Welcome to the light! Secured Party Creditor Process Pack $64.95
2021 MASTERS DEGREE
UPDATES WITH ALL NEW INFO
NEW INFO:SECURED PARTY CREDITOR PROCESS..
Acquire Vacant Homes.. 1. Find any vacant house .
2. Do some fix-up and/or yard work (keep it under two hundred dollars).Acquire Vacant Homes.. 1. Find any vacant house .
3. File a lawful lien (claim to the property) arising from the fix-up work.
4. Foreclose on the lien, in the small claims court.
5. Receive your default Judgement and conveyance to the property.
Included in the Secured Party Creditor Pack
Thanks for stopping by my blog,Ive spent the past 8 years going to expensive seminars and compiling some of the most sought after books and material (some info I cannot disclose here,but be assured this is the most up to date technology out there)on the Internet and I thought I could help people who are interested in this information get it all in one shot,If your interested in the accepted for value process,this is the step by step guide that walks you through the entire process.you need to start setting off your debt,this is a proven process that has been evolving over the last 30 years.This information is cutting edge and proven.You must get this information and share it with everyone you know.Below you will see a list of all the books you will receive and also a massive amount of bonus information that I cant disclose here.If you are in foreclosure now or it looks like your heading in that direction,or your struggling with your finances due to the current financial climate all of this info will help you to keep your home but more importantly understand how the system works.
All of this info will be sent to you in pdf format.Here is a list of just some of the books you will receive,plus a massive amount of insider secrets I cant name here.
1.ACCEPT IT FOR VALUE RETURN IT FOR VALUE,Private document, For entertainment purposes only, this is not legal advice. This is strictly a administrative/contract remedy, We are not tendering payment. There is no money to pay anything… The contracts are already in place in the background. We are simply accepting the credits they have established and authorizing them to set-off the debt with the said credits.Written in proper Bank-speak, it is possible to “set-off” unsecured debt items to the IRS and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue Money Orders to pay off those debts using your public side Strawman Social Security Number. On the back side of that SSN, there is an alphanumeric account number in your Strawman name that is your private account that can be drawn from. By doing so, you help reduce the National Debt!
Accessing and utilizing your credit lawfully, safely, and wisely requires considerable education in just who you are in relation to the CORPORATION and your strawman. This process takes time. It requires you relearn your role in society. It requires courage and conviction to go against everything you have been told all your life. It requires responsible teachers and well-developed technology.
Ill show you my process and how it works for me.
2.How To STOP
The FORECLOSURE
On YOUR PROPERTY
A simple guide to save your house.
DEFENDING NONJUDICIAL DEED OF TRUST FORECLOSURES
PROCEDURE FOR RESTRAINING TRUSTEE'S SALES
POST-SALE REMEDIES
RAISING DEFENSES IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER
(EVICTION) ACTION
DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
300 + pages
These steps are taken into consideration
when you know you are not going to be able to pay for the loan but a
default is most likely in the future. You can also use some of these to protect
yourself way in advance of any default or foreclosure action.
1. File with the State a UCC1 Financing statement and addendum.
2. File an amended promissory note with the County Recorders office.
(notarized)
3. File a notice of replacement of Trustee and Beneficiary. (notarized)
4. File a Rescission of Power of Attorney. (notarized)
5. Send in a RESPA request.
6. File the UCC 3 amendment.
a. Vested Interest, UCC3
b. Security Agreement, (notarized)
c. Possessory lien. (notarized)
7. Send an AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH. (notarized)
Start educating yourself on the Rules of Court and the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
easy to follow instructions.
Also a easy to use guide on the PRODUCE THE NOTE process...
Using the “produce the note” strategy is something all homeowners facing foreclosure can do. If you believe you’ve been treated unfairly, fight back. We have created templates for a legal request, a letter to your lender and a motion to compel to help you through the process.
How to handle the "UNLAWFUL DETAINER" AND MUCH MUCH MORE!
Dont ever leave your house...
3.BRAND NEW ! Property Protection Package.Proven method to postpone a sale date on your property.All forms included.Along with step by step instructions.
4.
1) SECURED PARTY CREDITOR PROCESS,Properly filing a UCC-1 form to establish a public record that you are not the STRAWMAN and in fact are the holder-in-due-course of it. This is the single most important tool in your tool bag because this alone changes the presumption of law from the side of the STATE to your side;
2) Making yourself the Power of Attorney over the corporate fiction.
3) Copyrighting the STRAWMAN's name. This doesn't just give you another defensive strategy - it gives you a very important offensive weapon, because from this point on, anyone who is coming after your STRAWMAN for anything without your permission is trespassing on your commercial property.
4) Properly filing your Public Notice and Surety Bond.
5) Properly filing these documents in your County Recorders Office.
