Notice, the Right of Inquiry and 18 USC 1001

21 May

IRS Notice (courtesy Google Images)

IRS Notice (courtesy Google Images)

My research indicates that that the current legal system is characterized by notice, notice, and, uh, notice.  When the IRS comes a-callin’, their first act is to send you a notice.  So far as I can tell, virtually all civil causes of action (especially if initiated by the “government”) start with a notice.

Procedural due process includes: 1) Notice; and 2) Opportunity to be Heard.  While true crimes (like murder or robbery) cannot be said to start with notice, I suspect that most penal offenses (which are of a civil nature with attached criminal penalties) probably start with notice.

As I’ve explained in other articles dealing with notice (see,; especially, and it appears that a notice need not present or allege all facts or law relevant to a particular claim.  The notice must merely provide sufficient facts or law to put the recipient “on inquiry”.  I.e., the notice must merely be sufficient to cause the recipient to ask questions.

As an exaggeration, I might send you a notice that you owe me $100,000.  I wouldn’t necessarily have to say why you owe, or when the debt was incurred.  In essence, all I need to do is provide a “statement” (notice) that You Owe Me $100,000.  (UOME $100,000)

If I send that “UOME $100,000” notice, and you don’t respond properly, my “UOME” notice may soon be converted into an implied “IOU $100,000” from you.

Presumably, if I send you a notice that you owe me $100,000, that might be enough to prompt you to ask “Whut th’ hell you talkin’ ‘bout, Adask?”  If you did thereby exercise your right of inquiry, I would have a correlative duty to answer your questions.

More, so far as I can see, my notice to you would not be deemed “sufficient” until I had answered all of your questions.   If your questions were particularly astute, I might not want to answer all of your questions.  If your questions were seemingly endless, I might even give up trying to answer and thereby abandon my claim.

But if you responded to my original notice with silence, it would be presumed that you had no questions and that therefore the notice I sent was sufficient.  Under this circumstance, by failing to ask questions, it may be construed that you have converted my “UOME $100,000” notice into your “IOU $100,000” confession.  That description is an exaggeration and an oversimplification.  But, so far as I can see, it’s not so far removed from the truth.

Similarly, if you responded to my original notice with statements (“Adask, you’re CRAZY!  I don’ owe you one damn dime!”), it may also be presumed that you have no questions and therefore the notice I sent was “sufficient”.  Again, by failing to respond to my “UOME $100,000” notice with questions, you’ve opened the door for the court to construe your response as your “IOU $100,000” confession.

Again, that description is not the truth of the matter, but it’s a metaphor that helps illustrate some of my current beliefs concerning notice and the correlative right of inquiry.  So far as I can see, if you receive a notice and go silent, you’re screwed.  If you receive a notice and make statements, you’re screwed.  If you receive a notice and ask questions, you might save yourself a lot of costs and/or trouble.


•  Under procedural due process, once you have sufficient notice, you can proceed to the “opportunity to be heard” (an administrative hearing) where defendants (those who don’t ask questions) are found guilty about 98% of the time.  As a defendant, you don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because it’s typically an “opportunity to be sentenced” (or at least found guilty).

It appears that you can avoid the “opportunity to be heard/sentenced” by asking astute, relevant and seemingly endless questions in response to the plaintiff’s notice and subsequent answers.

My research indicates that notice involves two fundamental principles:  1) the government’s notice to you creates your “right of inquiry” (posing questions to government or whoever sent the notice); 2) your right of inquiry presupposes the government’s duty to answer all of your questions.

These principles may not seem particularly important, but they strike me as profound.  Before I dare to try to collect $100,000 from you based on a mere notice, I must be prepared to answer all of your questions.  Most people are ignorant and therefore, in response to my notice, they will go silent or make statements—in which case I’m golden.  I doubt that one man in 1,000 has brains enough to respond to my notice with questions that are astute, insightful and dangerous to me.  Of course, if you’re that one man, and I can’t or won’t answer your questions, I’ll have to drop my lawsuit and pray that you don’t file a criminal complaint against me under 18 USC 1001 (which I’ll discuss below).


•  There was a time when common law pleading was the dominant form of pleading through the United States.  Common law pleading was replaced by code pleading.  And code pleading was later replaced by “notice pleading”.

Wikipedia ( describes “notice pleading” as follows:


Notice pleading is the dominant form of pleading used in the United States today. In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [“FRCP”] were adopted. One goal of these rules was to relax the strict rules of code pleading.

“The focus of the cause of action was shifted to discovery (another goal of the FRCP). Under the Federal Rules, a plaintiff’s complaint merely needs to contain a short and plain statement of their cause of action.  All additional information in regards to the cause of action are handled through discovery.  The idea is that a plaintiff and their attorney who have a reasonable but not perfect case can file a complaint first, put the other side on notice of the lawsuit, and then strengthen their case by compelling the defendant to produce evidence during the discovery phase.”


Note the persistent references to “discovery”.  What is the essence of “discovery”?

Asking questions.

What is the “short and plain statement of their cause of action”?  Sound very much like a notice, to me.  And when they say “short and plain,” they necessarily mean “incomplete”.   The plaintiff starts with an “incomplete” notice to the alleged defendant.  Such incomplete notice implies that the defendant may be able to ask questions concerning the lawsuit that’s being threatened.

But the difference between the notice pleading we see in the courts and the strategy I’m exploring concerning pre-trial notices is this:

By filing a lawsuit, I entitle both myself and my adversary to engage in “discovery”.  I.e., we can both ask questions within certain court-mandated limits.

But if an entity (say, the IRS) sends me a notice without also having filed suit, then it appears to have created my “right of inquiry” without creating any similar “right of inquiry” for itself.  As the notice recipient, I get to ask questions; the IRS does not.  Therefore, if I have brains enough to respond to the IRS notice with questions, the IRS has to answer my questions—or deprive me of procedural due process if they refuse.  If my questions are sharp enough, the IRS may be forced to make admissions that they don’t dare make in public.  If they deprive me of procedural due process by refusing to answer my questions, they will probably have lost their standing to file a subsequent lawsuit.

Thus, by quickly responding to my adversary’s notice with my own questions, I might place the IRS between the rock and the hard place.  If they answer my questions, they might make admissions that they don’t dare make in public.  If they don’t answer my questions, they may deprive me of “sufficient notice” (one of the two elements of “procedural due process”) and thereby surrender their standing to later sue me.

Unfortunately (for the IRS and other governmental entities), it costs much time and money to file a lawsuit that entitles both sides to “discovery”.  Sending a mere administrative notice (without having filed suit) is much quicker, easier and cheaper.

Fortunately (for the IRS and other governmental entities), very few alleged “taxpayers” even suspect that an IRS notice may create their “right of inquiry”.  Therefore, the IRS can send out millions of “UOME” notices which the alleged “taxpayers will ignore (“go silent”) or respond to with statements, imply that they’ve received “sufficient notice,” and thereby convert the IRS’s “UOME” notice into a taxpayer’s “IOU” confession.

Next stop on the procedure due process railroad?   The “opportunity to be heard”—an administrative hearing where the alleged taxpayer will be found guilty of owing whatever the IRS claimed about 98% of the time.

However, if the alleged taxpayer exercises his right to ask questions in response to the IRS notice, he might avoid the “opportunity to be heard/sentenced”.

•  Wikipedia’s article on “notice pleading” continues:


“The FRCP does not entirely eliminate code pleading. The FRCP still requires that certain pleadings state facts with particularity. An example is Federal Rule 9(b) which states that ‘in alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.’ This is considered a special pleading rule. The purpose of this rule is to help prevent a person from abusing the judicial process to defame another without spelling out the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged fraud.  Additional special pleading rules are set out in Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

“The leniency of the modern notice pleading system sometimes resulted in poorly-drafted complaints with vaguely phrased, incoherent and conclusory allegations.”


I suspect that “poorly-drafted” and “vaguely phrased” complaints are a natural consequence of the requirement that notice be only “sufficient” to put the recipient “on inquiry”.  If I allege that You Owe Me $100,000 under notice pleading, and I don’t have to present all relevant facts and law but can instead skate by merely telling you enough put you “on inquiry,” no one should be surprised if my original notice/complaint is “poorly-drafted” or “vague”.

After all, under modern law, it appears that it is the nature of modern notices to be “vague” in the sense that most do not include all relevant facts or all relevant law.


“The Supreme Court eventually responded in 2007 with a decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and again in 2009 with a decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which together imposed new standards for specificity and “plausibility” in pleadings.

“Iqbal reaffirmed and broadened Twombly’s ruling that a court need not accept a ‘legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’ or ‘naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.’ In Twombly and Iqbal, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to clarify the deceptively simple mandate of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which states that a ‘pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’

“The Court interpreted Rule 8(a)(2) in Twombly to mean that a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to allow a district court to find that the claim is plausible. The Twombly court criticized the modern notice pleading standard derived from the landmark 1957 Conley v. Gibson decision, which had ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed at the pleading stage, ‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’”


I suspect that the original “complaint” is essentially a notice.  Since A.D. 1957 (Conley v Gibson), the complaint/notice requirements have been extraordinarily “lenient”.  Again, if I sent you a notice that merely declared, “UOMe $100,000,” that notice might still be presumed to be sufficient.

Now, however, the courts are starting to tighten up on notice pleadings and the former leniency is giving way to a requirement for particularity and specifics.  That’s bad for all plaintiffs—including the government.  But it’s good for all defendants—at least for those who understand their “right of inquiry”.  The “right of inquiry” might open the door to requiring an adversarial governmental agency to supply the “particularity and specifics” of the allegations in their initial notices.


“It is still not clear whether Iqbal will reduce federal court caseloads by allowing frivolous or weak lawsuits to be thrown out at the pleading stage, prior to the commencement of potentially expensive discovery. The Twombly and Iqbal decisions have the potential of denying plaintiffs with meritorious claims their day in court by raising insurmountable hurdles at the pleading stage.”

Wikipedia’s description implies that plaintiff’s have an obligation to provide “sufficient notice” to the courts, themselves.  If the plaintiff (especially if he’s a pro se or someone suing the government) fails to provide sufficient notice of relevant facts and law to the judge, the judge can dismiss the case at the “pleading stage”—before the plaintiff can enter the “discovery stage” wherein he might gain more facts to support his allegations.  This change implies that the judge in any federal case will have discretion to use, or not use, the requirement that plaintiffs supply sufficient notice to the judge to arbitrarily allow or prevent particular cases from commencement.  I.e., if the IRS files a suit with little or not factual support, the judge might allow the case to nevertheless proceed.  If you or I file a suit against the IRS, the judge might prevent our case from proceeding.

I don’t know, but I suspect that the “pleading stage” may be that period of time between when the plaintiff sends his first notice/complaint to the defendant, and whenever the court takes real jurisdiction over the case.  If I’m right, it’s during this “pleading stage” that the defendant may still have the “right of inquiry” that allows him to pose an endless and relatively inexpensive series of questions to the plaintiff based on the plaintiff’s first petition/notice.

Later, when the court takes control and the process enters into the “potentially expensive discovery,” more questions can be asked, but these questions are limited in number and supervised by the court.  Discovery is good, but it can be ruinously expensive.  But if you can pose your questions in response to an initial complaint/notice before the court-ordered discovery begins, you might be able to stop the lawsuit before it gets to court—especially, if you can properly apply 18 USC 1001.


•  18 USC 1001 “Statements of entries generally” (see,, declares:


“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully –

“(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

“(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

“(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

“shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.


“(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

“(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to –

(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.”


Note the use of the word “conceals” in section (a)1 of 18 USC 1001.  It seems to me that if  1) the IRS sends me a notice creating my right of inquiry; 2) I exercise my right of inquiry by asking questions in response to the “incomplete” IRS notice; and 3) the IRS refuses to answer my questions; then, 4) the IRS and/or whoever refused to answer my questions may have “concealed” a “material fact” and thereby become liable under 18 USC 1001 for a substantial fine or imprisonment.

If the gov-co or its agents continued to “conceal” “material facts over a period of more than one year, they might create grounds to sue them civilly (for money) under the RICO laws.


•  Insofar as 18 USC 1001 refers to “fraudulent statement[s],” here are excerpt from a case that deals with and defines fraud and the “intangible right” to “honest services of government”:


McNALLY v. UNITED STATES, 483 U.S. 350, 372 (1987), “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit—and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985)—Includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. When a judge is busily soliciting loans from counsel to one party, and not telling the opposing counsel (let alone the public), he is concealing material information in violation of his fiduciary obligations.”

At 358, “This is the approach that has been taken by each of the Courts of Appeals that has addressed the issue: schemes to defraud include those designed to deprive individuals, the people, or the government of intangible rights, such as the right to have public officials perform their duties honestly. See, e. g., United States v. Clapps, 732 F.2d 1148, 1152 (CA3 1984); United States v. States, 488 F.2d 761, 764 (CA8 1973).”


It appears to me that those governmental agents or employees who send notices have a fiduciary obligation to “perform their duties honestly”.  If so, when they send a notice and I respond with relevant questions, I presume they have a fiduciary obligation answer my questions fully and honestly.  If they fail to do so, they may be guilty of violations under 18 USC 1001.


Posted by on May 21, 2013 in Fiduciary relationship, Fraud, Notice


Tags: , , , , , ,

29 responses to “Notice, the Right of Inquiry and 18 USC 1001

  1. NDT

    May 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM

    Notice can imply notice of service of process. An error (eg incorrect legal status resulting in fraud) could be addressed by a corresponding notice of defective service.

  2. NDT

    May 21, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    Your liability to pay federal tax may be established when you sign the contract to open a bank account.

    From “Invisible Contracts” by George Mercier:

    Federal Judges have been instructed that the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 in a case called Davis vs. Elmira Savings, 161 U.S. 275 that banks are instrumentalities of the Congress.

    “The undersigned hereby agrees to abide by all of the Rules of this Bank.”
    Have you ever asked to see a copy of the bank rules? If you have, you will read and find out that you agreed to abide by all of the administrative rulings of the Secretary of the Treasury, among many other things.

    • Doug

      May 24, 2013 at 2:23 AM

      Once one becomes entangled in the commercial system, and there are many ways to do so, he/she lives in a commercial world ruled by contract and commercial law separated from constitutional mandates. So many “patriots” are imprisoned because they argue the law and constitution when both are irrelevant excepting the law merchant obligations of contracts.

      George Mercier’s “Invisible Contracts” is pertinent as well as a very interesting read.

    • Starlite

      May 24, 2013 at 5:56 PM

      I agree 91 and 3/4%

  3. Carlton

    May 21, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    Excellent work, Mr. Adask. This discovery alone could be a game-changer.

    If these principles become common knowledge, the evil-doers will have to work a lot harder to get a lot less out of We the People.


    “Your liability to pay federal tax may be established when you sign the contract to open a bank account.”

    You could also become liable to federal taxation when you get an SSN, since Social Security appears to be for employees of the US government.

    • Mike

      May 21, 2013 at 5:56 PM

      Good point.
      On the matter of SS numbers, it appears an implied contract of participation in the SS system goes along with obtaining an SS number. I have wondered, since I was a minor child when I was forced to participate in the SS system if my contract with them isn’t void and they should return any funds collected. I will gladly opt out of their system if I can prove this.
      If anyone has thoughts on this, please share.

      *****Mr. Adask, thanks for writing this! I believe you will have helped any of us with the courage to stand against that institution.

    • Anthony Clifton

      May 22, 2013 at 5:59 AM

      of course the Church of Scotland noticed the Chutzpah of the Turko-Mongolian Proselytes and issued a very polite report minus facts that should have been included in the NOTICE TO CURE

      but would that be Anti-Semitism…?

      Curiously the BRAINDEAGOY who Watch TALMUDVISION don’t NOTICE the F-5 TSUNAMI of TRUTH sweeping the common sense coastline of “World Opinion”….

      does that really matter ?

      only a complete idiot would reject the Truth….to accept the chief seats in the Synagogue


  4. Damon

    May 21, 2013 at 4:12 PM

    That is awesome information

    Dear Mr Irs Agent – show me the Law that I have to pay taxes, and please show me the evidence that I am a taxpayer who has taxable income. Are you an Expert in the interpretation of the Constitution and Applicable Code? Please note: if you conceal and continue to pursue you may end up heavily fined and spend time in prison under 18 USC 1001.

    In response to the above, if you have a tax obligation based on opening a bank account than that too is fraud unless they we’re explicit in the contract. Same for social security. Concealing is concealing is concealing if you we’re not transparent about your intentions.

    • Doug

      May 24, 2013 at 2:38 AM

      DAMON WROTE: “show me the Law that I have to pay taxes, and please show me the evidence that I am a taxpayer who has taxable income”.

      This approach will get you locked up. As most of us know the IRS is the FED RESERVE’s Collection agent. Their job is to make certain the FED gets their “fair share” for your use of THEIR
      “money”. (Well, debt based fiat currency).

      Once one becomes entangled in the commercial system, and there are many ways to do so, he/she lives in a commercial world ruled by contract and commercial law separated from constitutional mandates. So many “patriots” are imprisoned because they argue the law and constitution when both are irrelevant excepting the law merchant obligations of contracts.

      George Mercier’s “Invisible Contracts” is pertinent as well as a very interesting read.

      In response to the above, if you have a tax obligation based on opening a bank account than that too is fraud unless they we’re explicit in the contract. Same for social security. Concealing is concealing is concealing if you we’re not transparent about your intentions.

      This sort of naivete is feel good BS when attempting to withstand the FED RESERVE backed up by lying US Attorneys. Let me show you a little FRAUD.

      F ederal
      R eserve
      A ccounting
      U nit
      D evice

      The entire system that folks having agreements (explicit or implicit) with LEGAL FICTIONS such as Corporations is owned entirely by the FED and today they make the rules, not George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

      • Damon

        May 27, 2013 at 11:30 AM

        There’s no doubt that they like to lock people up who do not pay their mafia ransom. I forgot the most important part of the statement – “I am happy to pay whatever I owe, please show me the law, facts, and evidence that I owe.” – “It must be easy to show the law is legitimate. I’m sure their is a legitimate trail of legislation and surely it must be easy to show.” “If the pretense is morality than please show it to me and I will be happy to pay”.

  5. pop de adam

    May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM

    “Wikipedia’s description implies that plaintiff’s have an obligation to provide “sufficient notice” to the courts, themselves.”

    This is immaterial to the material presented and concerns Wikipedia itself, but thought you and your readers might find it interesting. A majority of the contoversal tax articles have been groomed over by a certain editor, who is easily discerned by accessing the talk/edit pages of the Wikipedia entries concerned.(16th amendment, 861 arguement, tax protester, sovereign citizen, etc.) I don’t think he outright lies, but like many supporters of the present taxation scheme he picks and chooses his citations and seems cagey in some of his responses to other potential editors of Wikipedia, he readily admits being a CPA specializing in taxes, as a CPA he is certainly not an indifferent or impartial party. Thought some others might find it both interesting and frustrating to see the lengths some people will go to justify their belief that anyones business is everyones business.

  6. Yartap

    May 21, 2013 at 6:04 PM

    Once again… THANKS….Al. Great information we all need!

    As far as the SSA and IRS or any other government agency. You better question jurisdiction and if it applies to you. Look up the code’s (SSA and IRS) definitions of “United States,” “states,” “person,” “citizen,” etc.: and upon very close inspection of the meanings, it will usually not apply to you by definition.

  7. Jethro

    May 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM

    Great article, Al.

    As for Rule 9(b) — “in alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake” — I suspect there is an ulterior motive for this rule: for gov-co to protect themselves and their fraud.

    These ‘government’ SOB’s darn well know they’re committing mountains of fraud against the People. But because of Rule 9(b), to sue for this fraud you can’t just generally allege it and then use discovery to uncover the legal mechanisms they utilize to commit the fraud. Instead you must first ‘figure out’ *exactly* how they are committing fraud and state it “with particularity”. If you get one minute detail of that “particularity” wrong in your pleading, your suit is now subject to dismissal for Rule 12(b) “Failure to State a Claim”. Because it’s fraud/deceit, you need discovery to learn the particulars of the fraud; but once dismissed, you obviously can no longer compel the defendant to answer discovery. Catch-22.

    Rule 9(b) allows ‘government’ to perpetrate fraud by shielding them from having to disclose the mechanisms and particulars of their fraud via lawsuit. As Al pointed out, utilizing the “Right of Inquiry” can ‘encourage’ them go away, but it won’t make them admit how they’re pulling off a tremendous scam.

  8. Dan Glasho

    May 21, 2013 at 9:09 PM

    On July 12, 1933. a Corporation was established for a collection agency. The name of the Corporation was “INTERNAL.REVENUE.AND.AUDIT.SERVICE.INC.” (File Number 0325720)
    This appears to be proof that the IRS is NOT a government agency, but merely a private collection agency hired by the Department Of Treasury (not Treasury Department such as the lable the IRS uses to make it appear it is part of the Department Of Treasury). To see the Incorporation file, go to the Deleware State website and search for corporations. Any comment on this Alfred?

    • Adask

      May 21, 2013 at 9:28 PM

      I’ve been superficially aware of that corporation info for most of 20 years. I’ve never been convinced that that corporation is the same “IRS” that we have to deal with today. Nevertheless, if someone believed that today’s IRS was the same entity you’ve reported in the Delaware corporation data base, that belief might be alleged in a way that would compel the IRS to not only deny that it was not that particular corporation but also prove what corporation (or other entity) today’s IRS really is. Under the right circumstances, even mistakes can be useful.

  9. Gary Lee, [Russell], sui juris

    May 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM

    Alfred, one question about your notice that you are owed $100,000, or, even a notice from the private corporation IRS: How do you prove I actually received the notice? I have never received a certified/return receipt notice from the IRs or FTB, only “regular” (domestic) mail, and it is ALWAYS addressed to the corporate “person”/franchise GARY RUSSELL, who I am not. I also am not beneficiary of, or trustee for, nor representative of or representative for GARY RUSSELL, so I would imagine it would be some sort of federal crime for me to open GARY RUSSELL’s mail, so I just mark it RTS/ not at this address and give them the forwarding address of the Department of the Treasury (Puerto Rico/IRS treasury), as that is where I sent back the SS card my parents got when I was a kid.

    How can they prove you recieved the “notice” if they didn’t serve you, or at least send it certified? How do they PROVE what was even in the envelope? I think everything they do is based on the assumption you will YOu will assume whatever iss in the envelope applies to you, if it was in your mailbox. What if you do not assume that? To ask questions, you might have to open “someone else’s mail…. : )

    • Carlton

      May 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM

      I would be far more concerned about claiming – though the US mail – that I am NOT the all-caps addressee, unless I could make a case that the all-caps version of my name designates someone or something other than me.

      So far, I have yet to see solid evidence of even the existence of this other someone or something which the all-caps version of my name supposedly represents. This much would be the bare minimum needed to make a plausible case to a jury while on trial for mail fraud.

      • Adask

        May 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM

        My proper name is “Alfred Adask”. I don’t claim that I’m not “ALFRED N ADASK”. After all, I can’t prove a negative statement.

        However, I can claim under oath that “ALFRED N ADASK” is merely an alias for my proper name “Alfred Adask”. I can prove that statement by showing a jury any government photo-ID. They’ll see the all-upper-case name (“ADASK”) and my photo on the government ID. I’ll ask if they think that ID identifies me, they’ll surely say Yes. I can remind them that, under the rules of grammar, a proper name (“Alfred Adask”) must be capitalized–not all-upper-case. I’ll remind them that, technically, “ALFRED N ADASK” does not follow the rules of grammar and is therefore not my proper name. Insofar as the jury believe the all-upper-case name on the government ID signifies me (“Alfred Adask”), it’s absolutely true and I can honestly testify that I (“Alfred Adask”) am “also know as” (by ordinary people like the jurors) as “ALFRED N ADASK”.

        If the hypothesis that “Adask” and “ADASK” signify a man and a fiction is false, my “alias” strategy has done no harm–I’ve merely stated an obvious truth under oath.

        If the “Adask” (man) and “ADASK” (fiction) hypothesis is true, I’ve just eliminated “ADASK” as a legal fiction and made it appear that I, a man made in God’s image and endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, whose proper name is “Alfred Adask” am the only defendant in this matter. As such, there is no fictional defendant (“ADASK”)–that has virtually no meaningful rights–for me to represent. If the defendant is not a nearly “rightless” fiction, but is instead one of the “people of the State,” I have access to the protections provided by the State’s constitution, and anyone having taken an Oath to support/defend that State constitution has a fiduciary duty to secure my God-given, unalienable Rights. So long as I’m recognized as a man made in God’s image acting “at arm’s length” (without any fiduciary obligation to represent some other entity) I’m good to go. This does not mean I will necessarily win a battle in court, but so long as I’m recognized as only a man made in God’s image and without any relationship to any fiction, I’m as good as I can be.

        Of course, if “Adask” and “ADASK” signify two different entities, the government could defeat my “alias” strategy by simply putting one or more witnesses on the witness stand who are prepared to swear on the record that “ADASK” is not a mere alias for “Adask” but signifies an entirely different entity. But I can’t imagine them making such admission on the record.

        My primary objective is not to eliminate “ADASK” but rather to try to compel the court to recognize me as: 1) a man made in God’s image (as per Genesis 1:26-28); 2) a man endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights (as per the “Declaration of Independence”); and 3) one of the “people” of whichever State of the Union where I’m domiciled. So long as I’m recognized in that status, I’m a happy camper and glad to meet any adversary in a proper, constitutional court.

      • Carlton

        May 23, 2013 at 1:36 AM

        I basically agree with your take on this issue.

        Your strategy of considering the all-caps name to be an alias, and leaving it up to the government to claim otherwise, should work because that’s all the all-caps name is anyway: an alias. And even that much is probably an overstatement. An alternate typographic rendering of the same name is a more likely description.

        Where is it written that a notice must observe certain rules of “proper” capitalization (which no one can find in the law books) or be invalid? Nowhere. A case won’t go away simply because “proper” capitalization (though no one can find where this is legally defined) was not used. This is a frivolous objection.

        Moreover, someone can get into a heap of trouble pretending they are not the intended recipient simply because they don’t capitalize their name like that. Unless you have something really solid to show the jury, they will assume you knew the all-caps letter sent to your house was intended to notice no one other than you. Where is the evidence of this not-you entity? If you reasonably thought the notice was meant for someone other than you, produce this other person or thing taking mail at your address.

        The “fictional entity” theory of the all-caps name is itself a fiction. It’s an ad hoc explanation where no explanation is even necessary.

      • Yartap

        May 23, 2013 at 1:19 PM

        As for All Capitalization of Names, here is what I have found.

        Definition of AT ARM’S LENGTH
        Beyond the reach of personal influence or control. Parties are said to deal “at arm’s length” when each stands upon the strict letter of his rights, and conducts the business in a formal manner, without trusting to the other’s fairness or integrity, and without being subject to the other’s control or overmastering influence.

        UCC 1-201 (DEFINITIONS)

        (2) “Aggrieved Party” means a party entitled to resort to a remedy.

        (10) “Conspicuous”: A term of clause is conspicuous when it is so written that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. A printed heading in capitals (as: Non-Negotiable Bill of Lading) is conspicuous. Language in the body of a form is “conspicuous” if it is in larger or other contrasting type or color. But in a telegram any stated term is “conspicuous”. Whether a term or clause is “conspicuous” or not is for decision by the court.

        (34) “Remedy” means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal (court).

        UCC § 1-306. Waiver or Renunciation of Claim or Right After Breach.
        1. A claim or right arising out of an alleged breach may be discharged in whole or in part without consideration by agreement of the aggrieved party in an authenticated record.

        HUMAN BEING From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man “. A key rule of Law from the 14th Century describing a fundamental legal fiction –that is the notion of an inferior man or woman as an animal (as defined by Papal Decree) and therefore not subject to the laws of free men, but the laws of property. The decision to create a 2nd word for Homo (man), denoting an inferior “animal” man was crucial to the legal implementation of the Vatican global slave trade from the 14th Century–to overcome the questions of legality and morality of the Vatican slave trade. Therefore, unbaptized indigenous populations were legally defined as “humans” –therefore animals. Legally, the name of a human must always be in CAPITALS to identify that individual as property as distinct from a free man.

        [Crime No.14-03] Of obstructing the basic values and rights of human beings for the purpose of slave trade: (1300 – 1400 CE): That during this century the Roman Catholic Church did maintain the legitimacy of slavery as law in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici (Canon Law), based on the Decretum Gratiani, and Nova Compilatio decretalium (New Compilation of Decretals) which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1227. Furthermore, that this law enabled slave traders during this century to be free of any charge of heresy (therefore loss of property) as well as ensure their protected by church law. That this law promoting the international slave trade by the Catholic Church was only repealed in the 20th Century on, May 27, 1917.

        The only explanation for all capital letters in “The Gregg Reference Manual” 8th edition, is found in Chapter 3, Sec. 358, Legal Documents:
        “In legal documents many words that would ordinarily be written in small letters are written with initial capitals or all capitals–for example, references to parties, the name of the document, special provisions, and sometimes spelled-out amounts of money…”
        1. But another quote purportedly from the Gregg manual reads: “A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre.”
        Ens legis
        Capitis Diminutio Maxima (11-09-2007)
        IRS Addressing Standards for Notice Letter
        1. Use the guidelines outlined in the IRS Addressing Standards ( Document 12019) when preparing the notice letter:
        Capitalize ALL letters in the name and address.
        Don’t use punctuation (periods, commas, etc.) (11-09-2007)
        Format to Use for Taxpayer’s Name
        1. Carefully check the name of the taxpayer.
        2. Depending on the type of case, select which name format to use:
        1. Use the name of the corporation as shown on the tax return. If the name of the corporation has changed, address that corporation as follows on the letter, schedules and attachments: “ABC Corporation, formerly known as XYZ Corporation” .
        2. On a joint return where the same last name is used, show the names on the notice as “John and Mary Doe” .
        3. On a joint return where the last names are different, show both names on the notice as “John Smith and Mary Jones.”
        4. There are specific guidelines iff a taxpayer has remarried since the return was filed, and has a different last name. See IRM
        5. If it is determined that the taxpayer used more than one name, include both names on the notice with “also known as” or “AKA” . For example, “John T. Smith, AKA J. Thomas Smith”

        Jerry Lee
        1. September 12, 2012 at 7:29 PM
        Do YOU have A SSN???? That is the question being discussed here.I would have to say…You do not. The “older” SSN cards said “Property of the Social Security Administration and not for Identification.
        Besides the ‘Name’ is in all Caps. This should be a “DEAD” give away it ain’t me babe. It was something created by the off shore Banker to collect another form of ‘income tax’ or excise tax for their limited liability company the Federal Reserve.
        So the question begs; Do You have a Social Security Number?
        After all You are not the owner of the card and of course the matter of being a civilly dead person or are YOU Man created in the image of God this should settle the question.
        It is the old switch and bait, He who would be deceived let him be deceived.
        In 1914 the Supreme Court stated that a U.S. citizen [Federal citizen], when they leave the District of Columbia, are under the interstate commerce clause. As such, they can be regulated, controlled, and taxed. Hendrick v. Maryland, 59 LEd 385
        This is why Obumercare was justified by the nine clowns in DC. US citizens reside in their territorial ‘State’, which is not the ‘District’ as all of their codes say their State is without the exterior of the Union state.
        An income tax is neither a property tax, nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax.
        Sims v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925).

        “Persons” have names in all capitalized letters. Christian names are not in all capital letters.
        Black’s Law Dictionary, “Christian name”: “The baptismal name as distinct from the surname. The name which is given one after his birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. Such name may consist of a single letter.”
        Black’s Law Dictionary, “Surname”: “The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents…. The last name; the name common to all members of a family.”
        Black’s Law Dictionary “Fictitious Name”: “A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.”
        Gregg’s Manual of English: “A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre.”
        Read that again. A name spelled in all capital letters is the name of a dead person. “Your government” considers you either a dead person or a fictitious name.
        Oxford Dictionary:
        “nom”: Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name.
        “: War name. A name “Nom de guerre assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.
        “Guerre”: War, and as a verb, to wage war.
        U.S. citizens/persons were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress o n March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, same as IRS code.
        [This is still in effect today, Title 12, Section 95 (a)].
        The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.
        Fictitious names exist for a purpose; Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354.

      • Carlton

        May 23, 2013 at 8:17 PM


        I appreciate the volume of your answer, but most of it seems off topic from my question. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m looking for something binding on agents of the IRS and US government that implies they don’t mean Yartap when they send a notice to YARTAP. It’s that simple. A citation from an applicable regulation, code, or manual outta cover it.

        You said: “But another quote purportedly from the Gregg manual reads…”

        “Purportedly” from the Gregg manual, whatever that is? So after all these years of “fictitious entity” theorizing, that’s the best anyone has come up with?

        Names are often in all-caps in movie and TV credits. Does this mean the actors are dead or fictitious? Or is it more likely that Gregg’s Manual of English is not binding on the film and television studios either?

        Do you have anything specific that says when agents of the IRS or US government use all-caps they are necessarily – according to a rule they have to follow – referring to a different entity than what the conventionally capitalized form represents?

