Title 5 APA

[Futop123]

Hi all,

I was going to try and post this on the Lost Horizons forum but my registration has not been accepted yet.

Anyway, I have read through a lot of the topics/posts in this forum and I cannot understand why everyone is so much into deciphering Title 26 and using procedures in same.

The remedy is in Title 5 Administrative Procedures Act specifically 5 usc 702 and 5 usc 556(d). Title 26 is for "taxpayers" and until such material fact evidence of such status has been presented to you, it would be wise to stay out of that Title. MAKE THEM PROVE EVERYTHING (i.e. 5 usc 556(d)) and that EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW (i.e. 5 usc 702) NOT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW in TAX COURT OR USDC. Make them prove In Personam Jurisdiction! One must go to the Article III Court of Appeals!

Go to this group and join. The guy that owns the group vivus_spartacus is one of the most intelligent guys I have ever met. You will not be sorry you did.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_great_debate/

###############################################

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-app ... 27/305399/
Harco Holdings, Inc. v. United States of America, 977 F.2d 1027 (7th Circuit 1992)

"We will avoid the customary appellation for opponents of the IRS, "taxpayer."
Like referring to a defendant as "Criminal," it assumes the conclusion"

#############################################3

C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n.,
100 F.2d 18, at 29 (1939)

"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person, trust or
estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.  ...Since the statutory
definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the
power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions
of the Revenue Acts..."

##################################################

Long v. Rasmussen,
281 F. 236, at 238

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.
They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of
their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

##################################################

Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S.,
470 F.2d 585, at 589

"(P)ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by
following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refunds."
[Economy Plumbing and Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, at 589]

“We so held in the case of Ray v. United States, 453 F.2d 754, 197 Ct. Cl. at 9. (1972), when we said:

FN3.  The term “taxpayer” in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by
the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal
income tax.  (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.)  A “nontaxpayer” is a
person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.

##################################################

Botta v. Scanlon,
288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... 563_1.html
@ 24

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax
official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the
statutes as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of
this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property
is seized..."
[Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)]

[Futop123]

First of all, his case never went to trial. He was served an indictment for civil AND criminal violations.

The case never went to trial because he could prove that the USDC did not have criminal jurisdiction via 18 usc 3231 like they claim. They sure as hell weren't going to let that get out. He has given a few of us on the group the research he used to prove such and I have personally verified it. There is more to it but I'm not going to get into it here. If you want to know more, you ask him.

Go to the group and read posts 3866; 3295; 1837; 1645. That would be a good start.

Also, what Court did you try and use 5 usc 556(d) and 5 usc 702. Judicial review can only be obtained in the Courts of Appeals and the USSC. USDC is strictly administrative/equity.

Even getting the judicial review in the CoA is a pain as I am currently finding out but I have not given up.