5.Cracking the Code,redemption in law-how to become a sovereign,includes all forms and how to manual over 500 pages.The Uniform Commercial Code, "UCC," the subject of this manual, is the transcendent, paramount achievement of the efforts of a few thousands of intensely dedicated and single-minded collaborators (dare we call it "conspiracy"?) over the last two-plus millennia. It is the culmination of an almost incomprehensibly complex, systematic, intricate, pervasive, and far-reaching agenda of strategic and tactical global planning to secure absolute legal, financial, social, ecclesiastical, and political (military) dominance over the people of Earth. The fundamental medium chosen for accomplishing these iniquitous aims: Commerce. The UCC, first introduced in 1954, has been developed across the centuries with microscopically excruciating and painstaking attention to detail for avoiding forever risk of detection and revelation of its true nature. It was fully expected that the Code would never be cracked. Proof of this fact is the absence of any device/mechanism for the enforced reversal of the process and recapture of slaves who manage to break free. If you are a slave interested in breaking free, this manual has answers you have been searching for. Embarking on the pages of this volume, however, is comparable with "taking the red pill," and so should be carefully considered by worshipers of Big Brother and the faint of heart--for with such knowledge also comes the innate urge for responsibility, an unpleasant prospect for many. No matter your level of interest in the workings of the world around you and your commitment in making it a better place, if you "decide on the red pill" you will never again see it in the same way. The Code has been cracked, and awaits your decision.
6.How to discharge any traffic citation.2hr recording on mp3 file.
7.100 page booklet on filling your freedom documents.easy to follow instructions.all forms included.
8.All federal reserve routing numbers.
9.Exciting new Information on the 1099 OID Process,
PHILOSOPHY OF THE 1099-A METHOD
Universal Postal Union Stamp Technology and Remedy,everything you will need to know!
1099 OID Process:IRS works for creditors. IRS has forms that allow you to be a creditor and acquire funds that are in escrow. An outstanding balance, for instance, on an American Express card is in escrow. The funds are there – you just have to tell the IRS with the proper tax filings to access those funds and pay that guy off with them or return those funds to me.You can OID any funds that go out of your bank account – and get them back. Acquire escrow funds with a 1099-A.If you file a 1099-OID as Recipient, those get reported on a 1040 if you want to get the funds returned.1099-As don’t get reported; neither do OIDs when you’re the Payor. i1040 is available on the IRS website; it gives line by line instructions for the 1040.
Claiming Original Issuance - meaning any debt obligations you put out in the public. When money comes out of your checking account, when you swipe your credit card, when you sign a promissory note. Credit cards create obligations and thus as the creator you have the right to claim them. With the OID you can also fractionalize your account. Meaning pay for $50 dollars for gas with credit card A, then pay off credit card 'A' with credit card 'B', pay off credit card 'B' with your Checking account. Now with a $50 dollar purchase you created a $150 obligation which you can OID. Whether that is ethical or not is another discussion, but ITS BANKING. It's what banks do. This strategy can be used to fractionalize your account as much as you want. You can also acquire assets. Thus if I have a Student Loan for $15,000. I can use a 1099A acquisition and a 1099 OID, report it on my 1040, and poof I have acquired the asset.
10.Sure fire way to clean up your credit reports.All the inside secrets they dont want you to know.easy and fast!
step by step instructions.
11.Secured Party/Creditor Filing Procedures & Treasury Chargeback instructions/most up to date technology.
12. ***BRAND NEW*** IRS REMEDIES,How to operate in the Civil and Criminal courts.Youve got to get this!this will blow your mind!
13.******ALL NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO GO AFTER BILL COLLECTORS,STOPS THEM DEAD IN THERE TRACKS!
Debt collector attack plan/administrative process,with all forms.
1.NOTICE OF CORRECTION FOR FRAUD
2.CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONCE
3.CERTIFICATE OF PROTEST
4.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5.NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
6.NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND DISHONER
7.NOTICE OF RESCISSION
8.NOTARY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9.NOTARY PRESENTMENT LETTER
10.NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST
and much much more
ALL NEW
The Commercial Lien Strategy
You can file a commercial lien on property in another state or on property you ’ ve never
seen. With a commercial lien, you can attack the personal property of your adversary at
long range rather than merely fighting to defend your own property in your own back
yard. This offensive capability makes the commercial lien a powerful legal weapon. With
the commercial lien, you can literally take the fight to their back yards.
this 85 page tutorial breaks it all down.
You will receive all of these books plus the bonus material I cant name here in pdf/word doc format,they will be sent to you the same day I receive your donation.
click here:
All orders sent out by 10:00 am pst 7 days
thanks for your donation!
email: stopthepirates@protonmail.com
WHY THE UCC FILING?
Short
Explanation as is Understood at this Time
(Subject to further clarification)
(Subject to further clarification)
Around the time of the war between the
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
In 1913 the
In 1917 the
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
The plan was well on its path by 1933. Massive registration of property through
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
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.
There is a very powerful tool the people can use to help them get to the real issues when they find themselves up against the power of presumption. The law provides for either party of an admiralty court action to OBJECT to a line of questioning. When you object in that court setting, you must tell the judge why you object, or he will overrule your objection. The reason is:
“This line of questioning assumes facts not in evidence.”
You can request that evidence of the Plaintiff’s claim be entered as evidence. If the judge overrules this fundamental, basic, underlying, necessary principle of establishing jurisdiction and right to make a charge, there is a major procedural error in the proceeding. Granting impersonam jurisdiction to get to the bottom of the issue is vastly better than arguing, “I’m not that person.”
The owner of the thing, after learning the law and discovering who he is in relation to the United States, can file a UCC Financing Statement and Security Agreement registering his interest in the artificial entity (PERSON) the United States created after Mom applied 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. He can file a Bill of Exchange with the Secretary through which he exchanges his person’s accepted-for-value birth certificate and social security numbers, for a chargeback of all the presumed charges brought against his person since the birth certificate was issued.
