|In court? Need assistance? JurisDictionary|
by Pierre du Lac & Others
The following articles appeared over a period of time in The Midland News of Valentine, Nebraska.
Take control back. It's easy.
There is a saying often used when one runs their own business. "Your employees will never do what you expect - only what you inspect."
All the government employees from the lowest county dog catcher to the President works for you whether you pay taxes or not. They were either voted in by you and your neighbors or they were hired by those who were. They are there to do your bidding in service to you and the Constitution - not for themselves. And certainly they are not there to run your life as though you worked for them or are in service to them.
The way to watch your employees is through the Internet unless you want to sit in the office you provided your employees and watch them. A simple, inexpensive video camera placed in your employees' work place will be more effective than any number of Title 18 law suits. With these cameras in place you or any number of your neighbors can simply dial in and see if your employee is busy earning the money you pay them or out goofing off someplace. Are they talking fish stories or looking after your business?
The public buildings are yours. The public servants and their employees are yours. The tax money paid in is yours. The government owns nothing. It is all held in trust for your good and well being. How would you like to see it all being handled?
Why not get behind an effort to install cameras with microphones in classrooms where ostensibly your children are being given a questionable education in sex? How about in a court room? It is your court room not the judges' you know. How about in the judges' conference room? How about in your representatives' offices? How about in the city or county attorneys' offices? Or maybe even in the police cruisers to see what really goes on in the streets?
The bad government going on now can only operate in secrecy. The minute the light of public awareness is on them this insane socialistic/totalitarian government will cease almost over night.
If your employees resist your efforts to watch what they do with your money ask each of them what are they hiding? What are they afraid of? If they are honestly doing what they are hired and paid good money to do then they should have nothing to fear. Should they? If there is resistance you will then know you really do need these cameras installed and as soon as possible if not sooner.
An honest employee would do everything possible to see these cameras are installed so you would be comfortable knowing you hired good, upfront and honest people to work hard for you.
Pierre du Lac, 12/19/95
There was a big meeting a few days ago in the Cherry County Building with a lot of discussion about the Common Law. Pretty near 100 people there from all over the state and several other states as well. Wondering what this was all about I began to collect my own evidence to see if this promise of personal freedom was for real. What I found and now present to you is eye opening to say the least.
The foundation law and ultimate legal authority in this nation is the Constitution. It says in Article VII of our Bill of Rights:
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law."
This is a very impressive statement. My first question to myself was "Tried by jury? Where's the judge fit into a common law court?" "Does "any Court" mean what it sounds like - no court whatsoever?" Here is the foundation law of this country telling me about procedures within and about the common law. "Where can I get access to a Common Law Court so I can file a suit?" "If one loses one's case then there is no appeal?" "Where can I find out more about this Common Law business?"
Checking a little further a Colorado statute (13-25-106) was located which says:
"Every court of this state shall take notice of the common law..."
The first quote says "any Court" the second quote says "every Court". How clear can it be said the Common Law is a recognized part of our legal system?
The Constitution of the State of Iowa says:
"The District Court shall be a court of [common] law and equity, which shall be distinct and separate jurisdictions,..."
In a noted court case (People v Ballard, 155 NYS 2d 59) it was rendered:
"The Common Law is absolutely distinguished from the Roman or Civil (equity) Law systems."
After all this quality evidence even the brain-dead will have to admit acceptance of the indisputable fact of Common Law. Wonder why and how these Common Law Courts were hidden from the people? Do you suppose there are people who would benefit from these institutions not being around? Who would benefit from them if we had them? Why?
Our capital city is named after a famous President. He said:
"The people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts." Abraham Lincoln, February 12, 1865.
History and review of the American Constitution Law (Common Law), review of true Citizenship and explanations why America faces crisis after crisis. Written with common sense, down-to-earth suggestions for changes as a Nation and many things you can do on a personal level. Explains what is Common Law, Equity Law, Admiralty or Merchant Law and what these mean to you and your country. Contains a section on suggested and useful court briefs. 8.5" x 11" 141 pages.
Pierre du Lac, 12/8/95
With the cold blizzard of last week blowing through the holes in my jacket I was appreciative of the power company keeping the power on. How very tenuous is our control over our own lives. Next I thought about the groceries coming from all over this country and other countries as well. Indeed how little control we have over our own lives is very clear.
So why not give control over our property to others to manipulate as they see fit?
What the heck - others control our food supply and its quality. Isn't the nutritional quality improving with each passing year? You think it does? Aren't food prices going down?
Our health care is surrendered to another bunch of experts. We don't question them even though it seems like our health care is getting worse and we are spending more for it. No problem with relinquishing personal responsibility here is there?
We've turned our children over to other experts and they are coming out of school smarter and more capable than we did. Right? So why get concerned when others want to take over your rights to dictate to you how to use your own property? Certainly others can manage your ranch land better than you can.
Back in 1916 our money, which was gold and silver, was turned over to the expert bankers. We now have pretty green paper and zinc sandwiches for money. Some say everyone is now prospering while billions are given to the 'homeless' so they are not appearing to be destitute and an embarrassment. No problems here either with giving up our own responsibilities to others to watch after. They are doing a fine job, right?
Why would anyone complain or even hesitate about turning one's future over to "experts"? Isn't the President an expert in military affairs? Isn't he responsible when he sends thousands of our neighbors, brothers, children and fathers to stand between two warring nations? All this cackle about not being responsible or giving over to others what would be your future and welfare is just that - a bunch of hooey.
It is generally held, by those trying to convince others to give what they have to them, that any sign of hesitancy or any questioning of their past performance, history or motives is paranoia. It is quite obvious from history that everything the public has entrusted to the takers and managers has not been well taken care of. What's to be afraid of? There is nothing to worry about. In fact the takers can manage your property better than you can. History 'proves' this to be so.
Why do you hesitate to let a bureaucrat tell you what you can and can't do on and with your own property? Heck, let's all vote in zoning soon so we can begin enjoying all the benefits from allowing others to take care of the last remaining thing we have - our homes and ranches in preparation for the depopulation of rural America.
Pierre du Lac, 11/24/95
A friend of mine is a kind of high-tech type nerd. He gets a real far-out magazine from time to time called Photonics Spectra. This nearly unintelligible collection of science stuff is aimed at the laser and high-end chemistry and crystal crowd. It is said some of these guys and gals can actually understand some of the ten dollar science words used in it. While most of this stuff is fit for rocket scientists there was in the November, 1995 issue on page 184 an article even a cowpoke could bend his common sense around.
