from: http://www.sightings.com/general/suit.htm Major Lawsuit Filed Against IRS In US District Court In Oregon NEW LAWSUIT PARALYZES THE IRS If you'd like to get the IRS off your back, please take a few moments to read the enclosed lawsuit, which was recently filed in Federal District Court. The information it contains is a matter of public record and is provided to you free of charge. What you are about to read will shock you and could dramatically change your life . . . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON CASE NUMBER: CV 00-293-KI STEVEN M. BERESFORD, Ph.D., Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR REFUND OF TAXES, PENALTIES AND INTEREST. REQUEST FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff alleges that he is a British citizen who has been a resident alien in the US since 1987. Soon after taking residence in the US, it came to his attention that the American income tax system is based upon voluntary compliance. Plaintiff believes that he cannot be legally compelled to obey any law that is voluntary, and that he therefore has no legal obligation to file or pay income taxes. 2. At the beginning of 1996, plaintiff received a letter from defendant requesting payment of overdue income taxes for 1987, 1988, 1989. Plaintiff responded by writing to defendant stating that since the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, he had voluntarily chosen not to comply. 3. During the next year or so, plaintiff contacted the IRS offices in Portland and Seattle by telephone and certified mail on numerous occasions asking for an explanation of the term `voluntary compliance' so that he could determine his legal liability and comply with the law if required to do so. 4. Defendant ignored these requests and issued an involuntary federal tax lien against him on 7/12/96 for the sum of $7,256.80. Plaintiff then filed an appeal of federal tax lien on 8/9/96 and again on 9/3/97 with the IRS offices in Portland and Seattle. These appeals were also ignored. 5. On 2/5/98, defendant sent plaintiff a notice of intent to levy. On 3/3/98 and on 4/1/98 the IRS office in Portland finally notified plaintiff that his appeal had been disallowed, more than 18 months after he originally filed it. 6. Plaintiff then wrote to the IRS office in Portland on 2/15/99, 4/7/99, and 6/16/99 requesting a due process hearing. Defendant failed to schedule a hearing and the sum of $14,609.97 was subsequently withheld from the sale of plaintiff's home at 701 North Winchell street, Portland on 10/14/99 under protest in satisfaction of the lien. Finally, on 1/3/00 defendant notified plaintiff that his request for a due process hearing had been denied. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 7. According to the IRS Mission Statement, the Federal Tax Regulations, the Internal Revenue Manual, the US Supreme Court, and expert testimony given before Congress, the tax system is based on voluntary compliance: 8. a) "The mission of the Service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance with the tax laws and regulations and to maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the Service." Federal Register, Volume 39, #62 (11572), March 29, 1974. 9. b) "The purpose of publishing revenue rulings and revenue procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the tax laws by Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum voluntary compliance." Federal Tax Regulations, Section 601.601. 10. c) "The tax system is based on voluntary compliance." Federal Tax Regulations, Section 601.602. 11. d) "Taxpayers in the United States assess their tax liabilities against themselves and pay them voluntarily. This system of assessment and payment is based on the principle of voluntary compliance." Internal Revenue Manual, Section 20:123 (7/15/96). 12. e) "Of course, the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint ~ if he does not split his action ~ but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary measure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." US Supreme Court, Flora v. United States, 362 US 179, 80 S.Ct. 630 (1960). 13. f) "Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply." Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and Means Committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953). 14. Neither the Federal Tax Regulations nor the Internal Revenue Code define the term `voluntary compliance'. Hence plaintiff relies on the definitions of `voluntary' given in Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S. 92: 1029, 1030, 1031): 15. "The word `voluntary', which connotes an agreement, implies willingness, volition, and intent. It suggests a freedom of choice and refers to the doing of something which a person is free to do or not to do, as he so decides. Although for legal purposes the word `voluntary' is considered to be so simple and in such general use that it need not be defined, it has been defined variously as meaning acting by choice, acting of one's self, without compulsion, or without being influenced by another; acting with willingness; done by design or intention; purposed; intended; done of his or its own accord; done of or due to one's own accord or free choice; produced by an act of