Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturboTue, 30 Oct 2012 20:23:04
MAJOR SUPREME CT LAWSUIT AGAINST
COMMISSIONER OF IRS--and--
THE 1st and 2nd IN COMMAND AT IRS RESIGN
IRS--and--THE 1st and 2nd IN COMMAND AT IRS RESIGN
Case is attached!
Major lawsuit against the Commissioner of
International (typo? must be) Revenue now in
the U.S. Supreme Court,
and,
The First and Second in Command at the IRS have Resigned...
Commissioner Doug Shulman steps down
IRS Deputy Commissioner Mark Ernst Resigns
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 12-6169
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Jeffrey T. Maehr - PETITIONER, Pro se
vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue - RESPONDENT
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 10TH CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Jeffrey T. Maehr
SEE ATTACHED. (or in following e-mail)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Case # 12-6169
1. Is Respondent's "income" tax scheme a "Direct," or "Indirect," tax, or is there some other lawful taxation form as yet undeclared by the courts, that counters standing case law? (P. 8)
2. Does the Respondent have the lawful and constitutional authority to presume to define "income" as to include "all that comes in," and to include wages, salary or compensation for services, contrary to this honorable court's previous rulings? (P. 10)
3. Can the Respondent violate the Paperwork Reduction Act in claiming that Petitioner, or any American, is lawfully "required" to file a 1040 form that is labeled a "bootleg" form by Congress if it fails the PRA? (P. 16).
4. Can Respondent be acting under the name "Internal Revenue Service," and be lawfully sending said deficiencies and other documents, using U.S. mail, to Petitioner or any other citizen, when the entity known as the "Internal Revenue Service" was lawfully "cancelled" by the Treasury Department in 2005? (P. 17).
5. Can Respondent/IRS be acting against Petitioner, or any state citizen, when it not a U.S. government agency which Respondent testifies to? (P. 18).
6. Can Respondent lawfully assess Petitioner for named years without a lawfully required assessment under 26 CFR 301.6203-1.3. Internal Revenue Manual 3(17)(63)(14).1: Account 6110 Tax Assessments, and form 23C? (P. 18)
7. Are the Supreme Court cases cited in this ongoing and longstanding case, along with other standing court cases and congressional testimony, "frivolous" and to be ignored and dismissed by Respondent and the lower courts without any evidence to support what and how they are frivolous, i.e. evidence in fact? (P. 19).
8. Should Respondent be responsible in knowing the laws it allegedly is following in assessing and declaring deficiencies, and taxing outside constitutional parameters... i.e. did Respondent know, or should have known, its own violations were being implemented via fraud? (P. 20)
9. Can Respondent and the Courts ignore standing and jurisdictional challenges when presented? (P. 21)
10. Can the Tax Court lawfully ignore a Motion for Clarification as to several relevant questions regarding jurisdiction, and Rule 34(b), so Petitioner had an opportunity to properly amend original petition, and respond to the motion to dismiss? (P. 22)
11. Can Respondent stand on hearsay and presumption alone, providing no IR Code law as evidence to prove Petitioner, or anyone, is personally required to file a 1040 form? (P. 23)
12. Can Respondent and the named courts deprive Petitioner of due process of law in the right to be heard on all evidence and challenges presented? (P. 25)
13. Can Petitioner file A 1040 information form and NOT be willingly giving up his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate? (P. 27)
14. Can Respondent and the Tax Court NOT be required to provide proper Notice of Service of Order and Judgement to Petitioner or citizens? (P. 27)
15. Is Petitioner made a 14th Amendment citizen by Respondent through hearsay and presumption, thereby bringing him under Respondent's jurisdiction? (P. 28)
16. Is Petitioner lawfully allowed to call Petitioner "tax protestor" and other such biased and disparaging labels as they have? (P. 29)
17. Can Respondent, through hearsay and presumption, label Petitioner as a "taxpayer" and under color of some unnamed tax law, without proof of same? (P. 30)
18. Does Respondent have the lawful, constitutional right to be attempting to force Petitioner to financially support projects, and funding for same, which violate his conscience, and against hisreligious beliefs and practices? (P. 30)
19. Can the Tax Court and Appeals Court reject new evidence proving Petitioner's positions in defending himself? (P. 32)
20. Can Respondent file a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien," and it being filed as an actual "tax lien," and NOT provide Petitioner proper "Due Process Hearing" as required by law, but still remove funds from Petitioner's bank account? (P. 33)
AND,
http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-first-and-second-in-command-at-irs.html
The First and Second in Command at the IRS have Resigned...