The owner can also reserve a noncash Federal Reserve routing number and any number of noncash instrument numbers by filing an amendment to his Financing Statement or just including his reservation on his original Financing Statement. Each bank account opened in the name of the owner’s person has a routing number. If an account is open, it is available to process cash items. If you write a check to the plumber, it can be converted to cash at your bank. You cannot write a check on an account that has been closed. Those accounts and their routing numbers are reserved for noncash items for the person (JOHN) that opened the account originally. Accounts that have been closed by the bank instead of the person, should not be used for noncash items. Once this is done, you are in a position to begin receiving reimbursements against the obligation the United States owes to you for money and time it has received that belong to you.
The owner of registered things, who has learned the law and what his rights are, and has filed his Financing Statement, Security Agreement, and Bill of Exchange, and reserved his noncash account routing numbers, can issue an instrument indicating his UCC registration number, his registered Federal Reserve routing number, the name of the public party making a charge against his person, and the amount of the debt to be 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 over the assets put up as security by JOHN to you as collateral for the debt JOHN owes you, can discharge JOHN with a negotiable instrument for the same $ amount as the charging instrument. The charging party that receives your noncash item can 1) process it through a United States department, 2) give it to a third party, 3) keep it to increase its liquidity.
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. The United States invested the title and made a profit. If you did not specifically authorize the United States 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.
The problem in the past with trying to discharge public debts with instruments that could not be processed through your bank on the corner, was that those discharge instruments did not route through the Federal Reserve. It is the bean counter for the national debt. That debt is first and primarily owed to the people who are the equitable titleholders of all the substance in this country. If you try to discharge a public debt with your discharge instrument, and you do not route it through the Federal Reserve, it appears you are receiving a benefit from the United States without exchanging it for something of value. This is not technically correct because you have a right to be reimbursed, whether or not you apply it toward the debt the United States owes you. You are the substance; it is the fiction.
If you do route your discharge instrument through the Federal Reserve, where the national debt owed to you can be reduced by the amount of the instrument, you have made an exchange that fits nicely into their accrual bookkeeping system. Your PERSON’s charge from the charging party within the United States commercial scheme is discharged, and the debt the United States owes to you is discharged by the same amount. That is a quid pro quo, and everyone is happy, EXCEPT those who are not interested in the money but just want to be in control from behind the scenes.
To accomplish this quid pro quo exchange:
1. your claim to being one of the people must appear on a public register (the Secretary of State),
2. you must have an account with the banker for the United States (the Secretary of the Treasury),
3. you must have given notice of your reservation of routing numbers through the national debt accountant (the Federal Reserve),
4. you must refer to the insurance policy that covers your remedy (House Joint Resolution 192),
5. you must make your instrument negotiable so it can be used by the United States for a profit,
6. you must transmit your instrument back into the public through an agent (your registered debtor),
7. you must only use a noncash item for this exchange,
8. you must do a banker’s acceptance of a charging instrument to attach to your noncash item, and
9. you must understand that you are not getting something for nothing
Reserving your routing numbers to use on your discharge instruments is not as difficult as was thought during the previous decade. Every person has opened bank accounts in the past that have been closed for one reason for another. On the bottom of the checks for those closed bank accounts is a routing number to the particular bank and a routing number to the particular account. Each check has a check number. When you put the check number together with the two routing numbers, you have a means of tracking each item that goes through the worldwide banking system. The routing numbers on the bottom of the checks from accounts your person has closed will never be reassigned. They are attached to your person’s NAME forever and kept in the records of the Federal Reserve.
Bank accounts that are still open and active are used for cash items. Checks written on these open bank accounts can be taken to the particular bank and CASHED. This is the type of instrument used in commercial transactions everyday. There is a fund attached to the check from which the debt evidenced by the check can be paid.
Bank accounts that are no longer open and active cannot be used to process cash items. They can only be used to process noncash items. They require special handling. Title 12 of USC and CFR explain how and when receiving banks are to process noncash items. A closed bank account associated with your debtor’s NAME, has routing numbers that can route your discharge instrument through the Federal Reserve to reduce the national debt to you and increase the balance of the bank account of the party that is charging your debtor. It is a WIN WIN situation.
The charging party is instructed to mail the discharge instrument to the Secretary of Transportation. Title 46 has sufficient evidence to support the proposition that the Secretary is the trustee over some or all vessels mortgaged by the United States. If your debtor PERSON is presumed to be a vessel, it is regulated by the Secretary of Transportation through the Maritime Ministries Administration, that is the proper party to assist in processing your noncash item. The Secretary of Transportation can forward the item to the Secretary of the Treasury, who already has been notified to prepare for noncash activity in your treasury direct account on the Bill of Exchange. The Secretary of the Treasury is directly related to the Federal Reserve. Between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, your noncash item can be directed to the proper parties to settle the account and get everyone into that quid pro quo position we want.
The United States and its co-business partners are debtors to you. You are the creditor, not only over your debtor PERSON, but also over the United States, the legal titleholder over the registered things to which you are the equitable titleholder. You are the primary creditor, so if the United States has other creditors, like the international bankers, they cannot jump to the front of the line. Their claims are subordinated to your claims if your claims are registered and if you understand the law surrounding what you are doing.
