- All writings by David R. Myrland -
Show you the law? Can do:
*Scroll for income tax info.
Right to travel: "I've been deprived of my right to public vehicular travel."
Bottom Line - Right to travel: Congressman (David Reichert) named as defendant in criminal complaint to DOJ and Homeland Security Committee March 9, 2006 - Nobody denies a thing in this RICO criminal complaint. (71 pg. .pdf file of entire filing of RICO complaint / brief in 2006).
PROOF: I sent this to the local cops and I drive without. (Document and audio description here)
Is YOUR right to public vehicular travel a privilege granted by the State??? Can a common right be converted into a privilege?
"The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144[.]" See Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 314 (1925).
"It will be observed that . . . a highway, within the contemplation of the act, is, "Every way or place of whatever nature open as a matter of right to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel." There can be no question but that this definition is broad enough to include streets in incorporated cities, because they are open as a matter of right to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel." See Neeley v. Bock, 184 Wash. 135, 140, 50 P.2d 524 (1935).
Do you drive an automobile, or do you drive a motor vehicle? Do you owe "motor vehicle fuel excise tax"? Traffic tickets, license plates, title and registration, same question? Anybody?
Revised Code of Washington 9A.56.075 Taking motor vehicle without permission in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree if he or she, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to possession, intentionally takes or drives away any automobile or motor vehicle, whether propelled by steam, electricity, or internal combustion engine, that is the property of another, or he or she voluntarily rides in or upon the automobile or motor vehicle with knowledge of the fact that the automobile or motor vehicle was unlawfully taken.
(2) Taking a motor vehicle without permission in the second degree is a class C felony. [2003 c 53 § 73.]Or perhaps you'd like to argue with the WA State attorney general:
WA AG Report - AGO 59-60 No. 88 not in its entirety - Motor Vehicles – Operator’s License – Law Enforcement – Authority to Stop Motorist to See Operator’s License:“As stated in 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 202, p. 987:
“Personal liberty, or the right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guaranty in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the federal Constitution, and which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights; as sacred as the right of private property; or as occupying a preferred position as contrasted with property rights; and is regarded as inalienable.”This concept is further amplified in 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 329, p. 1135 wherein it is said:
“Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion--to go where and when one pleases-- only so far restrained as the rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”See also, Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784 (1943).
In Barbour v. Walker, 126 Okla. 227, 259 Pac. 552, 56 A.L.R. 1049, 1053, the distinction between the right of a citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized:
“In Ex parte Dickey (Dickey v. Davis) 76 W.Va. 576, L.R.A. 1915 F, 840, P.U.R. 1915 E, 93, 85 S.E. 781, we find this apt expression of the court: 'The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual and extraordinary. As to the former, the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but, as to the latter, its power is broader, the right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to others, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities . . .”(As to the power of the legislature to prohibit or condition special or extraordinary uses of the highway, i.e., commercial use, as it sees fit, see: Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 77 L.Ed. 288, 53 S.Ct. 181, 87 A.L.R. 721, 727; Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133, 135, 39 P.2d 596 (1934); Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau v. Schaaf, 1 Wn.2d 210, 216, 95 P.2d 781 (1939)).
Under its power to regulate private use of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed. RCW 46.20.190. Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, in so far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard, or risk of harm, to which other users of the highway might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision by obtaining the requisite operator's license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of traveling freely upon the public highways without unauthorized detention or restraint.
We cannot overlook the merit in, and forcefulness of, the argument that a broad delegation of authority is essential to the enforcement of the licensing requirement (See People v. Utsman, 166 N.Y.S. (2d) 358 (1957)). However, a right as precious as the freedom of an individual who has not violated any law to travel wherever he pleases without interruption should not be denied by implication where an equally consistent construction not impairing such right is possible.”*End excerpt from WA AGO Report 59-60 No. 88.
Read this RICO criminal complaint to learn what has always been done to you, to all of us, by gov't in its depriving us of this right to public vehicular travel, then decide who to put in jail for it. (71 pg. .pdf file of entire filing of RICO complaint / brief in 2006).
*End right to travel.
