HomeMy WebLinkAbout915518
::".:,,~~, ':"'''','; ~,':; ,-","'.- ,',,~;r,.¡'... ;¡rpol';t;·...';·,,~!&s¡...,.i'.·í~~.!;:E::¡~"··~!;<1"=I ,; ,..·.¥¿~C~,:;,-.,:,I:I;~...',-;¡...~,.¡,;;,,:·:'.
";·',¡:¡,·;;,!:·'·,;;:',l.·¡·~a;I!:c&PM,·.c..,;'~·,', -,·,;··,·::¡:,:'·'~'¡'...;j'j~ft¡.~drò!."'~~~':'i~~;';;:~~.~"'""':",'i.~æ!.:~~"5:i::!:.t,.'~<':--:<""'.:""01 .~¡'¡:· .t; ¡',t:....,.,'¡',.-~',~.."'
'-00563,
RECEIVED 1/2712006 at 3:31 PM
RECEIVING # 915518
BOOK: 610 PAGE: 563
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 ß.Ild authority of alleged federal government
agents over Demandant and Demandant's property, as advised by Supreme Court Ruling 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 a part of a public 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 ß.Ild ALL alleged Department of Justice agents or employees in
dealings with Dorenda Leigh Price Jones. Demandant, Dorenda Leigh Price J ònes, declares, and has
declared by previous public filings, that Demandant Dorenda Leigh Price 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 DOJ to produce required proof of authority and iurisdiction
documents as demanded/requested herein is in violation of the Law and said violation forever bars such
IRS and/or DOJ agents and officers from any and all further actions against Demandant.
Lawful DEMANDS of alleged federal agents.
1 of 1 0
r:2';t:~~m
I,·~.?·.·.-:~·~....,I
<;"..,II':O,-'~,.,".
"·;~i:r.i~I~'¡:I:;:I: ,', -:;:':':::"!' ;": !,;,;¡: ,~-,:,',
. "..,_",'.', .._,;, ~,.¡i;..'-,:,,""~_"":f·\" .
'O"·'~--"'~"'·-40!""""'':i.''+·:,
\.;.'!--'""'-l·-Ä!~".ilnn".1J:.~'_,!:';~W":I" ".' """:,..~,",,,," :.;,' c...._,.'.;.;.'t:. :..:..~".
" , . ,-¡ c- r- "'8
U01:.,J~.L;
COC564
Any IRS or DOJ representative wishing to communicate with Demandant Dorenda Leigh Price
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
governmenfagent. 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
intermediaries such as the Assistant Commissioner (International) and beginning 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 and until the above requests
intended 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
formally answer this demand. YOU may be considered a party to any past or subsequent adverse action
and. because of failure 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, any and all claims,
demands and/or encumbrances issued directly or indirectly Within the scope of your alleged
a.dministrative authority,
ADMISSIBILITY 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 information 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 and jurisdiction.
Failure to comply with this Constructive Notice of Demand to verify authenticity of IRS and DOJ
authority over Demandant will be an admission that such parties are willfully. with evil intent.
en~aeing in criminal activity aeainst Dorenda Leigh Price Jones.
2 of 10
..
,".........,......'.....,o,'. ,.;r,O:.."'~·..::..-:,.;L"::i'.:,gf-...~:.:.:';,.:,;,;,:,,:,,:..:.,:t:
".....,..'.'~t;.~....,'.',
, .~,~¡~~~',._~,',',. ".."1·1·'~·...::b',~,· "~':;":
,~':_'."'!i:.~,~,<,.,;;:;", .- ,:.,' .-~", '\',~.';',.,,'.'.."
. . ,. ..<' 55 A! 8
1~' I
~JJ~' ,:J..
CQC565
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 Manual 4.10.72.9.8 (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 ta/œs 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, 132 L.Ed2d 136,515 U.S. 177 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 affirmatively 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.
CONTlNENTAL CASUAIlTY CO. v. UNITED STATES, 113 F2d284 (5th Cir.1940):
"Public officers are merely the agents ofthepublic, 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. CORRIGAN, 275 U.S. 312, 332(1921)
"Thus the guarantee was intended 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 in favor 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, and property, 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
~:':i:i~:::'>::lliíÆ
..'}' ,¡, '~"'\; " ,:.;:;- ',: I'
~~~:~.;,;:-:¡"
;::::::::::;::::·:;::;:i\
:'NI:".:.'ir.:.::;~¡
'1illillm;m~f:~
,,;...,,;,,171:'
··,",.',.:.:t:t:.,I,;.','
" " -.,...,.,~,', ,-.,.' ~~, l{L" ~.;,!,::,' ',.' '_':'~; ':", \... ":':'::_ ,~',;' ~ ;:. , '. ~'>,' _ ;"':'. "~ '~L,I'.: ::.:: ,:'::~ ,!,,' " ,','~" ,;
: . '- -\" rr:;' C" 1.8
~J '-' ~..J¡ oJ
C00566
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:
"...constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote adminzstrative 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 Administrative Procedure Act, it bas come to my attention that the IRS does not
publish all of their regulations in accordance 10 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:
], 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 KEGISTER.
