End of the Abyss -- Death Blow to the IRS - Maidmarion there isn't anyone on the entire North American continent that agrees with you more than I do. Most of the good people here on MTS already had a good idea about everything that was discovered by Mr. Ralph Winterowd. The problem however is

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

Ther is No Law and Not Even a Regulation For the Federal Income Tax

*******BE SURE YOU NOTICE THAT THIS POD CAST STARTS IN THE (2ND) HOUR********

http://republicbroadcasting.org

THE RALPHWINTERROWD SHOW

SUNDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010 - Hour 2
MP3 Files: Hour 2
Playlist Files: PLS M3U

Hr 2 "Administrative Legislation of the the Form 1040 - 6011-1 and 6012-1 - never has been a "substantive regulation" that has the force and effect of law, i.e. equal to a statute."
Judicial Power

Let us take a moment or two and consider a really important issue, the separation of powers, before we focus on the Federal Register, the administrative legislative process for the administrative state.

This issue, separation of powers we can go way back and prove that it was dealt with in 1792 and again with 1851 (Fierra) and then in

Cherokee Nation vs the United States, 219 US 346 1902

The court ruled:

"First to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War, then to the revision of the legislature, whereas by the Constitution neither the Secretary at War nor any other executive officer, not even the legislature are authorized to sit as a court of errors on judicial acts or opinions of this court."

Once that court has made a decision NOBODY can come along and change their decision!

It is truly astounding how this headless 4th branch of government/the administrative state, has reared its ugly head and today they continue to get away with their scam!

This was again stated quite succinctly in another really good case to read, lots of important information in it:

Buckley vs Valeo 424 US1 1976

The court ruled:

"The court has not hesitated to enforce the principal of
separation of powers embodied in the Constitution when its
application has proved necessary for the decision of cases or
controversies properly brought before it. The court has
held that executive or administrative duties of non judicial
nature may NOT be imposed upon judges holding office under
Article III of the Constitution." (my caps)

They also cite the Ferria and Hayborne cases.

NOTE that the court is talking about non judicial and they are talking about administrative duties way far back to more recent.

Enforcing summonses do you think that might be non judicial. Are IRS summonses non judicial?

Another case very important case for clearing up Article III Judicial Power of the United States

Postum Cereal vs California Fignut 272 US 693 1927

This is also very informative and important case to read. This case is very succinctly handled. Some people think that they are somehow going to run off to Washington, D.C and they are going to find an Article III court there.

There is only one Article III Court that we know of that is actually, truly an Article III Court. That is the Court of International Trade and it has a limited judicial power of the United States to do with imports and Exports.

Will be doing more research on this court but this court seems not to o to any of the appellate courts. It has a separate court it goes to on appeals. Now isn't that interesting. It doesn't o to the 9th circuit, it does not o to the circuit court of the District of Columbia. Nope, it has it own little special appellate court from a true Article III court. Is that some sort of a wake up call right there? Is something rotten in Denmark? Why doesn't it go to the appellate courts already in existence? Is it because they are not truly Article III courts? From wikipedia: Appeals from the Court of International Trade are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which normally sits in Washington, D.C. Further appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. I plan to do more research on this to answer these questions .......so stay tuned.

To continue with Postum Cereal vs California Fignut. The issue that is raised in this case is that the district is under what is called the Laws of Congress and it is also under the laws of the United States.

The issue raised in this case is that the district (DC) is under what is called the laws of congress and it is also under the laws of the United States.

The difference is:

a) Laws of Congress is where congress has plenary
i) Absolute power
ii) This power exists only in the District of Columbia,
territories, and possessions
iii) This power is precluded from existing
in the several states

Unfortunately today congress is operating as though they have plenary power over the several states which they DO NOT! We have the Corporate states. One of the ways they get around that for example is they insert citizen of the United States.

