Quatloos! > Tax
Scams > Tax
Protestors > EXHIBIT:
Tax Protestor Dummies 2 > Cases
("Damn, We Lost Again!
And why is it
that people who sell
tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway . . .")
Dear xxx, xxx, and xxx:
This is my firm promise to promptly donate ($)10,000.00
to the Free Congress Foundation
717 Second Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 immediately upon confirming that
Mr. O'Drudy or any associate of his has furnished me competent evidence for
1) Congress has pursuant to US I, 8, 18 provided for
courts in the States of the union and given them authority
to adjudicate the internal revenue laws of the United States.
2) Congress has authorized the Attorney General to prosecute
offenses against the United States.
3) The federal income tax as generally applied in the 50
States is anything more than a proposition or plan suggested
4) The court of the United States authorized and
empowered to enforce the F.OI.A. (I'm in Calif.)
5) The Article III court for the United States having original
jurisdiction for my claim against State of California employees
for false imprisonment and other claims (this is not barred
by the 11th Amendment as the State of California is
not a State of the union and I am no one of its citizens).
6) Reasons why the matters I claim to be settled by default
to the Right to Petition attachments (summarized below) are
not matters for mandatory judicial notice to judge and to
jury in court. Upon notice that you accept this offer I will
mail you this agreement over my signature. -JS As stated
in reply to quatloos.com (of the fraud buster web site) in
reply to information on the Henderson case:
The highest officials of the United States are with conclusive
admission to the following with 26 and 12 and more business
days opportunity to refute by post. Key members of Congress
condone this silence and accordingly admit and confess that
these matters are absolutely true. Specifically the United
States is with the conclusive and voluntary admissions that
26 USC 861 means contrary to the meaning attributed to 861
by Attorney Donald Dorfman and concurred to by Judge
Please note that the United States is not with compliance
with its duty for the response to the F.O.I.A. requests.
On matter pertaining to the authority for liens and levys
by the IRS in California the Secretary is not with his duty
for over six months.
If commissions for the USDC judges and the Clerk for San
Francisco, Oakland and San Jose cannot be produced it stands
to reason commissions for Judge Burrell and the clerk
for Sacramento can not be produced.
You are interested that truth prevail (you are dedicated
to the abatement of frauds); will you please inform me of
the court that possesses the lawful authority to compel compliance
to the dated F.O.I.A. requests?
Can you provide me the location, phone, e-mail for the attorney
Donald Dorfman so that we can furnish him evidence for having
the judgment against the Hendersons declared void?
[We concur on one point. I do not see the merit in the Hendersons
selling trust protections -JS]
Among the facts and propositions the United States agrees
are true are the following:
The basic admission of the United States which we settle
here under our right to petition and by the doctrine of admission
by silence if that be your choice is that the income tax
law as generally applied in the 50 states of the union is a
mere PROPOSITION, is a matter of public
indoctrination, and is not a mater of law. In
other words the income tax as generally applied constitutes nothing
more than a plan suggested for acceptance.
The only courts authorized by Congress for civil and for
criminal matters within the boarders of any of the 50 states
are district courts of the United States; [name game confusion Þ ]
United States District Courts covertly stand in place of
the district courts specified in the United States Code [The
designated courts for criminal and civil prosecutions,
income tax and citizen civil rights actions.] [USDC ~.
United States war powers do not extend to the American people
[By reservation of the 10th Amendment and by
the close scrutiny of the Act 12 USC 95(a)&(b) now in
The core issue we present is the 5th stepping
stone Þ 26 CFR §1.861-8(f)(1)(vi). Therefore refute;
and do not reply to this matter with rhetoric / generalities. Our
claim is that the 5th step is
the "specified Federal payments". We believe
the government is not with a ruling on this matter; neither
supreme court, regulatory provision nor decision, nor executive
finding, order or decision. If we are wrong, please provide
us the specific authorities on this matter.
