To: President Trump
To: Todd Blanche Attorney General
To: Federal Legislature Lauren Boebert and Thomas Massie
To: Supreme Court
Remonstrance V. The I.R.S.
I, ______________________, one of the People (as seen in the 50 State Constitutions), Sui Juris, do present you with this Remonstrance that you may provide immediate clarity and due care:
Please take notice that We the People have assembled and studied to show ourselves approved on multiple matters that immediate clarity is needed on (please see following):
-
Why would Title 26, being non-positive law and prima facie (not actual legal evidence of the law as shown in Exhibit A) be used to take people to tax tribunals?
-
Why does the Maxims of Law and United States Constitution demand due process of law which is based on the settled maxims, judicial tribunals in order to affect life, liberty or property, but the tax tribunal for I.R.S. is declared by Supreme Court as a legislative court and using executive branch power (Constitution as Supreme Law of the People necessitates trials by jury, judicial tribunal, moving by common law and not statute as in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition and not later editions that removed multiple requirements)? (see court comments from Supreme Court below and by Exhibit B from Commissioners v Zuch)
COMMISSIONER V ZUCH
“But as the court seems to recognize… that the constitutional constraint does not apply to the Tax Court. Name notwithstanding, that body is not part of the Judicial Branch, Instead, it exercises Article II “[e]xecutive authority as part of the Executive Branch… So when the Tax Court addresses a tax dispute and returns it to the Office of Appeals, it is just one executive agency advising another about how to enforce federal law in a particular setting. And even without an injunction compelling it to do so, the Office of Appeals may choose to follow the Tax Court’s views when carrying out its duty to resolve “tax controversies… to the maximum extent possible through an administrative settlement.”
-
Where does the common law or constitutions grant the government power to take property from the People through administrative and not judicial process?
-
John Locke, in his “Two Treatises of Government,” declares that one would give up their power to be in a state of nature, in return to have protection of rights and property in return, however, the Federal, State and County governments have removed the right of the People to Courts of Record, moving by the common law, and being able to have access to the grand jury (which belongs to the People) that we may give accusations against bad government actors and others, and our government servants have partnered with entities like Flock, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and other entities in order bypass demands of the 4th Amendment for warrants and right to privacy. Furthermore, the government has failed to arrest dangerous people in the view of the People, such as Fauci, Gates, and multiple partners to Epstein, therefore, if there was a direct apportionment of taxes that was legitimate, why would the People be bound when you have failed to protect our rights and property. While going against the chief written design of government?
-
If Article 1 Section 8 and Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution were not repealed, please give clarity on the exact People that are bound by the 16th Amendment, being that the Constitution cannot be in conflict with itself, and the Statutory definitions are vague and seem to show that it serves for the District of Columbia and the possessions.
-
Please show an explicit law that shows that the People of the 50 states must file a 1040.
-
Even if the Statute Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7441 says the tax court is to be a court of record, doesn’t it logically and lawfully follow that, the definition of court of record from Black's 4th should be used, being a judicial tribunal, moving by the common law (which doesn’t use statutes or codes), and having a magistrate that’s independent of the tribunal? How would a statutory entity that fails to meet the form declared in the constitution not make it a complete nullity as declared in the maxims for failure to follow form of law (see following maxim): Form of Law: Where the law prescribes a form, the nonobservance of it is fatal to the proceeding, and the whole becomes a nullity. Best, Ev. Introd. s. 59
In conclusion, it is the will of the People, by necessity, that the Supreme Court openly give clarity on the issues herein stated in open speech and cases for the benefit of the People. Furthermore, it is the will of the People that the Attorney General, President Donald Trump, and the Federal Legislative members all give response and clarity to the People. There has been much failure to provide service that is fitting for the protection of the People and it is our view that there are no protections nor law that would demand that we fund future maladministration and our own demise. If you believe that these are not critical issues, please swear by affidavit, with constitutional power and authority declaring that you are able to ignore these issues within 7 days. If you should fail to present an affidavit with legitimate authority, you agree that there is no tax obligation and that We the People are free to provide for their own preservation. This notice is sent to you in the peace and love of Christ, that you may humbly do the works required by the state and federal constitutions, and protect the property and liberty of the People immediately.