COURTS are UNLAWFULL - Confirmation - our courts are debt collectors NOT COURTS for JUSTICE . .


Some of us may already know about the following, but most do NOT:
All these courts are privately owned trading companies. The united States district courts are all owned...those are your article one courts. They're all owned by the united States attorney's executive offices out of Washington DC which is a privately owned corporation. They're article one legislative tribunals. They're not courts. They have a DUNS number, they have a pit code, sip code, NAICS number (North America Identification Security Classification). You have to have that number in order to trade internationally. All these courts are registered with the DOD, Department of Defense. They have a DUNS number which is Data Universal Numbering System. That's a Dun & Bradstreet. You have to be registered with CCR, Contractors Central registration under the DOD. They have another department called the DLIS, Defense Logistics Information Service. The DLIS issues a case code that's spelled CAGE, Commercial And Government Entity which corresponds to the bank account. They have a bank account. They take everything that you file into the court and they securitize it. And these banks [ ] and all these banks are registered, they have a depository agreement, a security agreement and an escrow agreement. And most of them are registered with the Federal Reserve bank of New York city. And they use what they call...North Carolina uses a circular 16, they use as their depository agreement. They take public funds and they deposit them under a...its called a depository resolution agreement. And they have a security agreement which the clerk of the courts signs with the bank. And they have an escrow agent that acts as the go-between the federal reserve bank that they have the account with...so all these courts are taking your money and funneling it into an escrow account. Most of them are in New York. There's 60 trillion dollars of your money in the federal reserve bank of New York city. And they've told the courts not to rule against the banks on these foreclosure cases. They're all in bed together. And what these lawyers are doing is acting as private debt collectors. And under the Debt Collectors Practices Act, its called the FDCPA and its title 15 section 1692. In order to be...when you're a public debt collector you have to be registered with the government, and you have to have a license and you have to have a bond in order to collect debt. Well these attorneys are what you call private debt collectors and they don't have a...the attorneys are exempted by the BAR association on that provision, but their firm is not. The firm they work for has to be registered and they have to have a license and a bond and they don't. And all these court cases that you're involved in, these attorneys are acting as private debt collectors. And what they're doing is collecting money from you as private debt collectors and they're not licensed or bonded to do that. And they do this through what they call Warrant of Attorney. Black's law dictionary of 1856 defines what a warrant of an attorney is. Its like a writ of execution. Its like a put or a call. When you do a marching call that means they use it to buy equity securities. Cause they securitize everything that you file into court which means they turn it into a negotiable instrument. Then they sell it as a commercial item. They call them distressed debt, these debt collectors, that what Unifund is, they come in and buy up all these court judgments as distressed debt. Then they put them into hedge funds and they sell them to investors globally. And of course when you get into selling debt instruments you're creating a security risk. Anytime you get into risk management you have to have re-insurance. That's where Luer Hermes comes in. They're an underwriting company. And they're a sub division of Alliance SE out of Munich Germany. And they're the US agency that acts as a bond holder for Alliance SE is PIMCO bonds who takes all your securities, they pool them, and that's what they do on these mortgage loans, go to their web site and it'll tell you that's what they do. All of your mortgage loans are securities. The notes have a maturity of more than 9 months so they're a security by definition. If you go to title 15 section 77 A b 1 it tells you that any note with a maturity of more than 9 months is a security by legal definition and an investment contract. So when you sign and indorse these notes as the drawer and the maker you're in an investment contract. And you gave them a security. They take the security and they securitize it. As soon as they securitize it and indorse it for payment, they've securitized it. The loan is no longer secured. They've collapsed the trust and there's no corpus in the trust under probate law. And what they do is sell it as a mortgage backed security. Well PIMCO takes the mortgage backed security pools over and sells them as bonds. So bonds actually come from pooled securities. And they sell these on the TBA market globally. And all these courts are involved in that. And the only time you can stop them is when you make them liable and that's what I've been doing. I do a letter rogatory which is a letter of instruction under the Hague convention. And its under title 18 section 1781 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure I believe its 28 B. And you tell them what you want them to do. You make a contract with them. When you go into these courts you contract with them. And they run the court room.

Using Commercial Liens for the Compulsory Bonding of Public Officials and Summary Processes




1. The Constitution of the united States of America is the original commercial contract between the US Government and its citizenry, and all states and officers are bound by oath to obey it.

2. Only Constitutional laws and processes and their execution do not have to be bonded, for they are the only commercial processes generally which arise from the consent of the governed, “we the people”, the public.

3. Commercial, Civil, and Criminal processes which abridge the commercial provisions of the US Constitution and the State Constitutions are known as Summary Processes.

4. All Summary Processes have the weakness of being subject to bribery, kickbacks, fraud of process, conspiracy to defraud, and alter ego misuse, and therefore must be bonded. See the state laws on Blue Sky Marketing, Title 15 of the USC, the relationship between bonding and corporate limited liability, and the reasons for official financial disclosure statements. All unbonded Summary Processes constitute the ground for reversible error in all consequent processes. For example, a US Postal worker is not a bonded legal process server.

5. A commercial lien (90 day grace period before levying) may be used by a citizen to collect a debt or to secure a promised service/oath of a public official by seizing the property of the public official to secure privately and/or publicly the bond of the official. When an immediate specific performance is required of an official instead of the general protection of the public, the instant process is called a distress or distress infinite, which because it has no grace period before impoundment, must be pre-bonded. Commercial Liens are not Common Law Liens. Commercial Liens are Declarations of Obligation (15 USC) and as such are no part of the common law process except:

A. A lien may be enforced by a levy on the lien by the Sheriff after a 90-day acquiescence of the lien debtor, or

B. Be challenged by the lien debtor in a Jury Trial duly convened by the Sheriff within 90 days at the request of the lien debtor pursuant to the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution or an identical state provision. Said Jury Trial must be duly convened and properly conducted meaning, in part, that all affidavits must be categorically point-for-point rebutted, all issues are subject to full disclosure and discovery, and the jury may not retire to the jury room to homogenize the verdict.

