Strike Back

READ THE FINE PRINT.

Unanswered Questions - Answered by the IRS

by Paul Revere

Government propaganda convinced me to verify what any government agency alleges when speaking authoritatively whether it be the state or federal government. Usually they're wrong or at best - misleading. [emphasis added throughtout]

Do you know what you've signed?

How many of us have the time to read the "fine print"?

I have it in writing from the IRS that the penalty jurat we all sign on a 1040 form is in the form of 28 U.S.C. 1746(2)**. This is a clear admission that we are signing something that we have probably never read or never taken the time to look up and understand exactly what it is we were signing. Haven't we always been told to "read the fine print"? Perhaps it's time to return to basics. Since the Code was written by lawyers it is of necessity that we understand just what it is we are signing.

The fine print.

Can you be compelled to sign something that simply is not true?

__

Where do you live? "within" or "without" the United States?

Be careful how you answer that before you sign another federal form!

United States Code

TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART V - PROCEDURE CHAPTER 115 - EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY

Sec. 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)** If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in title 8 sections 1183a, 1225, 1357; title 10 section 931; title 18 sections 152, 1546, 1621, 1623; title 25 section 399.

NOTE WELL the use of the colon after United States in (1) and the use of the comma in (2).

The colon (:) is a formal mark of punctuation. It has two functions only: to introduce and to seperate. As a mark of introduction, the colon introduces formal quotations, restatements or clarifying examples, and lists or enumerations. As a mark of seperation, the colon seperates the salutation in a formal letter from the main body of the letter, titles from subtitles, scenes of plays from acts, etc. A colon is used to introduce a formal quotation.

Franklin D. Roosevelt said: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

The comma (,) is a comparatively weak but subtle mark of punctuation. It is used- and misused- more frequently than any other punctuation mark. This is because the comma has such varied functions. Chiefly, it introduces, seperates, and encloses. In addition, it indicates omission.

None of these functions is performed by the comma with the authority or finality of such marks as the colon, semicolon, or dash. All the comma indicates is a mild pause, hence its subtle, elusive nature.

Can information provided by an individual on a tax form be used against that individual in a criminal proceeding? Does it matter if you've signed it under the conditions set forth above? Do you think it might just matter which jurat you are signing?

What is the extent of U.S. jurisdiction? Does it extend beyond the geographical limits of U.S. territory? For the sake of argument, does it really matter IF you've signed your name on a legally binding contract? Even if it is contrary to the truth?

The Supreme Court established years ago there are three distinct uses (definitions) of "United States".

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.

[1]It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

[2]** It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or

[3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

See Langdell, "The Status of our New Territories," 12 Harv. L. Rev. 365, 371; see also Thayer, "Our New Possessions," 12 Harv. L. Rev. 464; Thayer, "The Insular Tariff Cases in the Supreme Court," 15 Harv. L. Rev. 164; Littlefield, "The Insular Cases," 15 Harv. L. Rev. 169, 281.

That our dependencies, acquired by cession as the result of our war with Spain, are territories belonging to, but not a part of, the Union of states under the Constitution, was long since established by a series of decisions in this Court beginning with The Insular Tax Cases in 1901; De Lima v. Bidwell, supra; Dooley v. United States, supra, 182 U.S. 222; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244; Dooley v. United States, 183 U.S. 151; and see also Public Utility Commissioners v. Ynchausti & Co., 251 U.S. 401, 406-407; Balzac v. Porto Rico, supra. This status has ever since been maintained in the practical construction of the Constitution by all the agencies of our government in dealing with our insular possessions. It is no longer doubted that the United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by § 3 of Article IV of the Constitution "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Dooley v. United States, supra, 183 U.S. at 157; Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 149; Balzac v. Porto Rico, supra, 305; Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308, 323.

HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO

The Court, in Hooven supra, indicated that this was the last time it would address the issue; it would just be judicially noticed.

"In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States. See Downes v. Bidwell, supra; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197; Dorr v. United States, supra; Dowdell v. United States, 221 U.S. 325, 332; Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91, 98; Public Utility Commissioners v. Ynchausti & Co., supra, 406-407; Balzac v. Porto Rico, supra.

And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guaranties applicable. See Balzac v. Porto Rico, supra."

Lands are either within the sovereign power of the United States or are outside and beyond that power.

As I mentioned above, the answers are quite obvious when you understand the truth of what the IRS has admitted. Signing a 1040 in the form of 28 U.S.C. 1746(2) is a statement that the IRS will take as "prima facie" true as a legal "presumption" unless or until refuted. Perhaps you've heard stories of why a judge will find you in contempt of court for raising "Constitutional" arguments? Now perhaps the answer is a bit clearer.

THE ADMISSION

Paul Revere is not a lawyer and does not have any formal education in law. He does know how to read however. And since the Law is suppose to be written in terms the average person can understand, lest it fails for being "void for vagueness", Paul Revere has spent the last several years researching the IRS, the Law, regulations, etc... wording questions in such a way that the IRS won't take their pat stand by responding, "this appears to be a frivolous tax law question..." blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum, he has been successful in getting them to admit certain things that in turn WILL be used against them. The tide has turned. The time has arrived. The extortionist Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) end is near. Rejoice, for I have seen the light

Independence Hall

The technique is similar to the pollsters. They will ask a question a certain way to get their desired results. Paul Revere is no different in this regard except that his questions are most likely much more relevant and important than any politically motivated poll could possibly hope to be.

Paul Revere's Truth site