Never Have So Many Been Defrauded By So Few So Often
Subj: Tax Legality
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Would you rather award someone who can prove you right, than one who's gonna
prove you wrong?
If you go as stated in your notices below, then I suppose there'll be no
takers because the award offered is so minuscule compared to the costs of
proving you wrong. Besides, there is no motivation to prove you wrong by
initiating a lawsuit without the IRS doing it first... on account of tax
delinquency, for instance.
However, if you will offer a reward--or even help--to anyone who can prove
you right, I would nominate one person right now, who I think has the best
chance to demonstrate well beyond the rightness of your stand, to the extent
it would abolish the IRS from the American scene forever!
He is Mr. Steven Beresford, PhD... of Oregon. His lawsuit against the IRS is
meticulously recorded blow-by-blow in his website:
Beresford v. IRS.
Please visit and peruse this site as you will gain profound insight into the
tax matter that you probably have not considered before. And since this is a
lawsuit filed in federal court, it is not simply a matter of lazy excursion
on the part of Dr. Beresford to prove the illegality of the federal income
taxation, that the IRS is not a government agency, that the US Dept. of
Justice must not represent the IRS in this lawsuit because USDoJ is a public
agency prohibited to represent private concerns, that a corporate-type entity
formed by private bankers and masquerading with the name of "United States of
America' is the real force behind the IRS in its extra-constitutional powers
to impose upon the American taxpayers such compulsory burdens we all despise
to perform periodically. And all the above, among other stipulations, are
being forced unto the IRS to deny or accept before a federat Court of law,
which compels it to either accept, deny or ignore on pain of legal defeat.
Or, it may just plead the 5th against self-incrimination!
So, I hope that you will help Mr. Beresford win over the IRS for all of us.
For while it is laudatory to award anyone to prove you wrong, I suppose it is
more responsible on your part to go to te aid of anyone who is on the
difficult course of proving your hypotheses correctly.
I am enclosing herewith a draft letter accompanying Dr. Beresford's motion
for a change of venue, because the sitting judge in his case is not
responsive to plaintiff's objections, and has demonstrated obvious
partisanship with defendants IRS and US Treasury Dept. Please read the
various developments of the case in Dr. Beresford's website, so you may be
apprised wholly of the whatabouts of the lawsuit and the protagonists therein.
Thank you very much for your time spent on this info. May God blesses us all,
and our Nation.. by, among others, getting Dr. Beresford instrumental in
erasing this monstrosity we call IRS, from the very beautiful face our our
Nation beloved.--peccavi
==> Please scroll to the bottom of the page to peruse the draft letter
mentioned above. Thank you, again.
In a message dated 6/28/00 6:28:32 AM, bobworn@aol.com wrote:
<<"There is no mandatory income tax for American citizens, either, it's
strictly voluntary". And if you volunteer to pay outrageous taxes, you
deserve to be caught in the "tax trap" described below.
NOW - do I have your attention? The only way that your harsh and tyrannical
government, your servant, can get you to pay taxes you don't legally owe is
through threats of terrorism against you and your family. Gee, don't you
have a nice government, a dutiful servant?
NEED $300,000.00?? I'm serious - the Freedom Law School at 13211 Myford
Road, #332 Tustin, CA 92782, phone 714-838-2896 will give you $300K if you
can prove that you must pay federal income taxes or even file a 1040.
I have attached as an addendum my post of 4/9/00 giving the details.
SHEEPLE or "We The People", it's strictly up to you......
Also, please read, in addendum #2 what a Texas business says about
withholding from their employees' earnings...... They call it a FRAUD and
want no part of it.
Are you still paying taxes? Might I use the term "stupid"? I think so.
Not-so-respectfully-submitted,
Bob Worn, Major-USAF (Retired)
Route 8 Box 422
Gilmer, Texas 75644-8825
903-734-6970
Subj: More Americans Caught In Tax Trap
Date: 6/28/00 7:26:56 AM CDT
From: bcole@longview.net (Beaver Cole)
To: BOBWORN@aol.com
Very Interesting!
----- Original Message -----
From: john ray
To: John Ray (C)
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: More Americans Caught In Tax Trap
http://www.seattleinsider.com/shared/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V0049
.AP-Tax-Trap.html
More Americans Caught In Tax Trap
By CURT ANDERSON
AP Tax Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)--Simply because they live in a high-tax state or claim
numerous deductions, thousands of middle-class Americans are paying a special
tax originally designed to prevent investors and the wealthy from sheltering
too much income.
