IRS Paper on "Strawman"

[Vicegerent]

From:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.

In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent

[PV]

Post by Vicegerent
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

First of all why do you bother quoting IRS documentation on a Canadian Taxes
newsgroup?

Second post one iota of proof of one single user of your "method" defeating
CRA.

PV
(and try to show you are an adult by not spewing a wad of profanity in your
reply, it only makes you look even more desperate then you really are)

[Abbot]

Post by PV

Post by Vicegerent
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

First of all why do you bother quoting IRS documentation on a Canadian Taxes
newsgroup?
Second post one iota of proof of one single user of your "method" defeating
CRA.
PV
(and try to show you are an adult by not spewing a wad of profanity in your
reply, it only makes you look even more desperate then you really are)

Abbot) PV, the old boy is posting desperate because he tried to tell
us his method flew under the notice of the IRS. Now that it is clear
that the agency was onto his scam years ago the old liar is squirming
as fast as he can!

[Abbot]

Post by PV

Post by Vicegerent
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

First of all why do you bother quoting IRS documentation on a Canadian Taxes
newsgroup?
Second post one iota of proof of one single user of your "method" defeating
CRA.
PV
(and try to show you are an adult by not spewing a wad of profanity in your
reply, it only makes you look even more desperate then you really are)

Abbot) PV, the old boy is posting desperate because he tried to tell
us his method flew under the notice of the IRS. Now that it is clear
that the agency was onto his scam years ago the old liar is squirming
as fast as he can!

[PV]

Post by Abbot

Post by PV

Post by Vicegerent
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

First of all why do you bother quoting IRS documentation on a Canadian Taxes
newsgroup?
Second post one iota of proof of one single user of your "method" defeating
CRA.
PV
(and try to show you are an adult by not spewing a wad of profanity in your
reply, it only makes you look even more desperate then you really are)

Abbot) PV, the old boy is posting desperate because he tried to tell
us his method flew under the notice of the IRS. Now that it is clear
that the agency was onto his scam years ago the old liar is squirming
as fast as he can!

I think it was nice of him to post the fact the IRS knows it's crap and
illegal, however how relevant is that to a Can tax group. I notice however
he posts nothing from CRA, of course he is not mentioned by name but his
nonsense is clearly spelled out as being a myth.

Pretty sad when your life's work turns out to be a pathetic bunch of lies,
which of course the realization is slowly driving him around the bend.
maybe he should take a job as a Walmart greeter, might get him out of the
basement once in a while.

Maybe he would feel better knowing the CA magazine mentions him by name, not
in a good way but at least his name is mentioned.


PV

[Paul Thomas, CPA]

Post by PV
Second post one iota of proof of one single
user of your "method" defeating CRA.

We know it's not Eldon, as he claimed he hasn't actually used his method in
Canada.

[Abbot]

From:http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

Abbot) Eldon, the fact is there is no substantial difference between
your method and the one the IRS discusses because you borrowed that
very same method wholesale from others who used it before you! If you
had bothered to read the case law cited in the bulletin you would have
seen that the concept of a government created straw man is rejected
altogether, regardless of the tortured logic from which it came!

So as to deceive, you fail to mention the Canadian courts' rejection
of your straw man theory in the Hanna case. . . and in your own hate
speech trial!

We have all seen the documents in which Hanna cut and pasted your
exact verbiage from your website! It didn't work, Eldon. . .nothing
you do ever does!

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Post by Vicegerent
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Post by Vicegerent
Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

Post by Vicegerent
These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

Post by Vicegerent
that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

Post by Vicegerent
or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1
http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
Vicegerent

[Vicegerent]

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any error or illegality in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.

And. PV, the IRS and CRA are the "Same
Shit - Different Pile."

From:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.

In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent

[PV]

Post by Vicegerent

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any error or illegality in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.
And. PV, the IRS and CRA are the "Same
Shit - Different Pile."
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

No matter how icing you put on a pile of dog crap it will never be a wedding
cake. No matter how many times you re-post your nonsense, it will never be
legitimate.

PV

[Nobody]

Post by Vicegerent

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any validity in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.

STILL waiting for proof on that Eldon.

Post by Vicegerent
And. PV, the IRS and CRA are the "Same
Shit - Different Pile."

No argument there Eldon. Both the IRS AND the CRA says your scheme is
bullshit. You are STILL zero for life. You must be proud. Of course
your wife and kids sure aren't.

[Abbot]

Abbot) Eldon's laughable claim that his method is a clear improvement
over previous straw man arguments is the sort of scam so common in the
detax cult. Wannabe gurus like Eldon thrive on the notion that they
are unlocking the "secret code of the law" with their "improved
technologies". In this way losers like Eldon hope to become the self-
proclaimed intellectual leaders of their dysfunctional cult.