LEARN THE LAW FIRST, THEN JUMP OFF THE CLIFF!!!!!!!!!
The ZIP CODE Scam
Use of the Zip is voluntary. See Domestic Regulations. Section 122.32 as amended. You should also know that the Postal service cannot discriminate against the non-use of the Zip Code. See "Postal Reorganization Act ", Section 403, (Public Law, 91-375). The federal government
utilizes the ZIP code to prove that you reside in a “federal district of the District of Columbia”.
This is why the IRS and other government agencies (state and federal) require a Zip code when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter. They claim that this speeds the mail, but this is a sly and subtle TRICK. It is also prima facie evidence that you are a subject of Congress and a
"citizen of the District of Columbia " who is "resident " in one of the several states.
The receipt of mail with a ZIP code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices. The government cannot bill a Citizen of Texas, because he is not within the purview of the MUNICIPAL LAWS of the District of Columbia. In fact, the Internal Revenue
Service has adopted the ZIP code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register,Volume 51, Number 53, Wednesday March 19, 1986.
You must remember that the Postal Service is a private corporation, a quasi-government agency.
It is no longer a full government agency. It is like the Federal Reserve System, the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States and the United States Marshall Service. They are all outside the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, as private corporations. They are all powerful
in their respective areas of responsibility, to enforce collection for the federal debt. So, if you are using a ZIP code, you are in effect saying openly and notoriously that you do not live in the State of Texas, etc, but instead are a resident in the Texas area of the District of Columbia (a federal district). There are some so-called Patriot groups that I consider Patriots for money. They advocate the use of Title 42 suits (which are for federal citizens only), send mail to you with a ZIP code, and ask you to do things that place you within the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
Remember these individuals may be agents of the government or, even worse, are advocating a one world government by the use of the Social Security number and the ZIP code.
So you must be aware of the movement towards a one world government through annihilation or elimination of State Citizens by use of the so-called 14th Amendment and its related laws.
It is this writer's opinion, both as a result of study, e.g. of page 11 of the National Area ZIP code Directory, of 26 U.S.C. 7621, of Section 4 of the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53, of (TDO) 150-01; of the opinion in United States v LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 308, 98, 5
Ct 2d 2357, 571. Ed. 2d 221 (1978); of 12 U.S.C. 222; of 31 U.S.C. 103, and as a result of My actual experience, that a ZIP code address is presumed to create a "Federal jurisdiction " or “market venue” or “revenue districts” that override State boundaries, taking one who uses such modes of address outside of a State venue and its constitutional protections and into an international, commercial venue involving admiralty concerns of the "United States ", which is a commercial corporation domiciled in Washington, D. C.
More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post office, one will see that the first digit of a ZIP code defines an area that includes more than on State. The first sentence of the explanatory paragraph begins.
“A ZIP code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for the purpose of…..” [cf. 26 CFR 1 1-1 (c)]
Note the singular possessive pronoun "Its", not "their", therefore carrying the implication that it relates to the "United States" as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the
singular sense), not in the sense of being the 50 States of the Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.
Properly construed, ZIP Codes can only be applicable in Federal territories and enclaves that may be located within the 50 States of the Union, and to the "United States" and District of Columbia and its territories - cf. Piqua Bank v Knoup, 6 Ohio 342, 404(1856) and U.S. v Butler,297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936) to the effect that "in every state there are two Governments, the state and the United States". Therefore, ZIP Code address are for the corporate "United States" and its agents (for example, a customs and duty collector at New York harbor, when they move out into the States of the Union to perform functions delegated to the "United States" by the
National/Federal Constitution, or the Texas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, or a U.S. Congressman).
But, by propaganda, misleading information and seditious syntax, government has gotten nearly everyone in the 50 States of the Union to use ZIP Codes of address, and that creates a PRESUMPTION or a PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION that one is in such a Federal venue, or that one is such a government agent.
In general, it is well settled in law that Income Tax Statutes apply only to corporations and to their officers, agents, and employees acting in their official capacities, e.g. from Colonial Pipeline Co. v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L.Ed.2d.1, 95 S.Ct. 1538(1975)". ...However, all "income tax statutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal". Since corporations act only through their official capacities, but not as individuals. This is the real purpose for Identifying Numbers-26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) & (g) and 26 U.S.C. 6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4.Use of a ZIP Code address is tantamount to the admission of being a "citizen of the United States" who does not necessarily have the protections of the first eight Amendments to the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) when proceeded against by Federal or State authority Maxwell v Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S Ct 448 (1900), but "All the provisions of the constitution look to an indestructible union of indestructible states", Texas v White, 7 Wall 700; U.S. v Cathcart, 25 F Case No. 14,756, In re: Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F. Case No 18,273 (65 CJ
Section 2)-not known to be overturned.
Who died before they collected Social Security?
KEEP PASSING THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERYONE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT.THIS IS SURE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE SOCIAL SECURITY IS THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO?
Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a government bank to insure you and I, that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.
Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).
After 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!
If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.
Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!
Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!
Remember Congressional benefits?
--- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.
Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.
Sad isn't it?
99% of people won't have the guts to SHARE this.
I'm in the 1%
I JUST DID!
The Matrix
We are not free men; we are slaves, and bound to our Masters by adhesion contracts and secret Trusts. The goal of the Masters and their (agents) our elected officials, is to keep the people oppressed and subservient to them! As the Masters agents, they utilize propaganda techniques through government controlled schools; churches; the media and mind control by force and or the threat of force through the courts and police enforcement!