The IRS says 828,000 taxpayers were caught in the tax trap in 1998--a 25
percent increase over the year before.
The numbers are expected to go nowhere but up, mainly because the alternative
minimum tax was never indexed for inflation. As incomes continue to rise and
Congress gives people more deductions and credits, more and more taxpayers
will be forced to pay this tax.
``It's catching people it was never intended to catch,'' said Hank Gutman, a
partner in the Washington office of the KPMG accounting firm. ``It's making
people go through a lot of complexity and they don't even understand why.''
The alternative minimum tax is essentially a parallel income tax system
created in 1969 to ensure that the wealthy and corporations could not
entirely escape taxes through legal means. Income is taxed at up to 28
percent, and numerous deductions and credits _ including those for state
income taxes and unreimbursed employee business expenses--are either not
allowed or have greatly reduced benefits.
Internal Revenue Service figures released Tuesday show that about 480,000
taxpayers paid $2.8 billion in minimum taxes in 1996. A year later, the
number of taxpayers affected jumped to 618,000 who paid just over $4
billion--a 42 percent increase--followed by another increase to $4.4 billion
in 1998.
There is also further evidence that the minimum tax is reaching more
middle-income families. For example, in 1996 about 59,000 taxpayers with
adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000 were subject to the tax. A
year later, that number had grown to almost 86,700 taxpayers.
``This shows once and for all that when taxes are meant to soak the rich,
it's usually the middle class that gets wet,'' said Rep. Bill Archer,
R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Such taxpayers pay the bottom 15 percent income tax on a great portion of
their earnings and can take a broad range of deductions under the ordinary
tax system. Under the alternative system, they must pay a flat tax of either
26 percent or 28 percent and cannot enjoy many of those same deductions.
``It really does seem to take more than its share of a bite,'' said Maggie
Doedtman, a senior tax research specialist at tax preparer H&R Block.
``Something that wasn't ever designed to hurt John Q. Individual is now doing
just that.''
Thousands more people would probably be forced to pay the minimum tax,
particularly those with large families living in high-tax states, if Congress
and President Clinton had not agreed to ensure that breaks such as the $500
per-child tax credit would not trigger the special tax. That protection is
temporary, however; the current exemptions run only through 2001.
``We're very concerned about that,'' said Sen. William Roth, R-Del., chairman
of the Senate Finance Committee.
Roth and other GOP leaders tried last year to begin repealing the minimum tax
as part of a larger tax cut bill, but it was vetoed by Clinton. Yet the
president's on IRS taxpayer advocate, Val Oveson, recommended earlier this
year that it be phased out and called it ``unnecessarily complex and
burdensome.''
``Often, the way many individuals first hear of the alternative minimum tax
is when they receive a notice from the IRS,'' Oveson said.
Despite growing federal budget surpluses, the sheer cost of repeal--estimated
last year at more than $80 billion over 10 years _ gives many lawmakers
pause. Clinton this year proposed gradually making certain that all personal
exemptions could be deducted without triggering the tax and ensure that
taxpayers could take the standard deduction under the minimum tax instead of
being forced to itemize.
Congress, however, has largely ignored that 10-year, $33 billion plan, mainly
because the minimum tax will be kept away from most middle-class families
until after 2001 under current law.
``They have taken some of the pressure off, but all of these are sort of
band-aids,'' said KPMG's Gutman. ``The real question is, why do we have this
thing today?''
BOB's ADDENDUM:
Subj: $300,00.00 To Anyone That Can Show......
Date: 4/9/00 8:29:09 AM EST
From: BOB WORN
.....that the SHEEPLE, the fleeced flock, have to pay income tax, have to
have
taxes withheld from their wages and have to file a 1040.......
A friend asked me one time "Bob, how can the Congress do all the nasty things
they do"? My answer was quite to the point "Because the ignoant, lethargic,
spineless SHEEPLE allow them to do it".
I have said many times, there are only 535 grossly despicable treasonist
traitors on Capital(sic) Hill, only an estimated 188,000 armed federal agents
and there are 265,000,000 of the SHEEPLE. When we start using the second
amendment protect-ed God given right to defend what is ours and start blowing
away the federal law breakers/rapers of the Constitution, then, and only
then, will we start to get their attention. THEY WILL UNDERSTAND A MESSAGE
THAT COMES AT THEM AT AROUND 2800 FEET PER SECOND.
