Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout915517 =~¡I:....,jti!¡~:¡¡.i~~"': ':~:',' :~.-:" :.:':-_:l ':':;:':;'''''~'': j;:::::: ,;._", ." I ,:',.. ',-; I ""-'-0i'li.'jI"..¡';~ :';'i:;~ , : '; :C:'-7<$~~i:~:'~'!o::.~t.~i:;;::.:.~:z.:t.::..:o':::"::i:~',,'_:...;:;' :'(:, OJ:.. CQ0553 1jb RECEIVED 1/27/2006 at 3:30 PM RECEIVING# 915517 BOOK: 610 PAGE: 553 JEANNE WAGNER LINCOLN COUNTY CLERK, KEMMERER, WY above line for Recorder USe CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF DEMAND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: For Verification of authenticity of jurisdiction and authority of alleged federal government agents over Demandant and Demandant's property, as advised by Supreme Court Rilling FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE v. MERRILL. 332 U.S. 380 (1947); "Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority. " This Demand for evidence of" bounds of authority" is in the fonn of a Constructive Notice, publicly recorded in County records so as to be "constructive notice of its contents to the whole world" (Record Notice, Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pg 1148). Constructive Notice: Such notice as is implied or imputed by law, usually on the basis that the information is £I part of apublic record or file, as in the case of notice of documents which have been recorded in the appropriate registry of deeds or probate. Notice with which a person is charged by reason of the notorious nature of the thing to be noticed, as contrasted with actual notice of such thing. That which the law regards as sufficient to give notice and is regarded as a substitute for actual notice. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 314.) This CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF DEMAND shall apply to any and all past, present, or future actions concerning Demandant, criminal or civil, by ANY and ALL alleged Internal Revenue Service agents or employees, and ANY and ALL alleged Department of Justice agents or employees in dealings with Maurice Wayne Jones. Demandant, Maurice Wayne Jones, declares, and has declared by previous public filings, that Demandant Maurice Wayne Jones is a natural human being, a flesh and blood child of God living near 89796 Highway 89, Grover, Wyoming, and is not a corporate person or other entity that falls under the jurisdiction and authority of the Internal Revenue Service. Failure of the IRS and/or DOl to produce required proof of authority and 1urisdiction documents as demanded/requested herein is in violation of the Law and said violation forever bars such IRS and/or DOl agents and officers from any and all further actions against Demandant. Lawful DEMANDS of .alleged federal.agents. 1 of 10 *:::W:~:~;;¡i¡1¡:j! :~~~m~~~fl:~f ::;imj;~¡~¡m~~t~~ ,1':':Ir&:,:,:;:,;.:¡¡i f.:m~~~:;:;:;;;:~ œ1¡~~ª~1~¡;~ . .r'·'~\;I;¡:.:,;I- '., , "~¡"I~~~':"""""""· " ~;...;:£.:':,.'~'~ :"';";:~:i ~g.l;..H,~~' _ 'r':~__' . __:::~"~'.,'c' _ ¡' ;: ,i';"';":~[" ¡;,..:,-'., )i~¡"",i.. iC:,:' :;¡Õt:,~:.:.r; ::",~:!:,,,-,",,)~. :,'; üS~5517 Any IRS or DOJ representative wishing to communicate with Demandant Maurice Wayne Jones is now put on NOTICE to prove, according to law including Supreme Court Case Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill previously cited, your Personal Authority as an authorized government agent. Demandant will not be drawn into any communication or dialog with any alleged government representative until certified copies of the following are produced; 1. Your precise title ("revenue officer", "revenue agent", "appeals officer", "special agent", etc.) with cite of the section of the act of Congress that created the office you occupy; 2. Your constitutional oath of office, as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution for the United States and as required by 5 U.S.C. § 3331; 3. Your civil commission as agent or officer of Government of the United States, as required by Article II § 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America and attending legislation; 4. Your affidavit declaring that you did not pay for or otherwise make or promise consideration to secure the office (5 U.S.C. § 3332); 5. Your personal surety bond; In the event you do not have a personal surety bond, you may provide a copy of your financial statement, which you are required to file annually. Your financial statement will be construed as a private treaty surety bond in the event that you exceed lawful authority; and 6. Documentation that establishes your complete line of delegated authority, including all intennediaries such as the Assistant Commissioner (International) IDld begÏnnihg with the President of the United States. These documents should all be filed as public records so they should be readily available. See 5 U.S.C. § 2906 for requirements concerning filing oaths of office. Collateral issues will not be answered or dealt with by Demandant unless IDld until the above requests mtended to document your personal standing and scope of authority are satisfied. You