Linda Wall Wins over IRS

Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:49:09 -0700

A MUST NEED TO KNOW!!!!!!

Nice win over the IRS who sent a Notice of Levy and then a Summons and then issued a
Warrant for Linda Wall’s arrest. She beat them by showing they created false securities
using laws and codes that only apply to BATF Activities, CFR 70. By sending out unsigned,
unverified, invalidated liens and summons, they create false securities that are against the
Law and involve jail time. In addition, to think the IRS uses constructive fraud every day to
coerce and intimidate non-U.S. citizens into paying what they do not owe.

Keep this in your file; it is a helpful resource for fighting Goliath.

======================================================================
Mailing location:
To Postmaster: Long Beach. CA 90831-0300
For delivery to:
Lynda Wall
C/o One World Trade Ctr. Ste. 300
Long Beach: California Republic

September 27: 2005

Proof of Service Rect. 8313 1481 8080
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
U S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC. 20530-0001
RE: United States of America ‘. Lynda Wall, CV 04-5352-DDP* (MANx) in United States
District Court. Central District of California. Western Division.

Subject: NOTICE OF COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES

1. Counterfeit Security Form 2039 Summons of 02/11/04:

2. Counterfeit Security Declaration of Shereen Hawkins: 04/13/04;
3. Counterfeit Security Petition to Enforce Summons, 07/14/04;
4. Counterfeit Security Order to Show Cause, (not dated, not signed, no court seal);
5. Counterfeit Security Order of Civil Contempt 05/02/05; and
6. Counterfeit Security Warrant for Arrest, 05/16/2005

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

You are hereby put on NOTICE pursuant to Title 18 USC § 4 of the commission of crimes
cognizable by a court of the United States under Title 18 USC §513 to wit: “513(a) Whoever
makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security of a State or a political subdivision
thereof or of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security of a
State or political subdivision thereof or of an organization, with intent to deceive another
person, organization, or government shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both”.

See also Sections 2311, 2314 and 2320 for additional fines and sanctions. Among the
securities defined at 18 USC § 2311 is included “evidence of indebtedness” which, in a
broad sense, may mean anything that is due and owing which would include a duty,
obligation or right of action.

The above referenced documents qualify as “counterfeited securities” in that the

makers have stated them to have been officially signed and sealed as valid claims of a duty,
obligation or right of action owed by Lynda Wall to the United States of America by the
following:

1. Summons
2. Declaration by Shereen Hawkins, Revenue Agent
3. Petition to Enforce Summons by Debra W. Yang, United States Attorney, (acting
through Thomas 0. Coker and Sandra R. Brown, Assistant United States Attorneys, and
Gregory E. Van Hoe, Trial Attorney) and
4. Order to Show Cause by Gregory E. Van Hoey, Trial Attorney and alleged Judge Dean O.
Pregerson.
5. Order to Civil Contempt by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson and Gregory Van Hoey,
Trial Attorney;
6. Warrant for Arrest by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson; Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of
Court; and John Chambers, Deputy Clerk.

All the above referenced documents are counterfeit securities because they do not evidence
both the Internal Revenue Code statutes(s) and the enforcement regulation(s) as required
by law.
Congress has enacted five very specific mandatory protections to prevent the unlawful
imposition of the Internal Revenue Code upon non-regulated activities, evens and
commodities, to wit:

1. All information gathering forms must have an approved Form Number;

2. The Form Number must: display an approved and active OMB Control Number;
3. The OMB Number must identify the CFR Part which is the specific type of tax;
4. The type of tax must identify the Regulation promulgated by the Secretary of
Treasury; and
5. The Regulation must enforce (put into force) the specific statute of the IRC.