___________________________________________________
IRS / Income Taxes: (See U.S. v. Arant, #CV-07-509-RSL) (Texas example)
Bottom Line - Income taxes: "It's RICO, Americans are named in regulation alone, and to tax the value of my personal services you have to deprive me of Tax Code § 83." See pp.17-35 of the Memorandum at Tab #5 below, compare to criminal allegations in the RICO complaint at Tab #2.
1. PROOF: Pages 17-23 of Memorandum below at Tab #5 briefs two issues relating to IRS' authority and Tax Code scope; just two. Read those issues, read the summaries thereafter, read the simple questions the gov't cannot even address; check mate. (Review of decision).
2. PROOF: In this FL tax indictment (August 21, 2008) you see the DOJ relying upon 26 CFR 1.1-1 and Tax Code § 1. (See U.S. v. Hirmer, et al., #3:08cr79-011-MCR, U.S. Dist. Court, Pensacola, Florida). Look at the bottom of the "check mate" linked page for text of indictment.
“All citizens of the United States were taxed on their worldwide income. U.S.Const. Amend. XVI; Title 26, United States Code, §§ 1, 61; Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).”
*Quote of Indictment from Hirmer, #3:08cr79-011-MCR, Pensacola, FL dated 8/21/08, tax evasion, other, at its par. 11.
*Imagine asking federal court permission to bring firearms into the court room to arrest the IRS agents and U.S. attorneys against you.
3. PROOF: You see HERE that Tax Court disposes of § 83 solely through reasoning that your paycheck is profit or gross income because you didn't purchase your labor before you sold it, so you have no "cost or basis" in your labor, that court proceeding to arbitrarily exclude labor, your most sacred property, from the term "any money or property" in 26 CFR 1.83-3(g), but HERE you see four U.S. Supreme Court decisions that say "any" means everything, unless the law excludes something from its purview or scope. See Tax Court penalize a litigant $6500 for saying, "I will concede all facts of the case today if they'd just tell me how to comply with § 83."
________________________________________________
DISCUSSION:
Complaint to Congress as required by 18 USC 4 Misprision of felony. Curriculum at ToCongress.com brought to bear in RICO (racketeering) complaint to eighty members of Congress filed 12/28/05 and has left everyone silent, even U.S. Dist. Chief Judge, Robert S. Lasnik, as you'll see.
These .pdf files will open in their own window, close them when finished.
Cover page and Contents - 2 pg. caption followed by table of contents.
TAB1_Cover letter - In 2005 I was invited by Ray Gebauer (above) to attend a meeting with the DOJ where he and his attorney anticipated him being threatened with indictment of his wife with him if he did not plead guilty. I wrote this letter to inform Congress of how the Grand Jury is being misused and to put on record what I personally need a Grand Jury to know about me and how I've pursued the IRS on my conclusions. This letter to Congress does much to detail my story.
TAB2_Complaint - A 33 pg. RICO complaint filed with Congress because 18 USC § 4 requires me to report crimes. I know that this will be a head full for you, but I can assure that this complaint is directly on par with DOJ indictments in its biggest cases. At ¶3.1 you'll see my list of the most pervasive or flagrant acts or modes of misenforcement I've identified. You'll see counts over Walden, over my ZERO penalties, and over other instances of abuse, but only after Counts 1-7 which are applicable to all Americans and which reflect my conclusions in terms of federal criminal violations or counts.
TAB3_Abstract of Claims -When my conclusions are presumed valid for the fact that nobody in the DOJ or in court can deny a thing, we find the operation of the law to be precisely this, as it relates to very specific elements of IRS enforcement authority.
TAB4_Table of Authorities - These are all of the statutes, regulations, and cases relied upon in the 58 pg. memorandum which follows.
TAB5_Memorandum. - This memo of 58 pages begins with a review of sorts (prior knowledge) and a briefing of the maxims of statutory interpretation most relevant to the arguments to be made at pg.17-47 or so. The heaviest claims are made first, so concentrate on pg.17-35 to see where the most is to be made, where the biggest problems for the IRS/DOJ, and where our biggest protections, lie.