may provide the requested items within a reasonable period of twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of this request. See the Administrative Procedures act for deadlines. In the event YOU do not fonnally answer this demand. you may be considered a party to any past or subsequent adverse action and. because offailure to comply with the Laws as enumerated herein. yOU may not have the protection of sovereign immunity but may have personal liability . In lieu of complying with this request/demand, you may withdraw, in writing, IDlY and all claims, demands and/or encumbrances issued directly or indirectly within the scope of your alleged administrative authority, ADMISSmILITY AS EVIDENCE; Under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, any document which is recorded in public records is admissible in court as "self-authenticating" and cannot be barred as evidence in a court proceeding. This document captioned above is recorded in public records, with public recording infonnation stamped, and, as such, is prima facie evidence that those to whom it applies have been placed on NOTICE of a lawful requirement. By this Notice they, the alleged agents or officials, are required to produce papers proving authority IDld jurisdiction. COC554 Failure to comply with this Constructive Notice of Demand to verify authenticity of IRS and DOJ authority over Demandant will be àn admission that such parties are willfully. with evil intent. en~a~in~ in criminal activity a~ainst Maurice Wayne Jones. 2 of 10 .. · "- ,'; :.I:ð:~:I:r.i:J:t:~¡,~,t~7C';)T,: i·.~;':.'F.~)",..,..'r.-:;'::::.o~--;'1r;:;,t ~i:'-:;'2::~::'!':;~;'~'2.I'_.:':':'~;'~M:. , ,'~ :,. ..'.,'.',~.~j:~~~¡:.:.:' '- ,":~,;';'i".',~~.ll:JiŒilii:.!:~1.Q-;1õ'ii.i:'h::~~-::", , <:·~_:·.::;2i::~;.L..h~'~:...~.:.·~:·,' ~('~.~~:':". t' C,~'I r:;5~.7 U<J';;:"'U .A,; C00555 DIRECT CHALLENGE TO AUTHORITY EVIDENCE: After considerable review of the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, published Internal Revenue Service policy, Administrative Procedure Act requirements and Supreme Court decisions upholding these requirements, it appears that IRS agents and representatives are operating outside of venue and subject matter jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service in this case. The Internal Revenue Manua14.10.7 .2.9.8 (05-14-99) states: "Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position. .. "Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others, A case decided by the US Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code, .. Per RYDER v. UNITED STATES, 115 S. Ct.2031, 132L.Ed2d 136,515 U.S.l77 and other cases including those cited below, Demandant is required to initiate a direct challenge to authority of anyone representing himself or herself as a government officer or agent prior to the finality of any proceeding in order to avoid implications of defacto officer doctrine. When challenged. those posing as .government officers and agents are required to affmnatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury, and damages. To claim ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disobey the law as written. It is the responsibility of every person, especially public servants, to know what the law says and to stay within the limitations of said law. The courts have upheld this time and time again as the below cases will show. CONTINENTAL CASUALITY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 113 F2d284 (5th Cir.1940): ''Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority, .. TRUAX v. CORRlGAN,275 U.S. 312, 332(1921) "Thus the guarantee was inte.nded to secure equality of protection not only for all but against all similarly situated Indeed, protection is not protection unless it does so, Immunity granted to a class however limited, having the effect to deprive another class however limited of a personal or property right, is just as clearly a denial of equal protection of the laws to the latter class as if the immunity were infavor oj or the deprivation of right permitted worked against, a larger class, .. "It, of course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for everyone's right to life, liberty, andproperty, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law, 'All men are equal before the law, ' 'This is a government of laws and not of men, ' 'No man is above the law, 'are all maxims 3 of 10 ,,:j: w~: : m ,m~~~t~:m~~¡ ~~mm~mmillm' ·;,,~,·j~!¡~~"'~'¡~~í.~¡~¡:.~.!Si:' ".;c,:__~~":';Lr:';,f;f~::',,:2~; ,_, ":~:':~:::~',,_L1.:1"~:' .. :: j ~¡!t!i!i~~~.:",·¡. . ,'i'~i;.£t;::i:-':":;.'f:·,!i;'m·,:~;i!~:¡!~":::" ;, :;- '!:- : :~'~~X·;:~'~,>i.9;·,¡'_:,';:' .',&'; ".' ~¡'::·~~'¿è':¡);í:., n <...;, ...; \ cc::, c:1.7 'll::;)¿;"UO'-6 C00556 showing the spirit in which Legislatures, executives and courts are expected to make, execute and apply laws" And again in FROST & FROST TRUCKING CO. v. RAILROAD COMM'N OF CALIFORNIA, 271 U.S. 583 the court ruled: "It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution. " In HARMAN v. FORSSENIUS. 