Until then - WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER - EXPECT NO MERCY....
Respectfully Submitted,
Bob Worn, Major-USAF (Retired)
Route 8 Box 422
Gilmer, Texas 75644-8825
903-834-6970
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: $300,000 Income Tax Reward Offer
Date: 4/8/00 11:26:56 PM EST
From: freedompage@mindspring.com (Jim Hardin)
To: jhardin@mindspring.com
Friends,
Wow, $ 300,000.00 to anyone who can show a law that compels the average
person who lives and works in the states to pay a federal income tax. It
makes the $ 10,000.00 award (offered by S-A-P) on my web site seem puny.
Actually, there are several awards offered. Devvy Kidd, has a similar award
offer, but since she is associated with The Freedom Law School, this may be
the same offer. Also, Bill Conklin has a $ 50,000.00 award offered. Also, you
might note that this award has been offered for about 3 years now at The
Freedom Page. And, no one, including CPAs, an IRS employee, or anyone from
Congress has tried to offer such a law. You might consider forwarding this
article to your federal Representative and two Senators to see what response,
if any, you receive.
Also, note that in my header I say "person" and not US citizen. This is
because Steven Pattison has correctly reminded me from a previous article
that federal code defines "US citizen" as someone in the territories or
possessions. And, as many long time Freedom Page members know, Congress can
pass unconstitutional laws that apply only to the territories and possessions
because there is no Constitutional protection outside of the 50 states.
So, while I'm on this subject and for the benefit of new subscribers, this is
becoming a big problem because our lawmakers, the media, and the general
public do not know
the difference.
For example, the 1968 gun control bill (which is being used as the foundation
for current gun control efforts), does not apply to the 50 states because it
is 1)
specifically defined in the law as applying outside of the 50 states and 2)
is unconstitutional in the 50 states.
This is why it has been so important to the gun grabbers to have each state
pass their own version of these laws. Why else, I ask you, would states be
passing these
laws if the federal law already applied to the states? This issue is covered
at the Freedom Page web site, but, according to my site stats, few are
reading about it.
Lastly, The Freedom Law School offers a professionally ( 3 1/2 hour )
produced tape for $30.00, as referenced in the article, that provides
in-depth information on the federal income tax issue. I have a home produced
version of this tape for $9.00 plus $3.00 shipping. Not only do I have the
non exclusive rights to this version, but you are free to make as many copies
for friends as you want. This is because it is not the C-SPAN version and not
copyrighted. I take the time and make this effort because people need to be
exposed to this information. Unfortunately, most unaware Americans are
unaware that they are unaware.
Jim Hardin
$300,000 Income Tax Reward Offer
TO: ANYONE INTERESTED IN FREEDOM OR MONEY
FROM: PEYMON, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM LAW SCHOOL
www.livefreenow.org (714) 838-2896
13211 Myford Road, #332 Tustin, CA 92782
$300,000 INCOME TAX REWARD OFFER
Peymon, President of Freedom Law School will offer $100,000 to the first
person, who can demonstrate any of the below propositions. The winner can
collect up to $300,000 if he/she can demonstrate all of the 3 propositions
listed below:
1) Show what statute written by the Congress of the United States requires me
to file an Income Tax Confession (Return) and pay an Income Tax.
2) How can I file an Income Tax Confession (Return) without voluntarily
giving up my 5th Amendment protected right to not give any information to the
government that
may be used to prosecute me with.
3) Prove that the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution, the
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which, according to the IRS and modern
American courts permitted the Income Tax to exist, was lawfully added to the
U.S Constitution.
Freedom Law School declares that:
There is no statute that makes any American Citizen, who works for a living
in the United States of America, liable or responsible to pay the income tax.
Individuals only become liable to pay the income tax when they voluntarily
file a tax return, and the I.R.S. follows its assessment procedures as
outlined in the Internal Revenue Code.
If there were a statute which clearly and unequivocally required the filing
of tax returns, such a statute would be unconstitutional under the present
income tax system to the extent that it would require individuals to give the
government information which could be used against them to prosecute them
criminally. Although the IRS and the modern American Courts claim that the
16th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permitted the Income Tax to be imposed on
the compensation for labor of the average working man, this Amendment was not
properly added to the U.S. Constitution.