SUMMARY

1. A Jury Trial must be convened and used to release a commercial lien.

2. An official (officer of the court, policeman, etc.) must demonstrate that he/she is individually bonded in order to use a summary process, especially to remove a commercial with a summary process.

3. An official who impairs, debauches, voids or abridges an obligation of contract or the effect of a commercial lien without proper cause, becomes a lien debtor and his/her property becomes forfeited as the pledge to secure the lien. Pound breach (breach of impoundment)) and rescue is a felony.

4. It is against the law for a Judge to summarily remove, dismiss, dissolve or diminish a Commercial Lien. Only the Lien Claimant or a Jury can dissolve a commercial lien.

5. The highest example of a commercial lien is a Federal Reserve Note, commonly found in commercial circulation and in some wallets, and is a commercial lien upon the labor and industry of all Americans by the International Banking System.

PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS

All officials are required by federal, state, and municipal law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and malpractice bonding company and the policy number of the bond and, if required, a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance. Failure to provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prim a facie evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official personally to secure their public oath and service of office.

Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?



Answer:  No.  The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury.  The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.”  The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑315 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS.  See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D.  The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats).  See Article IV, Section 4.  Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.


2.      If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?

Answer:  The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”).  But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña.  See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998.  Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”).  Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act);  in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses.  See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.


3.      By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?

Answer:  After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.

Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (“ACTA”), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.

However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining “IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  (See Answer to Question 1 above.)  Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor.  There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes;  on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.


4.      Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?

Answer:  No.  It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes.  Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count of mail fraud.  See also 31 U.S.C. 333.

5.      Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?

Answer:  No.  Although the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act.  The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal “agency” by Act of Congress.  See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).

Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ.  The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees.  Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above.  As far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.


6.      Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?

Answer:  No.  Neither was properly ratified.  In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.

That so‑called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored.  See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).

The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVITs that were properly executed and filed in that case.  Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.”  The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States.  Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense.  See 18 U.S.C. 1031.

Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.  In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d  266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.

Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.

The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.  As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  See Article IV, Section 1.

Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.  The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”  (See Answer to Question 19 below.)

For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional.  See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.


7.      Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?

Answer:  Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.  Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16).  For example, see IRC section 1461.  A separate liability statute for “employment” taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.

After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s paycheck.  Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker.  See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).

If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes.  In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer;  in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.

8.      Can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?

Answer:  No.  The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States.  See Article I, Section 1.  The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever.  This means that agencies of the Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.

If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that tax.  Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.

“[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.”  See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added].  However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.


9.      The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?

Answer:  The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all “citizens of the United States” and all “residents of the United States”.  However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.

Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin).  The Acker case cited above held that federal regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority.  (See Answer to Question 8 above.)


10.     How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?

Answer:  There are two (2) classes of citizens:  State Citizens and federal citizens.  The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used.  (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.)  Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.

The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”.  See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870);  Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union.  Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.  Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law.  See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.

The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used.  This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983.  Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”.  The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude.  Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.

Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens.  Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As we now know, that proposal was never ratified.  (See Answer to Question 6 above.)

Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes.  One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.

Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.).  Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983;  whereas State Citizens do not.  See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).

Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law.  These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition.  See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.


11.     Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?

Answer:  Yes.  The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there.  These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.”  (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag;  the stars on the flag are the 50 States.)  As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.

Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens.  For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909).  The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government.  See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.

Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has.  In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.

But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy;  their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).


12.     Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?

Answer:  Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th amendment.  Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.

Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.

Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company.  He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.

The most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court’s opinion.  In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a “domestic corporation”.  This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.

T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union.  The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.

Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers.  Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.


13.     What is a “Withholding agent”?

Answer:  (See Answer to Question 7 first.)  The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16).  It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned.  In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis.  See IRC section 7809.

One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks.  This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W‑4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.”  In plain English, by signing a W‑4 workers designate themselves as “employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.

If workers do not execute a valid W‑4 form, a company’s payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks.  In other words, the payroll officer does not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes, until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding ‑‑ by signing Form W‑4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.

Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of this form.  A properly executed Form W‑4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees” of the federal government.  Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.


14.     What is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?

Answer:  A “Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative to Form W‑4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in lieu of Form W‑4.  Although section 3402(n) does authorize this Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed Products Catalog”).

In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates.  In simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal income tax liability during the current calendar year.  Because there are no liability statutes for workers in the private sector, this certification is easy to justify.

Many public and private institutions have created their own form for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.  This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine, e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term “withholding exemption certificate” on the Internet.  This term occurs several times in IRC section 3402.


15.     What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?

Answer:  “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax.  In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent.  If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal government “employee.”  This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.

However, as discussed above, Form W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the federal government.  Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC;  they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.

Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone.  Such corporations are the only “domestic” corporations under the pertinent federal laws.  This writer’s essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and “domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.

If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations.  The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified.  See the Constantine case supra.

For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.


16.     Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer’s signature?

Answer:  This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes.  At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one’s signature.

This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications:  (1) those executed outside the “United States” and (2) those executed inside the “United States”.  These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.

What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed “outside the United States”.  In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of the United States of America”.

Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of America” are both used in this same statute.  They are not one and the same.  The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes.  The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution.  28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.

It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”) if and when they are executed inside the 50 States of the Union (read “the State zone”).

Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed inside the “United States”.

The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone).


17.     Does the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?

Answer:  Yes.  The term has several meanings.  The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.  [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.  [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution.  See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) [bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for clarity].

This is the very same definition that is found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.  The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity.  For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.

It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in these Answers, that the definition of “United States” has now been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.


18.     Is the term “income” defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it defined?

Answer:  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term “income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC:  “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.”  U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).

Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of “income” because that term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution.  The Eisner case was predicated on the ratification of the 16th amendment, which would have introduced the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified).

In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities.  In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.


19.     What is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax provisions municipal law, or not?

Answer:  Yes.  The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.  Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State;  in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law.  Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors.  In fact, American legal encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.

A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the book “The Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.

One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel.  Their advice confirmed that the meaning of “State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

In other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.


20.     What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?

The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated.  For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers.  If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power.  This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.

If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State.  This is also true of all 50 States.

Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress.  In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows:  Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.  In English, this phrase is literally translated:  Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned].  This phrase can be found in any edition of Black’s Law Dictionary;  it is a maxim of statutory construction.

The many different definitions of the term “State” that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned.  As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.

If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress.  Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean the 50 States of the Union.  See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).


21.     In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?

There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague.  The absence of any legal definition for the term “income” is a classic deception.  The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth.  “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”

More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague.  If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.


22.     Has Title 26 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law?

Answer:  No.  Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of “this title”.  Because the term “this title” is not defined anywhere in 26 U.S.C., least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context.

Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which govern all the federal courts -- the term “this title” clearly refers to Title 28.  This fact would tend to support a conclusion that “this title”, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code.  However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, as such.

Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of “this title”, they are men and women of UNcommon intelligence.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s test for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute.  See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).  Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for vagueness.

Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect.  (“F” is for enForcement!)  This subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so on.

In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth;  as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not even people with dentures!


23.     What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?

This question must be addressed in view of the Answer to Question 22 above.  Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect.  For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all.  As always, appearances can be very deceiving.  Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in Wonderland?

On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code.  See 18 U.S.C. 3231.

It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”).  The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  The USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause.

This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts.  For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories.  This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail;  begin reading at section “7(e)”.

The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes.  The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC.  Further details on this point are available in the Press Release entitled “Private Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code” and dated November 26, 2001 A.D.


24.     Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay?

Answer:  No.  Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States –- the Article III constitutional courts –- are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.

The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch.  See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).

Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers.  This principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong to the other two branches.

The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933);  however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by defining “Party” to mean only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of “Party” that is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).

The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased.  These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing.  Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities.  See Evans v. Gore supra.

In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS.  There you have it, from the horse’s mouth!

In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay.  This writer was an eyewitness to that statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -– the highest Court in the land.

Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as “employees” of the federal judiciary.  As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.


25.     Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters?

Answer:  No.  Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters.  Protest has never been illegal in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express our objections to any government actions, in written and in spoken words.

Strictly speaking, the term “illegal” cannot modify the noun “protesters” because to do so would constitute a violation of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.

Accordingly, for the term “illegal tax protester” to survive this obvious constitutional challenge, the term “illegal” must modify the noun “tax”.  An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is protesting an illegal tax.  Such an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.

Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial Code;  the phrases “under protest” and “without prejudice” are sufficient to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law.  See U.C.C. 1-308 (UCCA 1308 in California).

By the way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal law.  See the Answer to Question 19 above, and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88‑243, December 30, 1963 (one month after President John F. Kennedy was murdered).


26.     Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how is this routinely done?

Answer:  Yes.  IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government, and by misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as having any legal force or effect.  Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).  (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been enacted into positive law either.)

They tamper with grand juries by acting as if “income” is everything that “comes in”, when there is no such definition anywhere in the IRC.  Such false descriptions of fact also violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

They tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records.  Bank signature cards do not constitute competent waivers of their customers’ fundamental Rights to privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment.  The high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).

IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.

These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal offenses.

Finally, there is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester.  (See the Answer to Question 25 above.)  These kick‑backs range from $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH!  They also violate the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal government subcontractors.  See 41 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.

As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to this Act.  See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).  The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D.  See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)


27.     What is “The Kickback Racket,” and where can I find evidence of its existence?

The evidence of this “kickback racket” was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) -- the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees.

Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders in the IRM.  Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these “awards” because most of them were paid in cash!

When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge, who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to that grand jury.

Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail.  See 18 U.S.C. 1702.

Obviously, the federal judge -- John M. Roll -- did NOT want the grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks.  They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for Legal Affairs.


28.     Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?

Answer:  No.  The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  Due Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of American constitutional practice.  Put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any property can be seized by any federal government employees, agents, departments or agencies.

A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property, i.e. the funds on deposit in that account.  No such seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its course.  This means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.

Only after this process has run its proper or “due” course, can a valid court order be issued.  The holding in U.S. v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court ORDER.  And, of course, no court ORDER could ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their “day in court.”


29.     Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government services and, if so, which government services are funded by federal income taxes?

Answer:  No.  The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico.  See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).  As such, their records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

They are technically not an “agency” of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act.  The governments of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of “agency” in those Acts of Congress.  See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).  (See also the Answer to Question 5 above.)

All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq.

They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican.  See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341.

The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services.  The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.





The People" does not include U.S Citizens."

 The People" does not include U.S Citizens."(Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S 243)

"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage - arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states. Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
Gold fringed US flag,denotes Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction,your rights shall not be in-fringed!



"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).


In other words, you do not have to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a state citizen. This was held to be true by the Maryland Supreme Court in 1966 wherein the state:


"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)

and also

"...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...”  "One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)


In fact, in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54 (c) shows us that Congress knows and understands that federal laws do not apply within anyone of the several states of the union, but do apply in the Federal State (federal enclave) created by the Buck Act.

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


(c) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.

"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. "State" includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession"





1787 - Constitution: Article One, Section 8: Grants to congress this authority:

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful Buildings..."

The District to which this section refers to was later to become Washington, District of Columbia (Washington D.C). It is important to note that this District is not inclusive to the Republic.  That is, it is not inside the Republic, it is outside (an Exclusive Jurisdiction). It is by virtue of this that laws for this jurisdiction do not generally meet, nor have any obligation to meet, constitutional restrictions or limitations. In other words, Congress may make any law it wishes for this jurisdiction without regard for constitutionality. And they have done so.

In effect, this gives Congress a dual character. In one capacity, they can make law for the Republic of the united States of America, as long as it meets constitutional requirements. In the other capacity, they can make laws for the District of Columbia.

1868 - The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Generally most people view this as the amendment which freed the slaves, who, up to this time, were denied standing in court due to lack of citizenship status. The status of United States citizenship, which is mentioned for the first time here in law, and provided by this Amendment, gains its existence in the laws of the District, and it is in this jurisdiction that this citizenship rests, not in the Republic. The citizen of the Republic is the State Citizen, since the several States retained their independent nation status even with the signing of the Constitution. That is why the constitution clearly states the relationship of the several states as a UNION. Therefore a United States citizen would be subject to the laws of the District as well as the Republic.