Equally laughable is Eldon's self-portrait as a battle scared freedom
fighter who has finally gained the upper hand in his struggle against
the government. Eldon Warman is a life long loser who in the last 23
years has floated countless lame theories. . .and wrecked countless
lives doing so!

What this self-proclaimed genius does not realize is that it makes no
difference whether the underpinning of the straw man theory is the
claim that the government creates the straw man by putting one's name
on a birth certificate in all caps or by "assigning" a family name, as
Eldon opines, since in each and every case brought before the courts
it has been ruled that there is no such thing as a government created
straw man in the first place!

The comic irony is that Warman uses the logical fallacy of attacking
the straw man to support his straw man argument! In other words, he
attacks an argument the government, the courts, the CRA and the IRS
have never really made!

From:http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Post by Vicegerent
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Post by Vicegerent
Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

Post by Vicegerent
These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

Post by Vicegerent
that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

Post by Vicegerent
or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1
http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
Vicegerent

[Vicegerent]

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any error or illegality in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.

From:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.

In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent

[Abbot]

Post by Vicegerent

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any error or illegality in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.

Abbot) Eldon, you fail to mention the Canadian courts' rejection of
your straw man theory in the Hanna case!

We have all seen the documents in which Hanna cut and pasted your
exact verbiage from your website:

No name doesn't mean no tax, Yukoner finds out. Friday, February 3,
2006 | 4:19 PM ET CBC News.

Whitehorse man who tried to thwart tax collectors by claiming he
doesn't have a name has been fined more than $3,000.

Cliff Hanna was convicted in territorial court late last month of
failing to file income tax returns for the past three years.

He attempted to persuade the justice of the peace, Garry Burgess, that
he is a free man who owes the government nothing.

In a sworn affidavit, he declared that the name James Clifford Hanna
was put on his birth certificate many years ago in Alberta without his
permission. He disclaimed responsibility for debts or obligations the
government may now assign to that name [readers will note that this is
exactly Eldon's argument].

He said people continue to be defrauded into believing their birth
certificates oblige them to obey demands of the Crown. He added there
is no record anywhere that he ever accepted the Hanna name.

The fact he occasionally responds to the name means nothing, Hanna
said. "I respond to 'Uncle' from my niece and nephews, and 'Meow' from
my aunt's cats, but it is doubtful that any of these is my true name,"
he argued in court documents [readers will note that this is an exact
quote from Eldon's website].

As far as he is concerned, the name James Clifford Hanna is
"hearsay."

It is the property and creation of the Crown, he said. "If you wish to
collect debt instruments (Canadian legal tender) ... may I suggest you
send your invoice and demand for performance to the ministry
responsible" in Alberta, he said [readers will note that this is
exactly Eldon's argument].

The justice of the peace imposed the minimum fine plus a surcharge for
a total of $3,450.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/03/no-name.html

-------------------------------------------

[readers will note that how poor Clifford Hanna copied Eldon's sample
affidavit word for word: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

Post by Vicegerent
From:http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1
http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
Vicegerent

[Vicegerent]

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any error or illegality in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.

From:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.

In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent

[Abbot]

Abbot) Eldon you are an insane, pathological liar.

When it is pointed out that your straw man theory has been rejected by
the courts you side step the truth and say it is all about your filing
method (which you swear is successful) and not the theory behind it.

But when it is pointed out that you don't use your own method and
can't show us anyone who has so filed you say it is all about your
straw man theory and not your filing method.

When these two contradictory ruses fail you, you opine that the
diligent efforts of your debunkers to point out the failure of your
method somehow proves it is true and successful.

When that desperate ploy fails you slip into your schizophrenic mode
and assign your debunker some role in a "Portuguese lizard blood
"conspiracy.

One wonders if you are ever honest or sane about anything.

Post by Vicegerent

From all the PREDATOR yipping and yapping

above, one still does not find any proof offered
that there is any error or illegality in Eldon's
$0.00 Tax Owing method of filing an IRS 1040
or CRA T1.
From:http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1
http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
Vicegerent

[Vicegerent]

From:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html

DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Post by Vicegerent
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Post by Vicegerent
Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

Post by Vicegerent
These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

Post by Vicegerent
that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

Post by Vicegerent
or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.

In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1

http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm

Vicegerent

[Abbot]

Abbot) Eldon you are a pathological liar. You've been lying since the
day it was time for you to own up to your role in your wife's suicide.
Your method doesn't work. . .you don't use it. . . no one we know of
does. . .none of your methids have ever worked. . .you haven't freed
anyone. . .you've only ruined some.

