Join my Team,become an independent Karatbars Affiliate...gold is going up in price right now.



Ive been a karatbars affiliate for 6 years now and earn a very good income,easy and fun business to get involved in,I always get paid on time and earn Gold for my retirement.free training,get started today!
Click Link Below

https://www.karatbars.com/?s=stopthepirates

WHY THE UCC FILING? --- THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY LAWYERS:



Short Explanation as is Understood at this Time
(Subject to further clarification)

Around the time of the war between the United States and the southern states of the American union, the United States was busy putting together a plan that would increase the jurisdiction of the United States. This plan was necessary because the United States had no subjects and only the land ceded to it from the states, ie. the District which was only ten miles square and such land as was necessary for forts, magazines, arsenals, etc.

Between the 1860’s and the early 1900’s, banking and taxing mechanisms were changing through legislation. Cunning people closely associated with the powers in England had great influence on the legislation being passed in the United States. Of course such legislation did not apply to the states or to the people in the states, but making the distinction was not deemed to be a necessary duty of the legislators. It was the responsibility of the people to understand their relationship to the United States and to the laws that were being passed by the legislature. This distinction between the United States and the states was taught in the homes and the schools and churches. The early admiralty courts did not interpret legislation as broadly at that time because the people knew when the courts were overstepping their jurisdiction.
The people were in control because they knew who they were and where they were standing in relation to the United States.

In 1913 the United States added numerous private laws to its books that facilitated the increase of subjects and property for the United States. The 14th Amendment provided for a new class of citizens – United States citizens, that had not formerly been recognized. Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, there were no persons born or naturalized in the United States. They had all been born or naturalized in one of the several states. United States citizenship was a result of state citizenship. After the Civil War, a new class was recognized, and was the beginning of the democracy sited in the District of Columbia. The American people in the republic sited in the several states, could choose to benefit as one of these new United States citizens BY CHOICE. The new class of citizens was given the right to vote in the democracy in 1870 by
the 15th Amendment. All it required was an application. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits,came duties and responsibilities that were totally regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. (1) The 13th Amendment in 1865 opened the way for the people to volunteer into slavery to accept the benefits offered by the United States. Whether House actually spoke the words or not , is really irrelevant because the scenario detailed in the statement attributed to him has clearly been implemented. Central banking for the United States was legislated with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The ability to decrease the currency in circulation through taxation was legislated with the 16th Amendment in 1913. Support for the presumption that the American people had volunteered to participate in the United States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913. The path was provided for the control of the courts, with the creation of the American Bar Association in 1913.

In 1917 the United States legislature passed the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Emergency War Powers Act,opening the doors for the United States to suspend limitations otherwise mandated in the Constitution. Even in times of peace, every contrived and created social, political, or financial emergency was sufficient authority for the officers of the United States to overstep its peace time powers and implement volumes of “law” that would increase the coffers of the United States. There is always a declared emergency in the United States and its States, but it only applies to their subjects.

In the 1920’s the States accelerated the push for mothers to register their babies. Life was good and people were not paying attention to what was happening in government. The stock market crashed, and those who were not on the inside were not warned to take their money out before they lost everything.

In the 1930’s federal legislation provided for registration of babies through applications for birth certificates, so government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration of cars through applications for certificates of title, and for registration of land through registration of deeds of trust. Constructive trusts secretly were created as each of the people blindly walked into the United States democracy, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States. The great depression supplied the diversion to keep the people’s attention off what government was doing. The Social Security program was implemented, along with numerous other United States programs that invited the American people to volunteer to be the sureties behind the United States’ new registered property and adhesion contracts through the new United States subjects.

The plan was well on its path by 1933. Massive registration of property through United States agencies, including the State of _______ subdivisions, was assuring the United States and its officers would get rich beyond their wildest expectations, as predicted by Mendall House. All of this was done without disclosure of the material facts that accompanied each application for registration – fraud. The fraud was a sufficient reason to charge all the United States officers with treason, UNLESS a remedy could be supplied for the people to recoup their property and collect for the damages they suffered as a result of the fraud.

If a remedy were available, and the people chose not to or failed to use their remedy, no charge of fraud could be sustained even in a common law court. The United States only needed to provide the remedy. It was not required to explain it or even tell the people where the remedy could be found. The attorneys did not even have to be taught about the remedy. That gave them plausible deniability when the people struggled to understand the new laws. The legislators did not have to have the intricate details of the law explained to them regarding the bills they were passing. That gave them plausible deniability. If the people failed to use their remedy, the United States came out the winner every time. If the people did discover their remedy, the United States had to honor it and release the registered property back to the people, but only if the people knew they had a remedy, and only if they requested it in the proper manner. It was a great plan.

With plausible deniability, even when the people knew they had a remedy and pursued it, the attorneys, judges, and legislators could act like they did not understand the people’s claims. Requiring the public schools to teach civics,government, and history classes out of approved politically correct text books also assured the people would not find the remedy for a long time. Passing new State and Federal laws that appeared to subject the people to rules and regulations,added another level of protection against the people finding their remedy. The public media was molded to report politically correct, though substantially incorrect, news day after day, until few people would even think there could be a remedy available to them. The people could be separated from their money and their time to pursue the remedy long
enough for the solutions to be lost in the pages of millions of books in huge law libraries across the country. So many people know there is something wrong with all the conflicts in the laws with the “facts” taught in the schools. How can the American people be free and subject to a sovereign governments whims at the same time? Who would ever have thought the people would be resourceful enough to actually find the remedy? BUT they did!

In 1933 the United States put its insurance policy into place with House Joint Resolution 192 (2) and recorded it in the Congressional Record. It was not required to be promulgated in the Federal Register. An Executive Order issued on April 5, 1933 paving the way for the withdrawal of gold in the United States. Representative Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges on May 23, 1933 against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Congressional Record May 23, 1933 page 4055-4058). HJR 192 passed on June 3, 1933. Mr. MaFadden claimed on June 10, 1933: “Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks…” HJR 192 is the insurance policy that protects the legislators from conviction for fraud
and treason against the American people. It also protects the American people from damages caused by the actions of the United States.

HJR 192 provided that the one with the gold paid the bills. It removed the requirement that the United States subjects and employees had to pay their debts with gold. It actually prohibited the inclusion of a clause in all subsequent contracts that would require payment in gold. It also cancelled the clause in every contract written prior to June 5, 1933, that required an obligation to be paid in gold – retroactively. It provided that the United States subjects and employees could use any type of coin and currency to discharge a public debt as long as it was in use in the normal course of business in the United States. For a time, United States Notes were the currency used to discharge debts, but later the Federal Reserve and the United States provided a new medium of exchange through paper notes, and debt instruments that could be passed on to a debtor’s creditors to discharge the debtor’s debts. That same currency is available to us to use to discharge public debts.

In the 1950’s the Uniform Commercial Code was presented to the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive contracts. Debt instruments with collateral, and accommodating parties, could be used instead of money. Money and the need for money was disappearing, and a uniform system of laws had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this was accomplished by the mid 1960’s.

The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures all people engaged in commercial activities must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled thousands of years ago, but were refined as commerce become more sophisticated over the years. In the 1900’s the age-old principles of commerce shifted from substance to form. Presumption became a big part of the law. Without giving a degree of force to presumption, the new direction in enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in courts. If the claimants were required to produce their claims every time they tried to collect money or time from the people, they would seldom be successful. The principles expressed in the code combine the means of dealing with substantive commercial activities with the means of dealing with presumptive commercial activities. These principles work as well for the people as they do for the
deceivers. The rules do not respect persons.