Seems somebody thinks cows eating sweet grass belch a nasty gas called methane (same stuff as swamp gas coming up from the bogs and wet meadows) into the air and this gas is consider (by them) to be hurtful for all the rest of us. They think changing from this one type of grass to a single mixture (undefined) of feed grain stinks less after having passed through a cow. Do you suppose these highly educated science types are beginning to figure out that it is not necessarily a good experience to stand behind or downwind from a cow? Fourteen years of college to learn what any three year old cowpoke knows from experience?
What? Gas from a cow smells better if it eats feed grain rather than grass? What actually smells worse - a cow pasture or a feedlot? There is grass in one and grain in the other. Maybe there's a hidden message here to vacate the ranges and put all the cows in feed lots?
All of this so-called research is funded with our money we entrusted to our government to serve us. None of these guys or gals has bothered to measure the methane produced naturally from the swamps, bogs or wet meadows. Can't regulate nature I guess. But they can get the ranchers and their methane belching and backside gassing cows - for a tidy fine and regulatory fee. Therefore the issue is not quality of the inhaled or exhaled air but the fatness of the bump on their backside - their wallet.
This article goes on to say that measurements of the methane from these cows eating sweet grass, whatever that is, may not necessarily be a good thing because of its alleged and unproved effect on the unproved and unsubstantiated 'green house effect'. It does not take a rocket scientist to be aware that there are many many kinds of grasses. One is different from all others and no two act nor react the same in any cow who is also different from all other cows. Do you suppose they might base some stupid legislation on this study of one type of grass, eaten by one bunch of cows, in one pasture during a single period of study? Whose going say they can't?
Every cowpoke worth his pancakes knows that cows eat, belch, backside gas and make pies differently depending on what they have been munching. Don't take fourteen years of college to know that. Nor does it take umpteen zillion of our dollars to 'prove' it.
It is also said, in this article, that cows produce 1/6th of the world's total methane gas emissions. Can you believe this? One sixth? Where does the other 5/6ths come from? This issue is conveniently (for them) ignored. Perhaps it comes from bureaucrats and other passive ruminating consumers of our green stuff - money? Maybe they'd like no one raising cows and horses except in controlled and costly structures. Regulated, taxed and controlled by them of course - something like chickens in chicken factories. Maybe these high tech guys and gals should put their fancy meters up in halls of our government and see if they can detect where our money is going and for what. While they are at it they can test the quality of the hot air and gases and see if we are getting our money's worth. Probably not...
Pierre du Lac, 11/12/95
So beautiful is our flag - so moving is its history. Many of us reflect on the import of Veteran's Day. Many of us were veterans of terrible wars that we'd rather sooner forget. Perhaps we have already forgotten the why of it all...
There's a lot of jawing about the socialization of private property rights in Cherry county. Seems to some un-American type people that those who died to prevent just this sort of thing from happening in Europe 50 years ago just maybe threw their lives away for nothing. 'Who really cares?' They seem to say with their actions. Fascism should never occur in Europe but for us to encourage and develop it here - in the midst of America - is A-OK.
We loose control when one of our hired hands over at the refuge says something about 'only doing my job' based on a statute dating from 1912 thus preventing our use of our own river. When all the while there was a full-blown amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed and adopted in 1819 (the original 13th Amendment) lost for 130 years but now found! (There are currently two 13th amendments on the books!) No one seems to care about this Big Time issue so who cares about a little old statute 100 years younger? Who is going to care about local ordinances (control) either?
More of our hired hands are fighting tooth and nail to convince normal patriotic Americans to adopt un-American ideas of socialism and fascism calling it 'local control' of private property rights. One gets to thinking on this and it appears as nearly no person ever seeks to say anything about whatever is going on in our County Government. No one bothers to show up at meetings to voice an opinion on spending or just about anything else proposed or done by our employees.
So who gets the local control and power over you, your property and your rights? The local people who choose not to exercise their right to self-government or those who know they act without control or guidance, from their employers, in their unbridled effort to gain even more control over your private property and your rights to same?
You can bet these new ordinances will mean more local control all right. It'll be more local control over your property and your rights - not over the so-called city, county, state, federal or U.N. governments. They operate almost totally out of control already. Neither will ordinances keep out corporations seeing as how they are as government agencies and creatures of equity anyway. As has been pointed out many times - YOU ARE YOUR GOVERNMENT and YOUR GOVERNMENT IS A REFLECTION OF YOU. If it is out of control it is because you have lost (given up?) control of your own affairs.
One wonders what the recently passed Veteran's Day was all about. Seems a lot of people died defeating socialism and fascism over seas some years ago only to see it spread its slimy tentacles all over Cherry County and elsewhere. It is truly horrible to visualize being in a filthy, stinking European killing field with your buddies being killed at your side or blown to tiny bloody pieces and then come home to find your grandchildren selling it all out...
by Pierre du Lac, 10/24/95
Mighty peaceful country around here - and a pleasure to enjoy the quiet, serene grassy hills that only end where the stars begin. But somehow things don't seem 'quite right'. Perhaps something or other is a wee bit out of focus? This area is supposed to be free of earthquakes and such but from the rumors and stories floating around one would think the Sand Hills might be in the very throat of a volcano - maybe even a whole bunch of volcanoes.
It sure is a sight to see the effort to make the Sand Hills a resting place for the deadliest substance ever produced by man. The Sand Hills will be lethal (and glowing?) for the next 20,000 years. That's a long time to go without a drink of good, clean, fresh water like what we enjoy now. Why put that nasty stuff here? Why not put it in the back yards of those who produce it and are profiting from it? Perhaps the profiteers would stop producing it if they had to pump their drinking water through it like we will have to do.
Seems there's a big movement a foot to trim back some of the over zealous government operations around the state and country. Wonder why people are hesitant to 'give' (at the point of a gun) more of their pseudo-money to their servants... Why are people objecting to paying their so-called 'fair share'? Fair share of what - exactly? The bloated retirement funds of federal retirees? How about for more studies into sex habits of obscure insects? How about to hire and then defend more inept and incompetent people like Potts and his friends?
Maybe these 'tax protestors' do not fully realize how important the IRS, Inc. is to its owners? How can the IRS get bigger and badder if these protestors refuse to 'voluntarily give' their 'fair share'? Don't they realize the BATF (the enforcement arm of the IRS) needs more of the military equipment they have been buying lately? Or maybe they think the United States can survive OK if we do not fly Hillary and her huge entourage around the world - even if she doesn't work for the country. It takes a lot of cash to pay all those people to go on these trips.
Maybe the pseudo-money is no good and is loosing its value faster than we can increase taxes to maintain our hired help's purchasing power?
Judging from articles appearing in the local press from time to time no one ever goes down town to verify that what money has been entrusted to the hired help is being used properly. Maybe these 'tax protestors' have never hired help before. The rule of thumb is that workers will never do what you expect but only what you inspect. Give them your money and your rights and not ride herd on them? Is there something wrong with this picture?
