subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal Courts To
Enforce Does Not Exist
The federal
courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the
administrative claims of the IRS for personal income tax that are
assessed and demanded as a function of their operational practice.
This is true because of the nature of the IRS' operational practices,
which enforce the collection of the federal personal income tax from the
American citizens as a direct unapportioned tax under alleged authority
of the 16th Amendment, rather than under the legitimate authority of Article I,
Section 8, clauses 1 and 18 of the U.S. Constitution.
The lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as any attorney will tell you, is fatal to a civil action filed by a Plaintiff (in this case, the United States); - as a court, without subject-matter jurisdiction must dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, immediately, - lacking judicial authority to entertain any action that the court is not given a specific enforceable authority over, by both the Constitution and the statutes of the U.S.C., i.e.: establishing the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court to entertain the civil action.
In this case we are talking about all civil and most criminal actions (prosecutions) filed by the United States DOJ to pursue enforcement in the federal courts of the income tax under the 16th Amendment. I can irrefutably prove the federal courts lack the subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain, uphold, and enforce these claims and complaints (and tax) under that alleged authority. This information completely destroys the IRS and exposes the entire history of the federal courts' income tax enforcement as a complete and total fraud. Every single individual person who has ever lost a home, a car, a paycheck, a bank account, their wife, or their life, has been cheated out of their property (and their lives) by an IRS and or a federal court that had no real power to act under any subject-matter jurisdiction that can be legitimately and lawfully taken by the court, under an enforceable legal authority that was created by the 16th Amendment, for irrefutable lack of any enabling enforcement clause in the Amendment that would constitutionally authorized the Congress to write any law under that Amendment, to enforce any taxing power allegedly newly created thereunder !
Because the IRS claims, and argues, effectively admitting in all of its correspondence letters with taxpayers, that they are pursuing the enforcement of the federal personal income tax under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment as an unapportioned direct tax; - these claims and this administrative practice consequentially strips the federal courts of the subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to entertain any subsequently filed civil enforcement actions to uphold the tax assessed or claimed owed, because there is no enabling enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment that would authorize Congress to write any law or enforcement statutes, to enforce any tax, or new taxing power, allegedly created under the Amendment. If Congress is not constitutionally authorized to write any statutes to enforce the power alleged created, the federal courts cannot take a subject-matter jurisdiction under a statute, over the civil action, to enforce the claim made in the court based on that alleged power; - because the federal courts are courts of limited powers, and of a limited jurisdiction, that only authorizes the enforcement in the federal courts of constitutionally authorized, written law of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The federal courts are not empowered to, and cannot, enforce a particular political philosophy, or a religion, or set of beliefs, or ideas, or even a defacto practice, that is not written in or supported by a dejure administration of the law, nor is ever constitutionally made enforceable. Only the authorized written law may be used to establish the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts over a civil action. Nothing else. And the federal courts must take their subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action, under a constitutionally authorized statute of the United States Code (Title 26 of the USC).
The ability of the courts to take jurisdiction is completely destroyed because the IRS claims in all of its correspondence with taxpayers, that they are pursuing the enforcement of the income tax under the 16th Amendment, and not under Article I, Section 8, as an impost, duty, or excise; - as was held by the Supreme Court in 1916 to be the constitutional application of the income taxing powers granted under the 16th Amendment (see Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 US 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co, 240 US 103 (1916); Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), and which indirect taxing powers are constitutionally made enforceable, by laws from Congress, under the Necesary and Proper enforcement clause of Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
But, there is irrefutably, NO enforcement clause that exists in the 16th Amendment. Clearly this is why most Americans believed for years that the income tax must be voluntary, because it cannot be enforced with law without an enabling enforcement clause in the Amendment authorizing law to be written by Congress (enforcing the new power granted, - if any power is to be so granted) ! Of course, the U.S. Constitution is not taught in our schools anymore, so these irrefutable controlling constitutional facts have either been forgotten across generations, or were never learned or known at all by most of the American people, including our public elected officials!