TAB6_Certificate of Service -These 80 (or so) members of Congress and others in gov't received this 180 pg. RICO complaint.
TAB7_Declaration of Truth - I declare that the exhibits are true and correct.
TAB8_Ex.1_Protective Order - The protective order from Walden. U.S. Dist. judge, Lee Yeakel, issues order against Mr. Walden from pressing the twelve questions seen below issues A, B, and C of the Memorandum. (See pp.17-24 of 58).
TAB9_Ex.2 1.83 6 Amendment - This amendment to a regulation which had stood for 15 years took place to remedy my vigorous and exacting claims against it on three grounds in U.S. Tax Court. This is a truly fascinating view of how intricate and how complex the mechanism and games are which I've set about understanding, playing and winning. I included this to impress upon Congress that I am anything but a tax protestor; I've actually done the work.
TAB10_Ex.3_Affidavit from accountant -This accountant of 30 years co-complained with me (see caption, Tim Garrison) and supplied this affidavit about how utterly arbitrary it is for Americans even when they are IN the system.
TAB11_Ex.4_IRS Pub17 - IRS Tax Guide For Individuals, Publication 17, sent to tens of millions of households throughout the U.S., stating very plainly that “your cost is the value of the services you provide in the transaction” mirroring nearly verbatim 26 CFR 1.83-3(g) applicable to all compensation. When I began using this as an exhibit in 1993 it was amended to rather quote 26 CFR 1.1012 which also applies. In the memorandum you'll see me nail them on this.
TAB12_Ex.5 602.101 - These copies of this regulation relate only to the Issue C of the memorandum at or about pg. 23 of 58; this is the exhibit for that claim. Can't the DOJ and IRS simply state how to comply with this regulation?
__________________________________________________
PROOF:
1. This is the U.S.' (1/2/08) reply to certain jurisdictional claims (See Memorandum at pp.17-23 of 58 pg. Memorandum therein, at Issues A and B) when it was faced with them in a motion to dismiss in U.S. Dist. Court in Seattle, WA. (See U.S. v. Arant, #CV-07-509-RSL)
2. This is U.S. Dist. Court's (2/9/08) ruling upon these claims in reply to the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in Arant, Id.. FRIVOLOUS in Seattle, but claimed as the source of authority in this indictment from August '08.
“All citizens of the United States were taxed on their worldwide income. U.S.Const. Amend. XVI; Title 26, United States Code, §§ 1, 61; Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b).”
*Quote of Indictment from Hirmer, #3:08cr79-011-MCR, Pensacola, FL dated 8/21/08, tax evasion, other, at its par. 11.
3. This is a review ("check mate") of the Arant "decision" which cites irrelevant cases and no statutes.
4. This is the U.S.' motion for a continuance (5/17/08) in a Virginia tax case (U.S. v. Chastain) asking for time to go back to a Grand Jury for additional charges because that Defendant filed a criminal complaint in his county's superior court. This was Michael Mukasey's choice above simply removing said criminal complaint under 28 USC §§ 1441-46 to U.S. Dist. Court, and above simply proving that the claims of felonious misconduct were invalid. (See U.S. v. Chastain, Mid.GA at Albany #1:07-CR-41-WLS). This is the superseding indictment which, at Count II, reflects that filing state and federal criminal complaints violates 18 USC 1503 (Obstruction of justice.
1. "U.S. citizens" are named as subject to the Tax Code in regulation (26 CFR 1.1-1) alone, and not at all in statute, in violation of the 16th Amdt. which says that Congress shall have the power to impose an income tax.
2. The Secretary of the Treasury lacks the authority to operate outside of D.C. as required by 4 USC 72.
5. *"The Tax Code is perfect!" (1993-2009, me, David Myrland). You won't see these conclusions in the IRS' 71 pg. (.pdf) book of frivolous tax arguments published November 30, 2007, yet the DOJ and IRS have had their noses rubbed in them since 1993, in case upon case.
November 8, 2008: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=136337,00.html
http://www.irs.gov.pub.irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf________________________________________________
Alaska - November 2008:
Now all of us can stop saying "show me the law" forever!