The IRS, under our U.S. Constitution, cannot legally require information on
1040 returns from individuals--this is the reason why the IRS continually
refers to the income tax as "voluntary."
See the end of this message for the procedure to claim your reward.
To help you start your investigation of these Income Tax issues and taking a
shot at our reward offer, we offer the following sources:
Go to www.freedomabovefortune.com and download for FREE the first chapter of
the Report, INVESTIGATING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX by Joseph R. Banister. This
Report gives a detailed analysis of the above claims of Freedom Law School.
Mr. Banister became a student of Freedom Law School in 1998 while continuing
to work for the IRS as Special Agent Criminal Investigator for the Criminal
Investigation Division of the IRS. Mr. Banister's primary duty was to
investigate and recommend prosecution of individuals who had violated the
criminal tax laws of the United States. While working for the IRS, Mr.
Banister wrote this report and presented it to
the top management of the IRS in February of 1999 for a point-by-point
refutal by the IRS. The IRS, with its large army of tax accountants and
lawyers at its disposal,
utterly refused to dispute any of the conclusions of Mr. Banister's Report.
Mr. Banister has since quit the IRS in protest and had Freedom Law School
publish and distribute his Report to the hardworking American Worker to
inform them of this unlawful robbery of them. You may obtain a copy of this
Report from Freedom Law School for $22. See ordering information below.
Go to www.anti-irs.com and download a FREE copy of the book entitled WHY NO
ONE IS REQUIRED TO FILE TAX RETURNS AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, by Bill
Conklin. Mr. Conklin successfully had the 10th Circuit Federal Court of
Appeals to admit that the filing of an Income Tax Confession (Return) is
voluntary. Mr. Banister started his investigation of the Income Tax's legal
basis by first reading this book. Mr. Conklin offers a $50,000 Income Tax
reward for anyone who can demonstrate the first 2 reward offers of Freedom
Law School.
If you can prove us wrong, here is another $50,000 to add to your cash stash.
Caution: 3 people have previously attempted to collect this reward from Mr.
Conklin. One of them lost to Mr. Conklin in court; the other losers were
lawyers. One of the lawyers was Melvin Belli, the famous "palimony" attorney.
You may obtain a copy of Mr. Conklin's book for $20 from Freedom Law School.
See ordering information below.
You can obtain a copy of THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS, by Bill Benson who was a
Criminal Investigator with the Criminal Investigation Division of the
Department of
Revenue of the State of Illinois and Red Beckman. This book documents how not
even a single state properly ratified the 16th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution for addition to the U.S. Constitution.
You may obtain a copy of Mr. Benson's book from Freedom Law School for $33.
See ordering information below. You may obtain a copy of the videotape of the
IRS Showdown in July 2, 1999, which was broadcast by C-Span 2, in which Mr.
Benson, Conklin and Banister explained their findings about the Income Tax.
The IRS, the President of the United States and heads of Congress were
invited to refute the findings of these gentlemen, but they did not bother to
show up. This 3.5 hour videotape is available for $30 from Freedom Law School.
Freedom Law School
13211 Myford Road, #332
Tustin, CA 92782
(714) 838-2896
To apply for the rewards, mail your documentation to Freedom Law School at
the address above. We encourage you to have your accountant, CPA, lawyer,
judge, government official or IRS agent apply for the reward. Tell them that
you would be happy to split the $300,000 with them when they help you come
through on our offer. They think they are smarter than you and have a lawful
duty to pay the Federal Income Tax and file under PENALTY OF PERJURY the 1040
Income Tax Confession form. Well, let put their money where their mouth is by
taking a shot at
our offer. May you live a prosperous, healthy and happy life.
ADDENDUM #2
Subj: Fwd: Blockbuster Monopoly Breaker in Texas - Hat's off to them
Date: 5/21/00 8:06:59 AM CDT
From: TOMaxton
To: BOB WORN
You might like to copy and send this out. I think it is the start of
something big.
Tom
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Fwd: Blockbuster Monopoly Breaker in Texas - Hat's off to them
Date: 5/19/00 7:17:36 PM CDT
From: NZant92213
To: TOMaxton
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Blockbuster Monopoly Breaker in Texas - Hat's off to them
Date: 5/19/00 5:15:24 PM CDT
From: CEVI
To: Press Release@USA.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
I have confirmed the following post I received and I am sending to you FYI.