380 U.S. 528,540 (1965) the Supreme Court ruled: H... constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Pp. 542-544. " This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and its .alleged agents and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS's own manual stating: "Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position. " "Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided bv the Us. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over" decisions of lower courts. The internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. " In reviewing the Admini~trative Procedure Act, it has come to my attention that the IRS does not publish all of their regulations in accordance to the Act. For instance, codification of Part 600, except § 600.1(b) have been discontinued. This was published in the Federal Register in October, 1948, and reads: Federal register, 13 Fed. Reg. 7710: 1. The headnote of Subchapter F is amended to read "Records and Procedure. " 2. Codification of Part 600, except § 600.1 (b), is discontinued Future amendments to the statement of organization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will appear in the Notices section of the FEDERAL REGISTER. Official Notice of requirements is vital, as the court ruled in GONZALEZ v. FREEMAN, 334 F.2D 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964): "The command of the Administrative Procedure Act is not a mere formality. Those who are called upon by the government for a countless variety of goods and services are entitled to have notice of the standards and procedures which regulate these relationships. Neither appellants nor others similarly situated can turn to any official source for guidance as to what acts will precipitate a complaint of misconduct, how charges will be made, met or refuted, and what consequences will flow from misconduct iffound, "ld., at 578. "Considerations of basic fairness require administrative regulations establishing standards for debarment and procedures which will include notice of specific charges, opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine adverse witness, all culminating in administrative findings and conclusions based upon the record so made, " Id., at 578 "[W]e cannot agree that Congress intended to authorize such consequences without regulations establishing standards and procedures and without notice of charges, hearings, 4 of 1 0 ~ .,.,...,....,'...,':.~.,;,. ·'""..tJ....t.!o·.t..L,· I .;:~'~_~.l5l.'" "~,.'-",:,,.,..,:,;,: ., ::,'.I.1'.:_'-..:.'..;"~,. .. " ~"" ',' ";.,';-, ·,·.~,¡·I·,:,'. ,{ ~ .~'.';\ r::: 51.7 "~~-¡~,J; and findings pursuant hereto. Absent such procedural regulations and absent notice, hearing and findings in this case, the debarment is invalid, " Id., at 579 Again in HOTCH v. UNITED STATES, 212 F2D 280,283 (9th Cir. 1954), the court again ruled: "The acts set up the procedure which must be followed in order for agency rulings to be given the force of law. Unless the prescribed procedures are complied with. the agencv (or administrative) rule has not been lef!allv issued, and conseQuentlv is in'effective. " cor557 As well as in BERENDS v. BUTZ 357 F. Supp. 144 (D. Minn 1973). "In adopting the directive of December 27, 1972, defendants did not comply with even one of these mandatory requirements, despite the fact that the directive would have a substantial impact on those regulated, and hence is a 'rule' as contemplated in the statute, " Id., at 154. "Inherent in these provisions is the concept that the public is entitled to be informed as to the procedures and practices of a f!overnment af!encv, so as to be able to f!overn their actions accordinf!lv. The termination of the emergency loan program was without any notice, and was in violation of the statute, "I d., at 155. And yet again in CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) the Supreme Court established that persons could be held accountable and liable in accordance to the long established practice of the common law. "..that when it came to tax law, because of the complexity of tax law, that the rights of such persons were different, were not the same as with the common law, but were f9'eater as to the rif!ht to know and understand the tax laws on a more thorough basis. " The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the bureau of Internal Revenue, was not created by Congress, as required by Article I, Sec. 8, c.lause 18 of the Constitution of the United States, so cannot legitimately enforce internal revenue laws of the United States in States of the 'union. (See Statement oflRS organization at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul. 440,37 Fed. Reg. 20960, and the lnternal Revenue Manual 1100 through the 1997 edition.) Article I, Sec. 8, clause 18 vests Congress with complete responsibility for facilitating power of Government of the United States via legislation: "[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" In the historical statement, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue admitted that