Police officers in America have been pumped full of more bullshit than a manure spreader and because of their trust, public school conditioning and training, they haven’t the ability to see what is going on! Many have been conditioned by previous military service, not to think for themselves but just follow orders, which makes many of them as dangerous as a Terrorist! Now ask yourself; who are the real Terrorists in America?
Guess what; “the Constitution isn’t for the Police either” and still they are forced to swear an oath to defend it!” The more regulations, statutes and codes created, and the greater the number of regulatory officers and agencies created to enforce them; the greater the Masters control over their Slaves and that is mind control by force and threat of force, by the very people we rely on, to protect and serve!
At some point in history the foreign Agents in control of our Federal Government, decided that they needed to create Federal Police Agencies to protect them! I can’t blame them! If I was a part of a conspiracy that could result in the American people hanging me for Treason, I’d want bodyguards too! Now, if you are one of these public officials; how do you justify the employment and expense of bodyguards, when nobody is trying to injure you, and you don’t want anyone to know that you are committing Treason? Instead of confessing your motives; you must find a way to accomplish your objective and blame it on someone else!
HENCE: The birth of a bad law, The Volstead Act and the beginning of “Prohibition!” Enterprising people began to make money and others organized. Those who organized became mobs and when the mobs began killing each other, the free lance boot-legers and innocent people in drive by shootings; our federal officials sat back and enjoyed the show! They did absolutely nothing until the public was literally breaking down the doors of the Capitol Building: [Just like they had planned it!]
The FBI existed before this time. They were a small investigative unit under the Attorney Generals Office. The Agents had no arrest powers and were prohibited from carrying guns. Their only authority was to investigate federal employees and make reports to the attorney general, who then decided if the matter was serious enough to concern the government and whether to prosecute the employee! The FBI was eventually armed, expanded and provided national jurisdiction to fight the gangsters! None of which would have been necessary had it not been for The Volstead Act! Slowly, the agency has grown into the giant it is now and ironically; the Legislature never authorized their expansion. Everything was done by the AG administratively! Where does it say in the Constitution that a federal employee has the authority to create law, create a police authority or expand a current one?
Do you see how our government has circumvented the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution and manipulated the American people? Every catastrophe, calamity or disaster has been planned and financed by our so-called public representatives with an ulterior motive in mind. The creation of Homeland Security was done in the same way! A Terrorist attack was staged by hired men having connections to the Middle East. I’m not going to go into the conspiracy, other than to say that President Bush and the FBI were as guilty as the men who high-jacked the commercial airplanes! The director of the FBI confessed to the Congress of his Agencies involvement under Presidential Order. He was relieved of his position and Congress took no action against President Bush and the media did not report any of this to the American people! Treason charges were filed against President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and the FBI by a two star General from the Pentagon and no action has ever been taken and nothing was ever reported to the American public, upon the orders of President Obama.
This was just another government catastrophe designed to make you (the public) beg the government to come to your aid and protect you! Each time one of these catastrophe’s are staged; our representatives steal more of our liberty and freedom from us, but America doesn’t care because now they feel safe once again! And that’s what these foreign Agents want us to believe and feel!
We complain today that government has eroded our rights! It’s true because we were lied to directly and indirectly and told to believe something other than truth! The correct term here is: “Propaganda” and all government controlled entities and institutions mentioned, are quite expert in the use of it! When I was a child; during a period labeled “the Cold War;” I remember my teacher’s telling the class how expert the Communists are in the use of “propaganda!” I can say now with absolute certainty that no one is as expert as the American government! In fact I believe that our government officials taught the World!
I don’t blame my teachers. Most of them were subjected to and spoon fed the same propaganda under direction of these foreign Agents and corporate entities that now employ them. Our teachers are simply spoon feeding our children with the same propaganda that was fed to them! Naturally, if a teacher becomes too creative and steps outside the box, or thinks outside the box, the penalty for such creativity is the termination of employment, their future profession and benefits! Generally, the reason used for termination is: “Failure to adhere to the established curriculum and or meet the needs of this establishment!” Who established the needs and curriculum? Why the government agents under the U. S. Department of Education, acting through the foreign Agents representing the Masters!
During the Bush Administration, a Treaty called the North American Alliance was negotiated and signed but the content was not reported to the American public. The Treaty guarantees that the boundary lines dividing Mexico, the United States and Canada will dissolve and become one country to be called North America, upon the installation of the New World Order Government! The currency for North America is being manufactured by the United States Mint. They are gold coins called AMEROS. I have pictures of these coins being minted, that were taken by an employee and smuggled out!
Everything in your life has been controlled from birth and you’re still being controlled! The free-thinkers of the world have either been murdered or institutionalized in asylums. Free-thinkers are a detriment to the Masters and their Agents! They have the potential to become (Martyrs), especially if the populace begins to pay attention to what the free-thinkers have to say or teach! Look at what happened to Jesus; John Kennedy; Bobby Kennedy; John Kennedy, Jr. and Martin Luther King, Jr.! If you believe John Kennedy, Jr. was an accidental death, then you probably believe that on 911, the attack on the twin towers was a real Terrorist attack!