Hmmmmm.....what's cookin' in the US Treasury? -AK
Courtesy of Rumor Mail News
http://goo.gl/cxXtk
IRS names acting commissioner, Doug Shulman
steps down
Reuters
The Internal Revenue Service said on Wednesday that Steven Miller will become acting head of the tax agency after Doug Shulman, the present commissioner, steps down on November 9.
Shulman had been expected to resign at the end of his term in early November as head of the 104,000-employee agency that each year collects trillions of dollars in federal tax revenue and enforces the nation's complex tax laws.
Miller, IRS deputy commissioner for services and enforcement since September 2009, is a 25-year veteran of the agency.
The IRS leadership change comes ahead of a turbulent period, with Congress facing several major decisions on taxes as part of the "fiscal cliff" events at year-end. Tax experts have said that delays in issuing tax refunds could result next year.
Miller's top challenge will be "navigating next year's filing season," said Kevin Brown, a principal at Big Four accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP who was an IRS acting commissioner for several months in 2007.
"This is the worst set of circumstances that I can remember with the 'fiscal cliff' looming," Brown said, but added that with Miller on the job, "the IRS is in very good hands."
The commissioner's post is a presidential appointment subject to Senate confirmation.
Shulman, a Democrat appointed to the post under Republican President George W. Bush, has served since March 2008. The IRS did not provide details about Shulman's next career move.
Before Shulman was confirmed by the Senate at the start of his term, the IRS was led by two acting commissioners over a transition period of more than nine months.
The previous Senate-confirmed commissioner was Mark Everson, who stepped down in May 2007.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner praised Miller as a "dedicated career public servant." The Treasury Department oversees the IRS.
Treasury and IRS did not say when a nominee for commissioner would be announced. That decision hinges on the outcome of the November 6 presidential election
IRS Deputy Commissioner Mark Ernst Resigns
http://goo.gl/Ls5AX
WASHINGTON, D.C.
OCTOBER 21, 2010
BY WEBCPA STAFF
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AquV3Luqc94/UINQ6p1j6II/AAAAAAAACLQ/16o4TOzbFnM/s1600/IRS-markernst.jpg
Mark Ernst, the former chairman and CEO of H&R Block who went on to become deputy commissioner for operations support at the Internal Revenue Service, will be leaving the IRS later this year, according to an announcement Thursday by IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman.
Ernst joined the IRS last year after having been chairman and CEO of H&R Block from 1998 to 2007. He left Block to head the venture capital firm Bellevue Capital for two years before joining the IRS.
"Mark has been a most valued, respected and dedicated member of my leadership team, and he brought a unique perspective and focus to some of our most important initiatives, such as technology modernization, cybersecurity, financial management and workforce issues," said Shulman. "I want to thank him for his strong contributions to the nation's tax system, and he will be deeply missed by all of those who had the opportunity to work with him.
Shulman noted that Ernst plans to return to the private sector. Succeeding him as deputy commissioner for operations support will be Beth Tucker, who currently serves as deputy commissioner for support in the IRS's Wage & Income division.
Subject: SUPREMES DOCKET INCOME TAX CHALLENGE
SUPREMES DOCKET INCOME TAX CHALLENGE
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/supremes-docket-income-tax-challenge/
WND EXCLUSIVE
SUPREMES DOCKET INCOME TAX CHALLENGE
Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count
by Bob Unruh
Published: 15 hours ago Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases. But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate –has docketed exactly that type of case.
The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.
Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.
Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.
He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.
In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”
WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.
Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.
Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.
“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.
“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”
Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”
Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.