Those who enticed the people to register their things with the United States and its sub-divisions, gained control of the substance through the registrations. The United States became the Holder of the titles to many things. The definition of “property” is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The property is the interest in the thing. Profits (interest) made from the property of another, belong to the owner of the thing. Profits were made by the deceivers by pledging the registered property in commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the deceivers. The profits belong to the owners of the things. That is always the people. The corporation only shows ownership of paper – titles to things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. [[Watch the movie Last Action Hero and watch the confusion created
when they try to mix substance and fiction.]] Sometimes the fiction is made to look very much like substance, but fiction can never become substance. It is an impossibility.

The profits from all the registered things had to be put into trust (constructive) for the benefit of the owners. If the profits were put into the general fund of the United States and not into separate trusts for the owners, the scheme would represent fraud. The profits for each owner could not be commingled. If the owner failed to use his available remedy (fictional credits held in a constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger) to benefit from the profits, it would not be the fault of the deceivers. If the owner failed to learn the law that would open the door to his remedy, it would not be the fault of the deceivers. The owner is responsible for learning the law, so he understands that the profits from his things are available for him to discharge debts or charges brought against his public person by the United States.

If the United States has the “gold”, the United States pays the bills (from the trust account, fund, or financial ledger). The definition of “fund” is money set aside to pay a debt. The fund is there to discharge the public debts attributed to the United States subjects, but ultimately back to the accommodating parties – the American people. The national debt that is owed is to the owners of the registered things – the American people, as well as to other creditors.

If the United States owes a debt to the owner of the thing, and the owner is presumed (by accommodation) to owe a public debt to the United States, the logical thing is to ask the United States to discharge that public debt from the trust fund. The way for the United States to get around having to pay the public debts for the people is to claim the owner cannot be an owner if he agreed to be the accommodating party for a debtor person. If the people are truly the principle,then they know how to handle their financial and political affairs, ULNESS they have never been taught. If the owner admits by his actions out of ignorance, that he is an accommodating party, he has taken on the debtor’s liabilities without getting consideration in exchange. Here lies the fiction again. The owner of the thing does not have to knowingly agree to be the accommodating party for the debtor person; he just has to act like he agreed. That is easy if he has a choice of going to jail or signing for the debtor person. The presumption that he is the accommodating party is strong enough for
the courts to hold the owner of the thing liable for a tax on the thing he actually owns.

Debtors may have the use of certain things, but the things belong to the creditors. The creditor is the master. The debtor is the servant. The Uniform Commercial Code is very specific about the duties and responsibilities a debtor has. If the owner of the thing is presumed to be a debtor because of his previous admissions and adhesion contracts, he is going to have a difficult time convincing the United States that it has a duty to discharge public debts for him. In addition, the courts are staffed with loyal judges who will look for every mistake the people make when trying to use their remedy.

Trading Prisoners Like Cattle

All crimes are commercial and have a commercial value to them. It makes you look at improvements to the freeways, cities and towns in a different light … especially when those improvements are funded by ‘municipal bonds.’ You’ll also understand why there’s no hurry to end the war in Iraq.

All criminal prosecution is considered an annuity and is for the purpose for raising revenue for the United States. Now you’ll have a better understanding of why people are in jail, why they are in prison, why they are on probation and why they are charged with everything from jaywalking on up through murder one.

An American soldier who dies in Afghanistan and Iraq probably carries a $10 million life insurance on him carried by the government. After all, every soldier, marine, or air force person is an asset to the United States. They have a huge investment in that particular soldier and his activity and it can explain why it is that the US is not so anxious to withdraw its troops from that area. It’s a money making activity and they don’t want to talk about the fact that they are making money on death and that they are making money from the incarceration and imprisonment of many otherwise good hearted people who have not necessarily committed otherwise serious crimes.

They have a rule called the 144 holder. The rule is that they can’t sell private investment securities that are not registered. The rule prohibits them from selling the prison bonds. They have to wait 6 months before they can sell a certain quantity of private securities without being registered, selling them as private securities.

Basically there are 8 people on the board of directors of CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) The top holders are Joseph E. Russell and John M. Ferguson. Russell owns 64,000 shares of CCA stock, which is worth about $70 million. Ferguson owns 34,000 shares valued at about $37 million.

Fidelity Management and Research is the top stock holder, the top investment firm that is selling the bonds as investment securities. They pool them and sell them as mortgage backed securities. Also when they pool them, they sell them as mutual funds on the stock market. By “pooling” we mean the securities on the inmates.

What they are doing is they are actually taking the mortgage backed securities, which are really bid bonds, performance bonds and payment bonds. They pool these bonds and when they pool them together they call them mortgage backed securities. They take these to TBA which is the Bond Market Association. It’s an actual market for bonds. Anytime a bond is issued there has to be an underwriter. The bonds have to be underwritten. Bonds that are issued have to be indemnified so there has to be surety to indemnify the bonds. The brokerage houses and the insurance companies indemnify the bonds. They’re called surety companies.

After the surety companies indemnify the bonds, which is underwriting them, they do this through an investment banker or the banks themselves do this. They job it out to them. They buy up all these shares and turn around and sell them as investment securities. The shares represent the stock which represent the account of CCA. All of this has been funneled through CCA, the Corrections Corporation of America.

What they are doing is selling stock in the prison system by selling the prisoners’ accounts as securities through the securities exchange. They are making huge amounts of money off it. They privatize the prisoners’ accounts and bring all these investors in and what they are doing is underwriting all these prisoner’s accounts (bonds). This is after the surety company guarantees the bonds. Then they are underwritten through an investment bank or banker. Then they are put out on the market and resold to the public.

CHECK IT YOURSELF
Enter any prisoner’s case number within the specified entry boxes, located at Fidelity Investments’ online Securities look up index query, locate that prisoner’s bonds and find out where they are being traded.

Example (with a court case number 05CR272 – this is the District Court Case Number):



You will get a CUSIP number 316423102.



See it being traded as a mutual fund through Fidelity Investments!



To make it clear to whom you have the honor, take a look at the Fidelity Investments logos:


In other words the banks are buying up all the shares and then they resell them as investment securities to the public. The public then buys them as mutual funds or they can buy them as debt instruments, equity instruments.

What they are really doing is they are buying up debt instruments. They are using the fiscal accounting cycle of accrual and they sell the prisoner’s ‘capital and interest’ as it is called in accrual accounting. They resell these to the public because the prisoner did not do full settlement and closure on the account.

They sell the prisoner accounts as a commercial dishonor and sell it to the public as a commercial dishonor.

When you go in the courts they always say they are operating under a statute jurisdiction. The Black’s Law Dictionary 4th edition says a statute is a bond or obligation of record. That’s what all the criminal statutes are: bonds or obligation of record. Go in and read the definition of a recognizance bond and you find that it is a bond or obligation of record. They are selling bonds. They are charging prisoners under a bond; the prisoner signs the bond and the bond becomes the agreement for the payback. This is done when the prisoner signs the final court papers at a sentencing hearing.

Just how many of us remember when our government attempted to finance from the private sector during the Second World War? Weren’t they selling war bonds? They were soaking up the people’s equity in terms of buying bonds, transferring your funds to the government. The government by purchasing those bonds, was promising to pay you back your investment at sometime in the future with interest. At that time what they were collecting from the people was their so-called cash equity. People have gotten too poor, too stingy, too smart to buy bonds to finance the government.