[If you still think this way, after what you have read: Please stop reading; put your thumb in your ass and close your eyes! You are much too gullible, ignorant and brain dead to be helped and you deserve the treatment you and your family are certain to receive!]
Contrary to popular belief, nothing has changed since the day of Jesus! If Jesus was alive today, he would be declared a Terrorist and locked up in an asylum and slowly poisoned to death through the use of drug combinations that are designed to slowly consume life instead of heal. As long as free-thinkers profess their thoughts, they will be institutionalized until their death! Society will be told that these men are dangerous and or they will be classified as Terrorists!
The entire World is a ‘Slave Plantation’ and is set up under this same principle by the Masters, “the high contracting powers,” who have been identified in certain International Treaties as the Pope/Vatican, the United Nations, the King/Queen of (England or United Kingdom) and principals of the International Monetary Fund.
The coming of a “One World Government,” which public representatives and the media have been talking about, actually began in 1790 with the passage of the Articles of Confederation! These Articles and the principles therein, were first suggested in the Magna Carta and later became the foundation of the U. S. Constitution but, “there not for you!”
The Capitol City of the World has been identified as New York City, according to the United States Code. The United Nations with the blessings of the Vatican, keeps the World divided and in flux, under the principle of “Divide and Conquer,” and all religious orders within the United States are instructed to keep us passive! People, populations, economies, religions and political agendas of every country on earth are manipulated by the Masters, which keep each Country in a euphoric flux against the other.
Partial proof of such Power:
We are presently living under the Babylonian Talmud, which was introduced to England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, various Kings and every religious Order since. This Babylonian Talmud represents total and relentless mind control in that people are taught to believe in fictions, things that do not exist [e.g.] Private International Law is now Commercial Law, which only deals in fictions; “fictions called persons, money, politics, government and authority.” The Uniform Commercial Code, known as the Law of Merchants, which is 6000 years old, was derived from ancient Babylon and is now Private International Law. [See: The Uniform Commercial Code, section 1-201]. PS/ Human rights do not exist in fictions!
Prior to 1066, many of the Kings subjects [Lords and Dukes] held allodial deeds to land, which are land grants from the King or past Kings and which prevented the present King or his agents from taxing, trespassing or enforcing his will upon those subjects. Land protected by an allodial deed and improved by a home made the subjects, Sovereigns in their own right and the king of his castle. In 1066, William the Conqueror defeated England and stole the Kings Title, his lands and the lands belonging to his subjects. From William I (1066) to King John (1199), England found itself in dire straights because it was bankrupt! During this span of time, parishioners routinely passed their land onto their family or to the church without the Kings permission. So the King invoked the ancient, “Law of Mortmain,” also known as “the dead man’s hand,” which is our modern day probate law.
The Pope and the Vatican objected to the “Law of Mortmain” because the King owed the Vatican a lot of gold he had borrowed and this law now prevented the church from receiving gifts of land. In 1208, England was placed under Papal interdiction (prohibition) and King John was excommunicated. King John was ignorant of the teachings of the Bible and was made to believe by Pope Innocent III, that the Pontiff was the “Vicar of Christ;” the ultimate owner of everything on earth, and the only one who could grant the King absolution for his sins; providing the King make a suitable gesture of repentance to the Pope and the Holy Roman Church!
The word “VICAR” is defined in Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary, to mean, “A person deputized or authorized to perform the function of another, a substitute in office,” and thereafter, all of the Popes since Pope Innocent III, pretend to be Jesus Christ on earth.
In his attempt to regain his stature, King John offered the Pope and the Holy Roman Church his Kingdom, plus 1000 gold marks each year as payment of a lease on the land, and he accepted the Pope’s appointed representative [appointed ruler] and swore submission and loyalty to Pope Innocent III and the Holy Roman Church. In 1213, a Treaty was entered into between the King and the Pope. The Treaty made the King a tenant of his former Kingdom and a trustee to the Pope and the Holy Roman Church. The Kings ancestors were later appointed Treasurer of the Vatican Bank and continue to serve in that capacity to date. [See: Treaty of 1213; and the Papal Bulls of 1455 to 1492; and The Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England from 1198 - 1216, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd. 1956].
In 1215, the Barons of England reacted to the loss of their rights and privileges they once enjoyed before the 1213 Treaty, and so they revolted against King John and stormed the castle. Under the threat of death, they forced him to sign a document that recognized their stature and spelled out their individual rights! The document was named the Magna Carta. When Pope Innocent III was informed by King John about the Barons revolt and the Magna Carta; the Pope condemned the document and declared it null and void. In his written declaration to the Barons, the Pope stated that, “The Declaration of Human Rights embodied in the Magna Carta, violated the tenets of the church.” Imagine that— a church that does not believe in human rights — but has a prohibition against abortion! I believe that is called an, Oxymoron! [See: The Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198 - 1216, Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd. 1956].
The Treaty of 1783, known as the Treaty of Peace, signed subsequent to the Revolutionary War; was a Treaty between King George, the Holy Roman Church and the representatives of the Corporate United States. The opening statement is written in Olde English and when interpreted means: “The King claims that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that God gave the King the power to declare that no man can ever own property because it goes against the tenets of his Church, the Vatican/The Holy Roman Church and because he is the Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” [This is why no person or company can ever own real estate in America!] And the Founding Father’s agreed to that Declaration!