A cool, refreshing breeze wafts the grassy knolls as they roll along into the distance. The cattle graze where the buffalo used to roam. Here and there an antelope may stand and watch the watchers. It is a peaceful country populated with peaceful and gentle people. Does the buffalo seek revenge for the loss of its terrain? Will the antelope be enraged after its country is in ruins? Why is it that the peaceful and gentle are hard pressed by those who are not?
ANSWER to the title question - When Does Sand Glow in The Dark? When (check one): A - Constitutional Law is replaced by statutory (equity) law; B - Convenience and comfort is more important than integrity; C - All of the above.
by Pierre du Lac, 9/20/95
"Wow! I can see the Milky Way!" a friend remarked the other night as we strolled the beautiful sandy beaches of Merritt Reservoir. This caused me to pause and reflect again on the natural beauty of this region and how blessed are the people who live here. The unexpected remark brought with it an awareness that not all people have seen these wonders of nature even though they have been exposed to them all their lives. Being human we take a lot for granted.
How much of what we see and experience is the Truth of the experience? How much of it is brought by our memories to color new scenes, actions and voices with what we think we already know? It is true the Milky Way is bright and beautiful on clear nights in Cherry County and even from a backyard in 'downtown' Valentine. The city lights haven't reached the point where they outshine the stars as in larger cities. This is what being "unspoiled" is all about. It is even possible to walk in local parks barefoot without fear and apprehension.
When there is vandalism at the Falls, trash in Minnechaduza Park and wild and crazy automobiles during the night - the unspoiled innocence is gone. When the stars become pale, the drinking water polluted with chemicals, radiation or viral bacteria, the air fouled with stench you can know the place you knew and grew up with is gone forever.
While it is admirable some people rallied to the aid of their community by championing tourism the result experienced today is some things good and other things bad. A local remarked how noisy the hordes of rafters are during the weekend. Is this noise pollution? Have you seen the bags of garbage strewn around Merritt Reservoir? Of course, not all the locals are quiet as mice and squeaky-clean either. But for the most part we have kept the county and city neat and clean.
Some would say: "Pass another law!" The idea is to force your neighbors (at the point of the Sheriff's gun) to act in a certain way. But as any sane person can plainly see, even the national Congress becomes more and more ineffectual directly as the number of laws passed increases. Passing laws does not change attitudes and cleanliness is an attitude issue like in habits formed as children. It is a simple thing to take a person out of the city and bring them into the country for a joyful and one-of-a-lifetime experience. But can the city be taken out of the visitor?
Perhaps it is too late to close the gate. The word is out about the canoeing and rafting. Many communities down river are promoting the new hiking trail. The attraction of money is far too compelling to ignore. On the other horizon bright lights glisten from coins and tokens as another enterprise gets a lift off. This comes from those who profess to be in harmony with nature and love its many blessings. Are these too being caught up in the artificial glamor of it all? Is there something deeper here to look at? Why is the region in so dire a need of outside cash flow?
The questions are not simple and answers even more complicated. Some have taken the tact that there is no question the growth is here to continue but how to regulate and control it. There will be lots of money made on developing Cherry and neighboring counties. Could it be those who desire the most money and control are pushing the development the hardest? Is tinsel and glamor what made this region what it is? Are people attracted to its bright lights, hard concrete and fast food emporiums? It is your community. Where do you stand? What do you want? Whether you enjoy the stars or the tinsel depends on your choices...
by Pierre du Lac, 9/13/95
Valentine, Nebraska &endash; There's a monument to bravery and self- sacrifice near the County Building downtown. My grandfather fought in Europe in W.W.I and the South Pacific in W.W.II. The purpose was to keep his family (my mother) and her children (me and my five brothers and two sisters) free from socialism and fascism. The old High School now Museum has a room full of momentos of the incredible effort that generation went through - for our benefit.
"with no county resident appearing to offer input..." read lines from the September 6th Midland News story "Board of Commissioners OKs 1995 County Budget".
How sad no one has anything to say about how their money is being spent by their hired hands. Do they realize that he who directs the spending directs the direction?
Right below that in another article titled "Comprehensive Zoning Plan is Nearing Reality" it says.. "federal land grabbing ... would be more difficult" looms ominously as another "promise of protection". The lands are already fully protected by the Constitution but no one seems to know what the document says anymore - or cares. The only way feds can "grab land or property" is through equity, contract or martial law. Look it up. Socializing ownership of the land (private property) doesn't make it more difficult it makes it easier because most of the rights have already been conveyed voluntarily to the "Commissioners".
It'll be a sad day in Cherry County when the property owners give their rights to property over to their hired hands.
All across America people are up in arms about too much socialistic government and its intrusion and interference into what used to be their private lives. There are counties that would give anything to be rid of "Planning Commissions" and "Zoning Codes" and the ever present and much hated "Code Enforcer" and expensive "permits" or permission to do that which you can already do for nothing. (If a law has to be forced onto someone how good is it?) Here is one of those deals where it sounds good coming in but is hell getting out of.
Think this is a joke? Read this from the same article ...
"A landowners' right to construct outbuildings, or to use his or her property, [without permission] would be a thing of the past."
This is out of the mouth of an alleged American too. Where in the world is it that people cannot have and use their own property? Russia? China? Korea?
It is your property and you are your government. Perhaps this thing needs to be rethought out before jumping in and doing exactly what our grandparents died for &endash; to prevent what was in Europe and the Pacific from coming here.
Contact: Midland News, Valentine, Nebraska (800) 658-4215 for comments, ask for Butch or Missy.
by Pierre du Lac, 9/6/95
West central Nebraska is a unique place with its grassy knolls stretching like an endless sea of green in all directions. The plains seem to end where the sky cuts it off. One wonders where all the sand came from - perhaps from another watery sea long gone and forgotten or maybe a desert long since covering itself with a fluffy blanket of nutritious grass.
Today this wide grassy place is home to men and women of stature and vision. It nurtures their homes, families, farms, cattle and friends. Just as the plains fed the countless roaming buffalo for thousands of years it is now providing sustenance for the newcomers. The Great Sioux and other great Nations roamed these grassy knolls freely in harmony with the natural cycles of nature herself. Where the grass grew green the buffalo followed and in their tracks the tribes trailed along. A migration to be sure but one of tremendous significance for those listening to its beats and rhythms. Even today the most evident of these cycles are being followed by the more recent visitors to this region.
The soils are plowed and sown with seed year after year in a vast annual cycle of plant and harvest. A farmer plants in spring when the forces of nature are most aligned to bring budding and birthing into aliveness during the thawing and times of increasing moisture availability. The sun lingers longer and longer on the soil warming it thus quickening the new born as the chemical (blue) rays enhance ionization and chemical activities in the soil providing greater nutrient availability.
