War on Truth: The Edward Nash case from 1999

 

By Adele Weiss
20 January 2016

This information is presented to demonstrate how those within the government think and react to American Nationals who seek to stand up for themselves but are not fully educated on how to play the semantic games that those wordsmiths within the National Government are so skilled at.

We have no proof that this was sent by one from the IRS-sponsored website by the name of Quatloos but when we challenged the party with this claim of identification, there was no denial of that nexus. The scriptures tell us to watch for the wolves in sheep’s clothing as it were. This party initially sent what appeared to be a benign email and then proceeded to attempt a linkage to what we do at Weiss+Associates with assisting American Nationals who want to leave the U.S. Tax System based on statutes created for such by the U.S. Congress.

Such individuals talk about the law but only from a glancing perspective, and they never do anything directly except to cast aspersions and create questions of doubt just as Satan did when Jesus Christ was tested by him. This is part of a serious attempt by those within the National Government, primarily within the IRS, to misdirect and draw conclusions by those who do not see the actions as part of actual spiritual warfare that is in full swing against American Nationals and those who have a personal relationship with the Lord.

Former Senator from California, Hiram Johnson is credited as stating in 1918, “As in any war, the truth is the first casualty.” Truth is routinely attacked in such a war by creating doubt and disbelief. The Quatloos IRS agent made the statement that this case shows that the work we do with the Revocation of Election simply does not work and implies that what we are doing is untruthful and misleading to American Nationals.

It should be noted from the IRS agent’s commentary that there was not a single reference to the IRC statute 6013(g)(4)(A) and IRC 6013 (g)(6) statutes, created by the U.S. Congress, that makes the Revocation of Election option valid for Americans.

As you review the Appellate Court case, U.S. v Nash, 175 F.3d 429 (1999), you can begin to see the war on truth. Here are the basics that you will discover as you read the BACKGROUND section of this Appellate case:

1. This case you will read about began in 1999 but originated well before that date as you will see in the narrative.
2. By the comments in this case, you will see that Mr. Nash filed some type of claim or return for years in question 1989, 1990, and 1991.
3. Those Americans who file returns, such as the Form 1040, are participating in the U.S. Tax System and many by voluntary but sub silentio election and not due to the 16th Amendment.
4. The BACKGROUND section of this case shows Mr. Nash claimed “that he was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government and that the income tax laws did not apply to him.”
5. It goes on to state, “Mr. Nash claimed that he was a citizen of the ‘Republic of Michigan’ but not a general citizen of the United States, he was properly classified as a nonresident alien.”
6. It is clear to note that the Federal Appellate case did not provide any legal reference to the support of these claims made by Mr. Nash so that and initial reading by one not familiar with ‘legalese’ and ‘territorial court procedure’ would draw their own conclusion devoid of any truth made by Mr. Nash to support his claims as so referenced.
7. You will also note that a grand jury charged Mr. Nash with willful failure to file income-tax returns for 1991 and 1992, a violation of 26 USC §7203. It must be kept in mind that this is a statute only.
8. A CID IRS agent testified that in 1993, Nash filed a Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return for YIQ 1989-1991 and that Nash signed each form “with all rights reserved, without prejudice” and relabeled each as a “Revocation of Election/Claim for Refund.”
9. Throughout the case, there was never again any reference to what 'relabeled meant' nor what additional document may or may not have been provided by Mr. Nash about the reference to “Revocation of Election/Claim for Refund”. It appears to have been a ‘label’ only with nothing by law supporting what the meaning of that label addressed.
10. The IRS stated in part, “…any form requesting a tax refund, no matter how informal, has to be considered as a claim.”
11. Mr. Nash quoted to the court “his good faith belief that the income tax laws did not apply to him.” There was nothing stated as to law that gave this presentment any validity from reading the court record of this case.
12. “According to the government, Nash’s claim violated 18 USC §287 because Nash knew that he owed taxes, knew that he was within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and knew that he was not owed these refunds. The government contends that Nash’s refund claims in light of this knowledge were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
13. 18 USC §1621 (1) states, “Whoever having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribed any material matter which he does not believe to be true…”
14. 28 USC 1746 states, shows clear reference to two separate jurisdictions for the term United States as defined at 26 USC §7408(d). 1746(1) “If executed without the United States: and (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths…”
15. Mr. Nash’s Oath with penalties of perjury took place in the jurisdiction addressed by 1746 (2) and not within the jurisdiction addressed by 1746 (1).

These are the key elements that made this case for the IRS. Many pertinent details have not been stated in this case as clarification for anyone who may read the case without knowledge of federal territorial jurisdiction and the type of court that Mr. Nash submitted to.

Here is a partial accounting of what was omitted by the Federal Appellate court which is a territorial tribunal court that only deals with laws [federal statutes and regulations] which pertain the territorial jurisdiction of the National Government and not toward the Constitutional Republic [the now 50 states of the Union].