How long has it been since you heard the Post Office or anyone trying to get you down to buy US savings bonds? So what they are doing now instead of getting us to voluntarily give our cash equity to the government for a promise to be paid back in the future, they are securing from us some violation of a statute by which the law ascribes from us a penalty; i.e., the payment of a sum of money due.

Instead of collecting the cash from us, they put us through a criminal procedure where we dishonor the system and what is happening is they are selling our capital and our interest. In other words, they are selling the liability you had in whatever charge was brought against your strawman.

They are taking that capital and interest that you should pay and are grabbing that from us and selling it on the open market to bankers and investors to transfer their funds to government which is covered by the bond of the violation of your strawman of that statute.

In order to secure the bond the living soul is placed in prison as the surety to back the bond which is financed on the investment of the public market place in terms of the sales of stocks and bonds.

The public doesn’t directly bid on my (the prisoner’s) debt. Your debt is assumed by the bankers. The bankers issue secondary paper that allows me to invest in what they are holding as the holder in due course of the claim against your strawman. The reason they are doing this is because you dishonored the post settlement procedures for settlement and closure of the account.

The prisoner should have come in and accepted and used his exemption. Since the prisoner dishonored the post settlement proceedings, then the prisoner is in dishonor and the issuance of the bonds by the financing system was done in order to pass the punishment on to him because of his inability to fulfill his post settlement objectives.

If you get into dishonor by nonacceptance, what they are trying to do is get an acceptor which is the same thing as a banker. They need someone to pay off the obligation and if you get into dishonor, they sell your dishonor and put you into prison as the collateral and they sell the bond.

The bond is issued and they get a surety to underwrite the bid bond with a performance bond and then they get an underwriter to underwrite the performance and payment bonds.

What the performance bond does is it guarantees the bid contract, or the bid bond. What the bid bond does is guarantee the payment of the performance bond. This is done through a surety company. Then they get an underwriter or an investment banker to underwrite it. After it’s underwritten, they sell it to the public as investment securities, debt instruments, or mutual backed securities.

It’s all done through bonds … bonding. That’s what all these municipal bonds are. What they doing is following everything through the prison system. The prison system is being privatized. Through privatization, private enterprise can fund the prison system cheaper than the government can. They are subsidizing everything through privatization.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), promotes privatization through foundations like the Reason Foundation owned by David Knott. They get the foundations to promote this and get investors to come in.

Cornell was merged with Trinity Venture Company which is an investment company. What they did was change their name to Reid Trinity Venture and then merged with SB Warburg. (Warburg was out of Germany and partnered with Rothschild.) SB Warburg is in Chicago, Illinois, and they merged with BIF in Switzerland, which is a settlement and closure bank, and the biggest bank in the world for settlements. They are connected to Cornell Company which is owned by David Cornell.

Everyone is tied in. Paine Webber Group in the United States and all the big international corporations are the stockholders and own all the stock in CCA. Everyone is using our exemptions on the private side. They filed a 1096 tax return and show it as a prepaid account, as prepaid interest and they returned it back to the prisoner. They took the prisoners deduction for the exemption and they deduct the tax and the IRS bills the prisoner for the tax. So the corporations are stealing your exemption which is your intellectual property.

What’s wrong with this? They are not telling us what they are doing. It’s all commercial. When you go into the court room everything is commercial.

What really matters here is honor and dishonor. The courts have to dishonor the potential prisoner or get that ‘person’ to argue or get that person’s attorney to argue. Just like Martha Stewart. Argue and you’re in dishonor and you’ll end up in jail.

The attorneys are actors to make us think the whole process is a factual issue. They get us into the guilty/not guilty mode and they get into all the cloak and dagger or what evidence to present. It’s a dog and pony show to cover up that they are after the debt money.

All corporations work on a fiscal accounting year which means that they spend debt. They can’t get rid of the debt and balance the books unless they run it through our accounts on the private side.

We the people run on a calender year and the corporations run on the fiscal year. The only way that they can balance their books is to run it through our accounts using our exemptions. Then they can do their reverse bookkeeping entry and go to post settlement and closure. They can’t do that until the prisoners do the acceptance (if they do it).

That what they are looking for in the court room under UCC 3-410 is the acceptor. That means we are assuming the liability for the debt as the principal. A lot of times with debt the principal is always the primary libelant in the commercial setting. He has to assume the liability and then you get your remedy. Otherwise you don’t get a remedy.

What they do is they sell the notes just as they do when you go into prison. They endorse the note and they no longer the holder of the note. The mortgage company wasn’t involved in this process … the attorneys are doing all this. What they are doing is coming to the private side to get the debt without any permission from the mortgage company. In this case they quoted from the UCC, and it’s from Lex Mercatoria, the Law of the Merchant.

Admiralty is all debt and it’s all civil; it becomes criminal when the prisoner gets a contempt charge when he refuses to pay. They can keep you in jail until you pay the debt. The initial get out of jail bond releases you until you’ve successfully paid the debt. Warden comes from admiralty-warden of the sea. The warden is the warehouse man who is warehousing all the goods; he’s the bailee. The commitment order is your bailment, your contract for the commitment of the goods. Then they put the goods in a warehouse and store them there. (Prisoners stored in prisons, just like the people stored in the pods in the movie, The Matrix.)

This fiction (corporation) took you (John Henry Doe), the flesh and blood creation of God, out of the picture and substituted in your place something called the ‘strawman’ (JOHN HENRY DOE).

Whenever you get a summons to appear in court, your name is printed in all capital letters “JOHN HENRY DOE” because that is how the ‘straw man’ is distinguished from the flesh and blood “John Henry Doe”, God-created man.

Since you show up and answer to your all-capital name (JOHN HENRY DOE) on the docket, the court accepts you (John Henry Doe) as the ‘representative’ of the straw man (JOHN HENRY DOE) and proceeds to play the game with you. If you don’t show up, they will still arrest you for failure to appear, because the state has already recognized you as the representative of the straw man – unless you learn how to break that connection (called a ‘nexus’) and take back your straw man from state ‘ownership’.

It sounds complicated and you weren’t told a thing about it in school (public school), but we did tell you it was a “deception”, remember?

If you don’t realize that you are ‘owned’ by the state, then consider this: whenever you go to a car dealer and buy a new car, the “deed” (from the manufacturer) of that car is sent by the car dealer to the Secretary of State of the state in which you live. It’s recorded and then destroyed. You, in turn, are given a “title of certificate” by your state which says that you have a legal right to possess and use this car which is now “owned by the state” who received its deed. “Your” ownership of the car is an “illusion,” the reality is that the state owns the car.

Same for a marriage licence. You are asking the state to give you permission to become man and wife. By seeking out said marriage licence, you are affirming to the state that your are slaves of the state (“chattel”) and you recognize that the ‘massah’ has authority over you for such things, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking for its ‘permission’ in the first place.

