NOTICE OF FRAUD
CERTIFIED MAIL NO.
From:
To:
County Recorders in the State of Nevada file Notices of Federal Tax Liens as if they were actual liens. This violates a persons rights; to due process of law under the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution. County Recorders are acting as judge, court and jury and in so doing are impersonating public officials.
County Recorders in Nevada are elected officials that are required by law to take an Oath to uphold the Constitution of Nevada and the United States.
County Recorders routinely violate their Oath of Office. They say that they are required under federal law to file these notices as liens because of the supremacy clause. Some say that State and Federal Law require it. County Recorders by filing these Notices of Federal Tax Lien are perpetuating a fraud in violation of their Oath of Office.
Under the supremacy clause citizens are entitled to due process under the 5th amendment to the United States Constitution. A County Recorder cannot hold office and has no constitutional authority, if there is no obedience to their Oath of Office.
The federal government does not have any jurisdiction outside of the District of Colombia, the Territories, and Federal enclaves. The federal government does not have any authority in the Union States, such as Nevada.
The Internal Revenue Service is not a legitimate government bureau, agency, office or service of the federal government.
The Internal Revenue Service has no authority to collect taxes or enforce any laws of the United States.
According to the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Congress is the nations tax collector.
The Secretary of the Treasury is the nation's Accountant.
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is under the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, besides the office of Commissioner, there are 14 offices attached to, associated with, or under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, all located in the District of Colombia. Treasury Order 150-02, effective March 9th, 2001, canceled Treasury Order 150-01, which created 33 District and 4 Regional offices outside the District of Columbia,and effective as of March 9th, 2001, there have been no legitimate Internal Revenue offices outside of the District of Columbia, within the Union States.
Now, lets look at the relationship between the Internal Revenue Codes of 1986, 1954 and 1939. The 1986 Code is the reform Act of 1986 which reforms the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. (Exhibit 1) The 1954 Code (Exhibit 2) is a revision of the 1939 Code. Between 1939 and 1954 Congress revised or amended the 1939 Code 200 times. The 1986 and 1954 Codes have no legal force of law.
The Act of February 10th, 1939 (Exhibit 3) was "an Act to consolidate and codify the internal revenue laws." It was not meant to enact any new ones, merely to codify existing ones. Section 4 of the Act (53 Stat. 1) repealed "all laws and parts of laws relating exclusively to internal revenue", that were in force on January 2nd of that year, and codified within the Act. There followed certain "savings to suitors" provisions, to prevent the loss of rights arising under the repealed laws, but 1939 and following calendar years thereafter were not tax years. Although the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 is a Code of repealed laws, it is still a code of laws.
Congress might amend laws, or revise codes, but it does not revise laws. What did the Code of 1954 revise? Not the Code of 1939. Congress had not enacted any new internal revenue laws between 1939 and 1954, so the Code of 1954 is not a code of laws and neither is the Code of 1986. If anything the Code of 1954 is a code of all the illegal amendments to the 1939 Code, some 200 amendments, but it is not a code of laws. Amending repealed laws does not change the fact that they were repealed.
Amending the Code without amending the underlying Statute, leaves the law unchanged, and in this particular case, Congress could not amend the Code because it could not amend the underlying Statutes. Amending a code of laws that cannot be changed, because they were repealed, is absurd, and of no legal effect.
The difference between the Code of 1939 and 1954 is that the Code of l939 is a Code of laws. True, it is a code of repealed laws, but a code of laws nonetheless. They were "in force" only in specialized ways, but it could be said that they were in force, if only in a specialized way. By contrast, the Code of 1954 is not a code of laws in force that can be found in the Statutes at Large. It is not founded upon any statute, except the "statute" that created it. However, the law that created it did not create any new statutes. The Code of 1939 was ordered by the Act to be published alongside the Statutes at Large, in a separate Volume, (Exhibit 4) in the same fashion as the 1939 Code. Table III of the 1939 Act, which listed all the affected Statutes, became part of the law, as it directs the reader to the Statute that was repealed and codified. According to the source notes in the Code of 1954 (as amended) its only statutory authority is 68A Stat., the Act "to revise" the internal revenue laws. In other words, the Code of 1954 is not founded on a single "internal revenue law".
So, the Secretary of the Treasury is not the Nation's tax collector, he is the Nation's accountant. Congress is the Nations tax collector under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States. Congress MAY NOT delegate their authority under the Constitution to lay land collect taxes to the Executive branch either through the Internal Revenue Code or any other vehicle. However, the general impression is that Congress has delegated its taxing powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, and he in turn, has delegated his authority to collect taxes to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who in turn, has delegated his tax collecting authority to certain officers or agents in the Internal Revenue Service. This is not the case. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a bureaucrat, a supervisor, he is not a tax collector. This is borne out by Treasury orders 150-01 and 150-02.
The Secretary of the Treasury issued Treasury Order (TO) 150-01, first issued circa 1951, (Exhibit 5) and which, as amended, created 33 District offices and 4 Regional offices under or associated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It shows that the duty and authority to "collect" taxes was not vested in the Commissioner. It also shows that he had no real authority except for the "territories and possessions, and other areas of the world". (The Internal Revenue Service is international, It has offices all over the would.)