Since regulations may be directive (voluntary) or mandatory, the CFR Parallel Table of
Authorities lists the enforcement (mandatory) federal regulation; all others are directory
and may be ignored.
The IRS Notice 609 “Privacy Act Notice” states as follows:

“Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and
6012 (a) and their regulation… and whether your response is voluntary (directory) or
mandatory under the law.” (Emphasis added)
“That body of law which codifies all federal tax laws including income, estate, stamp, gift
excise, etc, taxes. Such laws comprise Title 26 United States Code, and are implemented by
Treasury Regulations and Revenue Rulings.” (Emphasis added) IRC Black’s 5Th Ed. Page
732.
Pursuant to Title 26 USC §7805(a), “regulations for the enforcement of this title”, and in the
case of Lynda Wall, IRS has no authority of law, which would allow them to place into
evidence a “Summons” Form 2039, pursuant to Tile 26 USC §7602. This procedure is only
allowed under the excise tax law procedure where there exists a contract and registration
by application for the special privilege of being allowed to operate in that special business,
and therefore a summary judgment procedure is allowed. If one checks the manuals from
the government printing office you will find under Title 26 CFR, “Federal Regulations” that
every subject matter of tax has its own 26 IRC §6001, et seq., Sections for procedure. This
cannot be mixed with any other subject tax matters of procedure because that would make
law “arbitrary and capricious”.
Perhaps this point is more strongly made in California Banker’s Assoc. v Schultz, 416 US 21;
38 L.Ed. 2d 820, where the government argued;

“We think it important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attached only
violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary: if the Secretary were to do nothing,
the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone. And at 830 L.ED. 2d: “... the actual
implementation of the statute by the Treasury Regulation. The Government urges that
since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties. It is the
actual regulations issued by the Secretary of Treasu1y, and not the broad authorizing
language of the statute, which are to be tested against the Fourth Amendment; and that
when so tested they are valid”. And further at 831; “The Internal Revenue code, for
example, contains general records to be kept by both business and individual taxpayers, 26
USC §6001, which have been implemented by the .Secretary in various regulations”.

Since the Government seems to be unfamiliar with the CFR’s, I am providing you with some
of the Enforcement Regulations of the IRC, to wit:
FEDERAL REGISTER

CFR INDEX. STATUTE AND CFR TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statute Description Enforcement Regulation

6020 Returns prepared by Secretary 27 CFR Part 53 & 70

6201 Assessment Authority 27 CFR Part 53 & 70
6203 Method of Assessment 27 CFR Part 70
6205 Special Rules for Employment Taxes 27 CFR Part 23
6301 Collection Authority 27 CFR Part 70
6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR Part 70
6321 Liens for Taxes 27 CFR Part 70
6331-43 Levy and Distraint 27 CFR Part 70
6601.02 Interest on Underpayments 27 CFR Part 70
6651 Failure to File Tax Return or Pay Tax 27 CFR Part 70, 24, 25 194
6671-72 Penalty Assessed as Tax, Person Defined 27 CFR Part 70
6701 Penalties for Understatement of Tax 27 CFR Part 70
7207 Fraudulent Returns 27 CFR Part 70
7212 Interference with Adm. of LR, Laws 27 CFR Partl7O, 270, 275,285
7401 Judicial Proceedings Authorization 27 CFR Part 70
7403 Judicial Action to Enforce Lien 27 CFR Part 70
7601 Canvass of District for Taxable Persons 27 CFR Part 70
7602 Examination of Books and Witnesses 27 CFR Part 70
7603 Service of Summons 27 CFR Part 70
7604 Enforcement of Summons 27 CFR Part 70
7ô05 Time and Place for Examination 27 CFR Part 70
NOTE. 27 CFR is for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not income or employment
taxes.

It is obvious that the whole action in the case of United States of America, Petitioner, vs.
Lynda Wall, Respondent is predicated upon the use of the statute in Title 26 §7602 and the
Treasury Regulations §301.7602-I and 26 FR 301.7602-1 as stated on page 2 of the
Counterfeit Security Petition to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons. Since the
Federal Register 1993 CR Index, Statute and CFR Table of Authorities shows that the only
Enforcement Regulations pursuant to Title 26 USC §7401, Judicial Proceedings
Authorization, §7604, Enforcement of Summons, and §7602, Examination of Books and
Records is predicated on Enforcement Regulations promulgated pursuant to the power and
authority of 27 FR Part 70 (Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), then it is clear that
unless the acts and actions of the above named federal government officials, employees,
agents, and public officers are predicated upon some material facts that show that Lynda
Wall is engaged in federally taxable or federally regulated activities, commodities or events
pursuant to 27 CFR Part 70, the acts and actions of the above named Government agents
and officials are based upon false premises and Counterfeit Securities.

