Appendix O

 

Constructive Notice and Demand

 


Reader's Notes:


Registered U.S. Mail                            c/o Street/P.O. Box

Return Receipt Requested                        City, State

Postal Serial #                                 zip code exempt

                                                (DMM 122.32)

 

                                                Date

District Director

Internal Revenue Service

Agents of Foreign Principals

City [ZIP code exempt]

STATE

 

Re:   Constructive Notice, Demand, and Statement

      Regarding IRS Request for Form 1040 Tax Return

 

Dear Mr. Director:

 

      This correspondence addresses your agency's request that I file a Form 1040 tax return and pay a tax for which I am not made liable.  Enclosed with your agency's request was IRS Notice 557, entitled "Who Must File a Federal Income Tax Return".  Because you are in the initial stages of making a serious error with me regarding your lawful jurisdiction and authority in this "1040" matter, I hereby issue this constructive notice, demand and statement.

 

      This constructive notice is to advise you of my lawful status as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen under the U.S. Constitution (see 2:1:5), that is, a "non-taxpayer" under the law, and to demand that you comply with all due process requirements of the law and permanently curtail any further information collection requests and proceedings against my person and my property.

 

      Be advised that I am not a "citizen of the United States" and I am not a "resident of the United States".  I am and have always been a "nonresident alien" from birth (my legal status), as that term is now defined in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its regulations.  Among its other purposes, this letter now explicitly rebuts, retroactively to my date of birth, any erroneous presumptions and terminates any erroneous elections of "U.S. residence" which were established as a consequence of demonstrable mistakes, by me and others, which resulted in part from the vagueness that is evident in the IRC and its regulations, and in part from the actual and constructive frauds which have been perpetrated upon all Americans by the Congress and other federal officials at least since the year 1913.

 

      To demonstrate the vagueness to which I refer, after an honest and a diligent search which now stretches over several years, I am still unable to find in the IRC any statute which defines the "intent" of that Code (see IRC 7701(a) et seq.), nor have I been able to find any statutory definition of the term "income", even though "gross income", "earned income" and "ordinary income" are defined.  (For proof, see U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404, (1976)).  My family obligations now demand that I stop searching for definitions which evidently do not exist, and shift to you, Mr. Director, the burden of finding and exhibiting these definitions.  I stand on my rights to substantive due process, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which nullify any and all actions you and others in your agency may take under the presumed "authority" of vague and arbitrary statutes and their associated regulations.

 

      To demonstrate the fraud to which I refer, there are now literally thousands of certified documents which constitute material evidence proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the so‑called 16th Amendment was never ratified.  Your agency can no longer rely on it as law, as was done by Commissioner Donald C. Alexander in The Federal Register of March 29, 1974, Volume 39, No. 62, page 11572.  At that time, Mr. Alexander published his official statement about the IRS as follows:

 

      Since 1862, the Internal Revenue Service has undergone a period of steady growth as the means for financing Government operations shifted from the levying of import duties to internal taxation.  Its expansion received considerable impetus in 1913 with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution under which Congress received constitutional authority to levy taxes on the income of individuals and corporations.

 

[emphasis added]

 

Contrast this statement with the ruling of an Illinois State Court:  "It is as much a nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of an unauthorized assemblage of individuals," (Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160).  Several