To make a long story short, without Congress being authorized by an enabling enforcement clause as part of the 16th Amendment to write law, then, no law can exist for the federal courts to take jurisdiction under to enforce the practice being conducted by the IRS under the 16th Amendment, to pursue the enforcement of an income tax that is assessed by the IRS in practice as a direct unapportioned tax under the 16th Amendment; - rather than as the uniform indirect tax that is constitutionally authorized and allowed under Article I, Section 8, as upheld by the Supreme Court in 1916 (which is also the reason that the tax is not voluntary - it has limited enforceable application, but only as an impost, duty or excise under Article I).
Of course, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (under the 16th Amendment - for lack of an enabling enforcement clause) is the first defense of every civil defendant under the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(1). Lack of personal jurisdiction (under Article I - for lack of statutory subjectivity to any impost, duty or excise tax imposed in law thereunder) is the second defense of every civil defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(2). Therefore, all of the civil tax enforcement actions filed by the United States must be dismissed from the district courts if properly argued by an attorney (or defendant), and the deeper you look into the supporting evidence of the statutes and the published enforcement regulations and procedures, the clearer this all becomes!
The confusion and problem arises out of the fact that, and continues today because, there are actually two different, contradictory Standards at Law being practiced and applied in the federal courts with regard to the federal personal income tax. This problematic inherent contradiction in the federal courts causing the constitutional problem is obvious (see attached Motion to Determine the Standard at Law Used), and how to deal with it procedurally in the courts is simple, once the problem is recognized and acknowledged. The inherent contradiction in the two opposing Standards at Law can be used to compel the court to make a clear choice as to the identification and establishment of its alleged constitutional foundation and true authority for the civil action, going to the proper establishment of the actual subject-matter jurisdiction of the court over the action, on the record of the action, either one of which choices, kills the civil action under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(2) ! It's just that simple. The supporting evidence, as to the true constitutionally authorized use of the enforcement statutes by the IRS under Article I and Title 27, is clearly published in the CFR, with no applicability shown under Title 26 and the 16th Amendment (see attached) !
Properly publicized in the legal community, this information will completely destroy the IRS in a matter of months, and will also destroy the DOJ's ability to secure judgments in the federal courts to continue to enforce the income tax as it has doing under a perverted philosophy that attempts to make the income tax under the 16th Amendment the operational equivalent of the unlimited power to tax the people directly (and without apportionment) that is called for in the second plank of the Communist Manifesto; - rather than being implemented and enforced as a limited power to tax indirectly under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, as upheld by the Supreme Court in 1916, as an impost, duty or excise.
I know this introductory letter is already too long, and since a picture speaks a thousand words, I urge you to review the attached, two, very simple diagrams that show what is wrong with, and what is actually allowed in the federal courts of America under the federal income tax system today, under the U.S. Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court.
Will you help me to save America from this monstrous judicial error, and publicize in the legal community this information about this fatal fundamental lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts to entertain and adjudicate civil and criminal actions relating to the enforcement of the federal personal income tax ? Every attorney in the country should know how to put on this defense for any income-tax-charged defendant !
I have written all of the Motions and court documents necessary to do this. I also have all of the necessary supporting documents, and will be mounting these Motions and docs on the www.IRSzoom.com on-line document library that allows any person in the country to quickly and easily procure the documents necessary to answer any administrative correspondence received from the IRS, and to subsequently properly argue the actual income tax law(s), in the federal court(s), under the U.S. Constitution, if necessary, using this lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (or personal jurisdiction) argument. This perfect legal strategy is ready to be publicized and used by the general public and all private attorneys arguing tax law in the U.S. courtroom, anywhere in America, for any civil Defendant in a tax enforcement action (other those people who are actually involved in ATF and petroleum fuels activities, where the tax is actually imposed and made enforceable). Would you be willing to help me restore constitutionality to the American system of income taxation ?
Please review the attached pages, and then feel free to contact me for more information or supporting documents on this legal breakthrough,
Thank you for your time and consideration in this critically important national matter.
Respectfully,
Thomas Freed
Cell: (703) 899-7369 Fax: (202) 280-1301