’s claim that he’s implicated only through the terms of 26 CFR 1.1-1 and

not by statute as required by the 16th Amendment. If one follows this line of reasoning they’d conclude that one owes no tax until there’s been an assessment, which is a ludicrous notion. What stands out most is the fact that he cited three decisions instead of a statutory basis for the taxation of Americans under 26 USC.

  1. Talmage v. Comm’r of IRS, 101 F.3d 695 (CA4 Nov. 15, 1996) (unpublished decision) reveals that the exclusion of the value of Appellant’s personal services from “the value of any money or property paid” in 26 CFR 1.83-3(g) is an arbitrary exclusion, which is impermissible. It is through the operation of § 83 alone that amounts are included in gross income. Decisions where § 83 was not in evidence cannot rightfully be drawn upon as dispositive.

It cannot be proposed in the least that the Defendant has set forth any well founded proposal as to how the law operates to implicate Americans, or as to how the value of personal services is duly included in gross income pursuant to § 83(a). When Defendant finds this minimal expectation impossible to satisfy, how can the individual of ordinary intelligence be viewed as having been made aware of his duties and liabilities?

“It is well established that a statute must give a defendant “fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden.” United States v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954). Specifically, an individual may not be prosecuted for violating tax laws when the statutory provisions at issue are “vague or highly debatable” or the governing law is “completely unsettled by any clearly relevant precedent.” United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir. 1974) (finding that a defendant who had been informed by a government agency that she would not be subject to taxation under an ambiguous provision of the tax code lacked the intent necessary to support a conviction for tax evasion). In United States v. Mallas, 762 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1985), another case involving the scope and application of an ambiguous tax law, the Fourth Circuit cited Critzer in holding that, “where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant – actually or imputedly – lacks the requisite intent to violate it.” Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (citations omitted).”

See Franklin Sanders v. William E. Freeman, Jr. And Charles Burson, 221 F.3d 846 (CA6 2000). And –

“In United States v. Critzer, the Court reversed a conviction for willful tax evasion where the law under which the Defendant was charged was “so uncertain that even co-ordinate branches of the United States government plausibly reach directly opposing conclusions.” 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974). The Court noted that, “[e]ven if [the defendant] had consulted the law and sought to guide herself accordingly, she could have had no certainty as to what the law required.” Id. As a result, “the element of willfulness could not be proven” in that case. Id. at 1163. United States v. Mallas, 762 F.2d 361 (4th Cir.1985), and United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 97 S.Ct. 22, 50

So if you learn these ways to win, then you will know how to win administratively or pretrial and much more.

While I have your attention, please look at Grassfire Communications – it’s the Game Changer for all of us.  Join us tonight at 9 p.m. EST / 6 p.m. Pacific on  Freedoms Radio (phone and pin information)  T O N I G H T ! ! !


Filed under Administrative, Audio/Conference Calls, B.A.R., constitution, Corruption, federal - corporate, Federal Reserve Bank, freedom, Freedom Fighters, Government, Government, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), IRS, labor, law, legal, money, Money, Presumption, privacy, property, Resources, rights, self-defense, Statute, Subject, taxes, U.S. Treasury

Debtor and Collection Defense

+++ from another reputed to “work” every time +++

July 23, 2010



City, State Zip\Postal [YOUR NAME HERE – Upper and lower case] c/o address here

City, State (zip\postal code)

I am in receipt of a form letter and money order, dated { xxxx } in the amount of $0xxx000.00 which I conditionally accept for value precedent upon your bona fide claim subscribed on the undersigns unlimited commercial liability.

I don’t owe this. This is not a true bill of commerce. It must be signed and attested to be “true, correct, and complete. You are in error and proceeding on a false assumption if you believe that I have some obligation to meet the demands to your letter.

I am hereby giving NOTICE UPON YOU of those errors and also declaring my objection to any such presumed claim by you or anyone else in your Service. I deny that I have any obligation or requirement to this exact debt for the corporate fiction name {Your name in all capitalsXXXXX}

I want to make it clear that it is my intention to obey all laws that legitimately impose a requirement or obligation upon me. However, I have no desire to volunteer where no obligation exists, especially when the waiver of my rights is involved. I am relying on what the Supreme Court held long ago: “An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability; but if he voluntarily attempts to act and do a particular thing, he comes under an implied obligation in respect to the manner in which he does it.” Guardian T&D Co. v. Fisher (1906) 26 S.Ct. 186,188.