MAJOR SUPREME CT LAWSUIT AGAINST
COMMISSIONER OF IRS--and--
THE 1st and 2nd IN COMMAND AT IRS RESIGN
IRS--and--THE 1st and 2nd IN COMMAND AT IRS RESIGN
Case is attached!
Major lawsuit against the Commissioner of
International (typo? must be) Revenue now in
the U.S. Supreme Court,
and,
The First and Second in Command at the IRS have Resigned...
Commissioner Doug Shulman steps down
IRS Deputy Commissioner Mark Ernst Resigns
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 12-6169
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Jeffrey T. Maehr - PETITIONER, Pro se
vs.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue - RESPONDENT
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, 10TH CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Jeffrey T. Maehr
SEE ATTACHED. (or in following e-mail)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Case # 12-6169
1. Is Respondent's "income" tax scheme a "Direct," or "Indirect," tax, or is there some other lawful taxation form as yet undeclared by the courts, that counters standing case law? (P. 8)
2. Does the Respondent have the lawful and constitutional authority to presume to define "income" as to include "all that comes in," and to include wages, salary or compensation for services, contrary to this honorable court's previous rulings? (P. 10)
3. Can the Respondent violate the Paperwork Reduction Act in claiming that Petitioner, or any American, is lawfully "required" to file a 1040 form that is labeled a "bootleg" form by Congress if it fails the PRA? (P. 16).
4. Can Respondent be acting under the name "Internal Revenue Service," and be lawfully sending said deficiencies and other documents, using U.S. mail, to Petitioner or any other citizen, when the entity known as the "Internal Revenue Service" was lawfully "cancelled" by the Treasury Department in 2005? (P. 17).
5. Can Respondent/IRS be acting against Petitioner, or any state citizen, when it not a U.S. government agency which Respondent testifies to? (P. 18).
6. Can Respondent lawfully assess Petitioner for named years without a lawfully required assessment under 26 CFR 301.6203-1.3. Internal Revenue Manual 3(17)(63)(14).1: Account 6110 Tax Assessments, and form 23C? (P. 18)
7. Are the Supreme Court cases cited in this ongoing and longstanding case, along with other standing court cases and congressional testimony, "frivolous" and to be ignored and dismissed by Respondent and the lower courts without any evidence to support what and how they are frivolous, i.e. evidence in fact? (P. 19).
8. Should Respondent be responsible in knowing the laws it allegedly is following in assessing and declaring deficiencies, and taxing outside constitutional parameters... i.e. did Respondent know, or should have known, its own violations were being implemented via fraud? (P. 20)
9. Can Respondent and the Courts ignore standing and jurisdictional challenges when presented? (P. 21)
10. Can the Tax Court lawfully ignore a Motion for Clarification as to several relevant questions regarding jurisdiction, and Rule 34(b), so Petitioner had an opportunity to properly amend original petition, and respond to the motion to dismiss? (P. 22)
11. Can Respondent stand on hearsay and presumption alone, providing no IR Code law as evidence to prove Petitioner, or anyone, is personally required to file a 1040 form? (P. 23)
12. Can Respondent and the named courts deprive Petitioner of due process of law in the right to be heard on all evidence and challenges presented? (P. 25)
13. Can Petitioner file A 1040 information form and NOT be willingly giving up his 5th Amendment right to not self-incriminate? (P. 27)
14. Can Respondent and the Tax Court NOT be required to provide proper Notice of Service of Order and Judgement to Petitioner or citizens? (P. 27)
15. Is Petitioner made a 14th Amendment citizen by Respondent through hearsay and presumption, thereby bringing him under Respondent's jurisdiction? (P. 28)
16. Is Petitioner lawfully allowed to call Petitioner "tax protestor" and other such biased and disparaging labels as they have? (P. 29)
17. Can Respondent, through hearsay and presumption, label Petitioner as a "taxpayer" and under color of some unnamed tax law, without proof of same? (P. 30)
18. Does Respondent have the lawful, constitutional right to be attempting to force Petitioner to financially support projects, and funding for same, which violate his conscience, and against hisreligious beliefs and practices? (P. 30)
19. Can the Tax Court and Appeals Court reject new evidence proving Petitioner's positions in defending himself? (P. 32)
20. Can Respondent file a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien," and it being filed as an actual "tax lien," and NOT provide Petitioner proper "Due Process Hearing" as required by law, but still remove funds from Petitioner's bank account? (P. 33)
AND,
http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-first-and-second-in-command-at-irs.html
The First and Second in Command at the IRS have Resigned...