In 1871 Congress exercised its exclusive legislative authority over the District and created a government for this jurisdiction. It is a corporation, municipal in nature, but still a corporation.

The actual language reads as follows:

"That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes.." - 16 United States Statutes at Large 419; FORTY FIRST CONGRES SESSION III, CHAPTER 62, 1871

This CORPORATION has become known to you as the United States, as opposed to these united States of America (the Republic). This means that when you claim to be a U.S Citizen you are claiming to be a citizen of the corporation, aka an "employee".  All of the frauds committed against the sovereign people stem from this ideal.  The CEO of this corporation is known as the President of the United States.

Successful A4V

ATT Success Letter

The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. 7-22-2016

The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg. 654)

There is NO lawful money! All money is nothing but an IOU. It is debt. It is backed by nothing but the promise to pay. But to pay with what? They took away the gold and silver!





The federal government took America off the gold standard in 1933, during a staged bankruptcy called the "Great Depression” and replaced the gold with an economic principle known as,"Negotiable Debt Instruments.” The government needed to create a catastrophe to implement standards that were designed to steal your possessions and God-given rights!

You are legally a debtor and chattel (property) owned by a hidden creditor.

There is a hidden lien on everything transacted for by or with a Federal Reserve Note.

The Federal Reserve Note is a foreign product owned by a foreign corporation, and not by you or the U.S. government.

The States and the United States courts are bankruptcy courts representing the interests and property of the foreign creditor.

You are charged an income (excise) tax for transacting in the foreign commodity known as Federal Reserve Notes.

You have been divested of the rights to, value of, and profits from your labor, which has been stolen.

The United States lost its sovereignty in 1933. It is in receivership to the hidden creditor. The bankrupt government is a puppet to the real master, as declared by Banker Rothschild.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws." --Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812)

President Roosevelt unconstitutionally collected America’s gold by Executive Order and sold it to the Vatican by way of China, to conceal its true ownership. The gold in Fort Knox belongs to the Vatican and not the United States! Absent a gold base, Commerce now essentially trades in "debts.” So if you borrowed money for a Mortgage and there’s no gold or real value to support the paper called U. S. Currency; what did you actually borrow? Factually, you borrowed debt! The Mortgage Company committed the ultimate fraud against you because they loaned you nothing to pay off the imaginary balance, not even their own debt instruments. They then told you that you owe them the unpaid balance of your home and that you must pay them back with interest, in monthly installments!

The Prophesy of Thomas Jefferson - Future Slavery Of The People

"If we run into such debts as that must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must labor sixteen hours in the twenty- four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteenth [hour of labor] being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain [be satisfied with] subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet [being goons for our oppressors by securing] their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on ‘til the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering… And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train, wretchedness and oppression.”
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826) USA Founding Father and President of the USA


There are many different taxes the government makes you pay, a few being automobile registration tax, capital gains tax, accounts receivable tax, dog license tax, estate tax, gasoline tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, medicare tax, septic permit tax, sale tax, school tax, telephone usage charge tax, well permit tax, workers compensation tax... on top of the biggest one of them all.. Federal Income Tax. There is no law that requires you to pay those taxes. No law for you to file a 10-40. Former IRS agents who discovered this truth left the company and stopped paying taxes, but likely because of their insider knowledge they have not be prosecuted for it. Yet, as a normal citizen of America who decides not to pay his taxes will most likely get thrown in jail, or lose everything they have. To further explain why Federal Income Taxes are not in place to pay for the roads and schools we need it must be pointed out that the tax on gasoline pays for America's highways. Not to mention the outrageous tolls we pay on Toll-roads. Education is paid for by state and local taxes, property taxes. After interest payments and government waste, not one penny collected from the tax on your labor pays for the services you expect from the government. "Your income tax is 100% voluntary tax, and liquor tax is 100% enforced tax. The situation is as different as night and day" - Dwight E. Avis, head of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Now everyone is enslaved by a system of self perpetuating debt. This is the way that things have been designed. Behind this ruling bloodline another elite class has developed. Somewhat similar to a priesthood. This is the international bankers. They use the global money systems to control the world. They own and control everything from education systems to the media. A handful of these very powerful men control all of the other secret societies. The society that sits at the very top is founded on Knights Templar traditions. The Illuminati has become the most powerful society in the world. The Rothschild dynasty has accumulated one half of the world's wealth. The accumulated hoarded wealth of this family could easily feed and clothe every human on earth. And this is just one of the 13 Illuminati families.

How to Stop an IRS Audit

"Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint" Flora v. U.S. 362 US 145 [unless, of course, you neglect to "volunteer".

Notice: The following is presented to you via Bill Drexler's newsletter, with permission. Before, and if, you use it , be sure the case cites are correct. [and you understand and can EXPLAIN them.

Certified Mail:

To: IRS Representative/Agent:

It is required of you in your official capacity, and requested of you as an individual person acting under color of law, that you answer the following list of questions, 32 in number, WHICH
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER under the provisions of the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and various court decisions. Under each question the pertinent authorities have been cited which mandate a complete answer from you upon this request. Thank you for your cooperation.

1) State the authority, giving the specific section of the IRC for the solicitation of the information that you desire (Freedom of Information Act; Privacy Act; US v. Newman, 441 F2d 170; Treasury Form Letter L-423 with Publication 876 - same authorities cited for #1 thru #5).

2) State whether the disclosure of the requested information is mandatory or voluntary. If mandatory, what penalties may/will result from non-compliance in furnishing the data you
requested?

3) State the principal and specific purposes for which the information requested is to be used in any and all capacities.

4) State the routine uses which may be made of the requested information, or any other use to be made of the requested information.

5) State the effects upon this person of whom you have requested information, specifically the taxpayer, for not providing to you the information requested.

6) Explain and show that the investigation involved is of the kind authorized by federal statute (Martin v. Chandid, 128 F2d 731; Pacific Mills v. Kenefick, 99 F2d 188).