The earth gives freely her bounty in accordance with the natural cycles and latencies such as soil fertility, moisture, winds and beneficial biological adjuncts such as bees and birds. A single kernel of corn properly planted and nurtured returns a much greater number of kernels. It is said a good corn yield is near 200 bushels to an acre of properly cared for crop. This is an awesome accomplishment. It is even more significant when considering that 100 years ago the average yield was less than half of this amount. A single farmer can manage many more acres today. There were more farmers then and many more hands to do the work. Today it is done by machines.
All those farmers built the many cities and towns scattered over the grassy hills of West Central Nebraska. It seems there was a time when building was all the rage and small towns went up nearly everywhere. Today the remnants of these places of hope and service can still be seen here and there. Some appear to be prosperous and "making it" while others are mere hulks and shells of their former selves. Why? The land still nurtures those in harmony with it.
If the land is so productive then why are there so many decadent and abandoned towns all over Nebraska - and all other states as well? Where did all the people go? What happened to their dreams, families and neighbors? What happened to Brownlee, for instance, the once great farm implement distributor? What happened in Crookston where the residents at one time had enough hope and life to require a school - now nearly abandoned? How about Kilgore, Wood Lake and Lake Side? What happened to Dunning? Where are the dreams of the people who built those towns?
by Pierre du Lac, 8/27/95
"What a beautiful place the people of Valentine have created for themselves!" I thought as I strolled through Minnechaduza Park. How blessed these people are to have built and maintained this lush site for any person's use. This type of generosity, foresight and service to each other (ourselves) is what made America the great nation it is. Being new in Sandhills region after having roamed many states and foreign countries I find it refreshing to experience the purity of spirit still alive in this place and its people.
Long ago people knew who they were and behaved as though each were a "Child of God" &endash; sacred unto themselves and each other. Individuals possessed integrity, vision, courage and a will to do for themselves. Mutual respect abounded as a strong commitment to self, family and community fortified the spirit, mind and body of the earlier pioneers in their work to build their visions. As each established themselves on farms, ranches or in commercial ventures the cities, states and nation were formed. As the people were in body, mind and spirit so too were their states and nation - strong and prosperous.
This spirit still exists in Valentine but for how long? Here, in this small park, a spark of that wondrous spirit that raises man from the dust of the prairie is evident. Hopefully it will not be the site of a "last stand" of the human courage and will as the darkness approaches. Who built this park? The people who are this community. They did it without outside 'experts' and foreign mandates or 'guidelines' of questionable origin. It was built without anyone's permission (via permits or licenses) but their own. The park is proof these people can conceive, create and maintain a thing of beauty and lasting utility. This spirit extends to the privately and publicly owned Niobrara River recreation areas. Cherry County people enjoyed for years this nearly forgotten and secluded piece of Paradise.
Then dark clouds began appearing on the horizon as a seemingly innocent thing was done by one of their hired hands - Ken Carey. He had the Niobrara River valley 'designated' a "scenic river". Innocent enough and kind of flattering on first look but it may be an opening move in a real-life chess game of awesome consequences. This appears to be one of those bureaucratic slight-of-hands where they say, and it looks for all intents and purposes, that we are being benefitted when the reverse is the truth. With this 'designation' the door of Federal Intervention was pushed ajar. Not too much as to alarm anyone but enough to allow the tentacles of outside control to reach through into our neighborhood and our business of taking care of ourselves. The carrot was ostensibly called "County Planning Commissions" and counties bordering the river were "urged" to implement their "own" planning commissions. It was said "This would be good for your communities". Part of the sale's pitch was that this is the only way to obtain "protection from the Federal land grabbers".
From THE SPOTLIGHT, 6129198: [quoting] Trillions of dollars are controlled by the politicians and the bureaucrats in little-known county, state and federal "slush" funds in every state in the union and at the federal level. However, through book-keeping gimmicks, the truth about these massive funds (which actually and rightfully belong to the taxpayers) is being kept under wrapsÑwith the willing cooperation of the major media in this country. Yet citizens are being soaked with continuing tax hikes to finance day-to-day state operations even while these hidden slush funds are bringing vast profits to high-level international financial power brokers that benefit from controlling this huge slush fund. That's the astounding discovery made by veteran commodity trading advisor and analyst Walter Burien who was a guest on the June 7 broadcast of The SPOTLIGHT's weekly call-in talk forum, Radio Free America, with host Tom Valentine. An edited transcript of the interview with Burien follows. Valentine's questions are in boldface. Burien's responses are in regular text.
You've made some astounding allegations, but these allegations are based on factual information that is actually available to the public if they know where to look and how to look. And you discovered what you did discover quite by accident and it's a remarkable story. Could you give us the background on how you came across this information?
The best way to approach this is to give a chronological accounting of how I became aware of what I call "the biggest game in town" (which goes on across the country). Let's go back to 1989. I was living in New Jersey and Gov. Jim Florio got elected on a "no new taxes" platform. Yet, as soon as he got into office, there was a $2.8 billion tax increase, the largest in the state's history. That created the proverbial "(bleep) hitting the fan" and one of the local radio stations at that time, 101.5 FM, started doing some rabble-rousing with the public for their input on government waste and misspending and griping about the taxes. On the first day I listened to a lot of people talking about examples of $5,000, $10,000, etc. The highest figure I heard was $85,000. I then pulled out the budget report and called the show and read out the billions of dollars that the state was dealing with and I pointed out that the highest figure I heard had been $85,000 although the budget was in the billions and if there was fraud and waste going on it was taking place on tens of hundreds of millions of dollars. The radio show host challenged the listeners to start an organization to repeal the tax increase. Two days later 10 of us got together and I incorporated a group called "Hands Across New Jersey" and within about 14 days we had our first rally in Trenton and about 115,000 people converged on the city and just about shut the city down. During the time of organizing that rally, I started taking a look over the budget revenue and finances of the state. Up until that point I thought I was a pretty sharp cracker and knew what was going on and I always figured that "the boysÓ were floating 5 to 10 percent of the revenue and not reporting it to the public. When I looked I found out I didn't have the foggiest clue. The first thing I did was check the budget report and find the total cost of all services. (This was 1989's report.) They had $11 billion on budget, $6 billion off budget, a total service budget of $17 billion. I then checked the "net, available" on the budget report. That showed a net available of $24 billion, 648 million. Then I asked the question which is the first question that the IRS asks in an audit: "What are the gross receipts?" I started adding that up and I came up with about $44 billion. I said, "Wait. How can the state have a service budget of about $17 billion, and showing a net available of $24.6 billion, yet I was counting about $44 billion brought in for the year in cash?" I figured those reports had to be available someplace . And during that rally that followed, I knew about this $44 billion-in cash receipts and the budget of $17 billion. I briefed the public on the difference between the budget and the gross receipts . I had about 15 people come up to me and ask if I wasn't afraid of getting "blown away" saving this on the steps of the New Jersey state capitol building? I said, "No, but if I was one of the boys in a position of trust, I'd give myself about three days. But since