Official Notice of requirements is vital, as the court ruled in GONZALEZ v. FREEMAN, 334 FolD
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, .. Id., 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
..
..,.,.;.,.¡.,.¡.,.',.,'-.,,',
"";,:;'o!...:.:trP.t;..I.
,,",- .,,'.''''......-.......~;~.'.~,,'''~¡ ;\,'f'.:':I":!'-_":,';"'.. '~."~~;
, ", ' - , .,' ,', '>: ,-:";' ,', ~,'
Ü:S:'iS518 C00567
and findings pursuant hereto. Absent such procedural regulations and absent notice, hearing
and findings in this case, the debarment is invalid, " Id., lit 579
Again in HOTCH v. UNITED STATES,212F2D280~83 (9th Cir. 1954), the courtllgainruled:
"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 agency (or
administrative) rule has not been legally issued. and consequently is ineffective. "
As wellllS 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, "I d., 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 govern 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 esmblished practice of the
common law.
"..that when it came to tax Jaw, 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 greater as to the
right to know and understand the tax laws on a more thorouf!h basis."
The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the bureau of Internal Revenue, was not created by
Congress, as required by Article I, Sec. 8, clause 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
of IRS 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 L 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 1he 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 1Ùleged that Congress intended to create li 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 Order #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
t~U::;:!;\:'~ili]
milim~llimm~{;
;mJ~f!::¡fiW~¡::~~
· ,·¡·¡,,,ft,,,·,:?,,..
~~r_;::~j~~~f~;J!~~
:~:8~:r.f~?I:~
~.:.:~:.;~~~;g~~:~:; ;,
¡~~)i~{~Mt~1
,- '¡":;;;(".'.~;;j;i-; ;"':'i" 'J,',:,;, ,;
"" ,---_.
"...,'.,
_.,'", ,',..',',' "
.. '_._----,-,._"~'..-~
: :";':'::'i«:"A'-
..
'¡: ;i:~:i~j: :j~:.: ~·:
'- '.., ';":;O;-"~':~:;:"';''':~...i{,~:'-j¡;'>1-''¡'''!~~:'::''':':', :,";" '"
, ; ';" :~,,,, ...¡~~li'l'~¡I...';!; :;':":;: ," .'"
" ..:.;;0\'..:.,,;.'...
" ,J . <,', e:"S18
~Ji~'::'-,~....¡¡ .
COC568
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 determination;
"there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, 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 (International). If
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 of Demandant's knowledge, Demandant has
never received income from sources and activities subject to jurisdiction of the Assistant
Commissioner anternational).
Further, if the IRS will consult Part 14 of the Internal Revenue Manual, "International", at § 114.1,
·'Compliance and Customer Service Managers Handbook", you will fmd that examination, collection,
criminal investigation and customer service functions are all categorized under the Assistant
Commissioner (lnternational). There is no corresponding categorization that nìight qualify as
·'domestic" operations.
If you will consult 26 CM §' 601.101, you will find that IRS personnel have ïurisdiction for
examination 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 U.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 lef?:allv affect the domestic American public and can, therefore, be ignored by the
ordinary American wage earner living 1lD.d 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 Manua14.1 0.7.2.9.8 (05-14-99).
"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 u.s.
Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower
6 of 10
..
· " . -' :'".i'I:.¡''':'..'l'~ ; ~ "~' . ... 'I'" '.-~! ;;..:-:,,...':.::;..~:,;!t:::.! ....¿¡'£::',-~ :.:LJ.: :: ~.: ':':
';";S:""':I:""~'..;-
,... ·",·c'.·...~~;~·.·,'
:':;"..:-.!Ù:'~~{~.ê" :"·:.i.~;"CI'~'<!"'-Y_i:'->'."'::":'-,,- '
.:, ~,~.;,~~'.:~:,
'.'.'.~.'~:".!'.',' '
"..L"';1e::"'518
t'.JJ¿...J};
C00569
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 PAClFIC 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 iI.., "
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. KERBAUGH-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 subiect 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 taxin!! vower to new
or excevted subiects,.. "
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 lJi'overty as such or the mere conversion of property,
but to tax the conduct of the business of corpomtions organjzed for profit upon the gairiful
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 taxin!! vower to new subiects... "
EVANS V. GORE,253 U.S. 245,259 (1920):
"Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and 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 government say: 'It is not. in view of
recent decisions. contended that this amendment rendered anything 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
i!jI!¡f¡ji~¡i¡f!¡:;¡i~};:;lli
¡f;~¡~~¡~~~~~l~mt; ~!
'~"J,"""""""''-'J','-'1:'"'' ....,' '-:"Ä:":~":"'~_.:1..-::':',·''''':;:'::::':'':;,~,~
.~.'''¡'\-', J:',,_"'-'--'.....r...<:-ta.....U.';.!.f;!-.·_·
," ':;', ':';o,-.vA.J"_"'CJ.:o.:tc"~";.,,,' _ ";¡'~"' '!"'-", ,~','I '"!~,i:.L.:,
_,..:;',"¡ë.'.':.o:i'I,I-....'I:.,·,·'.-:,..¡'.,','-,·,', .. :'·:·.:'I·.;":'"~,,,,·.