7) Explain how and why the demand for information is not too vague and/or broad in scope (US v. Newman, 441 F2d 170; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; First National Bank of Mobile v. US, 160 F2d 532; US v. Coopers and Lybrand, FSupp 942; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35).

8) Explain and show that the information sought is relevant or material as a lawful subject of inquiry (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; May v. Davis, 7 F Supp 596; US v. Brown, 536 F2d 117).

9) Explain why and how the investigation is pursuant to legitimate
purpose(s) (same authorities as #6 thru #8).

10) Explain why and how the inquiry for information may be relevant to the purpose(s) (same authorities as #6 thru #8)

11) Show and prove that the information is not already in your possession or can not be obtained from other sources (same authorities as #6 thru #8).

12) Show and prove that the Secretary or his delegate has determined that this further examination is necessary (IRC Section 7605[b]).

13) Show and prove that all other administrative steps required by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) have been followed to the letter of the law (Martin v. Chandis, 128 F2d 731; US v. Powell, 379 US 48).

14) Show and prove that after initial investigation, the Secretary or his delegate has determined that further examination is necessary and warranted (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Cooppers & Lybrand, F Supp 942; US v. Williams, 337 F Supp 1114; Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 945).

15) Show and prove that the taxpayer has been properly notified that further examination is necessary (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; IRC Section 7605[b]).

16) State the exact reason(s), in detail, for the examination of each year specific information is requested (US v. Third Northwestern National Bank, 102 F Supp 879; FOIA).

17) State whether there is a misconception and/or mistake in the tax return for each year that information is requested (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090).

18) State exactly wherein the mistake lies, or if in fact one exists (US v. London Insurance Agency, Inc. 72-2 T.C.; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; Hubner v. Tucker, 245 F2d 35).

19) Specify exactly which item(s) of income or expense item(s) is (are) in question on the tax return(s), if any. (same as # 18).

20) State why the specific income and/or expense item is in question, or is being examined (same as # 18).

21) Explain why and what issue in law or in fact is questioned, if any (FOIA; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368).

22) State the name, address, and telephone number of any person or persons informing you of any questions or concern involved in any item or any tax return or any activity of the taxpayer
(Sixth Amendment; US v. Zack, D.C. Nev 4/20/74; Favre v. Henderson, 409 US 942; FOIA).

23) State exactly what was said, either verbal and/or written concerning any item, tax return or activity of the taxpayer by any person(s) informing or directing you to conduct an examination,
directly, and/or indirectly (Same as # 22).

24) State and prove that the taxpayer is not being subjected to an examination based on or for any political, ideological, harassment, pressure tactic, or bad-faith purpose, and is not being singled out for prosecution as an example to other taxpayers for any reason (US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; US v. McCarthy, 514 F2d 368; US v. Roundtree, 420 F2d 845; Chaukin v. Alexander, 401 F Supp 817; FOIA).

25) State and explain why the examination can not and will not amount to an inquisition or arbitrary inquiry on the part of the examiner (Local 174 International Brotherhood of Teamsters
v. US, 240 F2d 387; US v. McKay, 372 F2d 174; US v. Powell, 379 US 48; US v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 415 F2d 1284; US v. Third Northwestern Bank, 102 F Supp 879).

26) State and explain why IRC Section 7605 [b] does not apply to any examination where "...No taxpayer shall be subjected to unnecessary examination or investigation..." (Pacific Mills v.
Kenefick, 99 F2d 188).

27) State the exact methods used, either past and/or present to gather information concerning this taxpayer, and whether information was gathered through the use of surveillance, telephone wire-tapping, mail coverage, interviews, illegal entry, informers, spies, or otherwise (FOIA; US v. Wright Motor Co., 536 F2d 1090; Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F3d 945).

28) State whether the verification of specific deductions would be the limited scope of the examination (US v. Powell, 379 US 48).

29) State and explain any objection to the use of electronic recorder(s) during the pursuit of this examination (IRS Manual MT 9900-26, 1/29/75, paragraph 241.5).

30) State whether the examiner would be prejudiced against a taxpayer who arranges his affairs to minimize his taxes as the law permits( Gregory v. Helvering, 293 US 465; Knetsch v. US, 361).

31) Show and prove to this Citizen how the IRS Commissioner has jurisdiction over any subject matter concerning this Citizen (Hale v. Hinkle, 201 US 43; Murdock v. Pa, 319 US 105; US v. LaSalle Bank, 437 US 298; 26 USC Section 6011).

32) Unless otherwise shown, this Citizen hereby pleads and does give public notice that the IRS Commissioner has an absence of jurisdiction over this Citizen's person (Same as # 31)

What can you do? File your UCC-1 claim on the CORPORATION that carries your name in their ledgers and take control of your Treasury Direct Account.  You are considered a citizen of a Federal territory because of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship.  Since you have not objected to your status as a subject of the Federal jurisdiction, you may be presumed to be content with your Federal citizenship.

Hierarchy of Law!