Lynda Wall is NOT engaged in federally regulated activities, events or commodities under
27 FR Part 70 within reason and belief. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that Form
2039 Summons. 02/11/04; the Declaration of Shereen Hawkins, 04/13/04; the Petition to
Enforce Summons, 07/14/04; the Order to Show Cause, (not dated, not signed by the
alleged Judge, no court seal); Order of Civil Contempt, 05/02/05; and Warrant for Arrest
(civil contempt), 05/16/05 are all Counterfeit Securities designed to perpetrate a
constructive fraud upon Lynda Wall.

It is clear from the actions of the above named federal government officials, employees,
agents, and public officers that they have acted above and beyond their scope of authority
by placing into the public record unsubstantiated claims against Lynda Wall which they
knew or should have known to be false because said claims were required by law to convey
subject matter jurisdiction for the particular regulated activity that is being alleged to have
created a duty, obligation or right of action to the United States of America.

The Summons signed by Ms. Shereen Hawkins on 02/11/04 is a fraud and counterfeit
security claimed to be issued under the authority of the Internal Revenue Code. It does not
list either the statutory or the regulatory authority even though both are required by law to
identify the particular regulated activity that Lynda Wall is alleged to be engaged in, thus
the instrument is counterfeit,

The Declaration signed by Ms. Shereen Hawkins on 04/13/04, under penalty of perjury, is
totally false and a constructive fraud since none of the information constitutes prima fade
evidence unless the enforcement regulations that identify the particular type of activity
being reported is also placed into evidence. There simply are no evidentiary facts here. Ms.
Hawkins has lied and perpetrated a constructive fraud under oath as she has not identified
any regulated activity concerning Lynda Wall; her Declaration is a counterfeit security.

The Petition to Enforce Summons signed by Gregory E. Van Hoey on 07/14/04 and
presumed to be under oath is also totally false and a constructive fraud. Mr. Van Hoey has
made a very feeble attempt to justify his actions by placing into evidence 26 CFR 301.7602-
1. This is a moot regulation because it also requires the evidence of the regulation for the
particular type of tax (see 26 CFR §6001-1 and 301.6011-1). A check of the above listing of
enforcement regulations will reveal that 26 USC §7402(b), 7602 and 7604(a) have nothing
to do with Income Taxes, Employment Taxes or Lynda Wall under Title 26 USC and 26 CFR.
Mr. Van Hoey’s Petition is a counterfeit security.

The Order to Show Cause by Gregory E. Van Hoey is a counterfeit security and constructive
fraud The Gregory E:. Van Hoey knew or should have known that the Petition did not
contain both the statutes and the regulations required by law to impose a duty or
obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear by law to impose a duty or obligation upon Lynda
Wall to appear before a United States district Court and produce books and records
pursuant to regulations promulgated under 27 CFR Part 70, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, when there is no foundational evidence to support: that Lynda Wall is engaged
in a federally regulated activity, event or commodity pursuant to said statutes and
regulations. Gregory E. Van Hoey knew or should have known that the Order to Show Cause
was void and defective since it lacks the evidence of the court seal, is not dated by and not
signed by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson

The Order of Civil Contempt by alleged Judge Dean D. Pragerson and Gregory E. Van Hoey
on 05/02/05 is a counterfeit security and constructive fraud. The alleged Judge knew or
should have known that the Order to Show Cause was defective since Lynda Wall’s Proof of
Service regarding the Verified Notice of Missing or Defective Order to Show Cause was
served on 04/23/2005. See Item #31 of the Docket Report. Mr. Van Hoey, who prepared
the Order of Civil Contempt, has lied and perpetrated a constructive fraud as he perjured
himself by stating on pace 2 that Lynda Wall not file any response to the motion prior to the
hearing. See Item #28 of the Docket Report which clearly shows Lynda Wall did timely file
a Notice of Reliance Upon Alibi Justification on 04/12/05 to the Order to Show Cause.

