Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III)
 
(Blog Master’s Note: All but a few states have income tax, all the the state statutes on income tax are in brackets.  Austin provides the example for Oregon, but the general form, names changed, state changed, would halt the weasels in there tracks. 

Mary Croft has an excellent online book out that discusses implimenting regulations missing in statutes, but Austin shows you how you know and how to fight back.)
 
From: C/o [address in brackets] South Road
City, State [zip code in brackets]
By: [Frank] Clann [England]To: Barbara A. Mitchell
Admin Specialist
 
Oregon
PTAC Bend Field Office
DEPARTMENT OF
RE-VENUE______
955 Center Street NE
Salem OR 97301-2555
Re: Unexecuted instruments #63205075, #6320506 and #6320507

 As best as I can determine, the appearance and the manner in which the presented instruments are crafted, gives the appearance that the underlying intent is an attempt to eventually “sell” (transfer the initial offer) of a private statute that cannot by the said statutes nature be unilaterally enforced due to the underlying contractual nature of said offer. Whereas the yet to be unidentified statute apparently seeking to be “transferred” at some point in the near future would naturally have to go to specificity regarding said statutes intent as regards the private for profit nature of said unidentified statute. And as already noted, would apply to all commercial transactions made by any corporate department of the quasi federal corporate municipal government. (See the Buck Act) Said corporate mercantile structure aka Civil Government also referenced as “this state” for commercial gain and other purposes. The above referenced presented instruments being wholly controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code for both transactional and fraudulently induced presumptive jurisdictional purposes when and where applicable.

Considering the “agent”, a one Barbara A. Mitchell who apparently tendered these three presented negotiable instruments making the offer to myself to “Prove a Negative” in each of the boilerplate presentment to wit: “If you were not required to file a return, you must provide information to show why.” I will go her one better with a counter offer, and she can rebut my understanding in the negative going directly to the subject matter and with specificity . . .

AFFIDAVIT OF NEGATIVE AVEREMENT

Is it not true ?

1). The Power to Define “this state” a defacto for profit corporation as in the airspace above the organic State “this state” (in the airspace above) or “the (organic) State” (on the land below) . Commercial, De facto, Territorial association, business or state as opposed to an organic State of the Union; Cf. Alter ego; De facto officer doctrine; Joint ventures; Legislative Courts doctrine; Penal codes; Political jurisdictions; Ultra vires; ORS 131.205 [1973 c.836 §13] Note the Brackets in pairs (Definition for ORS 131.205 to 131.235) (As used in ORS 131.205 to 131.235, this” state” means the [fictitious] land and water and the air space above the [substantive] Land and Water with respect to which the”State of Oregon [being the land] has legislative jurisdiction.) The above referenced nature of the “elective” choice to join or not join with “this state” for commercial purposes is addressed within the Clearfield Doctrine, citing;

CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE

 “Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen. This entity cannot compel performance upon its corporate statute or rules unless it, like any other corporation or person is the holder-in-due course of some contract or commercial agreement between it and the party upon whom the payment and performance are made and thereby, willing to produce said documents and place the same evidence before trying to enforce its demands called statutes.” 
 For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.  ” Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper (securities) are concerned]”. . .

“For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity ENTIRELY separate from government.” Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24
If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax

All applicable implementing regulations re this instant matter going to the question of [requirement] as referenced within Chapter 316 have been omitted – SEE BELOW

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

The Implementing Regulations of 316.002 have been Omitted @ 316.002 belowOregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.002 – Short title.

This chapter may be cited as the Personal Income Tax Act of 1969. [1969 c.493 §1; 1995 c.79 §164] Implementing Regulations Omitted! (Section 316.002 does not exist without a knowing voluntary “Election”, “Joinder” or “Traverse”.)

Unilateral enforcement is not an option and should presumptive enforcement in fact be exercised, such action under Reservation of Rights @ UCC 1-308 goes to TITLE 18 – CHAPTER 81 PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING. More specifically Robbery Ashore @ sec. 1661 absent Letter(s) of marque and reprisal issued by a monarchial interest.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

TERMS OF ART/LAW APPLICABLE TO CHAPTER 316

Is it not true ?
The Implementing Regulations of 316.012 have been Omitted @ 316.012 belowOregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.012 –Terms have same meaning as in federal laws; federal law references.