Congress did not create a Bureau of Internal Revenue via the 1862 act in which the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created, but alleged that Congress intended to create a bureau. In reality, the 1862 legislation created the offices of "assessor" and "collector", in addition to the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Assessors and collectors were appointed for each revenue district somewhat as U.S. Attorneys are appointed today. Those appointed to these offices continued to collect internal revenue within States of the Union until the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was implemented. The two offices were administratively abolished via Reorganization Plan N026 of 1950. The name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to Internal Revenue Service via Treasury Orderc#150-27, which was not published in the Federal Register in compliance with requirements of the Federal Register Act (See 44 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., particularly § 1505(a)). . 5 of 1 0 ¡::!::jf::::::::'¡:::~~' !iN~':·:~:'~: :~;:ð ~!j¡I~~~~Jfm~;~i~m '"""'>'"''''''-''''''-'-''''''''''''''''-''' ' ..,¡"""_~,".o:.,-~',._..:..u.""""'...-.<.-,';:o:.::::.~,,,,",,- :c'-'·...,_·'-,·"-.~,.·,·,·.·........~·...'" - ..4-"'-.;....,....~'......::..:~="''-'''-'-', ~'->.,....-''--''--''-,'--'. .."..,.'c:.....:.., f' <~.." r:::S17· "J<J~....,; C00558 UNITED STATES v. GERMAINE, 99 U.S. 508 (1879); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425,441, 6 S. Ct. 1131 (1886), and numerous other cases that reinforce the detennination; "there can be no officer, either dejure or defacto, if there be no office to fill. " The Internal Revenue Service operates in an ancillary or other secondary capacity under contract, memorandum of agreement, or some comparable device to provide services under original authority delegated to the Treasury fmancial Management Service or some other bureau of the Department of the Treasury; the contracted or otherwise authorized services extend only to government employees and employers, as defined at 26 U.S.C. § 3401 (c) & (d). The authorization is essentially intragovernmental in nature; it does not extend to private sector enterprise in States of the Union. The pocket Commission Handbook, located in Chapter 3 of Internal Revenue Manual § 1.16.3 Authorized Pocket Commission Holders, lists IRS personnel who are authorized to have pocket commissions. By cross-referencing to the delegation of authority to issue summonses, it appears that all IRS personnel authorized to issue summonses are under the assistant Commissioner (Intemational).lf the authorities are accurate, the IRS actions in relation to Demandant constitute a sham proceeding under color of authority of the United States. To the best ofDemandanfs knowledge, Demandant has never received income from sources and activities subject to jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (International). Further, lithe IRS will consult Part 14 of the lnternal Revenue Manual, "International", at § 114.1, "Compliance and Customer Service Managers Handbook", you will find that examination, collection, criminal investigation and customer service functions are all categorized under the Assistant Commissioner (International). There is no corres-ponding categorization that might qualify as "domestic" operations. If you will consult 26 CM § 601.101, you will find that IRS personnel have jurisdiction for examinHtion and collection only within internal revenue districts; all other functions fall under jurisdiction of the foreign district director, now the Assistant Commissioner (International). The Secretary of the Treasury has never established internal revenue districts in States of the Union. as required by 26 V.S.C. & 7621 AND Executive Order #10289. Therefore, the IRS must be operating under presumption of Assistant Commissioner (International) jurisdiction. Federal income tax returns are allegedly required to be filed at IRS service centers. But the Administrative Procedures Act demands that any part of an agency's field structure which affects the domestic American public must be published in the Federal Register. The absence of publication in the Federal Register of these extremely important parts of the IRS field structure further indicates that the service centers do not legally affect the domestic American -public and can, therefore, be ignored by the ordinary American wage earner living and working at home. However the IRS claims that the 16th Amendment places a liability on Demandant's labor but continues to ignore the fact that Demandant is not nor ever has been a corporation, resident Alien, or working abroad. The courts settled the issue of the 16th Amendment as the cases below will show but again, the IRS refuses to follow its own rules and abide by the court's rulings. Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.72.9.8 (05-14-99). "Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of fax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position. " "Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the Us. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower 6 of 1 0 It.. " .,...,.,...,.,.,.,."".'. ,~, '_:"'-'-','~:. ~ C;,'" . , ". ..,.,..'"-"..-1...,.......,, . ':·':'-,1.','·,'·...'··'· .. '.... ''I' ";'~: TI ,'·'..'..1..-.·; " ".,"'..'. _.,..'I~...,·I·'.. p. cC "I 5 c;1.¡-; u~;¿· "'-6 '. CQC559 courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. " The following are some of the Supreme Court rulings the IRS is required to follow; BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. Co., 240 US 1.11 (1916): "...the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumvtion will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it.., " STANTON V.BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103,112 (1916): "... it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new vower of taxation. " BOWERS v.IŒRBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.,271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926): "The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the vurpose or effect of that Amendment to bring any new sub;ect within the taxing vower... " PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165,173 (1918): "The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view, As pointed out in recent decisions. it does not extend the taxinf! vower to new or excepted sub;ects... " DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179,183 (1918): ''An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (the 16th Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax proverty as such or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organizedfor profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations. " EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189,205,206(1920): "The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. " "As reveatedly held this did not extend the taxinf! vower to new sub;ects... " EVANS V. GORE, 253 U.S. 245,259 (1920): "Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorjzeand support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the f!overnment say: 'It is not. in view of recent decisions. contended that this amendment rendered anythinf! taxable as income that was not so taxable before. " Just.as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court decisions, the IRS chooses to look the other way regarding the scope of the 16th Amendment. What the Supreme Court established in EVANS v. GORE was that not only did the 16th Amendment NOT confer new taxing powers to 7 of 10 r.. ¡ 4Ii '¡ .I¡'b'¡~.'¡ ~~;ûf~~iill~::~;:;i ,]II~¡ .,_'_._,_.,..,-,,-, __.:.-.-,-"-,<...£0_:<,, . '--, '.""~""."~-.u..'.',.,'" ,.,....J"h~'·.'-y=,,"'-l-:)~',~:..;'.," "....""":1 Ft::"S17' Od~.w,- . C00560 Congress to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definition of income as defmed by the Supreme Court in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO. FLINT v. STONE JRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 144 (1911) "A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 corporation tax act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or assodations which are organized for profit and have a capital stock represented by shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges, " MERCHANTS" LOAN & TRUST CO., v SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509,519,(1921) "There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word 'income' must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court" BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE, 271 U.S. 170 (1926); "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Exdse Tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. " BEL VERING v. EDISON BROTHERS' STORES., 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943) "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress. without apportionment. tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. " SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v.LOWE,247 U.S. 330,335 (1918); "We must reiect in this case. as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909. the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts. evervthing that comes in. are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income '. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income TaxAct of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts. " Demandant has filed proper public Notice of Demandant's status as a natural flesh and blood human being and that Demandant is a non-corporate being. This Public Notice AFFIDAVIT OF NON CORPORA TE STATUS was filed in Wyoming Public Records, Lincoln County, Kemmerer, Wyoming by Lincoln County Clerk Jeanne Wagner, 1/19/2006 at 10:50 AM, Receiving #915336 Book: 610 Page: 123 to Page; 141. Thus, according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court interpretations thereof, Demandant's property acquired through Demandant's efforts are not corporate, ilierefore are not under the jurisdiction of and not taxable by the Internal Revenue Service. Demandant has a right to pursue his own callings of life in any way desired free from government interference. BUTCHER'S UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746,757 (1814) "The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits. which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this countrv to all alilœ upon the same applied to all persons of the 8 of 10 .. t' ., ,,·..'