I am not one of the boys in a situation of trust and confidence, they are going to start asking how in the heck I figured this out and asking whom I had been speaking to." After the rally I said to myself that there was too much money not to be accounted for under one book. My father was personnel manager for the state treasury for about eight years and I had a pretty good knowledge of how to get around and through the different state departments. The director of the budget, at that time, was on vacation until the following Tuesday. I found out the names of his two lowest-level assistants and I got the lowest one of them on the phone first and said, "I'm working on a report for Richard [the budget director] and I have to have it done by Tuesday I need all the figures on the autonomous agency accounts, interest accounts, investment accounts," and he says, "Oh, you want the comprehensive annual financial report." This was the first time I ever heard of that in my lifetime. I said, "Yeh, how can I get it?" He said, "Talk to Bill." who was the next assistant. I called Bill, and said, "Hi, this is Walter Burien, I'm working on a report for Richard. I just talked to Jim and I need the comprehensive annual financial report." I got the report that Friday. It showed liquid investment funds of $188 billion; common stock ownership of $70 billion; on loan to public and private corporations, $10 billion; and insurance company equity participation, $14 billion. This blew me away. And this was only the state of New Jersey. I realized that day, right on the spot, what was going on. I also learned the definition of syndicated organized crime that day. Anything that was a cost and an expense on service to the publicÑthe traditional side of the service budget, such as the Department of Transportation, health and welfare, etc.Ñthey left under the budget report and the public footed 100 percent of the bill for 100 percent of the services under the budget report. That was $17 billion. Anything that was a profit center-generated revenue (the Port Authority for New Jersey, the New Jersey Turnpike, an investment account, etc.), or which had the potential for generating revenue was totally restricted by statute for no tie or inclusion whatsoever with the budget report. This is what was disclosed on the comprehensive annual financial report. My question to myself, as I said, was that question that the IRS asks: What are the gross cash receipts? Here's an example of what I discovered: The 1989 figure in the comprehensive annual financial report on page 174, under the Waste Water Treatment Trust Fund, shows a total of all agency funds. On the "cash" line item they have the beginning balance and ending balance. The beginning balance was $25 billion, 899 million. Their ending balance was $6 billion, 894 million. Here is the important part. It shows the additions and deduction, which is the amount of the total cash receipts brought in for the year from all state agencies and departments. The service budget was $17 billion. Are you ready for how much cash they brought in for the year? It was $86,775,380,712. That was for 69 autonomous agencies, the budgetary bases, investment accounts, etc. I immediately went down to radio station 101.5 and gave it to them. For 45 minutes they read out the bottom line figures. I suggested to the listeners this example: suppose you reported your beginning checking account balance at $5,000 at the beginning of the year and you put $40 million through your checking account and you ended your balance at $3,500. That's the game going on here. On the comprehensive annual financial report you looked through the spread sheet on total revenues and it listed approximately $136 billion, but if you look through the notes on the report, you find another additional $60 billion. On the common stock ownership it listed $32 billion. But I saw little asterisks that referred to a note and on that note it stated that the accounting and balance was determined on purchase price, not on market value. In other words, if they bought AT&T stock 30 years ago at $1.25 a share and it's worth $3,000 a share now, they still report it at $1.25 a share. I checked my contacts to find out the true market value and it equated to $70 billion.
And these guys raised the taxes on the people of the state of New Jersey when they could have paid them back twice the taxes and still had money left over.
If they had combined the entire operations owned by the state government as a whole, they could have dropped all taxation in the state of New Jersey and if they streamlined everything they could have had a dividend check for every person in the state.
No wonder this is dangerous talk.
I started investigating further. Everyone is familiar with the New Jersey state turnpike and the Garden State Parkway. When they wanted to build those authorities they had to put out a measure for voting upon by the public. They said that they were going to put out a $7.5 billion bond issuance and that they were going to build those authorities and that they would be toll roads until the bonds were paid off. And until the bonds were paid off, the bondholders would be the owners of that authority. Once the bonds were paid off, the authorities would revert back into the budgetary basis as budgetary groups. They were also restricted at operating for a profit. The public said okay and they built these authorities. Then what they did was this: say they made a $400 million profit for the year and the actual payment on the bonds was $100 million. They made the $100 million payment for the bonds and took the $300 million and put it into a bond surety escrow account for future liability payments. They wrote it off as a line-item payment and did not declare it as an asset. In 1990 when I checked on the total bond liability for the turnpike, it was $14.5 billion. Guess how much was in the bond surety escrow accounts? Thirty-eight billion. Enough to pay the bonds off three times over. The same game was being played with all the autonomous agencies and the bottom line is that they are dealing with hundreds of billions of dollars and the control of those billions is what's the motivating factor, not the benefit of the public. The public is kept in the dark, looking off in left field as they are doing business as usual in right field.
So this is going on in other states, too?
Well, after I found out about New Jersey, it dawned on me what the composite total for all states and the federal government if this was happening all over. I started looking and what I saw floored me. Take the composite total of city, county, state and federal of common stock ownership. Across the country it comes out to in excess of $32 trillion. That's 53 percent of the entire open interest of all stocks issued. Take California. This state has in excess of $2.5 trillion in common stock ownership.
So we really don't have a national debt then?
They can't pay it because they (say they) are restricted by statutes.
I understand that and it's amazing.
To explain what's going on I can provide several examples. Everyone has heard of Al Capone, the Chicago gangster. He ran a lot of legitimate businesses including newspaper stands, flower shops, etc. He kept one set of books for those legitimate businesses. Let's equate those to the budget report. For the other businesses (book-making, prostitution, drugs) he ran through those newspaper stands and flower shops, he kept a second set of books that he didn't want anyone knowing about. On the comprehensive annual financial report (for the state of New Jersey), the vast majority of revenue groups that the government doesn't want the public digging into is on the comprehensive annual financial report. It's like when you hear about the $5 trillion national debt under the federal budget; but you don't hear about the $30-plus trillion in liquid investment funds.
Is this information generally available to the public?
If you know to ask for it. The state auditor generals or the state treasurers offices of the states put the reports out. When I saw these figures 10 years ago, I asked how the public couldn't know about this. But I found that every elected official I spoke to had never heard of the comprehensive annual financial report. The one who did know was Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). I showed him the report at a public gathering and he said, "You've got that?" And he said, "See you later." He didn't want to get his picture taken with that report. But other politicians denied knowing about the report. In Arizona when I got the report for that state, there was a breakfast of county supervisors and former Gov. Evan Mecham was there. I asked him whether he knew of a report that consolidates all of the financial material. He said, "No." I asked him if he had ever heard of the comprehensive annual financial report and he said, "No." Then I produced it and said, "Here it is. This is the same report you signed when you were in office. Here's your signature on the front page." And he said, "Oh I thought you were talking about another year." I said, "Uh-huh."
