Call to Decision

Sherry Peel Jackson, a past IRS agent that chose to become quite vocal after quitting the IRS is now incarcerated and this should not have happened. Unfortunately she never got close to the REAL truth, but operated on the octopus arms and not seeing the root of the tree that produces the poisonous fruit, which all of the "citizens of the United States" take supposedly nourishment from composed of poisons to both our body and soul.

This is a pasted in e-mail that I received to my request for her status. This is just a great example of when you challenge the system what they do to you - the maximum is only one year for each count and she was charged with 4 counts of 7203 - misdemeanors for not filing a return - looks like the absolute maximum for each count was used.

Praying is great but having David getting out the stones and slinging them at Goliath seems to me a great solution.

=======================================

From: Sherry Jackson [mailto:spjcpa@bellsouth. net]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:49 PM
To: Sherry Peel Jackson
Subject: Sherry Jackson sentenced and detained...

Hi, everyone. I just wanted to take this time to thank all of you who have really been praying for us and supporting us in all ways. Please, continue to pray for us. Sherry's sentencing was today, 2-14-08. They gave her 4 years. Right now she is in a detention center for 4 to 6 weeks. They want her to serve in Florida. Bond has been set at $100,000. I have to come up with 15% or $15,000.

Also, I'm not sure how often I will be checking her emails. She gets sooooooooo many. My email address is colinLjackson@ msn.com. Again, please, continue to pray for Sherry, myself, Colin,II and Rayna. God bless you all.

In Christ, Colin (Sherry's husband)

=============================================

This pisses me off that people WILL NOT look at the real issues and continue letting the IRS treasonous bastards with the impostor judges put people in jail. I have demanded that FREEDOM LAW SCHOOL make good on their $100,000 offer for the statute that requires you to file. I have sent the cases from different circuits - totally ignored. FLS is a shyster and scam organization - BEWARE. I listened to the great guru speak, Peymon Mottahedeh, and fleece a couple of suckers on the conference call that he has on Tuesdays. He will not talk to me or put in writing yes/no and/or why. What a bunch of twin speak. This is the latest e-mail from the clerk of the scam FLS with a request to join another conference call - a TOTAL waste of time.

====================================================

[e-mail I send to them]

Clerk of Freedom Law School:

I have joined this "conference" and wasted 1.5 hours and this isn't a proper forum for this issue. I listened to him spout BS with so little truth suckering people for money and then let me talk for a couple of minutes to his continuing on with more BS Not going to happen.

Peymon Mottahedeh needs to come down off of the mountain and address this issue with me. I can be reached at 907-357-8003 home or 907-355-8304 Cellular. I will next week be sending a registered letter to him - either he admits his offer is a sham or pay up or in writing why not.

I will not and do not play games.

I will broadcast the Freedom Law School as the sham that it is all over the Internet with the truth over and over until it hits your pocket book - his choice.

I have proffered evidence - either rebut it or pay up.

ralph

On Feb 14, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Clerk wrote:

Mr. Ralph,

This email does not reach Freedom Law School’s president. Who you should be reviewing this information you have, is with Peymon Mottahedeh. In order to share your information with him, you will have to call the Tuesday Night Conference Call. Below you’ll be given the information necessary to connect to the conference call with no problem at all.

Tuesday Night Conference Call

(605) 475 – 8590

Access Code: 590 7671

Every Tuesday night at 6:00p.m. (Pacific Standard Time)

Completely confidential

From: Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd [mailto:ralph@jusbelli.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Question

I have sent "Freedom Law School" the documentation on there is a law, i.e statutes under 6012 with the duty to file.

So is your school going to proceed with money or what. I need to know, as I may have to try other routes not the least of which is to file suit after I do all of the certifications.

Please let me know ASAP.

ralph

===================================================

Joe Bannister is on this home page and I don't know if he is really associated with self proclaimed guru Peymon Mottahedeh and his scamers, but if he is then he is definitely suspect also, but I state, I have ABSOLUTELY NO evidence of this to date other than Bannister supposedly wrote the $100,000 verbiage and has some of his video clips on FLS for suckers, the stupid and the ignorant on the homepage.

The number of cases on 6012 and the substantive regulation now is about 15 or so - I have to redo my list and I am going extract out of each case for the people to see once and for all.

As to the real substantive issues in Jackson's jury instructions I will address only two. First as the USDC court a bastardized territorial court that is prohibited from existence in the several States and absolutely is does not arise under Article IV as many pronounce and ABSOLUTELY is NOT a constitutional court arising under Article III in all Cases in Law and Equity exercising the judicial Power of the United States under the Authority of the United States.