When it is pointed out that your straw man theory has been rejected
by
the courts you side step the truth and say it is all about your
filing
method (which you swear is successful) and not the theory behind it.

But when it is pointed out that you don't use your own method and
can't show us anyone who has so filed you say it is all about your
straw man theory and not your filing method.

When these two contradictory ruses fail you, you opine that the
diligent efforts of your debunkers to point out the failure of your
method somehow proves it is true and successful.

When that desperate ploy fails you slip into your schizophrenic mode
and assign your debunker some role in a "Portuguese lizard blood
"conspiracy.

One wonders if you are ever honest or sane about anything.

From:http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-case with only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-case letters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Post by Vicegerent
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Post by Vicegerent
Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-case with only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-case letters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
The case used in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

Post by Vicegerent
These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

Post by Vicegerent
that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

Post by Vicegerent
or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1
http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
Vicegerent

[Paul Thomas]

Post by Vicegerent
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1

Repeat that to the judge.

Again to your cell mate.

I'm sure you'll claim it didn't keep you from being screwed in both cases.



http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106504,00.html


Contention: Taxpayer is not a "person" as defined by the Internal Revenue
Code, and thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.

Some maintain that they are not a "person" as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This
argument is based on a tortured misreading of the Code.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines "person" and sets forth
which persons are subject to federal taxes. Section 7701(a)(14) defines
"taxpayer" as any person subject to any internal revenue tax and section
7701(a)(1) defines "person" to include an individual, trust, estate,
partnership, or corporation. Arguments that an individual is not a "person"
within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly
rejected. A similar argument with respect to the term "individual" has also
been rejected.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480
U.S. 907 (1987) - The court affirmed Karlin's conviction for failure to file
income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was "not a 'person'
within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203" as "frivolous and requir[ing] no
discussion."

United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996) - The court
stated that "[a]n individual is a person under the Internal Revenue Code."

Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11 th Cir.), reh'g denied, 775
F.2d 304 (11 th Cir. 1985) - The court said the claim that Biermann was not
"a person liable for taxes" was "patently frivolous" and, given the Tax
Court's warning to Biermann that his positions would never be sustained in
any court, awarded the government double costs, plus attorney's fees.

Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89
(2000) - The court described the argument that Smith "is not a 'person
liable' for tax" as frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and
imposed a penalty for maintaining "frivolous and groundless positions."

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9 th Cir. 1986) - The court
affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's contention
that she was not subject to federal tax laws because she was "an absolute,
freeborn, and natural individual" and went on to note that "this argument
has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the
government for decades."







http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106503,00.html

Contention: Wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal
services are not income.

This argument asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for
personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain
when a person "exchanges" labor for money. Under this theory, wages are not
taxable income because people have basis in their labor equal to the fair
market value of the wages they receive; thus, there is no gain to be taxed.
Some take a different approach and argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries,
but only on gain or profit.

The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income
from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C.
§ 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under
section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically
exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir.
1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that,
absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever
source derived."

All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment,
must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in
cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received
because of services performed, or to be performed in the future.
Furthermore, criminal and civil penalties have been imposed against
individuals relying upon this frivolous argument.

Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) - Referring
to the statute's words "income derived from any source whatever," the
Supreme Court stated, "this language was used by Congress to exert in this
field 'the full measure of its taxing power.' . . . And the Court has given
a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the
intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) - The Supreme Court found that
payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions
to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete
dominion.

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497
U.S. 1029 (1990) - The court stated, "[e]very court which has ever
considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are
not income."

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5 th Cir. 1981) - The court
rejected as "meritless" the taxpayer's contention that the "exchange of
services for money is a zero-sum transaction . . . ." Reading v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8 th Cir. 980) - The
court said the entire amount received from the sale of one's services
constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. United
States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8 th Cir. 1983) - The court upheld
conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns,
stating that the taxpayer's contention that wages and salaries are not
income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is "totally lacking in
merit."

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9 th Cir. 1981) - The court
affirmed Romero's conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns,
finding, in part, that "[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on
the meaning of ['income' and 'person']. Romero's proclaimed belief that he
was not a 'person' and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not
'income' is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect." Abrams v. Commissioner,
82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) - The court rejected the argument that wages are not
income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000
for pursuing a position that was "frivolous and groundless . . . and
maintained primarily for delay."

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193
(1999) - Noting that "[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for
services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax
basis in their labor," the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to
file penalty, stating, "[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on
compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause."



B. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income
derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of
the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise
taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the
privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The
premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911,
et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, "gross income"
means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for
services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1-1(b) provides,
"[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the
Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States." I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income
(U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of
double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country.
These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they
determine or define gross income.

Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established
legal precedent. "Recently the IRS explained its position on the I.R.C. 861
argument in Rev. Rul. 2004-30 and on the I.R.C. 911 argument in Rev. Rul.
2004-28."

Relevant Case Law:
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) - The court rejected the
taxpayer's argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed
in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as "reminiscent of
tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other
courts."

Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) -
The court rejected the taxpayer's argument that the only sources of income
for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) - The
court labeled as "frivolous" the position that only foreign income is
taxable.

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202
(1993) - The court rejected the taxpayer's argument that his income was
exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no
foreign income and that section 861 provides that "compensation for labor or
personal services performed in the United States . . . are items of gross
income."




http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765505

Contention: Taxpayers can reduce their federal income tax liability by
filing a "zero return."

Some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal income tax liability
by filing a tax return that reports no income and no tax liability (a "zero
return") even though they have taxable income. Many of these taxpayers also
request a refund of any taxes withheld by an employer. These individuals
typically attach to the zero return a Form W-2, or other information return
that reports income and income tax withholding, and rely on one or more of
the frivolous arguments discussed throughout this outline in support of
their position.

The Law: There is no authority that permits a taxpayer that has taxable
income to avoid income tax by filing a zero return. Section 61 provides
that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived,
including compensation for services. Courts have repeatedly penalized
taxpayers for making the frivolous argument that the filing of a zero return
can allow a taxpayer to avoid income tax liability, or permit a refund of
tax withheld by an employer. Courts have also imposed the frivolous return
and failure to file penalties because such forms do not evidence an honest
and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax laws or contain sufficient data to
calculate the tax liability. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-34, 2004-1
C.B. 619, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this argument.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the phrase "nunc pro tunc," or other legal
phrase, does not have any legal effect and does not serve to validate a zero
return. See Rev. Rul. 2006-17, 2006-15 I.R.B. 748.

In December 2005, a federal district court in Arizona permanently barred
Beverly J. Hill and Darrell J. Hill (individually and doing business as
Superior Claims Management) from, among other things, preparing or filing
federal tax returns for any person or entity other than themselves. The
court found that the couple filed zero returns on behalf of their clients
based on various frivolous tax arguments, thus interfering with the
administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. United States
v. Hill, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 548, 2005 WL 3536118 (D. Az. 2005); see also,
2005 TNT 248-8 (Dec. 27, 2005).

In April 2006, a federal district court in Michigan permanently barred
Charles Conces from promoting several fraudulent tax schemes, including one
in which he filed "zero returns" on behalf of his clients on the faulty
premise that income is not taxable. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_243.html; see also 2006 TNT
80-36 (Apr. 25, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:
Little v. United States, 2005 WL 2989696, *4 (M.D.N.C. 2005) - taxpayer
filed income tax returns showing "0" income and "0" tax liability, even
though his W-2 Forms showed taxable income. In response, the IRS imposed
penalties for submitting frivolous returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6702.
The court noted that multiple other courts have upheld such a penalty
assessment in similar cases where taxpayers filed a "zero return" based on
various "tax protester" arguments. Determining that plaintiff failed to
raise any genuine issues of material fact, the court upheld the penalties.

Schultz v. United States, 2005 WL 1155203, *3 (W.D. Mich. 2005) - "Courts
have consistently found the arguments made by Plaintiffs, or ones very
similar, in support of an all zero return to be frivolous."

Yuen v. United States, 290 F.Supp.2d 1220,1224 (D. Nev. 2003) - taxpayer's
tax returns were substantially incorrect and frivolous, when he filed
returns with zeros on nearly every line, and thus, the court decided,
assessments of frivolous return penalties were valid.

Gillett v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881 (W.D. Mich. 2002) - the
court stated "[n]umerous federal courts have upheld the imposition of the
$500 sanction by the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) [for frivolous
returns], where, as here, a tax form is filed stating that an individual had
no income, but the attached W-2 forms show wages, tips, or other
compensation of greater than zero."

United States v. Schiff, et al., 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004) - the court of
appeals upheld a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin
Schiff and two associates from promoting their "zero-income" tax return
theories through his bookstore and three Internet websites. As the court
noted, Mr. Schiff "has a long history of opposition to the federal income
tax laws" and has never been successful in court with his theory that "the
federal income tax is voluntary."

Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554
(2005) - the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found
no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held
that the taxpayer's argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an
income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus
deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed
a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making
frivolous arguments.

Halcott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-214 - the court held the taxpayer
liable for the penalty under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file
his return where the taxpayer filed a "zero return."

Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-144, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1328, 1331
(2003) - the court imposed a $15,000 penalty under section 6673 because the
taxpayer took the frivolous "zero return" position.

Rayner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-30, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1161 (2002) -
the court imposed a $5,000 penalty under section 6673 where the taxpayer
argued the frivolous "zero return" position.

[Vicegerent]

Regarding Predator's sub-posts,

See Thread:
"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method

Vicegerent

[Paul Thomas]

Eldon, we don't have to prove anything.

The courts have all agreed with us, and against you. Every time, anybody.

[Vicegerent]

Regarding Predator's sub-posts,
See Thread:

"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method

Vicegerent

[Paul Thomas]

It's sad to see Eldon self destruct.




http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106504,00.html


Contention: Taxpayer is not a "person" as defined by the Internal Revenue
Code, and thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.

Some maintain that they are not a "person" as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This
argument is based on a tortured misreading of the Code.

The Law: The Internal Revenue Code clearly defines "person" and sets forth
which persons are subject to federal taxes. Section 7701(a)(14) defines
"taxpayer" as any person subject to any internal revenue tax and section
7701(a)(1) defines "person" to include an individual, trust, estate,
partnership, or corporation. Arguments that an individual is not a "person"
within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly
rejected. A similar argument with respect to the term "individual" has also
been rejected.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480
U.S. 907 (1987) - The court affirmed Karlin's conviction for failure to file
income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was "not a 'person'
within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203" as "frivolous and requir[ing] no
discussion."

United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996) - The court
stated that "[a]n individual is a person under the Internal Revenue Code."

Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707, 708 (11 th Cir.), reh'g denied, 775
F.2d 304 (11 th Cir. 1985) - The court said the claim that Biermann was not
"a person liable for taxes" was "patently frivolous" and, given the Tax
Court's warning to Biermann that his positions would never be sustained in
any court, awarded the government double costs, plus attorney's fees.

Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89
(2000) - The court described the argument that Smith "is not a 'person
liable' for tax" as frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and
imposed a penalty for maintaining "frivolous and groundless positions."

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9 th Cir. 1986) - The court
affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's contention
that she was not subject to federal tax laws because she was "an absolute,
freeborn, and natural individual" and went on to note that "this argument
has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the
government for decades."




http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765505

Contention: Taxpayers can reduce their federal income tax liability by
filing a "zero return."

Some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal income tax liability
by filing a tax return that reports no income and no tax liability (a "zero
return") even though they have taxable income. Many of these taxpayers also
request a refund of any taxes withheld by an employer. These individuals
typically attach to the zero return a Form W-2, or other information return
that reports income and income tax withholding, and rely on one or more of
the frivolous arguments discussed throughout this outline in support of
their position.

The Law: There is no authority that permits a taxpayer that has taxable
income to avoid income tax by filing a zero return. Section 61 provides
that gross income includes all income from whatever source derived,
including compensation for services. Courts have repeatedly penalized
taxpayers for making the frivolous argument that the filing of a zero return
can allow a taxpayer to avoid income tax liability, or permit a refund of
tax withheld by an employer. Courts have also imposed the frivolous return
and failure to file penalties because such forms do not evidence an honest
and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax laws or contain sufficient data to
calculate the tax liability. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2004-34, 2004-1
C.B. 619, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this argument.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the phrase "nunc pro tunc," or other legal
phrase, does not have any legal effect and does not serve to validate a zero
return. See Rev. Rul. 2006-17, 2006-15 I.R.B. 748.

In December 2005, a federal district court in Arizona permanently barred
Beverly J. Hill and Darrell J. Hill (individually and doing business as
Superior Claims Management) from, among other things, preparing or filing
federal tax returns for any person or entity other than themselves. The
court found that the couple filed zero returns on behalf of their clients
based on various frivolous tax arguments, thus interfering with the
administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. United States
v. Hill, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 548, 2005 WL 3536118 (D. Az. 2005); see also,
2005 TNT 248-8 (Dec. 27, 2005).

In April 2006, a federal district court in Michigan permanently barred
Charles Conces from promoting several fraudulent tax schemes, including one
in which he filed "zero returns" on behalf of his clients on the faulty
premise that income is not taxable. See
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/April/06_tax_243.html; see also 2006 TNT
80-36 (Apr. 25, 2006).

Relevant Case Law:
Little v. United States, 2005 WL 2989696, *4 (M.D.N.C. 2005) - taxpayer
filed income tax returns showing "0" income and "0" tax liability, even
though his W-2 Forms showed taxable income. In response, the IRS imposed
penalties for submitting frivolous returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6702.
The court noted that multiple other courts have upheld such a penalty
assessment in similar cases where taxpayers filed a "zero return" based on
various "tax protester" arguments. Determining that plaintiff failed to
raise any genuine issues of material fact, the court upheld the penalties.