Do you think he knew what was in the report when he signed it or did some faceless bureaucrat give him the front page to sign and then take it away?
You'll have to give him some sodium pentathol to find that out. Here' s another example: every person should imagine himself the state government of New Jersey. Your salary is $50,000 year and your budget for operating your house is $3,500 per year. You could audit your budget 100 times over. If you spent $4,000 this year on your house and you only had $3,500 allocated, you could go to your neighbor and ask for $500. So what's happened is that structure has been created to allow the gross receipts to be totally hidden from the reality of what's reported on the budget report. I want to congratulate The SPOTLIGHT and Radio Free America because you are the first news medium to disclose the name of the comprehensive annual financial report to the public. There is a total news blackout on mentioning of the report. Back in New Jersey I was dealing with hundreds of reporters, but not one newspaper mentioned it. I said: "That's a lot of control." People asked me, "If it's this big, how come we don't hear about it?" Gov. James Florio appointed 16 editors and reporters to directorships in state government. The guy they pitted against me was Harvey Fisher who was one of the Bergen Record reporters prior to the Florio campaign and he was appointed assistant treasurer of the state of New Jersey (even though he had no formal financial background whatsoever). I thought about that. As a reporter he was making $35,000 per year. As assistant treasurer he was making $65,000 a year. I checked his expense account. He had a carte blanche expense account of $125,000 with basically discretionary funds. Now I knew that there was a data search department in the state run for four individuals which tied all agencies and departments together. I called up the department and asked for a data search on all key-level directorships and supervisory positions for all agencies, whether they be budgetary or from the autonomous agencies, and they came up with some 3,500 names. Close to 1,800 of these people were former editors or reporters. And if you do a comparable search in other states you'll find that the more money involved you'll find a higher amount of editors and reporters. That ' s a phenomenal amount of control.
So the media is part of the cover-up here?
Yes, and the comprehensive annual financial reports are sent to all of the major newspapers and editors but they refuse to make one mention of it. It's a cooperative effort going on. Once you know how much money is out there and where it's coming from and where it's going, the game is over. When we went on the air on radio 101.5, a few days later they were being threatened with having their broadcasting license pulled and they almost had to shut down. People should contact their local newspapers and make a simple mention of the comprehensive annual financial report for their states and ask the papers to show their readers the total revenue shown in that report, whether restricted by statute or the like. It would be interesting to find out how many newspapers will even make simple mention of this. Always remember the key difference between the budgetary basis and the restricted-by-statute groups. The public has been played as a sap. In New Jersey alone there's maybe $80 or $90 billion that's there. Somebody is handling all of that money in New Jersey and elsewhere and they can use it to make a bundle. That's right. Here's an example: say that you're a comptroller in California and you're controlling $700 billion. Say I'm the chairman of Shearson Lehman Hutton banking group. You have $140 billion with my firm. That will generate about $10 billion a year for my firm. You call me up and say: "My brother needs a $49 million unsecured loan in Argentina for a sugar cane development energy project," and I'd have a loosely-connected subsidiary company make the loan. Your brother defaults on the loan and walks away with $49 million and the company writes it off. The payola that takes place here is unfathomable. Any politician anywhere can be paid off anywhere around the world. Through these investment funds, government has been taking over "private" insurance and medical firms, etc., and the public has no idea that these firms are [effectively] owned by the government. Any corporation can be targeted by these investment funds and totally taken over. Period. And they have been. As I mentioned, 53 percent of all outstanding stocks are owned by government. The public is looking in left field and all the trillions are in right field. This structure is a virus and it has nothing to do with the interests of the public. It all has to do with financial conquest and the public has to be as naive as possible. It's not something that has happened this year or last year. And the press is culpable in all of this. What do people need to do to bring this out into the open? People need to start asking questions about their various state comprehensive annual financial reports and demanding complete accountability by the politicians. I believe that this is the jugular vein of the corruption in this country. If all of this is disclosed openly, the game comes to an end. People need to start focusing on "gross receipts, total investments, total trust funds,Ó whether restricted by statute or the like. You can see this in the comprehensive annual financial reports. [End quoting]
WOW!! And thank you Tom Valentine for having the guts and courage to put this on your radio talk-show. Are we just going to sit on this or are millions of us going to rise up and confront these hoodlums? Do you realize what this amount of funds can accomplish for this nation? and it all belongs to us!! Please get on the phones, faxes, Internet, etc. and spread this word. God gives us the tools or instruments, but it is up to us to use them. He said the truth will come out in the end-times once more.
It's YOUR money, YOUR property, YOUR future, YOUR country and YOUR employees. What are YOU going to do about it? For more information: CAFRman
This will probably be one of the first areas developed on the Law Research & Registry web site as it is an area where people across the nation are exposed when they fall on financial hard times, and it will be a general problem in the event of shipwreck, which is certain.
Get a concept in mind: A National Banking Association is simply that -- it is an association formed under a Federal grant of authority. It takes five or more people to form a National Banking Association. Once it is formed, it may provide financial services only for those who are qualified to be association members.
Who is qualified to be an association member? Officers and employees of United States Government and governments of United States political subdivisions. That's it. They do not have statutory or regulatory authority to offer financial services to the general population.
When a State bank joins the system, it is presumed to be a State bank of a Federal State, not of the several States party to the Constitution.
Once a National Banking Association, Federal Savings & Loan Association, Federal Credit Union, which is also an association, etc., is formed, it must become a member (share holder) of the regional Federal Reserve Bank, and must insure deposits with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or whatever Federal insurance entity provides insurance in the event is isn't a national banking association. FDIC insures only deposits of "public money" -- credit of the United States paid to Federal employees rather than money. It amounts to "deferred" payment.
To this point, the Federally chartered financial institution has precious few powers. In order to do more than shuffle public money, it must apply and become a Federal Tax & Loan Depositary (see 31 CFR, Part 202 et seq.). When it becomes a Federal Tax & Loan Depositary, the Federally chartered financial institution then serves in the capacity of "fiscal agent" of the United States. In other words, it acts as an agency of United States Government.
Regulations at 31 CFR, Part 202 et seq. are interesting for a number of reasons. One that is of interest is that these regulations provide as complete a listing of those subject to Federal and State income tax as I've yet found. The Federal Tax & Loan Depositary has two capacities on the tax side: (1) it provides trust accounts for tax deposit; and (2) it may act as a third-party paymaster (withholding agent), responsible for withholding and paying the "normal tax", what you know as income tax, and Social Security tax, as well as qualified State and local income tax.
