Bob Conlon was my guest on my radio show last night (Tuesday, November 1st). He’s drafted a very interesting document dealing with the legal requirement that the IRS operate in relation to “Internal Revenue Districts” and the possibility that such “Districts” no longer exist.
If his research is correct, he may have discovered a very strong basis for arguing that the “IRS” has no authority to collect income taxes from individual men and women.
As I understand it, Bob asserts two premises:
1) The Internal Revenue Districts are required by law as a necessary element for the existence of any lawful authority to collect income taxes. I haven’t researched this issue, but I believe this first premise is true.
2) In recent years, the Internal Revenue Districts have been abolished. Bob is intelligent and diligent and I presume his second presume is also true–but I haven’t done enough reading to verify.
If both premises are true, then Bob’s conclusion (that the modern IRS is acting without authority and therefore criminally) may also be true. If so, Bob may have discovered and published a powerful argument that may stop most IRS collection procedures. If either premise is false, his conclusion also fails.
My own preliminary interpretation of Bob’s information differs from Bob’s premises and conclusion. While Bob interprets the loss of Internal Revenue Districts to be evidence that the “de jure” IRS is acting criminally when it collects taxes, I’m inclined to read his research as evidence that what passes for the “IRS” today is a conglomerate of private companies (each named “Internal Revenue Service”) that are acting in a private capacity when they try to collect taxes.
In either interpretation, the “IRS” would be acting without authority whenever it tried to collect taxes from individual men and women.
Under Bob’s interpretation, there is still only one “IRS” and it’s acting criminally. Under my interpretation, there are a huge number of private-company “IRSs” that are acting privately (and with the presumed consent of the “taxpayers).
My notion of a “conglomerate of private companies” is supported by a search for “Internal Revenue Service” on the Manta.com search engine. The result is almost 68,000 “U.S. companies” operating under, or closely associated with, the name “Internal Revenue Service”. As you probably know, the information found at Manta.com is provided by Dun & Bradstreet and should be reliable.
I’m excited by Bob’s research because, while Bob is completely unfamiliar and mystified by the “The State/this state” hypothesis that I support on this blog, I strongly suspect that the original “Internal Revenue Districts” were intended to exist within the States of the Union (“The State”) and were eliminated when the system shifted over to the territorial venue of “this state”. I.e., it may be that if the original Internal Revenue Districts were intended to exist within States of the Union, those “Districts” can’t exist “in this state”. Yet, if Title 26 requires the existence of “Internal Revenue Districts” but they can’t exist in the venue of “this state,” then it might be possible to stop collection efforts.
More, if it were true the “Internal Revenue Districts” of The States of the Union had been eliminated, it would provide huge support for the “The State/this state” hypothesis.
The big questions are:
1) Were the original “Internal Revenue Districts” designed to operate only within the States of the Union–but not the territories?
2) When (if ever) were those original “Internal Revenue Districts” actually eliminated? If these “Districts” were intended only for States of the Union, the date of the elimination of these districts should approximately correspond to the date when the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent and inoperable.
I’m inclined to believe that constitutional State governments (required to use gold or silver to pay debts under Article 1 Section 10, Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States) ceased to be functional around A.D. 1968 when the silver certificates were last redeemed with lawful (silver) dollars. If the IR “Districts” could only exist in the States of the Union, then date when the Internal Revenue Districts were eliminated might more or less correspond to the date when those States of the Union were supplanted by territorial administrative districts acting as “this state”.
So, while Bob Conlon has provided us with information that may be extremely important, there is still much to be learned.
If I were dealing with the “IRS,” one of my first responses would be to ask them which “Internal Revenue District” they were operating in and which “Internal Revenue District” did they presume that I was living/acting/working/domiciled in. I would probably not assert that I am in a particular IR “District” because, if Bob’s research is correct, making such assertion might be construed as a mistake or lie if such “Districts” no longer exist. But I would absolutely ask questions about those Districts just to see if those questions could make the IRS “flinch”.
Also, note from Bob’s research that the IR “Districts” are required for persons that are not corporations. If you are, or you represent, a corporation, there may not be a need for an IR “District”. If so, then I’d be sure to ask the IRS if they presumed that I (“Adask”) was a corporation or that I (“Adask”) represented a corporation named “ALFRED N ADASK”. Depending on the IRS’s answer, I might then assert that I am not a corporation and I don’t represent one, either.
I’m attaching two pdf files. One is a pristine copy of Bob Conlon’s research and argument: IRS Facts and Fraud_v10
The second is a “edited” copy of his original that includes my various highlighting and comments: IRS Facts and Fraud_v10 EDITED
If you learn anything insightful about the validity or application Bob’s research (and my own interpretation), please let me know.
P.S. After I posted the previous commentary on Bob Conlon’s research, Bob offered a few corrections:
I just read your analysis of what my position is on your blog and I want to let you know that your intrepretation of my position isn’t not entirely correct. While I do believe they are operating outside the law by ignoring existing law, the IRS position is that they have congressional mandate to eliminate all the districts at section 1001. Contrary to this however, are the already existing laws that require that they do exist, and that would be the fifteen or so that I’ve listed, not to mention that Treasury Order 150-02 itself, dated 2001 at paragraph 3 states that the Commissioner himself is”‘subject only to limitations that exist by law.”
What I believe to be more critical than that is the fact that the very law they use as the reasoning to eliminate districts, i.e., RRA98, is the very law that establishes congressional mandate for the district director position to be maintained, and this can be found at section 3445 of P.L. 105-206, highlighted on page one of my document. I think you missed this point entirely and this would be my 1st point. My second point is that people who file are actually violating law by the very act of filing! 26 USC section 6091. 6091 is not broken UNTIL a 1040 form is filed! Does that make sense?
Moreover, I am not saying they do not have the authority to collect taxes from individuals because Tttle 4 section 111 would give them that authority. The question is “from who?” do they have the authority to collect taxes, private sector or public sector individuals?. Read my Liberty for Dummies document, that makes the point more clear.
I am not mystified by the ‘state/this state’ argument, so the statement you made about my understanding of it is not correct. I am familiar with the definition of ‘united states’, and ‘state’ in as it written up in 26 USC section 7701. I just don’t put as much emphasis on it as you do because it doesn’t point to any provable identifiable lawbreaking. The destruction of congressional mandate regarding the district director because that position is required by Public Law, does however. Congress specifically demands the written approval of the district director on certain levies in RRA98 so eliminating that position, as the IRS has done, is a big fat no-no.
Anyway, I just wanted to clear those points up.