Schultz v. United States, 2005 WL 1155203, *3 (W.D. Mich. 2005) - "Courts
have consistently found the arguments made by Plaintiffs, or ones very
similar, in support of an all zero return to be frivolous."

Yuen v. United States, 290 F.Supp.2d 1220,1224 (D. Nev. 2003) - taxpayer's
tax returns were substantially incorrect and frivolous, when he filed
returns with zeros on nearly every line, and thus, the court decided,
assessments of frivolous return penalties were valid.

Gillett v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881 (W.D. Mich. 2002) - the
court stated "[n]umerous federal courts have upheld the imposition of the
$500 sanction by the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6702(a) [for frivolous
returns], where, as here, a tax form is filed stating that an individual had
no income, but the attached W-2 forms show wages, tips, or other
compensation of greater than zero."

United States v. Schiff, et al., 379 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2004) - the court of
appeals upheld a federal district court preliminary injunction barring Irwin
Schiff and two associates from promoting their "zero-income" tax return
theories through his bookstore and three Internet websites. As the court
noted, Mr. Schiff "has a long history of opposition to the federal income
tax laws" and has never been successful in court with his theory that "the
federal income tax is voluntary."

Bonaccorso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-278, 90 T.C.M. (CCH) 554
(2005) - the taxpayer filed zero returns based on the argument that he found
no Code section that made him liable for any income tax. The court held
that the taxpayer's argument was frivolous citing to section 1 (imposes an
income tax), section 63 (defines taxable income as gross income minus
deductions), and section 61 (defines gross income). The court also imposed
a $10,000 sanction against the taxpayer under section 6673 for making
frivolous arguments.

Halcott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-214 - the court held the taxpayer
liable for the penalty under section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file
his return where the taxpayer filed a "zero return."

Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-144, 85 T.C.M. (CCH) 1328, 1331
(2003) - the court imposed a $15,000 penalty under section 6673 because the
taxpayer took the frivolous "zero return" position.

Rayner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-30, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1161 (2002) -
the court imposed a $5,000 penalty under section 6673 where the taxpayer
argued the frivolous "zero return" position.

[Nobody]

Post by Paul Thomas
It's sad to see Eldon self destruct.

Eldon 'destroyed' himself a long time ago. He has just never got
around to realizing it. The fact that he has never had success with
any of his schemes doesn't seem to have sunk in. Perhaps that is why
he continues to lose at every turn. If nothing else, Eldon is a
lifetime loser. I would suppose that, at his age and relying on a
pension from the government, he doesn't have much more to lose.

[Vicegerent]

Regarding Predator's sub-posts,
See This Thread which contains
the answers to their multiple false
contentions and outright lies:

"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method

http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

If that link gets altered, cut and paste:

http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/
msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

Vicegerent

[Abbot]

From:http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM

Abbot) Eldon, the subject is the Canadian courts' explict rejection of
your straw man theory in the Hanna case! We've seen the documents in
which the poor gullible Hanna cut and pasted verbiage from your
website. See this February 3, 2006 CBC News Article:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/03/no-name.html:

-------------------------------------------------------------

No Name Doesn't Mean No Tax, Yukoner Finds Out.

Whitehorse man who tried to thwart tax collectors by claiming he
doesn't have a name has been fined more than $3,000.

Cliff Hanna was convicted in territorial court late last month of
failing to file income tax returns for the past three years.

He attempted to persuade the justice of the peace, Garry Burgess, that
he is a free man who owes the government nothing.

In a sworn affidavit, he declared that the name James Clifford Hanna
was put on his birth certificate many years ago in Alberta without his
permission. He disclaimed responsibility for debts or obligations the
government may now assign to that name [readers will note that this is
exactly Eldon's argument].

He said people continue to be defrauded into believing their birth
certificates oblige them to obey demands of the Crown. He added there
is no record anywhere that he ever accepted the Hanna name.

The fact he occasionally responds to the name means nothing, Hanna
said. "I respond to 'Uncle' from my niece and nephews, and 'Meow' from
my aunt's cats, but it is doubtful that any of these is my true name,"
he argued in court documents [readers will note that this is an exact
quote from Eldon's website].

As far as he is concerned, the name James Clifford Hanna is "hearsay."
It is the property and creation of the Crown, he said. "If you wish to
collect debt instruments (Canadian legal tender) ... may I suggest you
send your invoice and demand for performance to the ministry
responsible" in Alberta, he said [readers will note that this is
exactly Eldon's argument].

The justice of the peace imposed the minimum fine plus a surcharge for
a total of $3,450.