Second and third applications by type are necessary for this entity to become a lending institution. For example, a national banking association can become a Federal Home Loan Bank, or a consumer or commercial credit bank, or all three. In these capacities, there is a presumption of geographical limitation -- territory & insular possessions of the United States -- and the clientele is never expanded. They can legitimately solicit and do business only with officers and employees of the United States and political subdivisions of the United States -- those authorized by law to receive and use "public money".
All lending is predicated on the "public money" scheme. It is merely hypothecation, or rehypothecation, of credit of the United States.
Understanding the definition of "credit" in the Truth in Lending Act will help to grasp what this means: The term "credit" means the grant of authority for a debtor to defer payment of debt or to create debt then defer payment.
When conducting business with a Federally chartered financial institution, who is the lender? The bank? No, the bank operates as "fiscal agent" of the United States -- Uncle Sugar underwrites and extends "credit" to all his chillen. All transactions are presumed to be in public money, which is credit of the United States. The bank is merely an agency of the United States that serves in much the same capacity as a broker or disbursal officer.
All credit contracts are secured by mortgage insurance. If the financial institution has recourse for any loss it might incur, it is simply in insurance that underwrites debt. Close study of Regulation Z (12 CFR, Part 226) demonstrates that even officers and employees of the United States entitled to use of Uncle Sugar's credit have the right of recission in the event they cannot pay whatever consumer and home mortgage debt they might incur.
The more interesting approach to debt termination, however, is through the Paperwork Reduction Act (regulations at 5 CFR, Part 1320).
This thing is dynamite as if an agency of United States Government doesn't comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the matter can be raised as a complete bar against administrative and/or judicial remedies. See 5 CFR, Part 1320.6. Any information-gathering form must display a current OMB number, and must inform whoever fills it out that if it doesn't have a current OMB number on it, he or she required to fill it out.
I had only gone through one set of mortgage papers when I studied this, but I assumed that any other mortgage in the several States was just as fraudulent. As it happened, a guy from Tulsa shipped me foreclosure papers via FAX two days prior to the Saturday meeting, so it took only a few minutes to conclude that his loan papers were as defective as the first set I studied. We addressed his papers at the meeting both with respect to the Notice of Nonappearance, and the OMB number defect.
The Paperwork Reduction Act sets governmentwide requirements in place [and] applies to the judicial as well as legislative & administrative branches. There are some interesting implications here, too.
We could go further with this line, but I hate to spoil things ... the Privacy Act requirement for notice, Federal Register Act, regulations governing closing, and various other things that clearly default credit transactions in the several States. I briefly touched the Paperwork Reduction Act and Privacy Act requirements at the meeting.
So long as the information is generally distributed, there is no reason for economic shipwreck to compromise homes and other property. There is recourse.
by Dan Meador (Feb. 11, 1998)
My apologies to those who have asked about numerous things that I haven't been able to respond to either in discussion group forum or privately. I have time lines on certain things that require attention, and it appears that the next ten days to two weeks will have to be pretty focused. However, several have asked about strategy relating to Internal Revenue Service and State revenue officer initiatives, particularly since I mentioned securing antecedent documents prior to going further with administrative or judicial matters relating to producing books and records, etc. In other words, "Let's tend to first things first, then worry about the rest."
Presently I am not providing direct assistance to others, and I am not an attorney so what I have to say may be worth no more than it costs. However, in order to support what I have to say, I used cut & paste to put authorities in this text from Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules & List of CFR Titles, etc., both in the Index volume of the Code of Federal Regulations. My C.D. edition of the CFR is current through July 1998. Following the indexes, I've pasted in the definition of "employee" from 31 CFR § 215.2(h) as this is one of the more complete listings of "employees" subject to the "normal tax", which we know as income tax, even though it applies to State qualified income tax. I would suggest reading regulations at 31 CFR §§ 202 etc., all relating to Federally chartered financial institutions as Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries, as these regulations disclose a great deal about the "public money" scam as it relates to both banking and tax.
At the onset, let's dispose of one myth: An "employee" is not generally required to keep books and records (see 26 CFR § 31.6001-6 below). For regulations relating to "special refunds", in particular consult 26 CFR § 601.401(d), and corresponding provisions in Part 1 & 31, none of which are reproduced below. Normally an employee will bill the employer for whatever refund he is due, then in the event the employer fails to pay, he may attach the refusal and file for direct refund on Form 843. The second need to file for a special refund on Form 1040 arises when an "employee" works for two or more "employers" in the course of the year, and has over-paid employment tax (Social Security). Particularly read 26 CFR 31.6001 et seq.
We have gone to Internal Revenue Code geographical taxing authority by investigating where internal revenue districts are located. Authority is vested in the President to establish internal revenue districts at 26 U.S.C. 7621. The section of the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules below shows that there are no general application regulations for this section. However, the note at 26 CFR § 301.7621-1 tells us that Executive Order No. 10289 controls. By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules for Executive Orders, we find that implementing regulations are 19 CFR § 101, which the List of CFR Titles, Chapters, Subchapters, and Parts tells us falls under general authority of the United States Customs Service. No authority under 26 U.S.C. § 7621 & E.O. No. 10289 is applicable to the several States save whatever authority the customs service has to establish ports of entry, etc., in the several States. This authority is exclusive of Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms jurisdiction.
The Internal Revenue Code authorizes revenue agents to canvass only internal revenue districts (26 U.S.C. 7601). Since there are presently no internal revenue districts lawfully established in the several States, per mandate of 26 U.S.C. § 7621, each of us should be concerned about what tax he or she is liable for.
At 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-1(d), we are told that the Secretary will provide direct notice to those required to keep books and records, and file returns. These regulations pertain to Subtitle A & C taxes. We should pay attention to this as there are no implementing regulations published for 26 U.S.C. § 63, which defines "taxable income." Since there is no reason to guess, we should secure the notice mandated by 26 U.S.C. § 6001, and 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-1(d). To that point, we are subject to making presumptions in error, and thereby either cheating the government or ourselves.
In order for there to be a tax liability, there must be a taxing statute and a liability statute in evidence. The notice from the district director, as delegate of the Secretary, will identify both, thus determining what books and records you are required to keep, and what returns your are required to file.
The only other alternative to the above would be a taxable activity, or property you own subject to tax, located in an internal revenue district of the United States established in compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 7621 & E.O. # 10289. We've already demonstrated that there are no internal revenue districts in the several States party to the Constitution, so those who do not engage in any income-producing enterprise outside the several States party to the Constitution would have no concern for liability except in the event he or she received the required notice from the district director, or in the event he or she may own taxable articles in an internal revenue district of the United States.