...'.·ï·",~. "',-,0-,10'·',';' ''''''''~'''~~':=':':':::'':'''~·.r.;!»; :':.', ,;:-=+'-.;1:. ~ : : ,4"," " . ,'.','.'-LU.td..b..!....., ' ,', d,].'~-...';l.,;¡r-_,'--''','., .'f, ~..;.~.!I-....__'::;':_!..',...','," ,.. ~ 0': ~,..',.~:L:~.:':~U ,~, ,'" '.,,'"', ;:__,'v',", ""," ~, '.",~,',!,¡"..., ,." .." .(! c:" 517 '? ',) "\.... J : ,~ \\, .J (....... --oJ '-1) cor561 same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their birthrif!ht. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor. as it is the original foundation of all other property. so it is the work of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property, It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him: " Resolution of Controversy: There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article ill, Sec. 2, U.S. Constitution, ·'arising under" clause). See Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U.S. (2002) The following elements are essential: 1. When Challenged, standing, venue, and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record. 2. Facts of the case must be established in record. 3. Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition or direct oral examination). 4. The LA W of the case must affinnatively appear in record, which in the instance of a tax controversy necessarily includes taxing and liability statutes with attending regulations (See United States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 at 787 and United States of America v. Community TV.lnc., 327 F2d 79 (10thCir.. 1964): 5. The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts. 6. The trial court, whether admini~ative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes findings offact and conclusions of law. Any alleged government agents can shortly resolve any controversy between Demandant and the federal government by producing the scope of authority documents demanded herein. Failure to comply with this Constructive Notice of Demand to verify authenticity of eovernment aeent authority will be an admission that all parties are willfully. with evil intent. eneaeme in criminal activity a~ainst Demandant Maurice Wayne Jones. NOTICE: Demandant reserves the right to enter this demand and all evidence within, to be preserved ß.S evidence under Rule 902(4), (5), (8), (9), and (10) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, upon the Iecords of such public recorder's office at such place or places as Demandant alone determines, which ß.S a matter of public record shall be subj ect to submission and use in any legal proceeding thereafter ß.S utilized by any person having cause to Iely thereupon for evidence purpose, under the aforesaid Federal Rules of Evidence, and as for any other reasons that a public record of debt may be used, accordingly. Affidavit By my witness below I, Maurice Wayne Jones, attest to the facts stated in this Constructive Notice of Demand and Direct Challenge to Personal Authority to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 9 of 10 ¡¡mmI~~~i~~m!;i;j ,7õ,-,==¡. ::::::~ :':;W:::::::;I ::::::~*:~m~;M . ·'".~¡·,',;dXt.','t, . _....';...,..._~" ',--- ~.:c.;:':,:.c...'-'" ~_:,' _.,;" '-' ',:;:¡,,'~'::_':!,~ ;".',1':1":1"',: , ., . ",', ,- C:!""' ~J:::; ~::J; ü I CO('562 DISCLAIMER Demandant Maurice Wayne Jones reserves all rights under all forms of law, without prejudice. Demandant hereby refutes, disclaims, and refuses any implied contract to which any mailing address, salutation, request, demand, quote of statute, quote of court ruling, or presentation contained in this document may subject Demandant. Demandant does not waive any Constitutional or Common Law rights. Demandant does not voluntarily or involuntarily acquiesce into any foreign jurisdiction. Demandant hereby makes explicit reservation of all rights and remedies. Demandant hereby declares and affirms, as God is witness, that the foregoing is true and correct, having first hand knowledge of the facts in this case on this 2 1 day'of V -,ý~ 2006. 1l!~t/~~ Maurice Wayne Jones Wyoming State ) ) Affirm ) JURAT Lincoln County On this, the ~daY of~ ,2006 AD, Before me, a Notary Public, the signatory Maurice Wayne Jones perso~ known to me; or [] satisfactorily proven to be the Natural Human Being whose name is subscribed to this instrument, Sworn and acknowledged that he executed the same for the stated purpose therein. 1n Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal. ;:Q~l1DID1- Notary Public DONNA BOOTH· NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTYOF A STATE OF LINCOLN . WYOMING i MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT, 20, 2007 10 of 10 ..