choice; proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or full consent. `Voluntary' is further defined as meaning free; willing; not accidental; spontaneous; proceeding from the free and unrestrained will of the person; proceeding from the spontaneous operation of the party's own mind, free from influence of any extraneous disturbing cause; of one's own will without being moved, influenced, or impelled by others; unconstrained by external interference, influence, or force; unimpelled by another's influence; not compelled, prompted, persuaded, or suggested by another; acting without constraint by extraneous force; without compulsion. In its legal aspect, and as commonly used in law, the word `voluntary' is defined as meaning gratuitous; without valuable consideration; acting, or done, of one's own free will without valuable consideration; acting, or done, without any present legal obligation to do the thing done." SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS 16. According to the IRS Mission Statement, the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance. 17. According to the Federal Tax Regulations (sections 601.601 and 601.602) the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance. 18. The Internal Revenue Manual (section 20:123) explicitly states that the payment of income tax is voluntary. 19. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Flora v. United States (supra) that the income tax system is based upon voluntary payment, not upon distraint. 20. Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS, testified before Congress that income tax is 100 percent voluntary. 21. According to Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), various courts have ruled that the meaning of the word `voluntary' includes: "the doing of something which a person is free to do or not to do; acting without compulsion; acting without constraint by external interference, influence, or force; acting without any present legal obligation to do the thing done." 22. Plaintiff did not voluntarily pay income taxes for the years 1987, 1988, 1989. 23. In response to defendant's request for payment of taxes for the years 1987, 1988, 1989, plaintiff repeatedly asked defendant to explain the meaning of the term `voluntary compliance', but defendant repeatedly failed to do so. 24. Defendant issued an involuntary federal tax lien against plaintiff on 7/12/96 for the sum of $7,256.80. In response, plaintiff filed an appeal of federal tax lien on 8/9/96 and again on 9/3/97, which defendant disallowed on 3/3/98. Plaintiff then requested a due process hearing on 2/15/99, 4/7/99, and 6/16/99, which defendant denied on 1/3/00. 25. Defendant compelled the sum of $14,609.97 to be withheld from the sale of plaintiff's home on 10/14/99 under protest by means of the above-mentioned involuntary federal tax lien. 26. Plaintiff has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him by defendant, was at all material times referred to herein a resident of the State of Oregon, has his principle place of business in the State of Oregon, and relies on 28 U.S.C. Section 1346 (a)(1) and Section 1391 (b) as giving the District Court of the State of Oregon jurisdiction in this matter. ARGUMENT 27. Plaintiff argues that according to the true and correct usage of the word `voluntary' in standard English and in legal English (as outlined in Corpus Juris Secundum), he cannot ~ by definition ~ be forced or compelled to do something that is voluntary, such as complying with a voluntary law. 28. Plaintiff argues that since the law clearly and unambiguously states that the payment of income tax is voluntary, defendant cannot lawfully force or compel him to pay income tax. Plaintiff argues that his position is supported by Tietjen v. Heberlein, 171 P. 928, 54 Mont. 486; Akio Kuwahara v. Acheson, D.C. Cal., 96 F. Supp. 38, 42; Brown v. State, 135 S.E. 765, 766, 36 Ga. App. 84; Coker v State, 33 S.E. 2d 171, 174, 199 Ga. 20; Perryman v. State, 12 S.E. 2d 288, 391, 63 Ga. App. 819; in which the courts ruled that a voluntary action is one that is done without compulsion or external force. 29. Plaintiff argues that he has the freedom of choice to pay or not to pay income tax without any legal obligation toward defendant, and that his position is supported by Touli v. Santa Cruz County Title Co., 67 P.2d 404, 406, 20 Cal. App. 2d 495, in which the court ruled that a voluntary action is one that is done without any legal obligation to do the thing done. 30. Plaintiff argues that according to the IRS Mission Statement, the Federal Tax Regulations, the Internal Revenue Manual, the US Supreme Court, and the testimony of Dwight Avis before the House Ways and Means Committee, voluntary compliance forms the foundation of the entire income tax system and is not a subordinate or conditional regulation. 