NOTICE & WARNING TO: EVERY/ALL UTILITY COMPANIES

NOTICE & WARNING TO:
EVERY/ALL UTILITY COMPANIES
FOR EMBEZZLEMENT , THEFT BY DECEPTION & EXTORTION
FAILING TO DISCHARGE ALL DEBTS
PURSUANT TO
73RD CONGRESS. SESS 1. CHS. 48 49. JUNE 5, 6,1933 HJR 192
HR 1491 PUBLIC LAW 1 48 STAT 1
PUBLIC LAW 10 CHAPTER 48 STAT 112
PUBLIC LAW 73-10 40 STAT 411
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (TWEA) OCT 6, 1917
but not limited to:
Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 7310) was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property and gold was seized by the government as collateral in the bankruptcy of the United States.
In 1863 the first Bank Act was passed. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (or OCC) is a US federal agency established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States.
The OCC was created by Abraham Lincoln to fund the American Civil War but was later transformed into a regulatory agency to instill confidence in the National Banking system and protect consumers from misleading business practices.
The Lieber Code, or General Order 100 was also created by Abraham Lincoln in 1863.
The National Bank Act (ch. 58, 12 Stat. 665, February 25, 1863) was a United States federal law that established a system of national charters for banks, the United States national banks. It encouraged development of a national currency based on bank holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, the so-called National Bank Notes. It also established the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as part of the Department of the Treasury. This was to establish a national security holding body for the existence of the monetary policy of the state. The Act, together with Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of “greenbacks”, raised money for the federal government in the American Civil War by enticing banks to buy federal bonds and taxing state bank issued currency out of existence. The law proved defective and was replaced by the National Bank Act of 1864. The money was used to fund the Union army in the fight against the Confederacy. This authorized the OCC to examine and regulate nationally-chartered banks.
The above only partially begins to include the historical records and other Acts of Congress that proves the US bankruptcy of 1933 and that there is no money, only credit that the American people are the Creditors.
All utilities companies knowingly have been sending their (customers) dividends but, in fact, making each recipient believe that dividend was an invoice for services provided by the utilities companies.
The Utilities Companies have mailed through the US Mail an intentional misrepresentation of facts, unfair business practices and each utility company and agents thereof have knowingly with forethought and malice created a fraudulent debt, defrauding the Creditor, that is the recipient of said dividends, that the utilities companies lead the recipient to believe through deception is an invoice.
The utilities companies in turn then extract through extortionate measures payment from the customers instead of the utilities companies informing those same recipients that this dividend is in actuality payment to the recipient as a charged off debt pursuant to the incorporated in entirety documented evidence provided herein.
Every/all utilities companies have thus created a convertible and fraudulent debt.
Every/all utilities companies have failed to pay off any of the public debt but rather unlawfully redirected ill-gotten gains into private corporate accounts through embezzlement, theft by deception, fraudulent conversion, and in violation to each all incorporated in entirety laws established through and as a result of the US Bankruptcy of 1933, wherein there is no money, only “bank Notes” which are but only a promise to pay.
Thus all debts are to be discharged as agreed, but the utilities companies (and banks) through their greed have not discharged any debt, fraudulently making the utility customer deeper in debt by utilities companies use of “Bank Notes” or “promissory Notes” that the utilities companies add to the public debt side of the books rather than discharging the debts as stipulated in Public Laws, House Resolutions, and House Joint Resolutions.
Additionally, the alleged invoices sent to every recipient is a dividend an/or a coupon to the recipient. The utilities companies all know this to be a fact.
The Comptroller of The Currency also knows all of the above to be irrefutable facts, but is acting as a money launderingagency by/for/through/ the privately owned Federal Reserve, in Houston Texas, et al.
The Comptroller of the Currency at County, State, and Federal level all know the incorporated documents and testimony to be true, but have yet to discharge any of the public debt, therefore have misappropriated funds through embezzlement, theft by deception, obtaining money through false pretenses, extortion and other predicate acts since the date of Comptroller of the Currency inception of 1863.
All utility companies, which are private for profit corporations, regardless of location, are knowingly participating in the fraud and ponzi scheme with the intent to fraudulently convert this and every other country’s wealth into private industry accounts by fraudulent conveyance, embezzlement, theft by deception, creating fraudulent debts, ponzi scheme and fraud through the US Mail, just for starters.
Every judge and every attorney in America, especially those who hold positions with several direct connections into the utilities companies bank accounts and acting as attorneys for the banks, most presumably in all other countries as well, since they all get their instructions from England the same place that all the banks get their instructions through the Comptroller of The Currency headquarters in London England, each knowing the above and incorporated to be true, since they are well versed on the US Bankruptcy of 1933 and that America still remains to date in a state of Emergency and operates under English Law, though that also is supposed to be a well kept secret.
This means there “IS NO MONEY.” It further means that since there is no money American’s signatures are used as the credit to run this country. That in turn means that it is the American people whom are the Creditors not the Debtors, as the banks and utilities companies would like everyone to believe.
The utilities companies have been operating with this knowledge with intent, forethought and malice to commit the crimes mentioned herein but not limited to.
Due to the facts incorporated herein in entirety, all debts are to be charged off, including but not limited to every alleged utilities invoice, which each/all have actually been a dividend, for which every utilities company embezzled payment through fraud, using extortion and other threats to discontinue service if “Payment is not made.”
These alleged invoices were dividends that every utilities company using deceptive business practice lead the public to believe were debts owed, when it is a fact that it is the utilities companies who owe the American public all those fraudulently received ill gotten gains plus the interest, stocks, bonds and other proceeds derived therefrom.
All utilities companies are now put on notice that all debts are to be charged off pursuant to the stipulated and incorporated herein Acts et al.
Authorized representative for accounts;_______________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now I know this Notice applies to the UNITED STATES and all Utility Corporations operating within the US, but you will notice that in paragraph 17 set out below:
Quote
Every judge and every attorney in America, especially those who hold positions with several direct connections into the utilities companies bank accounts and acting as attorneys for the banks, most presumably in all other countries as well, since they all get their instructions from England the same place that all the banks get their instructions through the Comptroller of The Currency headquarters in London England, each knowing the above and incorporated to be true, since they are well versed on the US Bankruptcy of 1933 and that America still remains to date in a state of Emergency and operates under English Law, though that also is supposed to be a well kept secret.
Unquote

When you see the documents for yourself, your mind will shatter into a thousand pieces