-------------------------------------------

[readers will note that how poor Clifford Hanna copied Eldon's sample
affidavit word for word: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not
actually refer to individuals. Users of the "straw man"
theory falsely claim that only documents using an
individual's name with "standard" capitalization, i.e.,
lower-casewith only the beginning letters of each
name capitalized, are legitimate. These individuals
erroneously argue that the use of the individual's
name in all upper-caseletters, which is common
in some government documents, refers to a separate
legal entity, called a "straw man." These individuals
also erroneously argue that, as a result of the creation
of a "straw man," they are not liable for the debts,
including the tax debts, of their "straw man," that
taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a
real person and is, therefore, a form of slavery, or
that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Post by Vicegerent
DISCUSSION OF THE "STRAW MAN" CLAIM
The "straw man" claim is premised on the erroneous
theory that most government documents do not actually
refer to individuals.

Comment) "Individual" is nowhere defined in Title 26 IRC.
This is a 'We want you to assume, so that we can screw
you.' term. "individual" what? In Canada, the Income tax
act says that ''individual' is a PERSON, other than a
corporation. All 'persons' are fictional characters,
constructs of man, or, fictional status of 'slave' imposed
upon a human..

Post by Vicegerent
Users of the "straw man" theory falsely claim that only
documents using an individual's name with "standard"
capitalization, i.e., lower-casewith only the beginning
letters of each name capitalized, are legitimate.
These individuals erroneously argue that the use of the
individual's name in all upper-caseletters, which is
common in some government documents, refers to a
separate legal entity, called a "straw man."

Comment: Eldon shows in his program that it is
the family name paramount, and the given names
as referential names which is the 'fictional strawman'.
Thecaseused in spelling is immaterial as to whether
it is a 'strawman name' or not. A normal human
'nickname' has the 'given names' as being paramount,
and the 'family/surname' as a reference name to
the given names. However, in reality, we are never
in a a position in life to 'accept' (contract law)
'given names', so it is a fact that no adult human
has a name in any 'legal sense'.

Post by Vicegerent
These individuals also erroneously argue that, as a result
of the creation of a "straw man," they are not liable for the
debts, including the tax debts, of their "straw man,"

Comment) The Canadian income tax act. section 2,
states that 'all persons are subject to paying the income
tax. Similar statements can be found in the Title 26 IRC.
Therefore, it would be erroneous to state that a 'person'
(individual) could claim that another fiction associated
with a fiction could claim to not be liable for the claimed
debt. However, a free will human is not a 'person', and
thus not an individual, as used in the IRC, and thus
is NOT liable for any debts the State imposed upon
its own property - the strawman name.

Post by Vicegerent
that taxing the "straw man" is illegal because the "straw
man" is a debt instrument based upon the labor of a real
person and is, therefore, a form of slavery,

Comment) A 'real person' is a human under contract
of servitude - a false and fictional slave status. Since
the 'assumed to be' human slave is in fact, a free will
man or woman duped/defrauded into that false
slave status, then it becomes 'involuntary servitude'
by way of fraud. The only way the IRS can make
this assumption stick is by defrauding a man or
woman into accepting that they are an 'individual'
or 'citizen(slave)'.

Post by Vicegerent
or that no tax is owed by the real individual because
it can be satisfied, or offset, by money in a "Treasury
Direct Account" held in the name of the "straw man."

Comment) Some assume this tactic, but Eldon
does not use it. Again, the term 'individual'.
In summation, this IRS webpage has absolutely
nothing on it which has anything to do with
Eldon's $0.00 Tax Owing filing method for
an IRS 1040 or CRA T1
http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
Vicegerent

[Paul Thomas, CPA]

Post by Abbot
Abbot) Eldon, the subject is the Canadian courts' explict rejection of
your straw man theory in the Hanna case! We've seen the documents in
which the poor gullible Hanna cut and pasted verbiage from your
-------------------------------------------------------------
No Name Doesn't Mean No Tax, Yukoner Finds Out.
Whitehorse man who tried to thwart tax collectors by claiming he
doesn't have a name has been fined more than $3,000.
Cliff Hanna was convicted in territorial court late last month of
failing to file income tax returns for the past three years.
He attempted to persuade the justice of the peace, Garry Burgess, that
he is a free man who owes the government nothing.
In a sworn affidavit, he declared that the name James Clifford Hanna
was put on his birth certificate many years ago in Alberta without his
permission. He disclaimed responsibility for debts or obligations the
government may now assign to that name

What's interesting is that Eldon (or James) generated income under that same
name. So either that name earned income, or Eldon "the free man" did, in
either case the name, the person, or the free man who earned income owes the
tax.