The general authority of the Commissioner, as expressed in TO 150-01, is as follows:
3. U.S. Territories and Possessions. "The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, to the extent of authority vested in the Commissioner, provide for the administration of the United States internal Revenue laws in the U.S. territories and insular possessions and other areas of the world". Notice, it does not say anything about States of the Union.
Now, in Puerto Rico, and perhaps other possessions the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico collects "internal Revenue" taxes which are deposited in the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Thus, it would appear that the Secretary of the Treasury mentioned in the questionable 1954 Code is under the Commissioner, in which case the term "the Secretary of the Treasury" in the Code cannot be the Secretary of the United States Treasury. The Secretary of the United States Treasury could not collect taxes without trespassing on the exclusive powers of Congress to do so. However, because the Commissioner is under the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, and IR Code 6301 says "The Secretary shall collect the taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Laws." the public get's the false impression that "the Secretary" means the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, not the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, or another similar Secretary, who answers to the Commissioner.
Be it as it may, the 33 District and 4 Regional offices established by TO 150-01 were abolished by the Secretary of the United States Treasury, Secretary O'Neill, effective March 9th, 2001, and 14 new offices were created in the District of Columbia.
There are no legitimate Internal Revenue Service offices under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue outside the District of Columbia, except perhaps in the territories and insular possessions.
In order to implement provisions of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (PRA 1998), Secretary O'Neill issued TO 150-02, (Exhibit 6) with an effective date of March 9th, 2001. The Order did three things: First, it established the following offices, all in the District of Columbia. 1. Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2. Deputy Commissioner, 3. Chief Counsel, 4. Chief Communications and Liaison Division, 5. National Taxpayer Advocate, 6. Chief Information Officer, 7. Chief Appeals Division, 8. National Headquarters, 9. Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division, 10. Commissioner, Small Business and Self-Employed Division, 11. Commissioner, Large and Mid Size Business Division, 12. Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, 13. Chief, Agency-Wide Shared Service Division, 14. Chief, Criminal Investigation Division.
Please note, there is no "Collection Division"! nor Internal Revenue Service office! And Second, Section 4 of TO 150-02 redefined the Commissioner's authority:
4. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. The Office of the Commissioner consists of the Commissioner; Deputy Commissioner; and Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner is the Chief executive officer for the Internal Revenue Service. The Commissioner is responsible for overall planning and for directing, controlling and evaluating IRS policies, programs and performance.
And Third, it canceled TO 150-01, and all offices it created.
18. CANCELLATIONS. Treasury Order 150-01, "Regional and District Offices of the Internal Revenue Service." Dated September 28th, 1995, is canceled. Treasury Order 150-02, "Establishment of Certain Offices in the National Office of the Internal Revenue Service," dated January 11th, 1994, is superseded.
After March 9th, 2001, the Commissioner ceased to have authority to operate offices outside of the District of Columbia. 4 U.S. C. 72 says that all offices attached to the seat of government are to be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as expressly provided otherwise by law. It would take an Act of Congress for the Secretary or Commissioner to open and operate offices outside the District of Columbia, and no such law exists. (If this is not the case, then the County Recorder should be able to provide the law which would allow the IRS to operate offices outside of the District of Columbia.) In point of fact, the Department of the Treasury is attached to the seat of government,and the same law (4 U.S.C. 72) applies to the whole Treasury Department.
Before the 1939 repeal of the Internal Revenue Laws, there were collectors, attached to the legislative branch. They were charged with the responsibility of collecting the revenue. They were heavily bonded. They were bound by Sworn Oath. They had capacity to sue and be sued in the name of the United States. They ceased to function with respect to calendar years after 1938. They do not exist in the Code of 1954. All executive power is vested in the President, and he is immune from lawsuits while in office, except for impeachments. Put another way, the executive branch lacks capacity to sue, unlike the legislative branch and its officers. Thus, neither the Secretary nor the commissioner can carry out the functions of a tax collector, because the whole executive branch of government lacks power to enforce laws by suing in the name of the United States, cannot be bonded, and are not bound by solemn Oath to collect taxes according to law.
So, the Act of 1939 repealed all the taxing statutes, and TO 150-02 canceled all the outlying Internal Revenue Service district and Regional Offices. And from what I can see no new IRS offices where created inside the District of Columbia. So, the only offices that could still exist would have to be in the Territories, Possessions or federal enclaves. And the Commissioner of Internal Revenue only has authority in the District of Columbia, Federal territories and possessions, not the Union States.
So, the questions the County Recorder needs to answer are from who and where did the Notices of Federal Tax Lien come from, are the individuals who issued these notices bonded and sworn by oath to collect taxes according to law? Are they part of the executive or legislative branch of government? What authority do they have outside of the District of Columbia? What authority do they have in the State of Nevada? And under what valid statute of law were the notices of federal tax lien issued and/or created? And what valid statute of law allows them to be legally filed?
Please provide me with a considered response, within a reasonable time period.
Dated:
Sincerely
______________________________
CC: County Sheriff
CC: County Board of Commissioners
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7