Therefore, I have determined that I am not the one for whom you sent this letter of payment. Neither am I one to whom you can demand payment of your claim. If you agree with my determinations, I make timely demand that you notify me of the actions you have taken to correct your error and send documents of when and who reported this debt to any and all credit reporting companies. If you disagree with my determination I will expect you to document your position and authority with the following documents: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 8(b)(6), every fact or statement in this correspondence that is not denied or rebutted shall be conclusively established as admitted. This enclosure will also serve the double function as a list of admissions you have agreed and stipulated to in the event that you do not directly rebut each statement presented in this section. Failure to rebut a particular statement with evidence shall also constitute an estoppel in pais barring any proceeding that controverts the facts established herein.

If you fail to respond to this letter or do not address all of the relevant points or continue your vexatious, presumptuous, illegal, and completely unwarranted enforcement actions against me, then you will be served 30 days after sending this letter with a second copy of the signed letter and a Notice of Default cover letter. The second copy of the letter will have an initial next to all the issues you DID NOT rebut or disagree with or provide evidence or an affidavit to support, and a Notice of Default cover letter will notify you that you are in legal default and liable for a tort if you continue unjustified enforcement actions. You may NOT proceed without addressing these issues, because doing so would be an injury to my rights, would violate due process and your oath of office, and would disrespect the requirement for consent that limits all government or elected board governmental members actions as indicated in our Declaration of Independence.

The contents of this correspondence are copyrighted and may not be shared with third parties or entered into any kind of electronic information system or used for any kind of enforcement activity. The fee for violating the copyright is $100,000. All of these documents must be RECORDED and maintained in Claimant’s Administrative PAPER, but not electronic File.

Under the federal FDCPA, a collector is not allowed to make idle threats, express or implied. Cannot exchange (with other agencies) information about individuals who allegedly owe a debt.

Fair Credit Act of 2003, You may charge a late fee, 1 time. Federal law prevents a debt collector from charging you any more than the amount you actually owe, if not permitted by the laws of your state or the terms of the original agreement with the creditor. (15 USC § 1692(f)). Please provide original contract agreement between the two parties that have wet ink signatures.

Please provide the agreement between (XXXX collection agency) and { xxxxxxxxx Original creditor (s)}

Even if the collector’s conduct does not exactly match the language of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that collector may still be liable for its conduct.

The FDCPA says discussions about the debt can only be held with (1) the individual, (2) the creditor, (3) an attorney representing one of the parties, and (4) a credit bureau. Public airing of your business intended to shame you into paying a debt is not allowed.

Debt collectors: Cannot exchange (with other agencies) information about individuals who allegedly owe a debt

1) Besides responding to all facts and each item above. Produce all documents on which you base your claim that I have any obligation to you or your Service

2) Copies of all documents that identify how I came within the purview of the

statutes which you claim obligate me to debt. Copies of demand letter, fines, late fees.

3) All documents of determination that indicate I am one who is liable or subject to any statute that you or your Service claim to have authority to enforce.

4) Copies of all documents that identify the facts on which those determinations were made.

5) Copies of all statutes on which those facts were applied to make any of the determinations that I am one who is liable or subject.

6) Copies of the Notices sent or served upon me prior to making those determinations.

7) Complete names, addresses and phone numbers of all individuals that are involved. Copies of your delegation of authority to inquire into my personal affairs or make any demand upon me, and the delegations of authority of those who made the above determinations that I am liable or subject to those determinations.

8) Copies of your document of appointment to the position which you now hold and copies of the documents that identify by name title, position, employee number, and office, each party who participated in any aspect of the above determinations.

9) The document that describes the procedural format for expungement of alleged determinations, improperly or unlawfully made within your Service.

10) Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;

11) Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;

12) Identify the original creditor;

13) Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account

14) Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state

15) Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent

My authority for making this demand for verification of your authority has been well established as follows: “Whatever the form in which the Agency or Association functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with an Agency or Credit Bureau takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Credit Bureau stays within the bounds of his authority… and this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).

I will expect your response as to my demand for the correction of your error along with all the above documentation within 30 days of your

receipt of this letter. If you need additional time, please make your request in writing and it will be granted. If I do not hear from you, within that time, with a COMPLETE RESPONSE to ALL items in this letter, your lack of response will establish the presumption that you or your Service do not have the documentation or the authority to support your claim of any requirement or obligation upon me and we will serve you with a default notice and proceed in my administrative duties and processes.

Contact me by mail only.



general executor

Certificate of Mailing

or Certified Mail#

The contents of this correspondence are copyrighted and may not be shared with third parties or entered into any kind of electronic information system or used for any kind of enforcement activity. The fee for violating the copyright is $100,000. All of these documents must be RECORDED and maintained in Claimant’s Administrative PAPER, but not electronic File.

Reply Letter – redacted


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized