Category Archives: Questions

Notice & Right of Inquiry in re: Income Tax and Traffic Tickets

Right of Inquiry [courtesy Google Images]

Right of Inquiry
[courtesy Google Images]

The Cornell University Law School defines “procedural due process” as follows:


“Principle required by the Constitution that when the state or federal government acts in such a way that denies a citizen of a life, liberty, or property interest, the person must first be given notice and the opportunity to be heard.”

Thus, procedural due process consists of two elements:

1) Notice; and

2) Opportunity to be heard.

The “opportunity to be heard” is typically a hearing where you will be found guilty about 98% of the time.  Therefore, most reasonable people don’t want the “opportunity to be heard” because it is typically an “opportunity to be sentenced”.

I believe that “opportunity” can be avoided by controlling the notice.  I.e., unless you consent to receive only an incomplete notice, the gov-co can’t take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]” until they’ve give you full and complete notice.

Strangely, my research implies that the notice recipient, rather than the notice sender, controls the express content of every notice.  Whenever you receive a notice, you control whether or not that notice is sufficient to allow the sender to take you to the “opportunity to be heard [sentenced]”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on September 7, 2013 in Income Tax, IRS, Notice, Questions, Signature, Traffic Law


Tags: , , ,

Don’t Talk To Police

Photo of a police officer, Boston, USA

Hmm . . . that’s an interesting question. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here’s a video of some legal advice from an attorney who talks faster than I do.

Generally speaking, I’d say this attorney’s advice is solid.

But I have some doubts . . . or at least some questions. If you’ve read my hypothesis concerning Notice, then you know I that I believe the proper to response to any governmental Notice is not: 1) to make statements; or 2) to go silent–but instead, 3) to ask questions.

I’m therefore inclined to suspect that every interaction initiated by a police officer begins with some sort of “notice”. That notice may be the emergency lights on top of the cop car. It may be the officer’s uniform, or the fringed flag on his shoulder.  It might be a statement as simple as “I’d like to talk to you,” or “I’d like to ask you a few questions.”

I agree with the attorney in this video that you must not make statements to the police. However, without any supporting evidence, I still have some doubt whether your best choice is to go silent.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on June 13, 2013 in Notice, Police State, Questions, Video


Tags: , , , ,

Fun With Words and Phrases

This is an original work, based on internation...

Questions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to an IRS website, there are a number of publications that include the term “Federal Income Tax” and/or “federal income tax”.

What does the phrase “Federal Income Tax” mean?  I expect that, if asked, most people would agree that the phrase refers to a “Tax” on all “Income” that’s enforced by the “Federal” (Government).

But is it possible that “Federal Income Tax” instead refers to a “Tax” that only applies to “Federal Income”?  If so, what is “Federal Income” and who receives it and is therefore subject to the “Tax”?

I’m not betting that any of this speculation is true, but if there were a “Tax” on “Federal Income,” might that “Tax” only apply to whatever “Income” is received as a Federal Employee?  If you weren’t a “federal employee,” could you be liable for a tax on “Federal Income”

Given just three words (“Federal Income Tax”) we can find at least three potential meanings.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on June 8, 2013 in IRS, Notice, Questions


Tags: , ,

A Second Question for the IRS


Questions? (Photo credit: Valerie Everett)

Folks confronting the IRS routinely ask, even demand to know, “What law makes me liable?

So far as I know, the IRS never answers.  We can’t seem to find out whichever specific “law” makes us all liable to pay income taxes.

Insofar as that “special law” remains unspecified and seemingly unknown, it’s reasonable to suppose that may be no law that makes the vast majority of American liable to pay income taxes.  After all, if there were such a law, why would the IRS persistently refuse to disclose it?  Why not just name the section of the Title 26 that makes all the people liable and stop all this foolishness about “show me the law”?

If there is no law that makes us liable to pay income taxes, does it follow that virtually all IRS collections are unlawful?

Not necessarily.

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on August 14, 2012 in IRS, Questions


Tags: , ,

“What is the NATURE of the person or individual you’re seeking?”

I’m convinced that this system’s Achilles Heel may be our ability and right to ask insightful questions.

For example, in response to my earlier article, “Does the All-Upper-Case Name Signify a SUBJECT?,” John Peter posted the following comment:

“It might be to our advantage to listen carefully to lawyers in courtroom proceedings. I have reviewed the videos of the OJ Simpson trial and observed the following. One day judge Ito asked the question ” Is the defendant in the courtroom”? Johnnie Cocoran, the attorney replied with honor by asking the following question: From the recorders Log- “What is the nature of the PERSON or individual that you seek ?”  Everyone knew that OJ was not in the courtroom at the time and the question was not brought up again. Could the answer lie in the understanding of the word “nature”?

Read the rest of this entry »


Posted by on December 7, 2011 in Names, Notice, Questions, Sovereignty


Tags: , , , , ,

British Traffic Humor

The British are so straight-laced when it comes to legal matters that It’s sometimes hard to tell if you’re watching something “real” or a skit from Benny Hill or Monty Python.

Here’s a video of a British “copper” trying to issue a traffic ticket to a bicyclist.  The “copper” tries to keep up with the bicyclist’s persistent questions, finally tries to grab the camera in frustration, and doesn’t follow when the bicyclist simply peddles away.

The video isn’t profound, but it’s interesting, amusing and instructive: the “system” has a very difficult time dealing with questions.  If you can learn to master your “right of inquiry,” you might sometimes triumph over the systemites.

video  00:04:54

1 Comment

Posted by on December 6, 2011 in Humor, Police State, Questions, Video


Tags: ,

What If?

Andrew Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano asks a series of “what if” questions.  All of these “what if’s” appear to already be true.

I was particularly surprised to hear Judge Napolitano ask “What if the States were mere provinces under a totally nationalized and centralized government?”

Judge Napolitano is the first high (or formerly high) government official that I’ve heard of who’s given credence to the “The State vs. this state” hypothesis that I and others have been advocating for over a decade.  Where he refers to “provinces,” I’m inclined to speak of “territories” or “territorial states” (rather than States of the Union).  Perhaps Napolitano’s description (“provinces”) is better than mine (“territories,” etc.).  But if we disagreed as to nomenclature, we apparently agree that the very nature of our State’s governments has been radically changed into something unconstitutional and treasonous.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tags: , , , , , , ,