Prior to the civil rights act of 1866, citizens of the United States used to mean basically citizens of the several states. That was the only thing that had protections within the federal constitution. If you went from one of the sovereign countries known as the several states in Article IV you ere to be protected in one of the other sovereign countries, known as one of the several states. After the articles of confederation you had protection of the laws in that country. If you are a citizen of the United States it means there are NO several states. So that is one of the ways they will insert citizen of the United States, Yet the source of the power comes from our unalienable rights, which comes form the people and our creator.

A limited delegation is given to the several states and a grant of that power was given to the United States, sitting under the United States of America, a corporate structure. So if you wander of to DC and think you are going to find an Article III Court, it is not going to happen. Basically you have opened up a Pandora's box and that is what is involved in this particular case. The distinction between the jurisdiction of this court, which is confined to the hearing and decision of cases in the constitutional sense and that of the administrative action and decision, power for which is conferred from the courts of the district. (Also cited is Keller vs Potomac which you can find within Pulsom Cereal vs California Fignut)

Continued..........

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

Page 2.

http://republicbroadcasting.org

THE RALPH WINTERROWD SHOW

SUNDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010- Hour 2
MP3 Files: Hour 2
Playlist Files: PLS M3U

Hr 2 "Administrative Legislation of the the Form 1040 - 6011-1 and 6012-1 - never has been a "substantive regulation" that has the force and effect of law, i.e. equal to a statute."

"It is pointed out then while congress in it's constitutional exercise of exclusive legislation over district, may clothe the courts of the district not only with jurisdiction of the powers of the federal courts in the several states but also with such authority as a state might confer on it's courts, and, may so vest the courts of the district with administrative or legislative functions which are not properly judicial. It may not do so with this court or any federal court established under Article III of the constitution. Such legislative or administrative jurisdiction, it is well settled, can not be conferred on this court either directly or by appeal. (Muskrat case cited)

What this means is, when you go into the district (DC) court, what you are getting there is administrative and judicial intermingled. Congress has plenary power. It does not have plenary power in the several states. It is a limited grant of power within the several states.

That is a great case!

How is it that the IRS is operating out there and doing what they are doing to the people? How are they getting away with it?

IT IS BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!!!!

That is the issue that is absolutely astounding! How can they be doing all these IRS "things" when under Title 28 section 2201, they can't make a declaration that you are a tax payer, and yet you can end up in the court having issues concerning a tax payer?

That's illogical!!

The separations of powers - the IRS claims it has the final say so as to whether your are a tax payer. Yes - that is what they are claiming and the IRS does that by REGULATIONS, per congresses' statutory authority and mandates!

*****(NOW YOU KNOW WHY I WANT YOU ALL TO FOCUSE ON THE REULATIONS)********

How then can I have standing in a constitutional court? The IRS is not going to dis close this! But that is what these cases are all about, the Hayborne, Fierra, Muskrat and Valeo to name a few.

So the next question one must ask is "Why do we have/need regulations? And more importantly:

"HAS CONGRESS EVER MADE A SUBTENITIVE REGULATION"

Congress did the 1939 IRS Code

Congress did the 1954 IRS Code

Congress did the 1986 IRS Code

The question to ask and put to rest is:

Has congress ever even made a substantive regulation?

a) First there is constitutional legislation -- not going on by the way. It is
just an illusion!
b) Administrative legislation in the administrative state

Administrative legislation must have statutory authority from congress to legislate. In the administrative state, administrative legislation is accomplished only through regulations. These regulations MUST be substantive in order to have the force and effect of law. The procedure is MANDATED through congress -- 552 a 1

Continued..........

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

Page 3.

http://republicbroadcasting.org

THE RALPH WINTERROWD SHOW

SUNDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010 - Hour 2
MP3 Files: Hour 2
Playlist Files: PLS M3U

Hr 2 "Administrative Legislation of the the Form 1040 - 6011-1 and 6012-1 - never has been a "substantive regulation" that has the force and effect of law, i.e. equal to a statute."

Substantive regulations are the only ones we are interest in at this point.

Substantive regulations are the ONLY ones that creates an OBLIGATION or a DUTY.