The first order of law is Natural Law.   These are Universal Principals which so necessarily agrees with nature and state of man, that without observing their inherent maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.Knowledge of natural laws may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the facts of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature. Natural Law exists regardless of whether it is enacted as positive law.
When law began to emerge into human consciences, thought, word and deed we come to the next order of law on this planet. The most fundamental law of all human law has to do with survival which is a Universal Principal. It has to do with human interactions, of any kind, any relationships, buying, selling or trading or relating in any way. It is based upon treating or dealing with others the way that you would like to be treated or dealt with. This is the Law of Commerce. The Law of Commerce has been in operation since man interacted with each other starting many thousands of years ago through the Sumerian/Babylonian era where it was codified and enforced. Ancient artifacts dating over 6,000 old reveal that the system was so complex it even included reciepts, coined money, shopping lists, manifestos and a postal system with the medium being in baked clay.
As a derivative of Commercial law, being removed from natural law, and therefore inferior, is Common Law (common [L co together + munisservice, gift, exchange] to exchange together). This emerged, basically, in England out of disputes over a portion of the earth in allodium (sovereign ownership of land) and was based on “common” sense. So, common law is the law of the earth. Common law gave rise to the jury system and many writs and processes which governments have absorbed and statutized and made into rules and regulation processes in courts.
Common Law procedures were based on the opportunity “to face your accuser or the injured party” in front of witnesses to sort out the problem directly. This process was never intended to include “lawyers, attorneys or judges construing their own law”, as these “titles” are all based upon the fiction of “representation” which can never “be the real thing”.
After common law come governments, and their laws and legislative regulations, ad infinitum of the organic republics of the states. The only “laws” that the state can create is to “allow commerce to flow more efficiently WITHIN the state”. The only “law” the central government, united States of America, could create was to “allow commerce to flow more efficiently BETWEEN the states. ” It was never intended to regulate people – the soverans.
Below that, the “garbage froth,” more or less, is politics and the private copyrighted company policy of foreign corporations such as UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF…, THE COUNTY OF…, THE CITY OF…, etc. The purpose of these “municipalities” [L munus service, gift, exchange + capere to take; to take service and exchange] is to “govern” fictitious entities such as JOHN DOE and K-MART – not to regulate people. Remember back when you thought that YOU were JOHN DOE because that is how it is written on your drivers license?
One of our problems is that when we engage with government, municipalities and other such elements, in all our dealings in the law when have been conditioned to interact on and in THEIR level. We have never risen to the level where the base of law is, where the reality, the power, the solidity and the pre-eminence exists – THE SOVERANS LEVEL. But now, we can function in this powerful level. This is Check mate. This is the end of the game. THIS IS THE REMEDY.
Commerce
The principles, maxims and precepts of Commerce Law are eternal, unchanging and unchangeable. They are expressed in the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New. We learned in the second course how the law of commerce has plagued us for more than 6000 years. This law of commerce, unchanged for thousands of years, forms the underlying foundation for all law on this planet and for governments around the world. It is the law of Nations and everything that human civilization is built upon. This is why it is so powerful. When you operate at this level, by these precepts, nothing that is of inferior statute can overturn or change it or abrogate it or meddle with it. It remains the fundamental source of authority and power and functional reality.
The Affidavit
Commerce in everyday life is the vehicle or glue that holds, or binds, the corporate body politic together. More specifically, commerce consists of a mode of interacting, doing business, or resolving disputes whereby all matters are executed under oath, certified on each patty’s commercial liability by sworn affidavit, or what is intended to possess the same effect, as true, correct, and complete, not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This affidavit is usually required for an application for a driver’s license, and IRS form 1040, a voters registration, a direct Treasury Account, a Notary’s “Copy Certification” or certifying a document, and on nearly every single document that the system desires others to be bound or obligated. Such means of signing is an oath, or Commercial Affidavit, executed under penalty of perjury, “true. Correct, and complete”. Whereas in a court setting testimony (oral) is stated in judicial terms by being sworn to be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
In addition to asserting all matters under solemn oath of personal, commercial, financial, and legal liability for the validity of each and every statement, the participant must provide material evidence, i.e. ledgering, or bookkeeping, providing the truth, validity, relevance, and verifiably of each and every particular assertion to sustain credibility. Commerce is antecedent to and more fundamental to society that courts or legal systems, and exists and functions without respect to courts or legal systems. Commercial Law, the non-statutorily variety as presented below in maxims 1 through 10, is the economic extension of Natural Law into man’s social world and is universal in nature. The foundational, invariant, necessary, and sufficient principles or “Maxims of Commerce” pertaining herein are:
Maxims of Law
There are ten essential maxims or precepts in commercial law.
1. WORKMAN IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE. The first of these is expressed in Exodus 20:15; Lev. 19:13; Mat. 10:10; Luke 10?7; II Tim. 2:6. Legal maxim: “It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property.”
2. The second maxim is “Equality before the law” or more precisely, ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. (God’s Law – Moral and Natural Law). Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24: 17-21; Deut. 1;17, 19:21; Mat. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. “No one is above the law”. This is founded on both Natural and Moral law and is binding on everyone. For someone to say , or acts as though, he is “above the law” is insane. This is the major insanity in the world today. Man continues to live, act, believe, and form systems, organizations, governments, laws and processes which presume to be able to supercede or abrogate Natural or Moral Law. But, under commercial law, Natural and Moral Law are binding on everyone, and no one can escape it. Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of the few.
3. This one is one of the most comforting maxims one could have, and your foundation for your peace-of-mind and your security and your capacity to win and triumph — to get your remedy — in this business. IN COMMERCE TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN. (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8 ).Truth is sovereign — and the Sovereign tells only the truth.Your word is your bond.If truth were not sovereign in commerce, i.e., all human action and inter-relations, there would be no basis for anything. No basis for law and order, no basis no accountability, there would be no standards, no capacity to resolve anything. It would mean “anything goes”, “each man for himself”, and “nothing matters”. That’s worse than the law of the jungle. Commerce. “To lie is to go against the mind”. Oriental proverb: “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”