",' .A,'·I!--S18
~j::J~~
C00570
Congress to tax the American Citizen living.and working within the United States of America, but it
also acknowledged the definition of income as defined by the Supreme Court in FLINT v. STONE
TRACY CO.
FLINT v. STONE TRACY 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 associations 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 Excise Tax Act of
1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed "
HEL 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 Conf!Jess. 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 J!overnment that all receipts.
everything 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 Tax Act 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 fùed proper public Notice of Demandant's status as a natural flesh and blood human
being and that Demandant is Ii non-corporate being. This Public Notice AFFIDAVIT OF NON
CORPORATE STATUS was filed in Wyoming Public Records, Lincoln County, Kemmerer,
Wyoming by Lincoln County Clerk Jeanne Wagner, 1/19/2006 at 10:43 AM, Receiving #915333
Book: 610 Page: 97 to Page; 115. Thus, according to the Constitution and th~ Supreme Court
interpretations thereof, Demandant's property acquired through Demandant's efforts are not corporate,
therefore 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 country to all alike upon the same applied to all persons of the
8 of 10
~
,__._ f;r. <:'t;,a.'I;J:~; ,;~ '.',-
,-,...c,,';, ¡::~_TJ,_' ",;-.'...:-:.\'
;,~, '1'.':J.:&.:CCt.:...;. ,',
. '-ì: >~~,_"¡.;i,¡·t....:!1'.I'~:".' ,:"(':,~,' ~(:·'.';~I" ~ '.~' '_,. :'.:~'~'.':'.',
"(1,' .".!,.;;,:",;"., ,.,,',". ..,., "":;'<'ó! .,.;.....
.: --1.8
~ N '- "1 ,-'. .....f.
.:JJ 0"-".....ou; .
,~ 00571
same age, sex and condition, is a distinguishing privilege claim as their birthright. It has been
well said that 'the property which everv man has in his own labor. as it is the original
foundation of all other propertv.· 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 IDlY case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the
Constitution IDld 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,IDld all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including
compliance with substantive IDld 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 LAW of the case must affirmatively .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. Inc., 327
F2d 79 (lOthCir.. 1964):
5. The .advocate of.a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise prov.able facts.
6. The trial court, whether .administrative or judicial, must render a written decision that includes
:findings offact and conclusions of law. .
Any alleged government agents CIDl shortly resolve IDlý controversy between Demandant and the
federal government by producing the scope of authority documents demanded herein.
Failureto 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. eneaeine in
criminal activity aeainst Demandant Dorenda Leieh Price Jones.
NOTICE: Demandant reserves the right to enter this demand IDld all evidence within, to be preserved
as evidence under Rule 902(4), (5), (8), (9), IDld (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
.as a matter of public record shall be subject to submission IDld use in IDlY legal proceeding thereafter as
utilized by IDlY person having cause to rely thereupon for evidence purpose, under the aforesaid Federal
Rules of Evidence, IDld as for IDlY other reasons that .a public record of debt may be used, accordingly.
Affidavit
By my witness below I, Dorenda Leigh Price Jones, .attest to the facts stated in this Constructive Notice
of Demand IDld Direct Challenge to Personal Authority to be true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
9 of 10
i:i:!:i:::::r:!¡~:i:i
1.i~M!¿!~',
:~m:ì~*i8
:. :':'1':1:.!~:1~.:~ :.;,1
':".-·t'...·...·..·.,·.·~· '.::'I...'.·""·~',_·.:.'l'.~,:r,,-,,,,,o,;j-=-~:
.,,',' '.:';,':,'.., ,,"',;cWn
'_.,..........~~~...
.",'-'..::.I'~.."""'.¡:j:,;~~:':':":"O::'b,:...,~;:..!;', ;-,;;., __....'c .',
J-'~i:!:'>:..'. ,',
. '~':,:...:':.',
: " r. ":,' ~ C"' 1.8
U::';¿.;..¡J~
COC572
DISCLAIMER
Demandant Dorenda Leigh Price 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 f fOregOing~e and correct,
having first hand knowledge of the fa.cts in this case on this ~ day of . ~7 '
2006. ~
{}=cfitfL~
Wyoming State
)
) Affirm
)
JURAT
Lincoln County
On this, the ~ day 0 ,2006 AD, Before me, a Notary Public, the signatory
Dorenda Leigh Price Jones pers lyappeared, [] known to me; or [] satisfactorily proven to be the
Natural Human Being whose name is subscribed to this instrument, Sworn and acknowledged that she
executed the same for the stated purpose therein.
1n Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my band and Notarial Seal.
ct!;?O I FJO():f
Notary Public
DONNA BOOTH· NOTARY PUBLIC
COUNTYOF &\ STATE OF
LINCOLN _ WYOMING
~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT, 20. 2007
10 of 10
~