The ONLY test for administrative legislation that has the force and effect of law, which means it is equivalent to and/or equal to a statute of the United States is found in Title 5 USC 553 b c and d.

THAT'S IT...........DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE .........IT'S A CROCK!

THE AGENCIES MUST

A) They MUST give us notice
b) They MUST wait 30 days
c) They MUST address all our comments
d) They MUST state in the Federal Register that they are in COMPLIANCE
with 553 b - a proposed rule
e) They MUST then publish the final rule and state that they are in
COMPLIANCE with 553 b
f) They MUST address all the comments
g) They MUST wait 30 days before they implement

That is the Administrative legislative process.

It is overseen by congress. The regulation goes back then to congress for approximately 60 days. If congress does not do anything about it ...........it is passed.

What is so egregious about all of this is that congress (and the courts) have fallen and are continuing to fall down on the job. We do not know who these people creating these so called substantive regulations really are. They are not our elected representatives.

There are two especially I would like to focus on.

Let's take a look first at 6011 that I believe my good friend Shroona is so fond of and quoted. Forgive me Shoorna if I am mistaken.

Has there ever been any substantive regulation under the authority of 6011 for IRS Returns and also for 6012 - for citizens of the United States.

Is there any authority EVER out there that the IRS can point to?

Let's go back to 1939. It started off as 19.51-1 and others of that ilk. When they started this off initially you had to have a notary public as one means to do returns. They specifically said in the regulations .....by the way there are no 5th amendment protections for giving information on a return. Really! Don't think congress or agencies can make determinations of law....but I guess they think they can!

The next year to look at is 1943.

All of a sudden there is NO MORE 19.51 -1. Seems in 1943 the IRS re-designated everything because they kept passing these Revenue Acts. How all of a sudden they republish everything in 1943. It was done in numerous sites that you can research for yourselves ......much too lengthy for the forum. They passed an index and changed the numbering to 29.51 -1 etc...........along with an index.

Continuing with the research to see if the IRS has EVER published a regulation that was a substantive regulation with the force and effect of law.

One thing you have to note here is that all of the above is PRIOR to the 1946 APA Administrative Procedure Act. This act as created specifically for the administrative legislative process. Right in the Congressional Record is the NEW bill of rights.

Also the ONLY ONE that has a MANDATED procedure is the substantive regulations. SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. There isn't any doubt about THAT and there is case after case on it that you can also research for yourselves.

Then we continue the research and now we do not see...........29.51 - 1. In 1953 they decided, because of another Revenue Act of 1950, they republish and renumbered them again! Now they are 39.51 -1. That one is 429 pages long!!! Sept 26, 1953 18 FR 5771 through 6199. Whewwwwwwwwwww still with me?

Continued..........

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

Page 4.

http://republicbroadcasting.org

THE RALPH WINTERROWD SHOW

SUNDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010 - hOUR 2
MP3 Files Hour 2
Playlist Files: PLS M3U

Hr 2 "Administrative Legislation of the the Form 1040 - 6011-1 and 6012-1 - never has been a "substantive regulation" that has the force and effect of law, i.e. equal to a statute."

Remember we are STILL looking for ANY SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS!

So we went back again PRIOR to 1946 and had another look at 29.51 -1 the 1943 designated numbering.

There was excitement for a moment but it was short lived! Three of them gave the APPEARANCE of passing muster. But then it was determined they all passed after and they were to go back a couple of years before they were passed. Well they couldn't fly. Can't do that. regulations have to have the effective date. The 1946 APA Act has 4c and that says you have to give 30 days and here they went back a couple of years! So they did not meet the MANDATES and did not qualify as a substantive regulations having the force and effect of law.

Now look what happens!!!

In 1953 at the very end of 429 pages is this paragraph.

