Harmon L Taylor
Re: US Gov. admits the IRS is not a Gov. Agency.
Sat Jul 19 16:47:07 2003
208.152.73.53

Good Morning:

There's a time to respond to a whole list, which for me is rare.

The idea mentioned here has circulated WAY too long, and since this one has come to me, now is the time for me to address it.

The Internal Revenue Service, AND the Department of the Treasury, are, absolutely, positively AGENCIES of the United States, sometimes also referred to as the United States of America.

The detail in the pleading referred to CLEARLY distinguishes between something called the United States Government, and something else called the United States, a/k/a, the United States of America. To miss THAT distinction is to miss the entire point.

As regards this note's "subject" line, TRY VERY HARD NOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD!! The IRS IS an "agency" of the United States. There IS an office in Puerto Rico, which, by this fact alone, should CONFIRM its relationship with the "territorial authority," rather than call it into question.

FAR MORE beneficial of focus is the fact that neither the IRS nor the Department of the Treasury has the capacity to sue or to be sued. As it comes to mind, and this DOES take soak time, but as this starts to take shape for each mind in its own time, the fact that neither of these entities has the CAPACITY to be a beneficiary IS a FAR MORE beneficial focus than whether or not we're talking "agency."

And, to repeat this one more time, the IRS IS an "agency" of the United States. To go down ANY other line of thought is to seek to "break INTO jail," as I find myself daily quoting Larry Becraft's phrasing.

YES! There's considerably more to discuss. The book is 1,551 pages long. The "federal income tax system" is simply one of the various ideas of legal reality addressed in it.

No. Right now, I really DON'T have the time to engage in any discussions, and I'm sorry for that present time crunch, because we've absolutely GOT to clear up our thinking on these very sorts of things. Hopefully, in about a month, this will be different. THIS specific topic and idea is of the "emergency" category, for which I'm duty bound to make an exception in my schedule, for literally the benefit of all concerned.

Try very hard to keep in mind that EVERYTHING mentioned "publicly" about the "federal income tax system" is designed for misdirection. EVERYTHING! How do we know? Here's how. In the mid-60's, or mid-70's, the question was posed to the American Bar Association along these lines: "How do we get/keep around 150,000,000 filers annually?" After several months of focus and study, the answer came back this way: Prosecute about 2,000 people a year with criminal tax sanctions.

So, the point is simply this. EVERYTHING that is "from them" has a very deliberate and purposeful angle on it. To know the legal reality is to know that they're ALWAYS telling us correct information, it's just phrased in such a way as to be HORRIBLY misleading, especially for those not quite yet attuned to appreciate the details that are very plainly stated in that pleading of reference (see, infra).

Their objective, ultimately, is to create so many possible criminal tax prosecution options as to have at least 2,000 a year to try. Where Irwin Schiff left off, We The People has more than picked up. The folks buying into this "show me the law" perspective are nothing but canon fodder for the "system." And, that WILL continue, until such time as we accept these realities:

(1) We do not have, and have not had for over 150 years, any government of the Republican Form. The "national' government of the Republican Form NEVER really materialized. The expression of it was complete in 1791, thus, by January, 1792, there WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT!! Evidence that the States ceased being governments of the Republican Form starts at least 180 years ago.

(2) EVERYTHING that vexes us operates by some private obligation or other, and the obligations that come fully equipped with possible "breaking INTO jail" options are the fiduciary obligations. These "willful misappropriation" cases are THEFT and ATTEMPTED THEFT cases. From what? From having a fiduciary obligation and then telling the beneficiary to buzz off.

(3) The ONLY solution is to focus upon OUR responsibility in the matter. If we have these various obligations, then we need to do the deal. If we have the deal, we need to do the deal. THE ONLY OTHER OPTION is simply not to have the deal in the first place. Life is VERY different without the deals, but life existed just fine for a great many millennia prior to someone's nightmare that we call the "federal reserve system" and its "federal government," and its "federal income tax system." WE ARE NOT talking about "Law and government." We are talking about private obligations.

OUR BEST AND FIRST AND FOREMOST FOCUS: If you have an account with any financial institution that has connections, directly or indirectly, with the "federal reserve system," chances are VERY good you have an obligation with respect to the "federal income tax system." If you are an employee of a business entity that has an account with such financial institution, then chances are VERY good you have an obligation with respect to the "federal income tax system." To focus ANYwhere else to continue to miss the foundational operating principles of this particular system.

In these T-Bow case pleadings, the "United States Government" admits nothing, and the "United States" assures us that the IRS IS an "agency" of the United States.

Harmon L Taylor - holmes221@earthlink.net
(Dallas, Texas)


Hey You guys-

Check this out, the US Gov. admits the IRS is not a Gov. Agency.

http://www.lawresearch-registry.org/irsnara0.htm