31. Plaintiff argues that section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, which lays out the rule concerning federal tax liens, does not form the foundation of the income tax system and is therefore subordinate to and conditional upon the principle of voluntary compliance, which always takes precedence over it. 32. Plaintiff argues that although defendant has the legal right to issue a federal tax lien under section 6321, such a lien must be a voluntary lien in order to conform to the principle of voluntary compliance, and that defendant does not have the legal right to issue an involuntary federal tax lien. 33. Plaintiff argues that the involuntary federal tax lien issued against him by defendant under section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code violated the principle of voluntary compliance and was erroneous and unlawful. 34. Plaintiff argues that defendant acted erroneously and unlawfully by compelling money to be withheld from the sale of his home by means of an involuntary federal tax lien, because the involuntary compliance thus obtained violated the principle of voluntary compliance. 35. Plaintiff argues that since the payment of income tax is voluntary, he has never had any legal or financial obligation toward defendant and has never owed defendant anything, and that any and all claims against him by defendant are false and without merit. CONCLUSION 36. The law clearly and unambiguously states that the payment of income taxes is voluntary, as codified in the IRS Mission Statement and in Sections 601.601 and 601.602 of the Federal Tax Regulations, and affirmed by Section 20:123 of the Internal Revenue Manual, by the US Supreme Court in Flora v. US, and by the expert testimony of Dwight E. Avis before Congress. 37. The principle of voluntary compliance forms the foundation of the entire income tax system, and is not a subordinate or conditional regulation. 38. Section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, which lays out the rule concerning federal tax liens, does not form the foundation of the income tax system and is therefore subordinate to and conditional upon the principle of voluntary compliance, which always takes precedence over it. 39. Defendant does not have the legal right to issue an involuntary federal tax lien under section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code, because such a lien violates the principle of voluntary compliance. Since the law clearly states that the payment of income taxes is voluntary, defendant acted erroneously and unlawfully by compelling the sum of $14,609.97 to be withheld from the sale of plaintiff's home on 10/14/99 under protest by means of an involuntary federal tax lien. 40. According to the true and correct usage of the word `voluntary' in standard English and in legal English, plaintiff cannot be compelled to do something that is voluntary, such as the payment of income tax ~ which is voluntary. By compelling plaintiff to pay income tax by means of an involuntary federal tax lien, defendant violated plaintiff's intrinsic right to freedom of choice in the matter without compulsion or legal obligation. THEREFORE Plaintiff prays that the Court will uphold the true and correct usage of the word `voluntary', and will uphold his intrinsic legal right under the principle of voluntary compliance to exercise freedom of choice to comply or not to comply with the income tax laws without compulsion or legal obligation, and prays for judgment against defendant as follows: a) That the Court will order defendant to refund to plaintiff the sum of $14,609.97 plus interest. b) That the Court will order defendant to pay plaintiff administrative and litigation costs arising from the prosecution of this lawsuit in the sum of $11,150. c) That in view of plaintiff's decision not to voluntarily comply with the income tax system, the Court will issue a permanent injunction forbidding defendant from contacting him against his wishes and from directly or indirectly interfering in any other aspect of his life. Steven M. Beresford, Ph.D. (Plaintiff in propria persona) 2/28/00 A PERSONAL MESSAGE TO YOU FROM STEVEN BERESFORD As a result of this potentially devastating lawsuit, which was written by myself, the IRS is being represented in court by Janet Reno and the Justice Department. In order to win, I need to hire a good attorney to help me navigate the legal minefield, so I'm asking for your support. If you'd like to help me beat the IRS, please mail your donation to: The Steven Beresford Defense Fund, c/o Steven Beresford, 18803 SE 18th Street, Vancouver, WA 98683. Whether you send $10 or $1,000, your help could force the IRS to its knees and make them beg for your tax dollars in future. This is an important lawsuit that could end the tyranny of the IRS once and for all. But I sincerely need your support. Please forward this e-mail to as many people as possible. The more people who know the truth about voluntary compliance, the less power the IRS will have over the American public. Time is of the essence. Janet Reno is on the warpath, so please do it now, before you get sidetracked and forget. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Steven Beresford P.S. If you want to verify this lawsuit, feel free to contact Jian Grant (202-307-6422) who is the Department of Justice attorney. ________ earthradioTV.com - Alternative News Forum for ecology, politics & consciousness. MIRROR SITES: USA http://www.earthradioTV.com/ CZECH http://mujweb.cz/www/ecologynews/ UK http://members.tripod.co.uk/ecologynews/ Canada http://www.ecologynews.com/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