"IN PERSUANT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE THE REGULATIONS IN THIS PART, REGULATIONS 118 ARE HEREBY PERSCRIBED, APPLICABLE TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1951 (note is is now 1953) SUCH REGULATIONS INCLUDE THOSE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN PART 29 CFR 1949 ADDITION WHICH HAVE APPLICATION TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1951. (now you know that doesn't fly...my comment) BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS IN THIS PART ARE PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE HERETOFOR BEEN PRESCRIBED PERSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIONS PROCEDURE ACT APPROVED JUNE 11, 1946 (liar, liar, liar) IT IS FOUND UNNECESSARY TO ISSUE SUCH REGULATIONS WITH NOTICE AND PUBLIC PROCEDURE THERE UNDER SECTION 4 a OF THE ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURE ACT OR SUJECT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE LIMITATIONS OF 4 c OF THAT ACT. THE REGULATIONS IN PART 29 REGULATIONS 111 IN SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO INCOME TAXES FOR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DEC. 31 1951 ARE HEREBY SUPERCEEDED"

Liars, liars, liars. Did you see what they did here folks!!! They knew that the 1943 29.51 -1 regulations could not be included. The knew they were not prescribed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, so they lied, slipped them in and pulled the superseded crap!

People have lost their lives, health, homes wealth and are right now incarcerated and here is the proof that there is not ONE substantive regulation. Irwin Schiff, Ed and Elaine Brown, Sherry Peel Jackson, and others are now incarcerated. The Browns had close to $3,000,000 stolen from these thugs. They were decent professional people, she is a dentist and Ed had businesses of his own. His main project was building that beautiful house. All of their life's work stolen from them. Sherry, so ill now in jail, the mother of two young daughters that needed her at this time. Irwin Schiff...........and old man spending his last days in prison because they asked questions. IS THIS FREEDOM. IS THIS THE AMERICA YOU WANT??? Now they are going after Pete Hendrickson and Lindsey Springer because they too know what criminals the IRS are and stood up to them. Are we just going to allow criminal bastards take over and ruin the whole dream?

Now do you see why they wanted you to only look at the CFR. All of this information is not in the Code and they know it too! Shame on your black souls. I hope I get through this! I am so angry right now!

Now we come to1954 and take a look at what happened to 1.6011 and 1.6012. You will NOT find a substantive regulation for THEM EITHER! Tracked them all the way up to the current time. Now interestingly enough the 1.6012 -1 has statutory authority of 5 USC 301. 5 USC 301 is strictly for FEDERAL EMPLYEES. and 5 USC 552 is the Administrative Procedures Act. It is the Administrative Procedure Act for the FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. It is ONLY for the FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. All of the regulations after 1954 when they were moved over from 39.51.1 etc..... into what we know today as 6011 and 6012. You will not find ONE SUBSTANTIVE REGULATION There has NEER BEEN ANY SUBSTANTIVE REGULATION that has met the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

You think this might be important folks, with the Health Bill and the Real ID waiting in the wings. They too will be administrative agencies. This is where we stop them ...............right here in the Federal Register. You think it might be important if these substantive regulations have the same force and effect of law as a statute of Congress? You think it might be important that they follow the administrative legislative procedures? I think it is kind of important that even though congress doesn't legislate any more ..........they could at least do a vote! Maybe we should just do away with the voting and have them meet at their favorite watering hole and do a yea or a nay!

NOT ONE SUBSTANTIVE REGULATION WITH THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW!

Continued..........

**Member** Joined: Jun 12, 2007 Posts: 3128

Page 5.

http://republicbroadcasting.org

THE RALPH WINTERROWD SHOW

SUNDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010 - hOUR 2
MP3 Files: Hour 2
Playlist Files: PLS M3U

Hr 2 "Administrative Legislation of the the Form 1040 - 6011-1 and 6012-1 - never has been a "substantive regulation" that has the force and effect of law, i.e. equal to a statute."

Westlaw put out a part one list of Regulations under 7805. 7805 is a general Grant (going all the way back to 1939) That the Agencies SHALL promulgate regulations.

NOTE: 7805 is strictly for INTERPRETIVE REULATIONS...........NO FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW. Does not mean anything beyond that!

All it means is that they have promulgated regulations nothing more........whoa ha!!