With this said, the first problem of many in the jury instructions is that the "taxpayer" was stipulated as fact in the jury instructions 4 times, to wit:

With regard to a taxpayer's duty to file a return, you are instructed that a married individual under 65 years old was required to file a tax return for 2000, if her individual gross income equaled or exceeded $2,800 (the exemption amount for 2000), and the combined incomes of the individual and her spouse exceeded $12,950.

AND

The purpose of the willfulness component is to avoid penalizing taxpayers who make innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the tax code.

Now the USDC can't deal with a "taxpayer" as stated in 28 USC § 2201, but only with fictional taxpayers such as a 501(c)(3)'s in 2201. Why is that? Simply to keep from addressing the issue in court which it can't and this would expose the fraud for the enlightened. Why can't it? This is a separation of Powers problem as the only "entity" that can determine if you are a taxpayer is found in the executive agency side (sic) in 26 CFR § 601.201 under the statutory authority of Congress of 5 USC §§ 301,552 and 38 USC 3220. With Jackson found guilty, now the IRS could now still act as the court of errors overturning the USDC's kangaroo verdict stating that Jackson was NOT a "taxpayer", now wouldn't that put a kink in the shorts of the impostor judge that lied in court, lied to the jury, and a jury that committed perjury before jeopardy even attached. This was first determined in the Hayburn Case in 1792 that the "judicial Power of the United States" could not be exercised if a benefit was brought before the court. Long story, but the executive can't act as a court of errors on the judicial branch if under the constitutional "judicial Power of the United States."

As as the four prongs of the Cheek case, there MUST be the following (1) definite law, (2) legal duty established in the definite law, (3) must be a known legal duty to the person and (1) then you must knowingly and willfully violate this know legal duty. Prong 4 can't exist without the foundation of 1 first; and, then 2 next; and then 3 next. 1, 2, and 3 are never disclosed to party charged.

This brings up the second essential element of the fraud by the impostor judge, stupid attorneys and ignorant jury members.

In the jury instructions the judge stated several times that jury could only use the law as he giveth (Moses?) to the them - hoo haa. The impostor never discloses the "law" even though it is just a "law of Congress." This statement in the jury instructions is technically CORRECT, but never used. There are no "crimes" anymore - another long story, but related to the 1948 epochal legislation - triumph of the Administrative State.

In the jury instructions we find it repeated four times, to wit:

Title 26, United States Code, Section 7203, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully fail to file a federal income tax return when required to do so by the Internal Revenue laws or regulations. The Defendant can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the Defendant was required by law or regulation to make a return of her income for the
taxable year charged;

Second: That the Defendant failed to file a return at the time required by law; and

Third: That the Defendant's failure to file the return was willful.

So now the question that is absolutely begging to be answered - did the judge give the required by law or regulation to meet the MANDATORY prong of the "First", supra.? Absolutely not and this is a reversible error. What is the required by law or regulation that requires a person to file? It is in 26 USC § 6012 and is enforced by the the substantive regulations of 26 CFR § 1.6012-1 that has the force and effect of law and the entities that must file, to wit:

Sec. 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make returns of income.
(a) Individual citizen or resident--(1) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning before January 1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of gross income, and for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1972, during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if such individual is:

(i) A citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad,

(ii) A resident of the United States even though not a citizen thereof, or

(iii) An alien bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year.

So are you a "citizen of the United States?" Me thinks not, but there are those that have sold their Birthright to the evil side for the possibility of benefits from Congress, the assorted liars and thieves - all of the same ilk.

A "citizen of the United States" was the ruse for the Negroes after the Civil War to move them from under the Southern Plantation owners to Congress' Plantation. They were never freed - not even close. It is an absolute fiction in law no different than Santa Claus, Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, Jack Frost, etc. It is a fiction in law being that when you assume this fictional status is to have the same rights as "enjoyed by white citizens" as first enacted in the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 and found today in 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1982, 1988 (Revised Statutes Title XXIV). I would bet that there were some "white citizens" on the jury that wanted to have the same "rights as enjoyed by white citizens." Duh, isn't this an impossibility if are a "white citizen?" The jury had committed perjury (Class B felony in Alaska) before the trial began as the impostor judge who MUST ask the jury members if they are all "citizens of the United States" as we always operate in our sovereign capacity in this country with unalienable rights from the Creator, but we can operate in other fictional capacities, as a CEO, a board member, a trustee, a beneficiary, stockholder, and on and on. If you asked the jury members what they testified to by their silence is usually how it done, as the impostor judge with ask is there anyone here NOT a "citizen of the United States" which does not require a positive action from anyone, but it has exactly the same effect when there is a duty to speak and you remain silent remembering that the jury members would not like to show their ignorance and all believe to be true but are clueless to define.

Just a tip of the absolute treasonous illusionists at work in the stage called a "court." Twas a great show, but unfortunately Jackson is going to pay now with time out of her life.

Ralph