Author Topic: Ms. Habby and a bureaucratic attack  (Read 186 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Ms. Habby and a bureaucratic attack
« on: May 18, 2021, 04:13:17 PM »
Mr. Habenae Est Dominatus
Ms. Habenae Est Dominatus
Someplace Wisconsin

8/29/2019ish

Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc.
P.O. Box 500
Horseheads, NY 14845

PCA ID Num: Fake 1
Authentication Number:
Fake 2

Dear PCI Inc.,

This letter acknowledges your letter of alleged claims.

Since Wisconsin is a community property state, claiming that Ms. Habenae Est Dominatus owes a debt is the same as claiming that I, Mr. Habenae Est Dominatus owe a debt. That is why I have invited myself into this discussion with Ms. Habenae Est Dominatus' blessing.

Quoting from your website:
pioneercreditrecovery.com/taxes.html#
{Link reported broken on 7 November 2021.}
{DDG search of site.}

    Quote:
    Q: Does Pioneer have the authority to take/garnish my wages or charge me penalties if I cannot pay?

    A: No. The IRS authorizes Pioneer only to call taxpayers and work directly with them to encourage voluntary payment of outstanding debt.


If you are not posting lies on your website, then you are done with Ms. Habenae Est Dominatus and myself. You have made your attempt to communicate with Ms. Habby and I.

By the way, Ms. Habenae Est Dominatus has NOT had the name of REDACTED in almost 28 years.

If the IRS can't get the name or the address correct, what else have they gotten wrong?

Since PCI inc is involved, even if only peripherally,

Does PCI inc have any personal first hand knowledge of evidence to present and testify to, to prove that the IRS has properly obeyed all of its own rules and laws?

Quoting from the IRS' own website:

    Quote:
    1.2.1.2.1 (12-18-1993)
    Policy Statement 1-1, Mission of the Service

    Mission of the Service

    Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-002-001#idm140564388353824


Would a refusal by the IRS to answer specific questions about the law be a top quality service helping people to understand and meet their tax responsibilities ?

Quoting from the IRS' own website:

    Quote:
    1.2.1.13.3 (03-14-1991)
    Policy Statement 21-3 (Formerly P-6-12), Timeliness and Quality of Taxpayer Correspondence

    Timeliness and Quality of Taxpayer Correspondence

    The Service will issue quality responses to all taxpayer correspondence.

    Taxpayer correspondence is defined as all written communication from a taxpayer or his/her representative, excluding tax returns, whether solicited or unsolicited. This includes taxpayer requests for information, as well as that which may accompany a tax return; responses to IRS requests for information; and annotated notice responses.

    A quality response is timely, accurate, professional in tone, responsive to taxpayer needs (i.e., resolves all issues without further contact).

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-002-001#idm140564389114304


I have personal first hand knowledge that the IRS has willfully failed to obey its own policies while dealing with me. And I uploaded my evidence to an online website for all to see. That evidence has been on line since January, 2007. I am still awaiting the IRS “quality response” to my questions.

I have since learned much more. Therefore, I will limit myself to two (2) Supreme Court citations and two (2) specific questions.

    Quote:
    In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

    ... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

Bold emphasis mine.

Question #1:
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Question #2:
Do you have any evidence that such a law, if it exists, applies to my wife or I?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 09:12:06 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: Ms. Habby and a bureaucratic attack
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2022, 10:19:44 AM »
I have personal first hand knowledge that the IRS has willfully failed to obey its own policies while dealing with me. And I uploaded my evidence to an online website for all to see. That evidence has been on line since January, 2007. I am still awaiting the IRS “quality response” to my questions.

I have since learned much more. Therefore, I will limit myself to two (2) Supreme Court citations and two (2) specific questions.


Quote
    In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

Quote
[T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)
Question #1:
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Question #2:
Do you have any evidence that such a law, if it exists, applies to my wife or I?
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: Ms. Habby and a bureaucratic attack
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2022, 09:19:23 AM »
I've been onto this information for 15 years.

This is KISSed and worded to focus on the paid help:

Quote:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

Quote:
[T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

Question:
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Natural Law Matters