Any term used in this chapter has the same meaning as when used in a comparable context in the laws of the United States relating to federal income taxes, unless a different meaning is clearly required or the term is specifically defined in this chapter. Except where the Legislative Assembly has provided otherwise, any reference in this chapter to the laws of the United States or to the Internal Revenue Code refers to the laws of the United States or to the Internal Revenue Code as they are amended and in effect:

(1) On December 31, 2006; or

(2) If related to the definition of taxable income, as applicable to the tax year of the taxpayer. [1969 c.493 §3; 1971 s.s. c.4 §2; 1975 c.672 §3; 1983 c.162 §59; 1985 c.802 §1; 1987 c.293 §2; 1989 c.625 §2; 1991 c.457 §1; 1993 c.726 §27; 1995 c.556 §1; 1997 c.839 §1; 1999 c.224 §7; 2001 c.660 §35; 2003 c.77 §14; 2005 c.519 §9; 2005 c.832 §27; 2007 c.614 §12] The Implementing regulations have been omitted, note the “Pairs of Brackets”!

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!
See the Rules of Style below as those rules apply to this instant matter and the treatment of the regulatory statute(s) when relegated to “Pairs of Brackets”:

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE Style Manual
2008 Publication. . . Page 198 – Chapter 8 . . . (The use of) Pairs of Brackets  8.20. In Bills, Contracts, etc. to indicate matter that is to be omittedGovernment Printing Office Style Manual

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

 Is it not true?

In this particular instance, the controlling factor cannot avoid the necessity of any offered transaction going to contract/aka election and of course under the Natural Right, goes to Title III sec 2 regarding valuable consideration for all parties concerned should controversy arise.

This observation would out of necessity be due to the said statutes private for profit nature giving cause to omit the implementing regulations as noted above and of course due to the profit motive. Whereas, the intent would be held to have to be a “selling” (or “Transfer” of the offered statute by the transferor/agent while acting in the nature of a Law Merchant. Whereas, at this point and relying on withholding or disclosure of the operation of law that attaches to such transactions, the herein referenced process appears to be for the sole purpose to illicit a coerced or fraudulent “election” or joinder, i.e. traverse while at all times employing “scanter” to cause a coerced re-venue while relying on an unfolding intent to move forward with fraud in the inducement. The apparent intent of Barbara A. Mitchell is for the apparent sole purpose to further presume to acquire a jurisdictional nexus where none presently exists nor has ever existed, and while at all times the aforesaid Barbara A. Mitchell’s intent would appear to employ follow up presentment(s) going to the nature of “Stalking” by administrative process in reliance on the U.S. mails. Whereas, such ongoing process would be moving deeper into what is termed “Simulated Legal Process”. Such apparent intent being to summarily move this aforesaid instant matter which was initially offered as a rather benign intent to cause an uninformed voluntary submission to the aforesaid request concluded within the summary administrative process of the “Prize courts of commerce” and thereby declaring the department “has established a jurisdictionl nexus”, which would in fact conclude proof of the below referenced Simulated Legal Process going to “Plunder” ashore and other purposes.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

PURSUANT TO THE JUDICIAL ACT OF 1789

There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. ( Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co.,
 281 US 464, Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178)

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES!

Is it not true ?

The Use of Simulated Legal Process

ORS 162.355[1971 c.743 s.210; 1997 c.395 s.1] (Simulating legal process) (1) A person commits the crime of simulating legal process if the person knowingly issues or delivers to another person any document that in form and substance falsely simulates civil or criminal process. (2) As used in this section: (a) “Civil or criminal process” means a document or order, including, but not limited to, a summons, lien, complaint, warrant, injunction, writ, notice, pleading or subpoena, that is issued by a court or that is filed or recorded for the purpose of: (A) Exercising jurisdiction; (B) Representing a claim against a person or property; (C) Directing a person to appear before a court or tribunal; or (D) Directing a person to perform or refrain from performing a specified act. (b) “Person” has the meaning given that term in ORS 161.015, except that in relation to a defendant, “person” means a human being, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association or a partnership. (3) Simulating legal process is a Class C felony.