As a matter of fact the imagined President, imagined Representatives, imagined Senators, imagined Supreme Court Justices and imagined Federal Judges are not paid by the United States Government. Actually the United States Government does not have any employees They are paid by the International Monetary Fund in electrons. You see there is no such thing as the United States Government. In reality there are no Governments. There are Corporations (Fictions) such as the Federal Reserve Inc., and the United States Inc., which in fact are private corporations. The United States Inc., is just a slave management company. Guess what that makes you? If you said property, you are correct! You are Human Capital. The shares that were issued for the Federal Reserve when it was created back in 1913 only cost $100.00. That was quite the bargain.
To verify the facts in the preceding paragraphs see (5 U.S.C. 903, 12 U.S.C. 95, 18 U.S.C.A. 914, 22 U.S.C. 263, 285, 286, 287, 288. Public Law 89-719, Public Law 94-564, Public Law 101-167, Public Law 91-151 Public Law 103-465, House Report 103-826 T.D.O 150-10, T.D.O. 92, 41 Stat. Chap 214 pg. 654, Emergency Banking Act 48 Stat. 1, Articles of Agreement 60 Stat. 1440, 20 CFR chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2), United Nations Secretariat Revised System of National Accounting, Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Cromelin v. United States, 177 F.2d 275, 277 Tomalewski v. United States, 493 F.Supp 673, 675 Foster v. Bork, 425 F.Supp 1318, 1319-20 FRC v. GE 281 U.S. 464, Keller v. PE 261 U.S. 428, United States v. LePatourel, 571 F2d 405, 410, Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, INTERPOL Constitution Art. 30, Executive Order 10422, Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 502. General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.
When you see the documents for yourself, your mind will shatter into a thousand pieces. You will have to acknowledge that your entire life has been nothing but a hallucination. You will have to acknowledge that there is NOT, NOR HAS THERE EVER BEEN A GOVERNMENT, COUNTRIES, MONEY, OR CONSTITUTIONS. All GOVERNMENTS AND COUNTRIES ARE FABRICATED FICTIONS CLEVERLY WOVEN INTO YOUR MIND. They are fictions accepted by you because you have been lied to and poisoned your entire life.. What would you do without an external authority commanding you what to do and what not to do? Would you be lost? Could you govern yourself?
Let’s see how things got this way.
Between the 1860′s and the early 1900′s, banking and taxing mechanisms were changing through legislation. Cunning people closely associated with the powers in England had great influence on the legislation being passed in the United States. Of course such legislation did not apply to the states or to the people in the states, but making the distinction was not deemed to be a necessary duty of the legislators. It was the responsibility of the people to understand their relationship to the United States and to the laws that were being passed by the legislature. This distinction between the United States and the states was taught in the homes and the schools and churches. The early admiralty courts ‘did not interpret legislation as broadly at that time because the people knew when the courts were overstepping their jurisdiction. The people were in control because they knew who they were and where they were standing in relation to the United States Corporation.
In 1913 the United States added numerous private laws to its books that facilitated the increase of subjects (the newly so-called freed slaves from the Civil War) as property of the United States. The 14th Amendment provided for a new class of citizens – United States citizens that had not formerly been recognized. Until the 14th Amendment in 1868, there were no persons born or naturalized in the United States. They had all been born or naturalized in one of the several states. United States citizenship was a result of state citizenship. After the Civil War, a new class was recognized, and was the beginning of the democracy first positioned in the District of Columbia. The American people, in the republic to be found in the several States, could choose to benefit as one of these new United States citizens BY CHOICE. The new class of citizens was given the privilege to vote in the democracy in 1870 by the 15th Amendment. These new citizen subjects were required to apply for marriage, registered to vote, register births, deaths, etc. It all required was an application. Benefits came with this new citizenship, but with the benefits, came duties and responsibilities and liabilities, that were totally regulated by the legislature for the District of Columbia. Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people.
(1) The 13th Amendment in 1865 opened the way for the people to volunteer into slavery to accept the benefits offered by the United States. Whether House actually spoke the words or not is really irrelevant because the scenario detailed in the statement attributed to him has clearly been implemented. Central banking for the United States was legislated with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The ability to decrease the currency in circulation through taxation was legislated with the 16th Amendment in 1913. Support for the presumption that the American people had volunteered to participate in the United States democracy was legislated with the 17th Amendment in 1913. The path was provided for the control of the courts by the British Crown, with the creation of the American Bar Association in 1913.
In 1917 the United States legislature passed the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Emergency War Powers Act, opening the doors for the United States to suspend limitations otherwise mandated in the Constitution. Even in times of peace, every contrived and created social, political, or financial emergency was  sufficient authority for the officers of the United States to overstep its peace time powers and implement volumes of “law” that would increase the coffers of the United States. There is always a declared emergency in the United States and it’s States (administrative units), but it only applies to their subjects.
In the 1920′s the States accelerated the push for mothers to register their babies as first required upon the new federal property – the so-called freed Black slaves. Life was good and people were not paying attention to what was happening in government. The stock market crashed, and those who were not on the inside were not warned to take their money out before they lost everything.
In the 1930′s federal legislation provided for registration of babies through applications for birth certificates, so government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration (surrender of ownership) of cars through applications for certificates of title, and for registration of land through registration of deeds of trust, which turned the land over to the State. Constructive trusts secretly were created as each of the people blindly walked into the United States democracy, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States. The great depression supplied the diversion to keep the people’s attention off what government was doing. The Social Security program was implemented, along with numerous other United States programs that invited the American people to volunteer to be the sureties behind the United States’ new registered property and adhesion contracts through the new United States subjects.
The plan was well on its path by 1933. Massive registration (surrender) of property through United States agencies, including the ‘State’ subdivisions, was assuring the United States and its officers would get rich beyond their wildest expectations. All of this was done without full disclosure of the material facts that accompanied each application for registration. Is that fraud? The fraud was a sufficient reason to charge all the United States officers with treason, UNLESS a remedy could be supplied for the people to recoup their property and collect for the damages they suffered as a result of the fraud.
If a remedy was available, and the people chose not to or failed to use the remedy, no charge of fraud could be sustained even in a common law court. The United States only needed to provide the remedy. It was not required to explain it or even tell the people where the remedy could be found. The attorneys did not even have to be taught about the remedy. That gave them plausible deniability when the people struggled to understand the new laws. The legislators did not have to have the intricate details of the law explained to them regarding the bills they were passing. That gave them plausible deniability. If the people failed to use their remedy, the United States came out the winner every time. If the people did discover their remedy, the United States had to honor it and release the registered property back to the people, but only if the people knew they had a remedy, and only if they requested it in the proper manner. It was a great plan.
With plausible deniability, even when the people knew they had a remedy and pursued it, the attorneys, judges, and legislators could act like they did not understand the people’s claims. Requiring the public schools to teach civics, government, and history classes out of approved politically correct text books also assured the people would not find the remedy for a very long time. Passing new State and Federal laws that appeared to subject the people to rules and regulations, added another level of protection against the people finding their remedy. The public ‘socialist media’ was molded to report politically correct, though substantially incorrect news day after day, until few people would even think there could be a remedy available to them. The people could be separated from their money and their time to pursue the remedy long enough for the solutions to be lost in the millions of pages of the books in huge law libraries across the country. So many people knew there was something wrong with all the conflicts in the laws with the “facts” taught in the government schools. How’ can the American people be free and subject to a de-facto government’s whims at the same time? Who would ever have thought the people would be resourceful enough to actually find the remedy? BUT they did!
In 1933 the United States put its insurance policy into place with House Joint Resolution 192 and recorded it in the Congressional Record. It was not required to be promulgated in the Federal Register. An Executive Order issued on April 5, 1933 paving the way for the withdrawal of gold in the United States. Representative Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges on May 23, 1933 against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Secretary of the United States Treasury (Congressional Record May 23, 1933 page 4055-4058). HJR 192 passed on June 3, 1933. Mr. McFadden claimed on June 10, 1933:
“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks…”
HJR 192 is the insurance policy that protects the legislators from conviction for fraud and treason against the American people. It also protects the American people from damages caused by the actions of the United States. For speaking like he did, Mr. McFadden was poisoned by the powers that be by agents of that federal corporation.