The latter can be confusing as maybe a great aunt or an old friend left taxable articles to us, and simply failed to notify us, so if we are going to inquire about liability, we want to make certain of what property located in an internal revenue district might be on some list we don't know about. As it happens, the Secretary is required to list all taxable articles in internal revenue districts belonging to those who do not live in internal revenue districts (26 U.S.C. § 6021). Although not listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, there is an administrative regulation to that effect at 26 CFR § 301.6021-1. The implementing regulations listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules are 27 CFR §§ 53 & 70. I didn't find anything of note when going through these regulations, so the best reference we have is the administrative regulation at 26 CFR § 301.6021-1, set out below. Additionally, regulations in Title 27 CFR are under BATF administration, so shouldn't be of concern unless someone has received notice of liability from BATF.
Via email, someone asked what taxable articles in an internal revenue district should we inquire about. In response to that question, should it arise with others, I am not aware of owning anything in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Guam, so any list of taxable articles I own in one of those places will be a complete surprise or in error. If I supposedly own taxable articles in any of those internal revenue districts, the value of the articles might be greater than the tax, so I don't want to close the door to the possibility of valuable gifts or inheritance. I want any list of any taxable articles the district director has. I would venture, however, that he doesn't have a list of taxable articles I own in an internal revenue district, just as he doesn't have a copy of notice I received informing me that I am required to keep books and records and file returns. The point of the inquiry is the list itself &endash; if he doesn't have a list, regardless of what articles might be listed, there is no basis of liability.
We've boiled the matter down to two things: We want certified copies of (1) notice the district director served on us informing us of what books and records we are required to keep, and what returns we are required to file, and (2) any and all lists of taxable articles we own in an internal district established under authority of 26 U.S.C. § 7621 & E.O. #10289.
If there is some reason to resolve disputes with IRS, it would be prudent to request these documents from the district disclosure officer via Freedom of Information Act Request. If some IRS agent has requested books and records, it's obviously impossible to determine what books and records he is entitled to examine until he supplies a copy of the notice required at 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-1(d), and the same is true for a court summons for books and records. Until you have notice of what books and records you are required to keep, with the notice identifying a taxing statute and a liability statute, you are completely in the dark as IRS simply isn't entitled to go on fishing expeditions. In other words, such a summons would fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted unless or until it is specific with respect to the object and liability as prescribed by law and applicable regulations.
Several people have asked about State initiatives relating to income tax. Nearly all State income tax codes are predicated on the Internal Revenue Code, and if there is no liability under the Internal Revenue Code, there is none under the State income tax code. A brief letter citing the appropriate authorities should be sent to the State agent. Since you haven't received the notice required by 26 CFR §§ 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-1(d), you have no basis for knowing what books and records he is entitled to examine, nor do you have any idea what tax return forms you are required to file. Until you have notice of an Internal Revenue Code taxing statute and a liability statute, you don't have sufficient information to be responsive to the demand. Per the cited regulations, the district director is required to serve you notice, so if the State revenue agent wants to examine your books and records, he should provide you a copy of the director's notice that stipulates exactly what is subject to tax.
In some few cases, the Internal Revenue Service has had difficulty with agents setting up shop for themselves. Consequently, there is a remote possibility that if someone employed by IRS has executed what appears to be a deficiency claim, has issued what appears to be a 1040 form for you, issued a notice of tax lien or notice of levy with only a return form number in the "type of tax" column, etc., whatever agent is responsible may be counterfeiting securities of the United States. If you have reason to suspect that that is the case, you might want to inquire of the district director concerning this matter, and agree with him that if he hasn't issued the notice or made a list of taxable articles you own, you will make out an affidavit of criminal complaint he should forward to the Attorney General, per obligation of 28 U.S.C. § 535(b), so the director can achieve the current objective of straightening IRS out. Your offer of assistance will no doubt be appreciated.
Cites from Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations
§ 1.6001&endash;1 Records.
(d) Notice by district director requiring returns statements, or the keeping of records. The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under subtitle A of the Code, including qualified State individual income taxes, which are treated pursuant to section 6361(a) as if they were imposed by chapter 1 of subtitle A.
§ 31.6001&endash;1 Records in general.
(d) Records of employees. While not mandatory (except in the case of claims), it is advisable for each employee to keep permanent, accurate records showing the name and address of each employer for whom he performs services as an employee, the dates of beginning and termination of such services, the information with respect to himself which is required by the regulations in this subpart to be kept by employers, and the statements furnished in accordance with the provisions of § 31.6051&endash;1.
§ 31.6001&endash;6 Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.
The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for any of the taxes to which the regulations in this part have application.
§ 301.6021&endash;1 Listing by district directors of taxable objects owned by nonresidents of internal revenue districts.
Whenever there are in any internal revenue district any articles subject to tax, which are not owned or possessed by or under the care or control of any person within such district, and of which no list has been transmitted to the district director, as required by law or by regulations prescribed pursuant to law, the district director, or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee, shall enter the premises where such articles are situated, shall make such inspection of the articles as may be necessary, and shall make lists of the same according to the forms pre-scribed. Such lists, being subscribed by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee, shall be sufficient lists of such articles for all purposes.
§ 301.7621&endash;1 Internal revenue districts.
For delegation to the Secretary of authority to prescribe internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws, see Executive Order No. 10289, dated September 17, 1951 (16 FR 9499), as made applicable to the Code by Executive Order
No. 10574, dated November 5, 1954 (19 FR 7249).
Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules (located in the Index volume, Code of Federal Regulations)
Cites from Title 26 U.S.C. (Internal Revenue Code)
List of CFR Titles, Chapters, Subchapters, and Parts (located in the Index volume of the Code of Federal Regulations)
TITLE 19&emdash;CUSTOMS DUTIES Chapter I&emdash;United States Customs Service, Department of the Treasury (Parts 1&emdash;199)
Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (relates to Federal Tax and Loan Depositaries; 31 CFR § 202 et seq.) 31 CFR, Part 215.2(h)
(h)(1) Employees for the purpose of State income tax withholding, means all employees of an agency, other than members of the armed forces. For city and county income or employment tax withholding, it means:
(i) Employees of an agency;
(ii) Members of the National Guard, participating in exercises or performing duty under 32 U.S.C. 502; or
(iii) Members of the Ready Reserve, participating in scheduled drills or training periods, or serving on active duty for training under 10 U.S.C. 270(a). The term does not include retired personnel, pensioners, annuitants, or similar beneficiaries of the Federal Government, who are not performing active civilian service or persons receiving remuneration for services on a contract-fee basis.
(2) Employees for purposes of District of Columbia income tax withholding, means employees as defined in 47 District of Columbia Code 1551c(z).