Loral S. Glazier to the:
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service P.O. Box 480 Holtsville, NY 11742-0480Ref: Collection of Income taxes 2000 – 2003
Mailed by first class, certified # 7009 1680 0001 3335 5524
December 16, 2011
Unnamed Agent:
Let me start off by stating the I do not owe either the 1040 reporting form or the amounts you have recorded. Based upon the fundamental principles which are at the foundation of this Nation and its government, and following the directions found in the Internal Revenue Rulings by IR Handbook 4.2, Chapter 7: 7.2.9.8 (1)(05-14-99); and my research into Supreme Court decisions respecting tax laws all support my conclusion as to my liability to report or pay any 1040 Income Taxes.
“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court … takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.” [Internal Revenue Service (www.irs.gov/bus_info/tax_pro/]
In as much as the Revenue Manual states that I can use Supreme Court decisions to support my position, I have; and as directed, you MUST ALSO FOLLOW! The Supreme Court says that the taxing authority of Congress, is inherent in the governments status as a “sovereign.”
“The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is coextensive with sovereignty.” [Curry vs. McCanless, 307 U.S. 357; See also, 26 R.C.L., Taxation (1920), 12. Power of Taxation Inherent in Sovereignty]
The Supreme Court very clearly defines the extent of government sovereignty over objects subject to taxation. And sets outs the fundamental principle that not only applies to state governments but also the federal government as to the extent of that sovereignty;
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.”
This is from a 1819 case and opinions following this still support the principles on taxation. In this same decision, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out;
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.” [M'Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 429 [1819]; reaffirmed in Shaffer vs. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 51 [1919]; Reaffirmed and expanded in, State Tax Commission of Utah vs. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174 [1942]; Hale vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, 74,75 (1906)]
The question to you is, who is the “sovereign” the government, or the individual? The Supreme Court has answered that question; ”…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. ….The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.” [2 U.S. 419 (Dall.) Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia] (emphasis added)
The preamble to the United States Constitution states the fundamental principle on the sovereignty of the people in the declaration, “We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” So much for the principle of “sovereignty”.
Now knowing that you work for an extremely large government agency, you must appreciate the principle of “delegated authority.” This principle exists as a fact in any government activity or law. The authority for the revenue laws must come from some identifiable source. Under our form of government that source can only come from the people. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court; “The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people.” [U.S. vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63]
If you need to understand this more clearly, the best example I can give you of this principle comes from Ezra Taft Benson, one time Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower administration and former President of the LDS (Mormon) Church.
“… The proper function of government, then, is limited to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. … It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. … No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator.” [ Ezra Taft Benson, “The Constitution, A Heavenly Banner,” p. 9] (emphasis added)
“Suppose (individual) ‘A’ wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since (individual) ‘B’ has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as (individual) ‘B’ wishes to keep his property, (individual) ‘A’ has no claim to it.
If ‘A’ has no power to take ‘B’s property, can he delegate any such power to the (government)? No! Even if everyone in the community desires that ‘B’ give his extra horse to ‘A’, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. [Ezra T. Benson from an address, The Proper Role of Government; p. 130, 131] (emphasis added)
If the right does not exist in the sovereign, it cannot be delegated or given to another. The fundamental principle is, “No man has the right to take another man’s property.” And since; “[t]he right never existed, … the question whether it has been surrendered, cannot arise.” [M'Cullock v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 430] The Supreme Court has also stated; “Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will….” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 [1825]] (emphasis added)
Please note that the Supreme Court states that I have a “natural right” to the “fruits of (my) labor,” or wages and that the government (no person) can take them against my will. In conclusion and most important is the legislative powers that are delegated to the federal government of which your department is a part are spelled out in the Constitution. This is found in Article I, section 8, clause 17 which in part states; “To exercise exclusive Legislation … over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State …”
I have researched the Utah Statutes and have not found anywhere where the State of Utah has given jurisdiction to the federal government over the land area in which I reside. Title 18 Section 7(3):
“Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.”
Also Title 40 Section 255; “Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.” (See the complete Interdepartmental report to Congress on federal jurisdiction within the States 1956 – 1957.)
This covers the three basic principles that are at the foundation of your (the government’s) authority. Over the years I have repeatedly presented these facts to you, yet you chose to ignore them and the direction of the Supreme Court in violation of your own handbook as stated at the first. These principles all work together so that I, or anyone can examine their situation and make the determination (self-assessment) as to their personal liability.
I have written to your office in Washington D.C., to Fresno, and to Ogden, Utah. As of this date all have refused to provide me with any factual proof that would show otherwise. I have communicated with the members of Congress from the State of Utah with no facts to dispute these principles. Until appropriately rebutted I stand, as Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court declared, “upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation.” I expect you people to respect this assessment until your agency can show otherwise in a proper court setting. Your silence is equated with fraud.
In conclusion, I have not been involved in any privileged activity granted by the Federal Government at any time during these years that would incur a tax liability of any nature. Neither have I been involved in any employment within the legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
DECLARATION AND AFFIRMATION
Under the penalty of perjury, Loral S. Glazier, declare that the principles contained herein are true and accurate. They form the basis for my determination and self assessment as a “non-taxpayer” for the years to which you have inquired. Any attempt to take my property or my right to property will be considered an act of theft. Your attempt to collect this amounts to mail fraud. (See Title 18 USC Sections 1341, 1342)
Respectfully submitted and signed: This 16th day of December, 2011
Loral S. Glazier _______________________________