Whereas: The statutes at Chapter 316 and by their nature apparently do not support unilateral enforcement, but require what would be termed an “Election” to participate voluntarily it what Barbara A. Mitchell references in her unilateral presentment as ” . . . the above tax program.” Note the “elective” nature of the private for profit statutes below addressing several applicable sections of Chapter 316 as said statutes address the afore referenced tax program.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

“RESIDENT” IS THE DIMINISHED STATUS OR TERM FOR COMMERCIAL AND OTHER PURPOSES AND IS APPARENTLY WHOLLY ELECTIVE

The Implementing Regulations of 316.027 have been Omitted @ 316.027 below

Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.027“Resident” defined.

(1) For purposes of this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) “Resident” or “resident of this state” means:
(A) An individual who is domiciled in this state unless the individual:
(i) Maintains no permanent place of abode in this state;
(ii) Does maintain a permanent place of abode elsewhere; and
(iii) Spends in the aggregate not more than 30 days in the taxable year in this state; or
(B) An individual who is not domiciled in this state but maintains a permanent place of abode in this state and spends in the aggregate more than 200 days of the taxable year in this state unless the individual proves that the individual is in the state only for a temporary or transitory purpose.
(b) “Resident” or “resident of this state” does not include:
(A) An individual who is a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code for the tax year;
(B) A spouse of a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, if the spouse has a principal place of abode for the tax year that is not located in this state; or
(C) A resident alien under section 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code who would be considered a qualified individual under section 911(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code if the resident alien were a citizen of the United States.
(2) For purposes of subsection (1)(a)(B) of this section, a fraction of a calendar day shall be counted as a whole day. [1969 c.493 §8; 1987 c.158 §49; 1995 c.79 §165; 1999 c.1096 §1] Regulations omitted see the Pairs of Brackets above . . . Not a unilaterally enforceable statute.

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AS FEDERAL POLICY

The Implementing Regulations of 316.032 have been Omitted @ 316.032 below

Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income TaxSection 316.032 – Department to administer law; policy as to federal conflicts and technical corrections.

(1) The Department of Revenue shall administer and enforce this chapter.
(2) Insofar as is practicable in the administration of this chapter, the department shall apply and follow the administrative and judicial interpretations of the federal income tax law. When a provision of the federal income tax law is the subject of conflicting opinions by two or more federal courts, the department shall follow the rule observed by the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue until the conflict is resolved. Nothing contained in this section limits the right or duty of the department to audit the return of any taxpayer or to determine any fact relating to the tax liability of any taxpayer.
(3) When portions of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated by reference as provided in ORS 316.007 or 316.012 refer to rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, then such rules or regulations shall be regarded as rules adopted by the department under and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, whenever they are prescribed or amended.
(4)(a) When portions of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated by reference as provided in ORS 316.007 or 316.012 are later corrected by an Act or a Title within an Act of the United States Congress designated as an Act or Title making technical corrections, then notwithstanding the date that the Act or Title becomes law, those portions of the Internal Revenue Code, as so corrected, shall be the portions of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated by reference as provided in ORS 316.007 or 316.012 and shall take effect, unless otherwise indicated by the Act or Title (in which case the provisions shall take effect as indicated in the Act or Title), as if originally included in the provisions of the Act being technically corrected. If, on account of this subsection, any adjustment is required to an Oregon return that would otherwise be prevented by operation of law or rule, the adjustment shall be made, notwithstanding any law or rule to the contrary, in the manner provided under ORS 314.135.
(b) As used in this subsection, “Act or Title” includes any subtitle, division or other part of an Act or Title. [1969 c.493 §10; 1985 c.802 §1a; 1987 c.293 §5; 1997 c.839 §3] Regulations omitted!

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is:YES!

Is it not true ?

The Implementing Regulations of 316.048 have been Omitted @ 316.048 below

Oregon Statutes – Chapter 316 – Personal Income Tax – Section 316.048 – Taxable income of resident.

The entire taxable income of a resident of this state is the federal taxable income of the resident as defined in the laws of the United States, with the modifications, additions and subtractions provided in this chapter and other laws of this state applicable to personal income taxation. [Formerly 316.062; 1999 c.580 §4] Regulations Omitted!

If no substantive rebuttal is forthcoming, the answer is: YES! 

Is it not true ?

Advertisements