The concordant issue we present is the matters pertaining
to the nature and scope of the income tax alleged in United
States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1988). These
are like and parallel aspects of the revenue laws of the
United States. The action pleadings are included herein by
Additional documents requested are as follows: (3
- 8 with 18 full business days opportunity to comply as of
today if compl;iance mailed 02-22-01 -JS)
3. Please send certified copies of the
signed commissions for:
Alsup, Judge William WHA Armstrong, Judge Saundra B. SBA
Brazil, Magistrate Judge Wayne D. WDB Breyer, Judge Charles
R. CRB Chesney, Judge Maxine M. MMC Conti, Senior Judge Samuel
SC Fogel, Judge Jeremy JF Garrett, Magistrate Judge William
L. WLG Hamilton, Judge Phyllis J. PJH Henderson, Senior Judge
Thelton E. TEH Illston, Judge Susan SI Infante, Chief Magistrate
Judge Edward A. EAI Ingram, Senior Judge William A. WAI James,
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena MEJ Jenkins, Judge Martin J.
MJJ Jensen, Senior Judge D. Lowell DLJ Laporte, Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth D. EDL Larson, Magistrate Judge James JL
Legge, Judge Charles A. CAL Nord, Magistrate Judge Larry
B. LBN Orrick, Senior Judge William H. WHO Patel, Chief Judge
Marilyn Hall MHP Spero, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. JCS Trumbull,
Magistrate Judge Patricia V. PVT Walker, Judge Vaughn R.
VRW Ware, Judge James JW Whyte, Judge Ronald M. RMW Wilken,
Judge Claudia CW Williams, Senior Judge Spencer SW Zimmerman,
Magistrate Judge Bernard
4. Please send certified copies of the signed commission
for Richard W. Wieking, called "District Clerk" (Northern
5. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing
the establishment of and the delegated functions for what
is known as the Supreme Court of the United States.
6. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing
the 2001 appropriations for and documents evidencing the
Clerk of the Court postal location for the original supreme
court of the United States.
7. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing
the year 2001 appropriations for and documents evidencing
the Clerk of the Court walk in location for the district
court of the United States for Northern California.
8. Please send certified copies of documents evidencing
the year 1946 appropriations for the district court of the
United States for Northern California.
Documents requested are as follows:
1. Please send certified documents that effect the
establishment of any internal revenue district office with
authority to administer Form 1040 claim for refund of resources
collected under color of 26 USC normal taxes (§1) and "employment
taxes" (§3402), on claim of a free Person (U.S. Const.
I, §2, 3) working in San Francisco and located in
Oakland city, California state.
2. Please send certified documents that effect: a) the
Congressional act, and b) the commissioning of, and, c) the
delegation of authority as "delegate" of the Secretary
of the Treasury (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(A))published in
the Federal Register in compliance with 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a),
for a "district director" (i.e. a Director Foreign
Operations District) to locate in California state to administer
inter alia 1040 refund claims for (§1 and §3402 error) of
a free Persons (U.S. Const. I, §2, 3) working in San
Francisco and located in Oakland city, California state.
The matters to be settled for the removal of the
vagueness,for the contract meeting of the minds:
"specified Federal payments": the
eight statements I. - VIII. are agreed true and correct
"specified Federal payments": the
ten summary statements a) - j) are agreed true and
correct as stated.
The United States will not be heard to object to jury
grand and/or to petite jury access to the evidence
of and by these papers in any matter relating to 26
For the F.O.I.A. of August 14, 2000:
For which you have replied "RE: 00-09-14" of
September 13, 2000 and 11-03-00 (Reply No. 2000-4824 from
undisclosed location in D.C. 20224).
No documents of delegation of authority as "delegate" for
filing tax liens and/or levies in States of the Union
responsive to our request exist. [Your 11-03-00
admission in pertinent part, "The Act however
does not require an agency to . compile or collect
information (i.e. documents) which does (do) not exist."];
you admit personal knowledge that no such documents
No documents that specify certification requirements
for notices of lien et. al exist; you admit personal
knowledge that no such documents exist.
No regulations and/or policy instructions which particularize
requirements for proper completion of notices of lien,
notices of neither levy nor related documents exist; you
admit personal knowledge that no such documents exist.
Your response misnomers my location "CA 94609";
your response was received not of free commercial home
delivery and not with relation to legal fiction "CA
Your response of 11-03-00 (Reply No. 2000-4824
from undisclosed location in D.C. 20224) evidences:
a) a seal of Puerto Rico, to wit "* Treasury
* Internal Revenue Service". This seal incorporates
the coat of arms/heraldry of the Department of the
Treasury of the United States 1789, and, b) that
a foreign office for Department of Treasury Puerto
Rico is situated (circumstanced) in Washington
D.C., and, c) the letter is not with specific
source location or address (neither on the letter
nor on the envelope).