        By the way, this is incorrect: HUMAN BEING From Latin Humanus= “a lesser/inferior man or woman defined legally as an animal and/or monster as distinct from the ancient (pre Vatican) Roman term homo = man”

        “Humanus” does not mean a lesser and inferior anything. Someone just made that up. Consult an online dictionary with etymology to see for yourself. Nor is “humanus” derived from “man”. “Man” is from an entirely different language than “humanus”. “Humanus” is Latin for man, whereas our word for “man” is from Old English, not Latin.

        US Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

        So only dead people and fictitious entities can be President?

      • Yartap

        May 24, 2013 at 10:08 PM


        I agree with you. I was only showing what I have found in my search about capitalization of names. The history and court cases should be of interest for the subject of all capitalization of names.

        And yes! You are right about the definition of “Human.” I should have corrected that. The Latin term for “human being” is “terrigenus,” which is the lesser or animal as compared to “human.”.

    • Adask

      May 22, 2013 at 11:26 PM

      I may be mistaken, but it’s my understanding that once the mail is sent by first class mail, it’s presumed that it was received by the addressee and/or whoever represents that addressee. If that understanding is correct, the presumption is strengthened by sending several items of mail to that addressee. If they send two or three notices to “GARY RUSSELL” those notices are not returned marked with something like “No such person at this address,” it will be presumed that “Gary” acted on behalf of “GARY” to receive the notice(s).

      It may well be that you (“Gary”) are not “GARY”. But, if you have previously created evidence that you (“Gary”) are the fiduciary who represents the thing named “GARY,” it’s entirely possible for gov-co to send notices intended for “GARY” to the last known address of any man (like “Gary”) who represents the presumably fictional “GARY”. It’s my strong suspicion that “Gary” may have done something in the past that created the presumption that he (“Gary”) had voluntarily agreed to act as fiducicary for the thing named “GARY”. For example, “Gary” may have applied for and then signed a drivers license for the entity “GARY”. Or, “Gary” may have signed a 1040 form that was addressed in the name of “GARY” and thereby created evidence that “Gary” acts on behalf of “GARY”. Once that presumption is seen, I suspect that the courts will proceed based on that presumption until “Gary” expressly denies or otherwise defeats that presumption.

      In another comment on this page, I offer my strategy for defeating that alleged “presumption”. I don’t deny being “ADASK”–I simply testify that “ADASK” is an alias for my true name “Adask”. I can prove that verified claim. If it’s true that gov-co depends on being able to try the thing “ADASK” (which has few, if any rights) rather than the man “Adask” (who has significant rights), then by claiming “ADASK” is merely an alias for the man “Adask,” I have eliminated any fictional defendant. If government needs the presumption that the man “Adask” represents the fiction “ADASK,” by claiming “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask,” I will have shifted the burden of proof onto the gov-co to prove under oath and on the record that 1) “ADASK” is not an alias but is instead some entity other than “Adask”; and 2) I (“Adask”) have voluntarily agreed to represent the fiction “ADASK”. If the “Adask”/”ADASK” hypothesis is valid, I can’t imagine that government would dare try to prove that “ADASK” is not “Adask”.

      If the “Adask”/”ADASK” hypothesis is false, I’ve done no harm by swearing that “ADASK” is merely an alias for “Adask”.

      If the “Adask/ADASK” hypothesis is roughly correct, I will have imposed a burden of proof for the gov-co that will be very difficult for them to bear.

  10. Anthony Clifton

    May 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM

    I’m curious to understand how mass murderers acquire lawful Authority..

    in a Christian Nation.

    is it simply a function of printing the currency ?

    • Doug

      May 24, 2013 at 2:48 AM

      C’mon Columbo, you know the lawful authority was actually acquired when Haym Solomon loaned George Washington $300,000.00 to war with King George. Of course, the spin meisters have portrayed this war profiteer as a philanthropist … they are brilliant.

  11. Anthony Clifton

    May 25, 2013 at 7:41 AM

    the scribes can do that ?

    a simple function of acquiring more fraud units of exchange…?

    couldn’t he have just pleaded the fifth…

    you gotta make a college try to find the humor in the efforts of mammon worshippers

    to deny truth. . .surely there is a bottom to that pit.

    or so it seems..


    so where are the “BLESSINGS”…?

  12. indio007

    May 29, 2013 at 9:03 PM

    Murder i mala en se while most other crimes are mala prohibita. One you should know naturally the other not so much.

  13. indio007

    May 29, 2013 at 9:10 PM

    “I suspect that the original “complaint” is essentially a notice. ”

    It is . That’s why they call it “notice pleading” I think there are only a few states that don’t use it.

    It lowers the bar on what will get your foot in the door.

  14. Ed Ward MD

    September 12, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    Seems my wordress site had a link here in comments to one of my articles. Thanks. Excellent, on the money, well referenced, informative article on legal money laundering – theft. Dr Ed


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s