HJR 192 provided that the one with the gold paid the bills. It removed the requirement that the United States subjects and employees had to pay their debts with gold. It actually prohibited the inclusion of a clause in all subsequent contracts that would require payment in gold. It also cancelled the clause in every contract written prior to June 5, 1933, that required an obligation to be paid in gold – retroactively. It provided that the United States subjects and employees could use any type of coin and currency to discharge a public debt as long as it was in use in the normal course of business in the United States. For a time, United States Notes were the currency used to discharge debts, but later the Federal Reserve and the United States provided a new medium of exchange through paper notes, and debt instruments that could be passed on to a debtor’s creditors to discharge the debtor’s debts. That same currency, Federal Reserve Notes, is used to discharge public debts. Take note; the Federal Reserve Notes have no value, as stated by the Federal Reserve!
In the 1950′s the Uniform Commercial Code was presented to their States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial transactions and fictions as though they were real. Security instruments (commercial paper) replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive contracts. Debt instruments with collateral, and accommodating parties, could be used instead of money. Money (of exchange) and the need for money was disappearing, and NEW money was being created i.e., ‘Money of Account’ (created by Bill of Exchange) and a uniform system of laws had to be put in place to allow the commercial venue and the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance (see ‘Tender of Payment in your State statute!). All this was accomplished by the mid 1960′s. And by 1964, most all the States had adopted the Uniform Commercial Code.
The commercial code is merely a codification of accepted and required procedures all people engaged in commercial activities must follow. The basic principles of commerce had been settled thousands of years ago, but were refined and became more sophisticated over the years. In the 1900′s the age-old principles of commerce shifted from substance to form. Presumption became a big part of the law. Without giving a degree of force to presumption, the new direction in enforcing commercial claims could not be supported in their courts. If the claimants were required to produce their claims every time they tried to collect money or time from the people, they would seldom be successful. The principles expressed in the code combined the means of dealing with substantive commercial activities with the means of dealing with presumptive commercial activities. These principles work as well for the people as they do for the deceivers. The rules do not respect persons.
Those who enticed the people to register (surrender) their property (land, cars, guns, children, etc.) to the sub-divisions (States) under dictate by the United States, gained control of the substance through the ‘registrations’ and the States were able to extract more ‘use’ taxes, from the people to use the property of the State! The States and the United States became the Holder of the titles to all the property, even children and many other things.
The definition of “property” is the interest one has in a thing. The thing is the principal. The property is the interest in the thing. Profits (interest) made from the property of another belong to the owner of the thing. Profits were made by the deceivers by pledging the registered property in commercial markets, but the profits do not belong to the deceivers. The profits belong to the owners of the ‘things.’ That is always the people. The corporation only shows ownership of paper – titles to things. The substance cannot appear in the fiction. [Watch the movie Last Action Hero and watch the confusion created when they try to mix substance and fiction.] Sometimes the fiction is made to look very much like substance, but fiction can never become substance. It is an impossibility!
The profits from all the registered things had to be put into a ‘constructive’ trust for the benefit of the owners. If the profits were put into the general fund of the United States and not into separate trusts for the owners, the scheme would represent fraud. The profits for each owner could not be commingled. If the owner failed to use his available remedy (fictional credits held in a constructive trust account, fund, or financial ledger) to benefit from the profits, it would not be the fault of the deceivers. If the owner failed to learn the law that would open the door to his remedy, it would not be the fault of the deceivers. The owner is responsible for learning the law, so he understands that the profits from his things are available for him to discharge debts or charges brought against his public person (Debtor-straw-man) by the United States.
If the United States has the “gold”, the United States pays the bills (from the trust account, fund, or financial ledger). The definition of “fund” is money set aside to pay a debt. The fund is there to discharge the public debts attributed to the United States subjects, but ultimately back to the accommodating parties – the American people. The national debt is what is owed to the owners of the registered things – the American people, as well as to other creditors!
If the United States owes a debt to the owner of the thing, and the owner is presumed (by accommodation) to owe a public debt to the United States, the logical thing is to ask the United States to discharge that public debt from the trust fund. The way for the United States to get around having to pay the public debts for the people is to claim the owner cannot be an owner if he agreed to be the accommodating party for a debtor-person. If the people are truly the principle, then they know how to handle their financial and political affairs, ULNESS they have never been taught. If the owner admits by his actions out of ignorance, that he is an accommodating party, he has taken on the debtor’s- liabilities without getting consideration in exchange. Here lies the fiction again. The owner of the thing does not have to knowingly agree to be the accommodating party for the debtor person; he just has to act like he agreed. That is easy if he has a choice of going to jail or signing for the debtor-person. The presumption that he is the accommodating party is strong enough for the courts to hold the owner of the thing liable for a tax on the thing he actually owns or owes.
Debtors may have the ‘use’ of certain things, but the things belong to the creditors. The creditor is the master. The debtor is the servant. The Uniform Commercial Code is very specific about the duties and responsibilities a debtor has. If the owner of the thing is presumed to be a debtor because of his previous admissions and adhesion contracts, he is going to have a difficult time convincing the United States that it has a duty to discharge public debts for him. In addition, the courts are staffed with loyal judges who will look for  every mistake the people make, when trying to use their remedy.
Now the quasi-owner (user) of the property (thing), after learning the law and discovering who he is in relation to the United States Corporation, can file a UCC Financing Statement based upon a Security Agreement, registering his security interest in the artificial entity DEBTOR/PERSON, being the ENS LEGIS which the United States created after your Mom signed the ‘Root of Title/Newborn Identification’ and then was compelled to apply for a birth certificate. That was the act of registering her biological property, her baby (substance), with the State of ____. The United States holds the paper title (form), not the substance (baby). Until your Financing Statement is filed, the United States is the holder of the title to the artificial entity. Its name is spelled in all capital letter – JOHN HENRY DOE. When John Henry Doe files the Financing Statement supported by a Security Agreement signed by the artificial entity (JOHN) and the owner (John), he becomes the holder in due course of the title to JOHN. The UCC and the State commercial law are very specific about the effect of a registered security interest. It has priority over most other interest claimed (only claimed) in the same thing. The evidence that is missing in the court is the registered claim over the person (JOHN).
The owner also must notify the Secretary of the Treasury that he is going to handle his own affairs in the future. That is done when you do the CHARGE BACK PROCESS by filing a Bill of Exchange with the Secretary through which he ‘charges up the UCC Contract Trust Account,’ in respect to the ‘value’ expressed on the Birth Certificate and the ‘Directive’ cover letter. The social security number, belonging to your Debtor, is the Trust Account Number for a chargeback, for all the presumed charges brought against your Debtor for proper discharge.
Think of the whole transaction in relation to a dead battery. The batter represents your public person (JOHN), which is a dead entity that can function within the public maize of fiction, transmitting benefits from the public to you in the private IF it is charged up. You cannot go into the public because you are not a fiction. JOHN has no power until it is charged with some energy. That energy comes from an IRS default notice, court judgment, credit card bill, utility bill, traffic ticket, or some other instrument that has a $ amount and JOHN’S name on it as the presumed debtor. The bill is the energy. It charges the dead JOHN. You can now discharge JOHN and put JOHN’S accrual account with the charging party back to a zero balance. You as the secured party creditor, having charged up the UCC Contract Trust Account, now for the ‘presentment’ received in behalf of a debt owed by JOHN, you can discharge the fine, fee, tax or debt with a negotiable instrument for the same $ amount as the charging instrument (presentment) stipulates. The charging party that receives your non-cash item can process it back through the United States Treasury through their financial institution. Note; if discharging IRS Tax liability, the package/instrument goes directly to the Secretary of Treasury – U.S.
When you, as the owner of a thing, registered it with the United States or one of its subdivisions, you let the United States hold the legal title to your thing based on misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts to you at the time of registration. You probably retained possession of the thing, but the United States/States invested the title and made a profit. If you did not specifically authorize the United States/State and its agents to invest the legal title, the profits made from that title belong to you, because as the owner, you remain the equitable title holder. Legally, all the profits from the investment of the titles to all your registered things must go into a fund for your benefit. If they did not put the profits in a trust fund of some sort, it would be fraud.
Just acquiring the titles through what is promoted as mandatory registration, is fraud. If the scenario attributed to Mandell House is now in full application in the United States, which it is, the officers of the United States could be charged and convicted with treason IF they had not provided a remedy, which they did. — House Joint Resolution 192 on June 5, 1933. This is their insurance policy to assure they are not convicted of treason. That does not mean they cannot be charged with treason, but the courts will dismiss based on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because you have a remedy outside the court, you cannot sustain a charge of treason. But Tort, now that’s another matter! We will discuss Tort Claims later!