For the admissions 1) - 5): The Internal
Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States
and thus is not subject to provisions of the FOIA.
In this instance however the IRS has consented
to request to act in capacity of an agent for the
Secretary of the Treasury of the United States (the
For the F.O.I.A. of December 12, 2000; (delivered
The United States is not with an authorized
Internal Revenue Service district office located in
California state for the acceptance nor for the determination
of Form 1040 request for refund of wrongfully withheld
The United States is not with: a) provision
of law, b) executive order(s), c) issuance
of commission, d) delegation(s) of authority or
function(s) for "district directors" (i.e.
Directors Foreign Operations Districts) for the administration
of the 1040 claim for refund for California state inhabitants.
For the F.O.I.A. request of August 14, 2000 for the response
of 11-03-00 is with the reply by me to Ms. Leslie Haywood,
ID No. 50-30172 (Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 795 - Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044) and to Mr. Reubin
and Ms. Johnson on 11-08-00 stating for items to be settled
1) - 6) above, "This will memorialize, unless refuted
by you within ten (10) days (Rule Day Dec. 19, 2000, 6 PM
PST in Oakland)." Your default is waived. This rule
day is extended to coincide with the rule day for this instrument.
--------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Re: REAL MONEY STILL RULES
Give me some substance. First show where Congress
established and provided for a USDC in Sacramento 28 USC
132 [There is in my refrigerator a roast beef sandwich -only
if someone has placed on there.] Where did Congress provide
for the Promulgation of 28 USC 84 or 132? The Hendersons
did not present 28 USC 861 for adjudication. Why do you present
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:53:47 -0800 "Quatloos!" <firstname.lastname@example.org:
Send any paper money and other worthless script to us and
we will dispose of it correctly and patriotically, so that
you are no longer tainted by it. We will even give
10 cents in HARD COIN (your choice!) for each "worthless" FRNs
or any other paper purporting to be U.S. money which has
a President(or Ben Franklin, which is pretty much the same
thing) on it.
California Couple Sentenced for Helping Clients Evade Taxes
February 23, 2001
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
A California couple who helped their clients evade at least $13.8 million in
federal income taxes were sentenced to long prison terms yesterday, sentences
the judge extended after they said that the tax laws were invalid and did not
apply to them.
The couple, Dorothy and George Henderson of Roseville, Calif., sold trusts
through which, customers were told, they could put their money beyond the reach
of the Internal Revenue Service. The couple kept 5 percent of the deposits.
Mrs. Henderson, 56, was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison and Mr.
Henderson, 59, was sentenced to six and a half years by Judge Garland E. Burrell
Jr. of United States District Court in Sacramento.
The Hendersons did not testify at their trials, but at a sentencing hearing
yesterday they told Judge Burrell that the
I.R.S. had no authority over them and that they would pursue claims against
They also said they were exempt from tax under Section 861 of the Internal
Revenue Code, contending that the statute excludes most Americans from income
Donald Dorfman, Mrs. Henderson's lawyer, said that he tried to show his
client that she had misread the law and that rather than exempting anyone from
taxes it extended the reach of American tax law to income from foreign sources.
"She wouldn't listen," Mr. Dorfman said. "She insisted on
speaking and telling the judge about the 861 position and how as a sovereign
citizen of California the federal courts had no jurisdiction and all sorts of
Mr. Dorfman said the speech caused the judge to add five months to Mrs.
Henderson's sentence beyond prosecutors' request.
The judge gave Mr. Henderson an extra eight months.
position is being advocated by a small but growing number of business owners
and others who, calling themselves the tax honesty movement, say that the government
operates the I.R.S. illegally. These business owners have boasted in ads in
USA Today and on the Internet that they do not pay taxes and say the I.R.S.
has not acted against them. They cite that as proof that the tax laws are a
The case against the Hendersons began several years ago and grew out of
another case in which four other Californians, including a lawyer, were convicted
and are now in prison.
Return to Tax Protestor Exhibit