4. TRUTH IS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT.(Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13: Num. 30:2; Mat. 5:33; James 5: 12). An affidavit is your solemn expression of your truth. In commerce, an affidavit must be accompanied and must underlay and form the foundation for any commercial transaction whatsoever. There can be no valid commercial transaction without someone putting their neck on the line and stated, “this is true, correct, complete and not meant to mislead.” When you issue an affidavit, it is a two edged sword; it cuts both ways. Someone has to take responsibility for saying that it is a real situation. It can be called a true bill, as they say in the Grand Jury. When you issue an affidavit in commerce you get the power of an affidavit. You also incur the liability, because this has to be a situation where other people might be adversely affected by it. Things change by your affidavit, in which are going to affect people’s lives. If what you say in your affidavit is, in fact, not true, then those who are adversely affected can come back at you with justifiable recourse because you lied. You have told a lie as if it were the truth. People depend on your affidavit and then they have lost because you lied.
5. AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE.(12 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15;) Claims made in your affidavit, if not rebutted, emerge as the truth of the matter. Legal Maxim: “He who does deny, admits.”
6. AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE.(Heb. 6:16-17;). There is nothing left to resolve. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as truth and matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
7. IN COMMERCE FOR ANY MATTER TO BE RESOLVED MUST BE EXPRESSED.(Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21). No one is a mind reader. You have to put your position out there, you have to state what the issue is, to have someone to talk about and resolve. Legal Maxim: “He who fails to assert his rights has none.)
8. The primary users of commercial law and those who best understand and codified it in Western Civilization are the Jews. This is Mosaic Law they have had for more than 3500 years past which is based upon Babylonian commerce. This one is: HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. (Book of Job; Mat. 10:22; This means that an affidavit which is unrebutted point for point stands as “truth in commerce” because it hasn’t been rebutted and has left the battlefield. Governments allegedly exist to resolve disputes, conflicts and truth. Governments allegedly exist to be substitutes for the dueling field and the battlefield for so disputes, conflicts of affidavits of truth are resolved peaceably, reasonably instead of by violence. So people can take their disputes into court and have them all opened up and resolved, instead of going out and marching ten paces and turning to kill or injure. Legal Maxim: “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it”.
8. SACRIFICE IS THE MEASURE OF CREDIBILITY (NO WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE = NO LIABILITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AUTHORITY OR MEASURE OF CONVICTION).Nothing ventured nothing gained. A person must put himself on the line assume a position, take a stand, as regards the matter at hand. and One cannot realize the potential gain without also exposing himself to thew potential of loss. (One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath on his commercial liability to claim authority) (Acts 7, life/death of Stephen). for the truth of his statements and legitimacy of his actions has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right Legal Maxim: “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit”.
9. SATISFACTION OF A LIEN.In commerce a lien or claim can be satisfied in any one of three ways. (Gen. 2-3; Mat. 4; Revelation.).
By someone rebutting your affidavit, with another affidavit of his own, point by point, until the matter is resolved as to whose is correct, in case of non-resolution.
You convene a Sheriff’s common law jury, based on the Seventh Amendment, concerning a dispute involving a claim of more than $20. Or, you can use three disinterested parties to make judgment.
The only other way to satisfy a lien is to pay it.
Legal Maxim: “if the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved”.
10.So, the tenth maxim of law is: A LIEN OR CLAIM CAN BE SATISFIED ONLY THROUGH REBUTTABLE BY AFFIDAVIT POINT BY POINT, RESOLUTION BY JURY, OR PAYMENT.
Commercial Law is non-judicial.This is pre-judicial (not prejudice). This is timeless. This is the base, the foundation beneath which any government or any of their court systems can possibly exist or function.
That means what the courts are doing, and what all governments are ultimately adjudicating and making rules about, are these basic rules of Commercial Law. When you go into court and place your hand on the Bible you say, “I swear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . . .” you have just sworn a Commercial Affidavit.
It’s the conflict between Commercial Affidavits of Truth that gives the court something to talk about, that forms the entire basis of its action, and its being there , in their venue. Hence, one of the reasons attorneys always create controversy.
No court and no judge can overturn or disregard or abrogate somebody’s Affidavit of Truth. The only one who has any capacity or right or responsibility or knowledge to rebut your Affidavit of Truth is the one who is adversely affected by it. It’s his job, his right, his responsibility to speak for himself. To issue his own affidavit because no one can speak it for him. No one else can know what your truth is or has the free-will responsibility to state it. This is YOUR job.
Commercial Law
This phrase designates the whole body of substantive jurisprudence, i.e. the Uniform Commercial Code, the Truth in Lending Act, applicable to the rights, intercourse, of persons engaged in commerce, trade or mercantile pursuits. Blacks 6th.
Commercial Law maintains the commercial harmony, integrity, and continuity of society. It’s also stated as “to maintain the peace and dignity of the State.” Over the millennia these principles have been discovered through experience and distilled and codified into those ten fundamental Maximums listed above. There is no legal issue or dispute possible which is not a function of one or more of these principles. The entirety of world commerce now functions in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the UNITED STATES’ corporation version of Commercial Law.
Collection, and How To Calculate Your Damages
Now, here is another aspect of your affidavits. In commerce there is the Assessment aspect, which is who owes who, and what, why, how and for what reasons; and there is the Collection aspect.
The collection aspect is based in International commerce that has existed for more than 6000 years. Again, this is based on Jewish Law and the Jewish grace period, which is in units of three; three days, three weeks, three months. This is why you get 90day letters from the IRS.
Commercial processes are non-judicial. They are summary processes (short, concise-without a jury).
The IRS creates the most activity of Commercial Collection in the entire world. The collection process is relatively valid, although the IRS is not registered to do business in any state. Did you understand what you just read? The IRS is NOT REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS OR PERFORM COMMERCIAL MATTERS IN ANY STATE. So how do they get all the money they get? ANSWER: because you give it to them without requesting a proof of claim from them or even if they were “licensed” to give you offers based on “arbitrary” estimations.
However, this is where things get very interesting. The other phase of matters is the assessment phase: THERE IS NO VALID ASSESSMENT. The IRS has, and never can, and never will, and never could, EVER issue a valid assessment lien or levy. It’s not possible.
First of all, in order for them to do that there would have to be paperwork, a True Bill in Commerce. There would have to be sworn Affidavits by someone that this is a true, correct and complete and not meant to deceive, which, in commerce is, essentially “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” when you get into court. Now, nobody in the IRS is going to take commercial liability for exposing themselves to a lie, and have a chance for people to come back at them with a True Bill in Commerce, a true accounting. This means they would have to set forth the contract, the foundational instrument with your signature on it, in which you are in default, and a list of all the wonderful goods and services that they have done for you which you owe them for; or a statement of all the damages that you have caused them, for which you owe them.
To my knowledge, no one has ever received goods or service from the IRS for which they owe money. I personally don’t know of anyone that has damaged anybody in the IRS that gives them the right to come after us and say that “you owe us money because you damaged me”. The assessment phase in the IRS is non-existent, it is a complete fraud. Wait a minute, there is one definition of “service” that actually applies to the IRS;