You Dont Need a Drivers License or Registration ....




Published on Jun 16, 2017
You want to see courage? In this interview see Jacquie Figg take you through her personal battle with the State of California over whether we have a right to travel ... or not. The fraud perpetrated by the state is exposed by THEIR OWN CODES AND STATUTES. Every Law Enforcement Officer needs to see this, maybe more than once, until they realize the crimes they are committing. If you are law enforcement, your job is not to do what your Watch Commander tells you is "OK", it is to know, obey and uphold THE LAW and tell your Commanders and Supervisors THEY MUST DO THE SAME. The only thing that gives you authority is the oath you swore. When was thew last time you read it? Do you even understand it? If you do not know what is presented in this video, you have been BRAINWASHED. If you think you know differently, then post your reference below this video. I PROMISE YOU the woman in this video can show you the truth. Every day, more and more people are getting FED UP with the lies and violations OUR GOVERNMENT thinks they can perpetrate against the public!

NEVER CONFESS WHO YOU ARE... DEALING WITH POLICE, JUDGES, ETC.


I. Basis of Action when confronted.
Never walk into the police station or court voluntarily.  If you do you traverse and acknowledge the validity of their jurisdiction/offer.  As Lao-tzu noted 2,500 years ago: “Do not invite the fight, accept it instead.  Better a foot behind than an inch too far ahead.”  Let the offer come to you; don’t make the offer.
When you are confronted with an obligatory court appearance, keep in mind the following:
Everything is commerce/contract, being administered in a state of emergency under the war powers.  The commerce clause of the Constitution operates in the private international law merchant of the bankers to whom essentially every government in the world is bankrupt.  All of this functions in admiralty/maritime where you have no rights and the captain’s word is law.
As a result of the above condition, military war powers enforce all interstate commerce (which is everything), with draconian penalties for impeding commerce.
Because the climate in which we live is a relentless and ravenous assault from all aspects of the “government” against our commercial liability, i.e. “revenue raising,” enforced by guns, violence, and prisons, life in America a high-risk venture. It requires understanding of how to neutralize the endless barrage of attacks in the form of commercial presentments/offers.  Fighting is a no win proposition.  Matters must be neutralized, defused, and transmuted into victory without conflict.
We have no money, only private debt paper, insurance scrip (like Monopoly money or casino chips which a real monopoly has foisted on the world), operating in the bankruptcy.  Everything is commerce, which is banking, which is debt paper, which is credit/debit balances on banks’ books, which is bookkeeping.
Assets (credits) must always equal liabilities (debits).  The books must always balance for world commerce to operate.  The commercial account must be cleared within three (3) days, which is codified in the US in the Federal Truth in Lending Act, Title 12 USC § 1601, “Regulation Z.”
A traffic citation, summons, indictment, complaint, etc., is a commercial presentment.  When the presentment is issued a debt is created, a liability on the bank’s books, which must be balanced with an asset.  They want you to supply the asset in the form of paying a fine, some specific performance, or jail time.
Every such commercial presentment is an offer to contract, concerning which you have the following five (5) options:
1. You can deny or fight the charges and thereby traverse, enjoin the action, legitimize their cause of action, and lock yourself in to their jurisdiction.  This is a commercial dishonor.  If you enter a plea, or the judge enters one for you, you have traversed.  The only issue now is the facts (“did you or did you not run the red light?”).  In other words, dishonor submits you to a court proceeding to resolve the dispute over facts of the matter.
2. You can demur.  A demurrer accepts all alleged facts as true and raises of issues of law.  A classic example is: “Yes, I did it, but so what?  The statute of limitations has expired so issues of law foreclose all possibility for me to be prosecuted in this matter.”
3. You can stand mute, in which both the law and facts are invoked.  The judge will enter a plea for you and a court proceeding to resolve the controversy will commence.  Standing mute is also a commercial dishonor and locks you into both law and facts.
4. You can protest, such as by denying jurisdiction.  This also locks you into the requirement to proceed with the court process to resolve the dispute.
5. You can accept the offer/charges (citation, summons, complaint, indictment, etc.) for value.
Of the above options, only # 5:
1. De-fuses, i.e. dissolves, the controversy, thereby obviating all necessity or possibility for court proceedings since there is no dispute to resolve (you have “agreed with your adversary quickly while you are on the way with him”).
2. Makes you the owner of the contract/offer.
3. Makes you the Creditor.  The Creditor is always the winner in court proceedings, all of which have only two (2) classes of participants: Creditors and Debtors.  The Debtor always loses and pays.
After you accept for value and own the contract/offer, the matter is non-negotiable, i.e. private and personal between you and the offerror in his non-official capacity.
Every arrest and incarceration today is seizing the surety on a commercial dishonor.  The commercial accounts must balance for commerce to function.  It is not possible to retain only the debit side of a bank ledger.  The offsetting asset side must be there for the books to balance, the commercial account to clear.  Otherwise, world commerce would collapse into a pile of mush immediately.
When you dishonor a commercial presentment (citation, etc.,) the offerror accepts your dishonor, undertaking a Banker’s Acceptance (BA) and executing a Bill of Exchange.  This Bill of Exchange is for at least 10 times the face amount, and possibly 100 X.  The one who accepts, being the Creditor, is entitled to place whatever value he wishes on the transaction.  The counties run on these bonds.
You must now pay the full amount or the Bill of Exchange, the bond, or the account remains open indefinitely; the case (books) never closes.  If you fail to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) to balance the books, then you are arrested and incarcerated as the surety, collateral, to raise the funds to balance the ledger.  These funds are raised by borrowing (via your straw man) on the public debt for which you, the real being, are responsible for paying (discharging) if you have not rebutted the rebuttable presumption that the King (Wizard, Bankers, Power Elite, etc.) owns your all capital-letter name.  You have no liability if the books are fully balanced.  Performance on acceptance balances the books.
This is one reason the prisons are so full.  Another reason is that the judges are part owners of the prisons, and make money on everyone they incarcerate.  Prisons are immense money-making operations due to the bonds raised against the straw men (debtors) of the people (collateral) warehoused behind bars.  High dollar amounts are attached to the bonds raised to incarcerate people.  The prison industry is big business, constituting the major industry in California, Texas, and Florida.
If you have a bail bond you can’t proceed until you rid yourself of the bond.  Accept it for value, send it back to the bondsman, register the bond in the Commercial Registry as your secured property.
Never confess who you are.  That is bearing false witness against yourself.  Some people advocate carrying no identification.  If you are arrested, they have two (2) hours to identify you.  If you identify yourself, they are allowed to hold you (provided you don’t sign their paperwork or otherwise traverse) for three (3) days (72 hours).  The general rule is therefore, of course, never tell them who you are (why do their job for them?) or sign anything.
Anything you do except comply, insofar as dealing with the police is concerned, is interfering with a policeman in his line of duty.  What is his duty?  It is revenue collection for the city.
One of three (3) things is needed to identify you:
1. your date of birth (the day your vessel, i.e. body, was birthed into the 14th Amendment Public Charitable “cestui que” Trust as a citizen of the United States, a corporate franchise launched into a voyage in commerce in an ocean of insolvency, i.e. unpayable bankruptcy).
2. your Driver License.
3. your Social Security Number.
Without any of the above three (3) items, their job is difficult to impossible, especially with a two (2) hour time limit.
A judge’s job is to get you to traverse, contest, and dishonor, and thereby make an offer, which the judge can accept, and thereby own.  If you are hauled into court or forced to go under threat, do not offer and do not negotiate.  If you reject, negotiate, or issue a counter-offer, you create a controversy.  You perform a dishonor, which the judge can accept.
Concerning every offer a judge makes to you, accept it for value, with words such as:
1. “Thank you for your offer, which I accept for value.  May I have your name please?”  (You are acknowledging his commercial presentment and wanting to know with whom you are doing business and entering into contract)