Post by Abbot
[readers will note that this is exactly Eldon's argument].
He said people continue to be defrauded into believing their birth
certificates oblige them to obey demands of the Crown. He added there
is no record anywhere that he ever accepted the Hanna name.
The fact he occasionally responds to the name means nothing, Hanna
said. "I respond to 'Uncle' from my niece and nephews, and 'Meow' from
my aunt's cats, but it is doubtful that any of these is my true name,"
he argued in court documents [readers will note that this is an exact
quote from Eldon's website].
As far as he is concerned, the name James Clifford Hanna is "hearsay."
It is the property and creation of the Crown, he said. "If you wish to
collect debt instruments (Canadian legal tender) ... may I suggest you
send your invoice and demand for performance to the ministry
responsible" in Alberta, he said [readers will note that this is
exactly Eldon's argument].
The justice of the peace imposed the minimum fine plus a surcharge for
a total of $3,450.
-------------------------------------------
[readers will note that how poor Clifford Hanna copied Eldon's sample
affidavit word for word: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

interesting. any other losers whose cases can be accessed?

[Paul Thomas, CPA]

Post by Abbot
[readers will note that how poor Clifford Hanna copied Eldon's sample
affidavit word for word: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

What's interesting is that Mr Hannah claims he has a "contract only of
agency" with "JAMES CLIFFORD HANNAH". As such, doesn't he have a legal
liability and isn't he under some fiduciary obligation to pay the legal
debts of the person he is the agent for? And, wouldn't the income he earns
for being that person's agent be subject to self-employment tax (or the
Canadian equivalent), and any services tax imposed by the various
jurisdictions in which he performed his services as agent for said person?

I just can't believe that a country such as Canada has a second person as
stupid as Eldon.

[Nobody]

Post by Paul Thomas, CPA

Post by Abbot
[readers will note that how poor Clifford Hanna copied Eldon's
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/North/clips/tax7.pdf

What's interesting is that Mr Hannah claims he has a "contract
only of agency" with "JAMES CLIFFORD HANNAH". As such, doesn't he
have a legal liability and isn't he under some fiduciary
obligation to pay the legal debts of the person he is the agent
for? And, wouldn't the income he earns for being that person's
agent be subject to self-employment tax (or the Canadian
equivalent), and any services tax imposed by the various
jurisdictions in which he performed his services as agent for said person?
I just can't believe that a country such as Canada has a second
person as stupid as Eldon.

I guess you haven't met Jimmy for Freedom yet. He is another
addition to your list.

[Vicegerent]

Regarding Predator's sub-posts,
See This Thread which contains
the answers to their multiple false
contentions and outright lies:

"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method

http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

If that link gets altered, cut and paste:

http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/
msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

Vicegerent

[PV]

Post by Vicegerent
Regarding Predator's sub-posts,
See This Thread which contains
the answers to their multiple false
"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method
http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

Pretty sad when you can't even cut and paste your rants, now you simply
paste a link?

Pretty darn sad indeed

PV

[Vicegerent]

Post by PV

Post by Vicegerent
Regarding Predator's sub-posts,
See This Thread which contains
the answers to their multiple false
"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method
http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

Pretty sad when you can't even cut and paste your rants, now you simply
paste a link?
Pretty darn sad indeed
PV

Perverted Village-idiot,

Since you are such a "God Damned" jerk,
I knew that you wouldn't be able to figure out
how to use a link. And, you have just proved
that fact.

For truly inquiring minds, here is that with which
Edmonton's Perverted Village-idiot has a problem:

"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method

http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

Vicegerent

[PV]

Post by Vicegerent

Post by PV

Post by Vicegerent
Regarding Predator's sub-posts,
See This Thread which contains
the answers to their multiple false
"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method
http://groups.google.ca/group/can.taxes/msg/c1c1e39cf9c09012?hl=en&

Pretty sad when you can't even cut and paste your rants, now you simply
paste a link?
Pretty darn sad indeed
PV

Perverted Village-idiot,
Since you are such a "God Damned" jerk,
I knew that you wouldn't be able to figure out
how to use a link. And, you have just proved
that fact.
For truly inquiring minds, here is that with which
"Damage Control Goon" PREDATORS
Fail to Disprove Eldon's Method

Ahh profanity, the true signal you have run out of ways to defend your
nonsense and so are left with ad-hominem attacks well laced with swears,
kind of like a little kid in a playground trying to show how tough he is.

You are a sad little man hiding out in a basement in Calgary with a UK email
address attempting to attract others to self destruct their own lives like
you did to yours. Does it give you a sense of fulfillment if some other
poor greedy sap goes down in flames? Maybe it's true that misery loves
company.

PV