Hmmmmm.....what's cookin' in the US Treasury? -AK
Courtesy of Rumor Mail News
http://goo.gl/cxXtk
IRS names acting commissioner, Doug Shulman
steps down
Reuters
The Internal Revenue Service said on Wednesday that Steven Miller will become acting head of the tax agency after Doug Shulman, the present commissioner, steps down on November 9.
Shulman had been expected to resign at the end of his term in early November as head of the 104,000-employee agency that each year collects trillions of dollars in federal tax revenue and enforces the nation's complex tax laws.
Miller, IRS deputy commissioner for services and enforcement since September 2009, is a 25-year veteran of the agency.
The IRS leadership change comes ahead of a turbulent period, with Congress facing several major decisions on taxes as part of the "fiscal cliff" events at year-end. Tax experts have said that delays in issuing tax refunds could result next year.
Miller's top challenge will be "navigating next year's filing season," said Kevin Brown, a principal at Big Four accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP who was an IRS acting commissioner for several months in 2007.
"This is the worst set of circumstances that I can remember with the 'fiscal cliff' looming," Brown said, but added that with Miller on the job, "the IRS is in very good hands."
The commissioner's post is a presidential appointment subject to Senate confirmation.
Shulman, a Democrat appointed to the post under Republican President George W. Bush, has served since March 2008. The IRS did not provide details about Shulman's next career move.
Before Shulman was confirmed by the Senate at the start of his term, the IRS was led by two acting commissioners over a transition period of more than nine months.
The previous Senate-confirmed commissioner was Mark Everson, who stepped down in May 2007.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner praised Miller as a "dedicated career public servant." The Treasury Department oversees the IRS.
Treasury and IRS did not say when a nominee for commissioner would be announced. That decision hinges on the outcome of the November 6 presidential election
IRS Deputy Commissioner Mark Ernst Resigns
http://goo.gl/Ls5AX
WASHINGTON, D.C.
OCTOBER 21, 2010
BY WEBCPA STAFF
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AquV3Luqc94/UINQ6p1j6II/AAAAAAAACLQ/16o4TOzbFnM/s1600/IRS-markernst.jpg
Mark Ernst, the former chairman and CEO of H&R Block who went on to become deputy commissioner for operations support at the Internal Revenue Service, will be leaving the IRS later this year, according to an announcement Thursday by IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman.
Ernst joined the IRS last year after having been chairman and CEO of H&R Block from 1998 to 2007. He left Block to head the venture capital firm Bellevue Capital for two years before joining the IRS.
"Mark has been a most valued, respected and dedicated member of my leadership team, and he brought a unique perspective and focus to some of our most important initiatives, such as technology modernization, cybersecurity, financial management and workforce issues," said Shulman. "I want to thank him for his strong contributions to the nation's tax system, and he will be deeply missed by all of those who had the opportunity to work with him.
Shulman noted that Ernst plans to return to the private sector. Succeeding him as deputy commissioner for operations support will be Beth Tucker, who currently serves as deputy commissioner for support in the IRS's Wage & Income division.
Subject: SUPREMES DOCKET INCOME TAX CHALLENGE
SUPREMES DOCKET INCOME TAX CHALLENGE
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/supremes-docket-income-tax-challenge/
WND EXCLUSIVE
SUPREMES DOCKET INCOME TAX CHALLENGE
Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count
by Bob Unruh
Published: 15 hours ago Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases. But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate –has docketed exactly that type of case.
The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.
Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.
Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.
Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.
He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.
In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”
WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.
Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.
Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.
Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.
“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.
“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”
A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”
Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”
Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.