The Treaty of Verona, which took place on November 22, 1822, was another Treaty between the King of England, the Pope and the “high contracting powers” of the World and exemplifies the power that the Pope and the Vatican weld in the World and magnifies their interest in the Republic of the United States. It also explains what has happened to us in America.
The Treaty of Verona:
Article I: Basically states that the “high contracting powers” [the Masters] agree and decree that all representative forms of government and governments that recognize the individual sovereignty of ordinary people, is incompatible with “divine right” and all agree to use all of their efforts to bring an end to such governments, wherever they may be found or exist. [Isn’t the United States supposed to be a representative form of government, which recognizes individual sovereignty? At least that’s what the Declaration of Independence promised].
Article 2: That the “high contracting powers” agreed and decree that freedom of the press is a detriment to there existence and all promise to adopt measures to suppress the press in all of Europe. [If Americans want to know what is happening in the United States, they need to tune into the Foreign News Service because the American Press is suppressed beyond belief, ever since the Nixon administration and the Watergate scandal. Americas Press however, will talk badly about other countries and the Foreign Press reciprocates the favor. Do you remember my earlier comment about, “Divide and Conquer?” If you want to know what is happening in America, you need to watch and listen to the Foreign Press!
Article 3: Convinced that religion contributes powerfully to keep the people in a state of passive obedience, all of the “high contracting powers” agree to take measures to insure its continuation and a written accolade is directed to the Pope for his efforts to create and continue those measures. [An example of the measures they are speaking of involves the King James Bible.]
[e.g.] The King James Version of the Bible was concocted by the King under the guidance of Pope Innocent III. [This is the same King who was convinced by the Pope, that the Pope was God’s representative on earth!] This collaboration was kept secret to conceal the truth of their manipulation of the prophet’s written word. If you can locate an ancient manuscript of the Bible, which predates the King James Version; you will discover that [during the crucifixion of Christ], it is written in the ancient text that Jesus said: “Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do!” In the King James Version, it is written that Jesus said: “Forgive them Father, for they know NOT what they do.” The King James interpretation represents a passive version and is in keeping with the purpose and the accolade mentioned in Article 3 of the Treaty of Verona.
The King James Version of the Bible is the most popular version today and is presented to the masses by all government controlled Christian religions.
[Passive obedience however is not taught or practiced in the Muslim religion]. What was the lie our government used to explain the involvement of the armed forces of the United States and England, in the Middle East? I remember Muslim leaders screaming that this was a “Jihad,” [a holy war] and our so-called leaders denied the allegations. When the American people were later questioned by the media, they responded with disdain and disbelief!
Is there any wonder why there are now Muslim paramilitary camps being formed on American soil? And when our government officials were questioned why they permit these paramilitary camps to exist; their response was, [The U. S. Constitution protects their right to exist!] I remind you that this is the same Constitution that we are not a party too; has been circumvented by our government officials and fails to protect any rights of, “We the People!” The reason the foreign Agents posing as our federal representatives, are not concerned by the formation of these camps, is because of the mass genocide planned for the American population in the fall!
Korea is now in the news for testing nuclear weapons. Our government is making Korea look like the aggressors when in fact Korea does not want to be a part of the New World Order government and they are reacting out of fear! They simply want to live their lives as they see fit and our government officials and the United Nations are trying to bully them into submission!
The following further exemplifies the power of the Vatican in America:
“If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being observed, he must be obeyed.” [Bened. XIV, De Sgn Dioec., lib., ix, c vii, n 4. Prati., 1844].
“Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being accepted or confirmed by secular rulers.” [Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44].
“Hence, the jus nationale, (Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States; may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff.” [Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Volume I, pages 53 and 54].
[This passage is saying that the government has no authority to abolish or change ecclesiastical law in America and that only the Pope has the power to do that].
Keys to the Conspiracy:
“Alice in Wonderland,” a famous children’s story written by Leo J. Carroll, which was his pen name. The author’s true profession was that of a lawyer, a lawyer who had a conscience, “another oxymoron!” Leo J. Carroll was English and was privy to the early scheme and conspiracy to destroy all the Worlds governments and eventually replace them with a “One World Government!” So he instituted his own plan to inform the Worlds population about this nefarious conspiracy, by writing about it in a children’s story! He figured that parents would buy his book, read the story to their children and when the real conspiracy began to unfold; the parents would identify with his story and rise up against this evil!
Kudos to Leo J. Carroll, but unfortunately his plan was too quick and the pace of the conspiracy was too slow and methodical for anyone to make the connection!
Consider this information:
1) During my research, I discovered a Congressional Record from the 1930’s, which was a report compiled by an expert in counter intelligence hired by the British Parliament. The report detailed a plan or method to be employed by Parliament and the United States government, for the complete take over and destruction of the U. S. representative form of government! The report was sent to our Congress for review and then there was an argument from certain members of Congress who insisted that the report be recorded as “Top Secret,” out of a fear of reprisal, should the American people discover its existence!
The opposition members of Congress argued that the American people are functionally illiterate and too preoccupied with their own personal comfort, to be concerned about what we do! The report was entered into the open record of Congress and was never discovered until 2002! I have this Congressional Record in my computer documents!
WARNING: [BEWARE AMERICA]!