What we did not know, (because we have seen Westlaw's list of 7805 and other statutory authority for a regulation) is that when they promulgate regulations sometimes, in certain ones, in the Federal Register only, the will give these statutory authority ....Ex. wages 3406 (just an example not really accurate.) They will put that in the Federal Register. So Westlaw has compiled a list to make it handy, for the people having access to Westlaw, to check and see where additional statutory authorities are listed.

Well guess what 6011 is NOT THERE. 6012 IS LISTED ......BUT 6011 IS NOT THERE. There is No statutory authority listed in any Federal Register at all.

That is pretty astounding. So why are we doing returns by regulation when NONE of them have any statutory authority?

They are DOA right from the get go. If they are interpretive regulations --you can NOT be prosecuted for an interpretive regulation.

Who cares what some twit attorney thinks back in the (District of Criminals) D.C. or God knows where!

The final conclusion is that you can not find ONE instance EVER to date (and the IRS has not done substantive Regulations since 1981). Substantive regulations that have the force and effect of law whereby we have the DUTY and OBLIGATION to file a return. NOT ONE!!! I have not found anything under 6012 for citizens of the United States that is a Substantive Regulation with the force and effect of law. None, zero, zip nada!

Now what you will find because the people who are in charge of the Federal Register were concerned about all of those agencies. In 1972 they promulgated a whole set of new rules 37 FR 23602 -- 23614. The Register wanted rules so that the general public could understand what is going on with the Federal Register. The general public doesn't have a clue about what is going on with the register or what is it's function. it takes a lot of time folks reading.........cross checking on and on .........

The Federal Register said:

"The purpose of this revision is to make the Federal Register a more meaningful and more useful publication. With the enactment of the Administrative procedures Act in 1946 congress provided an opportunity for the general participation in the administrative actions of the federal government. However in order to participate effectively citizens must be able to understand the actions both of proposed and final, as published in the Federal Reister."

NO KIDDING!

Don't you wonder how many of our legislators even know what I (Winterrowd) have just laid out, leave alone what's going on now?

Now what are some of the regulations that the Federal Register promulgated that might be quite interesting?

I) 1.CFR section 5.19 Categories of Documents

"Each document published in the Federal Register SHALL be placed under one of the following categories as indicated."

a) The President

b) Rules and Regulations for interpretations

* c) Proposed rules (regulations ) * "This category contains notice of proposed rule making submitted pursuant to section 553 of Title 5 United States Code
or by other law which if promulgated as a rule would have general applicability and legal effect."

Note: That general applicability and legal effect tracks exactly back to the Federal Register Act of 1935.

The president, is considered an agency or federal agency by definition of the Federal Register Act. "So what they appear to have done on the initial research, is ...congress states that the president (the agency) can create regulations Then it appears he creates an executive order and puts it in the Federal Register. There is no test of force and effect of law. The President cannot legislate over the people . So how do these executive orders fly? By lead balloon. More research on my part is needed on this to really back it up..........stay tuned.

A president can not create legislation ......... Can congress hand over to the executive... yes they can to do housekeeping statutes for people who work within the government. But the President can not legislate over you and me or the fence post.

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:09 pm

Maidmarion there isn't anyone on the entire North American continent that agrees with you more than I do. Most of the good people here on MTS already had a good idea about everything that was discovered by Mr. Ralph Winterowd.

The problem however is that we are not dealing with legitimate courts any longer here in the USA. Even if you confront the Federal Whore courts with all the paperwork and research that you have so diligently laid out for they will just ignore it all and make up new rules as they go.

Ralph Winterowd himself said on one of John Stadtmiller's shows that there are hardly no attorneys at all that are knowledgable about hidden pieces of law like the Federal Register to where they can mount any kind of defense that would be effective.

I wish to GOD it was as easy as learning all of this documentation. But these judges are so crooked and dastardly corrupt that there really is no defense against these abominable bastards at this time. I'm afraid the only remedy at this point is for the country to have a complete economic trainwreck. Until the cell phone and movie/sports addicts can see reality there just is no other hope I'm afraid Mad