Direct your company to do business with Arrow Plastics if you can.
The content of the post can be verified by yourself quickly being that on
Arrow Plastics Web site they clearly state they have taken the following
action. My hat is off to them.
Walter Burien
C.E.V.I.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dick Simkanin" ============== DRAFT LETTER============
The Honorable Michael Hogan
Chief Presiding Judge
Federal Court House
211 East 7th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401 6/30/00
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF VENUE (Case: CV-00-293-KI)
Your Honor:
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention some disturbing
developments in the above case that seem likely to lead to a mistrial.
a) Defendants Incorrectly Identified/Represented by their Attorneys
As plaintiff, my major concern is the threshold-issue of the correct identity
of the defendants, which has not been satisfactorily addressed by the Court.
My complaint specifies the Internal Revenue Service and the United States
Department of the Treasury as defendants.
However, the aforementioned complaint has been responded to by the United
States of America thru its Department of Justice, whose government lawyers
are representing both defendants. In short, there has been substitution of
the case-specified defendant--the IRS--without the production and submittal
of any evidence or authority by the latter that defies all challenges and
scrutiny of contrary identity. Because herein plaintiff strongly maintains
that defendant IRS is NOT a government agency, I strongly object its
representation by USDOJ lawyers.
The situation is thus complicated as shown by the following submissions, to
wit:
Although it is widely assumed that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency
of the Department of the Treasury, it appears that this popular notion is not
correct. For in Diversified Metal Products v. Internal Revenue Service et
al., (CV 93-405-E-EJL, United States District Court for the District of
Idaho), the US Attorney denied that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency
of the United States Government. This is perhaps confirmable by the
published directory of the Department of the Treasury, which does not list or
even mention the Internal Revenue Service anywhere therein.
Furthermore, there appears to be two separate and distinct entities known as
the kUnited States of Americam. The first kUnited States of Americam is the
name of the territory united and sanctioned under the Constitution of the
United States of America, as described in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt,
(U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 89 L.Ed. 1252).
The second kUnited States of Americam appears to be some kind of a corporate
entity that may have been formed by a consortium of bankers in a very likely
collusion with the constitutionally-true United States of America Government
perhaps at the beginning of the 19th century--or thereabouts--in order to
finance the operations of the United States Government. This corporate
kUnited States of Americam appears to be responsible for instituting and
servicing the national debt. And as well as the real force lurking behind the
Internal Revenue Service and masquerading unchallenged as its constitutional
namesake while wielding all the legal authorities vested only unto the real
and constitutional United States Government inorder to implement a successful
national taxation system. All of which are validated by the latter by its
collusive silence on the issue, meanwhile getting its various agencies
squarely but illegally involved actively in the affairs of the extra-legal
United States of America.
It is not plaintiff's goal to clarify these oft-repeated popular hypotheses,
unless it is absolutely necessary to do so inorder for this case to proceed
in a justiciable manner. Perhaps, it may suffice if the defendants hereof
will stipulate in Court that there is factual basis to these conjectures.
Hence, the identity of the defendant in this action is unclear. Nor is it
clear that the US Department of Justice has the statutory authority to defend
the Internal Revenue Service when the latter's charter prohibits such act; of
course, with my earlier submission that the IRS is not an agency of the real
and constitutional United States Government. These factors are outlined in
greater detail in the attached Plaintiffms Motion for Reconsideration, as
Judge King has failed to address these issues in his Order denying the
Motion. Nor has the good judge provided clarification of this important
judicial issue, as requested by plaintiff herein.
Since it is axiomatic that a defendant be correctly identified in a Court of
law, this matter must be resolved before the case can proceed for the simple
reason that if the Internal Revenue Service and the United States Department
of the Treasury are not being represented, I, the plaintiff in the
abovementioned case, have the right to a default judgment.
Furthermore, since there appears to be two separate and distinct entities
known as the United States of America, it is essential to determine which of
the two identically-named but obviously legally and substantively different
entities, is answering the complaint.