Service.The act of bringing a female animal to a male animal to get *&%$#@ so that the owner of the animals may “enjoy the product of this union.”
Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside doesn’t it?
This is why these rules of Commercial Law come to our rescue. T. S. Eliot wrote a wonderful little phrase in one of his poems: “We shall not cease from exploration, and the result of all our exploring will be to arrive at the place at which we began and know it for the first time.”
This is the beginning , and this is the end. This closes the circle on the process.
One reason why the super rich bankers and the super rich people in the world have been able to literally steal the world and subjugate it, and plunder it, and bankrupt it and make chattel property out of most of us is because they know and use the rules of Commercial Law and we don’t.
Because we don’t know the rules, nor use them, we don’t know what the game is. We don’t know what to do. We don’t know how to invoke our rights, remedies and recourses. We get lost in doing everything under the sun except the one and only thing that is the solution.
No one is going to explain to you what and how all this is happening to you. That is never going to happen. These powers-that-be have not divulged the rules of the game. They can and do get away with complete fraud and steal everything because no one knows what to do about it.
SOLUTION;
Well, what CAN you do about it? YOU NEED TO ISSUE A COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT. You don’t have to title it that, but that’s what it is. You can assert in your affidavit, “I have never been presented with any sworn affidavits that would provide validity to your assessment. It is my best and considered judgment that no such paperwork or affidavit exists.” At the end of this document, you put demands on them. They must be implicit and then you state, “Should you consider my position in error . . .”
You know what they have to do now, don’t you? They must come back with an affidavit which rebuts your affidavit point for point, which means they have to provide the paper work with the real assessment, the true bill in commerce, the real sworn affidavits that would make their assessment or claims against you valid.
No agent or attorney of a fictitious entity can sign an affidavit for the corporation. How can they sware as fact that the corporation has done or not done ANYTHING? They do not have the standing. They cannot and never will provide you with this. This means your affidavit stands as truth in commerce.
You can even make it more interesting if you like. You go to all their laws like Title 18 and you tabulate the whole list of crimes they have committed against you in lying to you, foreclosing and selling your home and issuing liens and levies. This could be quite an impressive list.
If you tabulate the dollar amounts of the fines involved in these offenses, you could take just Title 18 section 241 alone which is a $10,000.00 fine on any public official for each offense. That means for every single violation of the Constitution, or commercial law, there could be 35 or 40 of these just in Title 18. You’re looking at $300 to $400 thousand. When they start adding up, they become very impressive.
Now you attach this accounting, the criminal accounting to your affidavit and you file it as a criminal complaint with the State Attorney. This is like putting the fox in charge of guarding the hen house. However, more about this will be outlined later in this course.
For now, just attach your affidavit and your criminal complaint to a commercial lien. But wait! There is even a more effective way of getting you equity back – Involuntary Bankruptcy! These procedures will be detailed in Course 5.
The reason you go through this criminal complaint is because by their own laws and value system and penalties, they have hung themselves. They have already discerned and formulated the dollar amount involved in each of the various offenses. When you lien them for those amounts, they can’t come back and say: “Well, these are out of nowhere. They’re unreasonable. Where did you get this?” Right out of your own codes.
COMMERCIAL PROCESSES ARE NON-JUDICIAL, PRE-JUDICIAL, AND ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN JUDICIAL PROCESSES.
Now, you take your commercial lien to the Secretary of State to file as a UCC-1 Financing statement. Then as soon as you’ve finished filing the original criminal complaint with the Prosecuting attorney you file this lien against every agent individually. (The criminal complaint is optional). They can’t hide behind the skirts of the corporate state, this fictional entity created by man to be able to engage in perfidious actions which you would not otherwise be able by virtue of Natural and Moral Law. It just doesn’t work.
Now, you can use this same collection process against them just as the IRS uses against you.
You will discover that all the attorneys, judges and the people who come against you think this is a lot of gobble-di-gook, hogwash and silly. But they soon learn that your affidavits of truth is valid and enforceable against them. And they find that things become more and more uncomfortable with each passing day. Judges even think all this doesn’t matter because they can get another judge to remove all your paperwork against them. Other agents of the government think they canhide behind the sovereign immunity of the Government, behind all the power and prestige, all their attorneys and all their capacity to get the courts to do whatever the wish is going to save them. None of these have any effect on your process.
It has no effect because there is only one way that they can be saved and that is to come in with their own affidavit that rebuts your affidavit point by point and prove you wrong. If they did get this into court or jury that’s not going to do them any good because the same battle still exists.
All this means is that the conflict between affidavits are now fought out in the open. And that is embarrassing to them because they are not going to change anything. All this will simply do them more harm.
The third way to settle your claim is for them to pay it. If they don’t satisfy your claim you give them a grace period, at the end of 90 days you transform the Secretary of State into your Accounts Receivable Office. Legal Title of all their real and personal property has now passed to you. You now file the correct paperwork with the Secretary of State, and you serve this on the Sheriff and say, “I want to take possession of my property.” Things begin to get interesting.
If you send a criminal complaint on a public official to the Insurance Commissioner of the State, it becomes instantly and automatically a lien against the bond of the official, the judge or district attorney and he’s dead. He cannot function without bonding. This is held in suspension until the issue is resolved.
Now, all of a sudden we find ourselves, simply by going back to what we’ve wanted all along, which is truth, rightness and a remedy, that we have, by going back in this and finding the rules that pertain to it, a way to have more power than they do, since we are sovereign.
No one, not a judge, jury or anyone else can overturn this or change this process.
To do so would be to dissolve the world immediately into chaos. This would be the end of all law, all order, all standards, for all civilization.
It is not possible. They are stuck. This forms the underpinnings of philosophy, in tangle practices, of the way to put power on your side and against those agents of government who violate your being, injure you all in violation of their oath of office.
That is how, through their own process, we can use the rules of the game in OUR favor instead of remaining in ignorance and being taken forever as slaves.This applies to everything, not just the government. This forms a valid foundation for your life and it forms a basis for any kind of dealings with government. What most people don’t even consider is that governments don’t have and can’t have anything to support an affidavit of truth to support their actions.
Governments invent all the regulations and statutes to impose on you, affecting your life and commercial/economic standing. And no one is taking any liability, responsibility nor accountability. They may have some kind of bonding. But in most states this bonding is only for about $5-10 million for the entire state and all its employees. However, you can tabulate a simple traffic ticket into more than $5 million if you so choose.