Thereafter you must proceed with the remainder of the standard questions and request, i.e.:
2. Do you have a claim against me?
3. Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?
4. I request the order of the court to be released to me immediately.
If the judge says, “I don’t have a claim against you, but I believe that the prosecutor does,” you proceed with the three (3) questions to the prosecutor.  If he says that the State of California, United States, etc., has a claim against you, say:
“I call the State of California to the witness stand.”
When the State of California fails to take the stand to testify and be cross-examined, you can say:
“It appears no one has a claim against me.  I request the Order of the Court to be released to me immediately.”
Remember that when you accept their offer for value, you place the amount on the transaction and they are required to perform and adjust your account.  You are now the Secured Party, i.e. Creditor.  You are the Principal and the Interest goes to you.
II. Proof of Claim.
The fundamental issues must be perpetually kept in mind and actualized.  Namely:
1. The central core of any dispute is who can state the claim upon which relief can be granted.  Whoever can prove his claim wins.
2. One rebuts their rebuttable presumption of holding a claim against you, via presumption of ownership (by your default) of your Birth Certificate and straw man, by filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement with the real you (upper and lower case spelling of your name) as Secured Party and your name in all capital letters as the DEBTOR.  The UCC-1 is the single most irrefutable, unbreakable, bedrock contract in the world today.
3. Without rebutting their rebuttable presumption via filing a UCC-1, their unrebutted presumption stands as the truth in commerce and you have no standing in law.  You are bereft of rights, devoid of standing in law, and completely unable to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  The result is that you are rendered permanent DEBTOR owned by them and concerning which they have carte blanche to deal as they wish.  You are a slave on the master’s slave plantation without capacity to go against your owner.
4. Once filing the UCC-1 you have irrefutable proof of your supreme claim and, if you proceed correctly, win in any proceeding as the acknowledged Creditor in the matter.  Then all would-be claimants lose for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
5. The bottom line is therefore: How do you state your claim upon which relief can be granted in a manner that cannot be ignored by a judge or administrative agency?
6. The catch-22 of the matter is that in law only the original counts, but if you surrender your original of something you no longer have it.  Then if the opposition confiscates it you are devoid of a way to prove your claim and lose.
7. This conundrum is resolved in the following manner:
a. Obtain certified, true copies of your UCC filings in the Commercial Registry that establish your basic claim on your straw man and also any particular matter at hand (citation, indictment, court case, etc.);
b. Take the above-referenced documents (plus a certified, true copy of the court docket sheet—signed, dated, and stamped by the clerk—pertaining to your case, if one exists) to a notary and have two (2) or more notarial acknowledgments of the entire package as a “certified, true copy of the original”;
c. Serve one of the original notary acknowledgments, via process server or means such as Registered Mail with Affidavit of Service executed by a third party, notarized, on the judge, designated as “[Name of Judge—upper and lower case spelling] dba [NAME OF JUDGE], [FULL NAME OF COURT]” if such exists, or the legal department or party/office that receives service of process re an agency.
8. A notary acknowledgment has powerful effects and ramifications: it must be entered as evidence on the record of a court case and a judge must take judicial notice of it.  To achieve either of these results is not always easy.  By proceeding in this manner you have placed before the judge or authorized party on the other side a proof of your supreme claim that must be recognized and cannot be avoided.  In short, you have stated on the record (court or administrative) proof of your “claim upon which relief can be granted.”
A mere copy of the documents otherwise proving your supreme claim not only can be disregarded by a judge or legal department of an agency, it may be mandated to be disregarded (considered hearsay) since only the original counts.  To rely on mere copies may render your situation worse since you have played your hand, i.e. tipped them off, without the clout to back it up.
If you, or someone you know, is in jail, have the central documents pertaining to the case notarially acknowledged and served on the judge with at least a statement to the effect: “Enclosed/attached herewith is a notarially acknowledged, certified true copy of documents substantiating the supreme claim re [Citation, Tax Bill, Complaint, Case, etc.] of [Name of Secured Party].  Either provide proof of claim superior to the claim of Secured Party as evidenced by the enclosed/attached within [time frame you designate] or your failure to prove said superior claim within said time frame constitutes conclusive presumption, fact, i.e. judicial or administrative res judicata, that no such claim exists.  Absent your proof of superior claim Secured Party requests that the account be adjusted and the Order of the court be released to Secured Party immediately.”
Concerning anything you receive in writing from the system, it is a demand on or at least bears on your commercial liability.  A document you receive is almost always a bill, commercial presentment, offer to contract into your paying a debt or engaging in some specific performance.  In short, the system wants something from you.  Otherwise, why would they send you anything?  If it is a notice of discharge of an obligation (e.g. statement marked "paid in full”), it is still a matter concerning which you must establish your superior claim by accepting for value and registering in your UCC on the Commercial Registry.
As a result of the above, the procedure for dealing with essentially any document [e.g. Citation, Tax Bill, Complaint, Case, etc.] you receive is the same:
1. Make copies of the presentment;
2. Keep the original intact, pristine (unmarked on), in a safe place;
3. Stamp a copy with text to the effect: “accepted for value, all related endorsements, front and back, in accordance with House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933”;
4. Sign your name and date the stamped copy, using blue ink;
5. Send the stamped, signed, dated copy back to the sender within ten (10) days of your receipt thereof.
By engaging in the above process you have undertaken a Banker’s Acceptance, become the owner of the contract and entire matter, the holder in due course, Secured Party, and Creditor.  You have “placed the ball in their court” and their only options are to withdraw their offer (cancel the bill/offer) within the 72-hour Regulation Z grace period or thereafter be foreclosed from the option to do so.  They are then stuck with the debt in the amount you unilaterally choose (which must be at least equal to the amount of the bill, and preferably 100 times that amount to cover the bonding).  Their failure to cancel the matter within 3 days is a commercial dishonor and they are on the defensive.
Make the above-described procedure your norm for dealing with all unwanted claims against your commercial liability, whether tax agencies, bill collectors, court judgments, etc.  Remember the central Commercial Maxim: “An unrebutted affidavit, claim, or charge stands as the truth in commerce.”  You must accept for value, and do so within the time frame (10 days) allotted to you in order not to waive your opportunity to do so.



The IRS is a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico

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.


30.     How can the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) help me to answer other key tax questions?

The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People.  The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.

As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document(s).  If the requested document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding weekends and federal holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.

If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) -- to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of same.  See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).  The general rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed.

This writer has pioneered the application of the FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do not exist.  A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC.  For example, see the FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne Meredith.

Of course, by now we already know the answer to this question, before asking it.  (Good lawyers always know the answers to their questions, before asking them.)

It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an “agency” as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).  Address it instead to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, District of Columbia, USA.  This is the format for “foreign” addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.

As James Madison once wrote, “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.  Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."