1. Lack of any acknowledgement of the U.S. Congress provision in the IRC at 6013 (g)(4)(A) and 6013 (g)(6). Deception is easy to spot by looking for what they omit or don’t state. Mr. Nash may not have been fully aware of the parameters either as all that was referenced was a type of statement “revocation of election” without any further narrative to support his intention by using that reference.
2. This individual, Edward M. Nash, has never been a client of Weiss+Associates. Weiss+Associates were founded only in early 2013. Thus, any reference to “Revocation of Election” in this Federal Appellate case was not based on any work that originated by Weiss+Associates. The lack of information as previously mentioned eliminates any full understanding of Nash’s reference.
3. The key issue on the short reference as to what was meant by “revocation of election” used by Mr. Nash was not discussed in the case and the reference to support his statement. The IRS ‘Quatloos’ agent would not respond with any documentation as to what was meant by the ‘revocation of election’ as cited in this Federal Appellate case against Nash. The IRS agent’s response when asked was only silence to that question.
4. Anyone who reads the Revocation of Election information and views the You Tube video posted on Weiss+Associates’ website Resource Center can quickly ascertain that there is no claim made for any ‘refund of money paid to the National Government’. The only option is to leave the U.S. Tax Club on a permanent basis. Anything other than this is a fabrication in the mind of the one attempting to expand the scope of the statute which is clearly a mistake by those who attempt such.
5. According to 31 USC §321 (d)(1) and (d)(2) [this is a statute for the U.S. Department of the Treasury] one can discover that the federal income tax is a “gift or bequest made payable to and for the use of the United States [meaning the National Government].” This means one cannot sue the National Government for a refund for a tax not lawfully owed by an American National any more than one who gives currency to any charity can make a claim for refund if they change their minds later on. A gift means one gave that item or currency to that organization and also gave up any future claim to it.
6. There are two separate and distinct jurisdictions which have the same homonym [United States] but have entirely different meanings and laws. Within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Republic, meaning the 50 states of the Union, the term “United States” is clearly referencing the states of the Union for which the Constitution was originally established. The Constitution is the law of the land within the Constitutional Republic. Federal statutes and regulations have no force and effect of law when there is no Implementing Regulation promulgated in the Federal Register as required upon the IRS at 26 CFR 601.702 (a)(1) and the impact of failure to publish shows that such regulations do not apply toward American Nationals as stated at 26 CFR 601.702 (a)(2)(ii)Effect of failure to publish.
   a. The other jurisdiction, the federal territorial jurisdiction that is referenced by the term “United States” means only Washington, D.C., and U.S. Territories. It is within this territorial jurisdiction where the U.S. Congress spends the vast majority of its legislative time. The Congress continues to create volumes of statutes and regulations for the operation of the territory belonging to the National Government. It should be noted that within this federal territorial jurisdiction, the Constitution is not law and thus is only a historical document.
7. Federal Appellate Courts, United States District Courts, and the U.S. Tax Court are not Article III courts like the U.S. Supreme Court. Those courts are territorial or tribunal courts and only have legal jurisdiction within the territory belonging to the National Government [the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories]. Anyone who submits to those courts is effectively submitting to the territorial jurisdiction to which they can only operate legally within. The main function of those courts is to control the public conduct of their employees, officers, and elected officials. Anyone subject to the territorial jurisdiction, like U.S. Resident Aliens, are U.S. taxpayers and of course are subject to the territory belonging to the National Government, the statutory “United States”. It is here that the statutes and regulations created by the U.S. Congress are indeed legal and have the full force and effect of law even without the existence of any federal regulation(s).
8. The fact about the limited territorial jurisdiction just referenced can be located in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Balzac v. People of Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922). The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.
9. Those people born in territory belonging to the National Government, the “United States”, are called “U.S. citizens”. This is yet another homonym used by the National Government which leads to confusion by those not so well versed in speaking legalese as are those practitioners, such as federal judges and federal attorneys, operating within that territorial jurisdiction. These statutory ‘U.S. citizens’ are under the dominion and control of the National Government by virtue of their being born in territory belonging to the National Government.

This is more easily seen at 8 USC §1401(a) and 3C Am Jur 2d Section 2689 which addresses Who is born in United States and subject to United States jurisdiction. This certainly does not include any American National, one born in the Constitutional Republic or naturalized there. The Constitutional Republic is a foreign jurisdiction to that in which the U.S. Congress, and the Federal Courts operate exclusively within. Understanding that Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and not a sovereign state of the Union, this narrative was stated by Chief Justice William H. Taft in ‘Balzac v. People of Porto Rico’:

“We cannot find any intention to depart from this policy in making Porto Ricans American citizens, explained as this is by the desire to put them as individuals on an exact equality with citizens from the American homeland, to secure them more certain protection against the world, and to give them an opportunity, should they desire, to move into the United States proper, and there without naturalization to enjoy all political and other rights.”

Therefore, any statutory U.S. Citizen is subject automatically to the federal territorial /tribunal courts, and this is the reason the Article 1 and Article 4 territorial courts seek to gain jurisdictional control over American Nationals by words of art via homonyms designed to entrap them by their lack of knowledge about the existence and distinction of two separate jurisdictions both operating under the term “United States”.

In part, this explains why the Federal Appellate court stated the references to Nash having filed a federal income tax return prior to his not filing in the years cited in the case. 26 USC §6103 (b)(1) & (2) relate to his information provided as evidence of a return and return information. Only U.S. Taxpayers are required to file a return and provide return information. This is more clearly stated in Economy Plumbing & Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585 (1972), where this federal judge admitted the following in this case:

“They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law.”

Here you see that there are indeed those who are lawful ‘nontaxpayers’ and that the IRC does not address this group [American Nationals]. This was never presented in the Nash case and for good reason. He did not fully understand jurisdiction and how he became one subject to the jurisdiction of that federal [territorial] appellate court.