The Warrant for Arrest by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court;
and John Chambers, Deputy Clerk on 05/16/05 is a counterfeit security and a constructive
fraud since none of the information constitutes prima facie evidence unless the
enforcement regulations that identify both the statutes and the regulations required by law
to impose a duty or obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear by law to impose a duty or
obligation upon Lynda Wall to appear before a United States district Court and produce
books and records pursuant to regulations promulgated under 27 CFR Part 70, Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, when there is no foundational evidence to support that
Lynda Wall is engaged in a federally regulated activity, event or commodity pursuant to
said statutes and regulations. The alleged Judge, the Clerk of Court and the Deputy Clerk
knew or should have known that the Warrant for Arrest was void since it lacks the
evidence of the specific Title violation and it lacks the evidence of the specific United States
Code Section(s) violation.

It would be impossible for Lynda Wall to prove she did not engage in some federally
regulated activity, event or commodity when the Government and the above named
Government officials, agents, employees, and public officers have not alleged or produced
evidence that Lynda Wall has engaged in a federally regulated activity, event or commodity
under the statutes and CFR Regulations of 27 FR Part 70 associated with 26 USC §7401,
7602, 7603 and 7604. One can not prove a negative. It is the duty and obligation for the
Government to produce evidence of a positive. Therefore, the Order to Show Cause (absent
a court seal, not dated by and not signed by alleged Judge Dean D. Pregerson) is a
counterfeit security and constructive fraud in that Lynda Wall can not be made to show
Cause as to why she did not violate CFR regulations which either do not exist or do not
apply to Lynda Wall pursuant to the evidence and instruments before the court in action CV
04-05352-DDP (MANx) in the Central District of California District Court, Western Division.

The IRS Publication 5 states that the nonresident alien (dejure state Citizen) has no
remedy before the United States District Court or the Tax Court. They must go to the U S.
Court of Claims for the District of Columbia or the united States District Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. Lynda Wall is not and has not intended to be a federal State
citizen or Resident as set forth and defined in the Buck Act, Title 4 USC §105-110.

Lynda Wall does not support the federal international bankruptcy declared legislatively by
HJR-192, passed by Congress in 1933 and declared judicially by the United States Supreme
Court in Erie Railway v. Tompkins 1939. Lynda Wall does not support the federal 51
shadow States that have taken over the de jure state functions since the 1930’s. Lynda Wall
does not reside in, nor has been a citizen or resident of, the federal shadow State of
California, Lynda Wall does not live in the federal territory of the Central District of
California, a federal area created out of thin air by the Buck Act and other legislation that
has usurped power and authority from de jure Government.

Before any agent, official, employee or public officer of the United States or one of the
federal 51 shadow States created to impersonate the 50 de jure states (See definitions in 31
CFR Part. 1, Sections 51.2 and 52.2) acts upon the declared status of Lynda Wall, Su Juris, as
that of ‘”non-resident alien” to the Corporate Federal “United States”, such agent, official,
employee or public officer is directed to take Judicial Notice of St.Louis Park Medical Center
v. Lethert, 286 F. Sup. 271 and 28 USC §2201.

All IRS agents and United States Courts are thus barred from making a “status
determination” with regard to federal income taxes and federal income tax laws.
Consequently, if IRS agents and Courts are barred from declaring Lynda Wall, Sui iuris, a
“taxpayer”, this is prima fade evidence that the federal income tax is voluntary. Wherefore,
both IRS agents and United States Courts lack jurisdiction and the declared status of the
Accused must be accepted.

Lynda Wall is not a “person” as defined in Title 26 USC §7343 as one upon whom the
District Court has jurisdiction to bring an enforcement action and a summons pursuant to
26 §7402(a) and (b). 26 USC §7343 defines the term “Person” to include “an officer or
employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer,
employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation
occurs”, The only mandatory duty and obligation under law is that promulgated pursuant
to 27 FP Part 70. Lynda Wall has no nexus to that regulation shown in the counterfeit
securities presented by the Government agents herein.

DEMAND is hereby made on you, Alberta Gonzales, United States Attorney General, to
investigate the above named government officials, employees, agents, and public officers
for creating, using and promoting fraudulent and counterfeit securities in a fraudulent
scheme in order to solicit Lynda Wall by duress and coercion into participating in a scheme
to produce books and records from her in excess than those authorized by law in violation
of Title 26 USC §7433 for damages caused by agents, officers, and employees acting
recklessly and intentionally in excess of statutory provisions and regulatory provisions of
Title 26 USC.
Further DEMAND is made, pursuant to Title 26 USC §7401, for the production of the signed
delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States which
authorizes or sanctions the proceedings against me by the above named government
officials, employees, agents, and public officers. Please send me a copy of the signed
delegation of authority from you, the Attorney General of the United States or your delegate
directing the action against me to be commenced.