Likewise, if the United States of America is not the correct defendant, all
documents filed on its behalf are inadmissible and academic unless filed amicu
s curiae; also leading to a default judgment in plaintiff's favor.
b) Due Process Violations
There appears to have been two (2) instances of gross due process violations
resulting from the following maneuver by the United States Department of
Justice. In each case, it is my strong hypothesis that motions were sent by
overnight delivery by US Attorney Jian Grant in Washington DC to US Attorney
Karen Olson in Portland, OR. These motions were then immediately filed and,
to my great surprise and pained consternation, were as quickly, ruled on by
Judge King without benefit of plaintiff's objections that were yet to be
filed. Because copies of the defendant's motions were sent to me by regular
snail mail, that arrived several days after they had been ruled on by Judge
King, my objections were mooted even before I have them submitted for
consideration by Judge King... in violation of my due process rights, as well
as procedural laws*.
c) Judge King's Field of Expertise
It is not my intention to disparage Judge King in any way, shape or form.
Suffice to inform your Honor that I have reviewed several of his rulings in
other cases and conclude that he must be an honorable and fair-minded judge.
In my humble but well-considered opinion, US Attorneys Grant and Olson may
have twice tricked him into inadvertently becoming an 'innocent' party to
those I herewith alleged as due process violations, yet he had somehow
adamantinely upheld in obvious unfairness to herein plaintiff, even after my
very strong protestations and appropriate motions to the contrary. I firmly
submit to the bench that Judge King's decisions were arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of his discretion, and not in accordance with court procedural law.
I therefore pray for your Honor to order Judge King's orders be vacated at
once, and be remanded to another venue for review and readjudication in due
consideration of my objections that Judge King have not considered a priori.
With regard to his failure to address the question of the correct identity of
the defendant, it is my educated observation that he might be inexperienced
in this area and may not be able to justiciably resolve the issue. In my
field of my professional expertise, which I presume to be the case too in the
legal arena, it seems reasonable to assume that a judge may be an expert in a
certain area of law, but may have little or no knowledge in another area.
I sincerely believe this to be the case in the present situation, with all,
of course, my due respect to the voluble competence of the Hon. King;..
hence, my motion herewith for a change of venue.
c) Additional Issues
This case at bar is NOT about tax avoidance. Obviously, the government
requires money, which must come from--among other sources of public
revenues--taxes. In the heretofore uncontested nor tested opinions of many
responsible, very educated and consciously law-abiding people including
myself, the present federal income tax system is inequitable and should be
replaced by a national sales tax, like the Dr. Alan Keyes' tax proposal**.
Besides the fact it is so cumbersomely defined, arbitrarily administered,
abusively operated in terms of costs-overhead, fascistically implemented
against tax violators...
And yes, illegally imposed upon all United States residents...; thus this
case at bar before you.
The real issue, therefore, is to resolve the question of whether an
individual has the legal obligation to perform--or to opt not to perform--a
voluntary action, as defined and constantly published by the enforcing
authority, the IRS, as if this agency's 'voluntary action' terminology has
assumed a legal definition to mean an 'obligatory act a subject entity is
compelled by law to perform, or face legal but often arbitrary consequences
if not complied with at the time it should be done at a place prescribed and
in the manner required.'
The question of voluntary compliance with the federal income tax system is
not a frivolous matter, but is of importance to all tax-conscious Americans
who are concerned about the systematic erosion of personal freedoms by the
government and by what is widely perceived as a corrupt Internal Revenue
Service.
There is an adage that JUSTICE must not only be done, it must be seen to be
done. For this reason, the major documents in this case are being posted on
the Internet at www.beresford-v-irs.com so that anyone can follow the case as
it unfolds.
d) Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above and without any criticism of Judge King, I
believe that this case has reached the point where a mistrial is inevitable
if allowed to continue in the present Court. I therefore respectfully
request that it be reassigned to another Court, where the presiding judge
thereof is experienced in dealing with cases involving personal political
rights and obligations, personal liberties and legal duties, freedom, and the
federal government.
Yours sincerely,
Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D.
Plaintiff
Enclosures:
Motion For Change Of Venue
Motion For Reconsideration Of Protective Order
Memorandum Supporting Motion For Reconsideration Of Protective Order.
cc: Judge King
Attorneys Karen Olson & Jian Grant
IRS
US Dept. of the Treasury
http:/www.beresford-v-irs.com Webpage Beresford v. IRS: Complaint
Personal File
_______________
* cite procedural law and plaintiff's due process rights
** cite Alan Keyes' consumption-based taxation proposal