The above demands are made pursuant to the statutes and regulations under Title 26 USC
and the other laws and statutes of the United States, including, but not limited to, the
Uniform Commercial code, §3-501.

Attorney General !! l am sure that if I were suspected of counterfeiting the securities of the
United States, a full battle dressed SWAT team would invade my private dwelling, kidnap
me into United States federal jurisdiction, arrest me, and prosecute me to the full extent of
the law.

I hereby DEMAND that you honor your oath of office to defend and support the
Constitution for the de jure united States of America (if you still are loyal to that entity). In
so doing, I DEMAND that you investigate the illegal acts of the above named United States
officials, employees, agents, and public officers and cause to issue indictments and
prosecute all suspected parties for the counterfeiting of the securities of the United States,
pursuant to 18 USC 4 and 18 USC 513; and also to investigate, indict, and prosecute all
violations by the above named United States officials, employees, agents, and public officers
for violation of 26 USC statutes concerning their attempts to coerce me into producing
books and records under threat of incarceration, but not allowed by statute and regulation.

In the alternative, if you are unwilling or unable to investigate, indict, or prosecute the
above named individuals, identify the lawful reasons why and relate said reasons to me in
writing within 20 days from receipt of this letter. When you need longer than 20 days to
respond, send me a written request for an extension of time within the 20 days and it will
be given to you. Failure to respond to this request timely and upon the merits of this
demand and inquiry will be prima facie evidence that the United States Government and its
agents, employees and officials are engaged in an ongoing constructive fraud against me to
deprive me of my unalienable rights from God.
I, Lynda Wall, declare under penalties of perjury under the laws of these united States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, is made in good
faith and is admitted when not rebutted.

Lynda Wall, non-federal State citizen

Exhibits Attached hereto:

1. Counterfeit Security Form 2039 Summons of 02/11/04; (Exhibit “A”)
2. Counterfeit Security Declaration of Shereen Hawkins, 04/13/04; (Exhibit “B”)
3. Counterfeit Security Petition to Enforce Summons, 07/14/04; (Exhibit “C”)
4. Counterfeit Security Order to Show Cause, (not dated, not signed, no court seal
(Exhibit “D”)
5. Counterfeit Security Order of Civil Contempt, 05/02/05; (Exhibit “E”)
6. Counterfeit Security Warrant for Arrest, 05/16/2005 (Exhibit “F”)
7. California Central District - Docket Report dated 05/21/05 (Exhibit “G”)

By way of service on a Judicial filing in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case Number CV O4-05352-DDP (MANx) with copies to:

Dean D. Pregerson, alkged Judge

Margaret A. Nagle, Maqistrate
Adam N. Tarres, U.S. Marshal
Debra W, Yang, US Attorney
Sandra R. Brawn, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Thomas D. Coker, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Gregory E. Van Hoey, Trial Attorney
Shereen Hawkins, Revenue Agent
John Chambers, Deputy Clerk
Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court

Exhibit List

Exhibit A

Counterfeit Security:
Form 2039 Summons of 02/11/04

by Shereen Hawkins. Revenue Agent

Exhibit B
Counterfeit Security:
Declaration of 04/13/04

by Shereen Hawkins. Revenue Agent

Exhibit C
Counterfeit Security:
Petition to Enforce Summons of 07/14/04
by Gregory E. Van Hoey
Exhibit D
Counterfeit Security:
Order to Show Cause (not dated)
by Gregory E. Van Hoey, lacking alleged Judge Pregerson’s signature, date and court seal
Exhibit E
Counterfeit Security:
Order of Civil Contempt of 05/02/05
by Gregory E. Van Hocy and alleged Judge Pregerson
Exhibit F
Counterfeit Security:
Warrant for Arrest of 05/16/05
by alleged Judge Pregerson; Sherri R. Carter, Clerk of Court; John Chambers, Deputy Clerk
Exhibit G
Docket Report of 05/21/05 from California Central District
by PACER Service Center