2) I met a man who was once employed by Military Intelligence. He is now diseased. We became close friends and over time he confided in me something that had been bothering his conscious for many, many years! During his employment in the Military; he happened upon a scientific report by MI, prepared for the Congress. The report detailed a plan titled; “How to reduce the population of the United States.” The conclusion reached in the report was through mass vaccinations to cure a fictitious pandemic!
NOTE: As of June 2009, a former scientist, once employed by a large pharmaceutical company in the United States; has disclosed that before resigning from his employer, former President Bush, signed legislation that defers and eliminates the Federal Food and Drug Administrations mandatory product testing; defers and eliminates disclosure of possible dangers to the public; and defers and eliminates civil liability on the part of the FDA and the pharmaceutical company.
NOTE: This scientist revealed that the President and Congress are expected to order mass vaccinations for a (fictitious swine flu pandemic) in the fall of 2009 and that the vaccine to be used; contains small amounts of Bird guano, a substance known to cause serious illness and death and in several tests, killed the lab animals that were injected! This scientist suggested that most of the soldiers, who have died in the Middle East conflict, have died from these vaccinations, but no one is talking!
NOTE: The people who have died of (swine flu) so far, died because they were vaccinated with the vaccine that is planned to be given to the American population in the fall of 2009 and half of the Worlds population. The World Health Organization is expected to declare a (pandemic) and will request that President Obama and Congress order mandatory vaccinations in the United States! Any one who refuses to take the “death vaccine,” will be arrested as a Terrorist and will be committed into internment camps!
As a Terrorist, no one is permitted a lawyer, a hearing or a judge, pursuant to the new Patriot Act passed by Congress after 911.
The World Health Organization is owned by and under the direction of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families! Do you now see the pattern unfolding?
NOTE: Police officers, Sheriff’s Deputies, U. S. Military personnel and their families will not escape this mass genocide! All will be compelled to take the “death vaccine” right along with the rest of the general public!
My guess is that the federal or state governments will install another police authority to replace our Police, Sheriff’s Deputies and Military. My belief is that they will be using army personnel of the USSR and China. These armies are now occupying former military bases in each state that was closed down under the guise of budget cuts. Fort Dix in New Jersey now occupies a battalion of the Russian Army. I don’t know which bases are being occupied in the other states.
NOTE: One closed military base in each state, has also been converted into an “Internment Camp.” The Halliburton Corporation was hired by the federal government to modify each base and install maximum security buildings. Why would the United States require so many large Internment Camps? One camp should be sufficient!
Because these camps are expected to receive thousands of innocent Americans who simply refuse to submit to the “death vaccine!”
NOTE: Homeland Security is in charge of these camps and they have been training personnel to man these facilities since 911. According to one informant, the personnel have been told that anyone committed into their custody are members of a home grown Terrorist organization suspected of inflicting biological warfare upon America! The innocent people shot or interned will be blamed for the planned mass genocide being committed by our own government leaders!
The “want ads” in the newspapers, and on the internet by Homeland Security, seeking to employ people to help fight Terrorism, are the jobs they are attempting to fill at these Internment Camps!
What I don’t understand is why the members of the Press continue to follow Orders by not reporting anything when, from what my group of Internet Researchers have been able to determine; only members of the Congress, the Bar, Federal Police and their families will be protected and exempt from these vaccinations! The members of the press will be forced to submit to this “death vaccine” the same as everyone else!
NOTE: I have pictures of hundreds of thousands of plastic coffins purchased by our government, which are being stockpiled in New Jersey. These coffins are for the burial of dead Americans during this planned mass genocide.
I also have the statement by the scientist. He has been making Radio Announcements from a Pirate Radio Station in Chicago, attempting to warn the public of this planned mass genocide!
And I have copies of a complaint and restraining order, recently filed with the FBI, by an Australian Journalist, charging that the FDA, the World Health Organization and the
U. S. Federal Government is planning a World Pandemic against the population of the earth and that the United States population is expected to be decimated!
[BEWARE - BEWARE]
3) I met an elderly gentleman while living in Virginia. Somehow our conversation moved from the weather to the death of JFK and then the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I confessed to the gentleman that I had located Executive Orders signed by President Kennedy, six months before his assassination and that in those Executive Orders, President Kennedy disclosed that he and his brother Bobby, the Attorney General, have uncovered evidence that the Federal Reserve Bank was instituting a plan to undermine the American Economy!
President Kennedy “Ordered” the dismantling of the Federal Reserve Bank by these Executive Orders and “Ordered” that the U. S. Mint begin printing and circulating Silver Certificates to replace the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. These facts were never presented to the special commission appointed to investigate JFK’s assassination and these Executive Orders were never repealed however, the Federal Reserve was never dismantled and after JFK’s assassination, the U.S. Mint ceased the printing of Silver Certificates. In the years to follow, the Federal Reserve Bank attempted to remove all of those Silver Certificates from circulation and destroy them. Only coin collectors possess any of the original Silver Certificates. The Collectors can trade or sell them between each other but they are prohibited now by law, from circulating them back into the American economy! Imagine that, the Congress passed a law prohibiting the circulation of lawful currency!
4) This same elder gentleman told me that when he was a child of 12, his father was a Mortician in Washington, DC and his family resided at the Funeral Home where his father was employed. This Funeral Home was eventually engaged by the White House to embalm the corpse of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, upon his death.
The elder gentleman then asked me; “Do you know why FDR’s funeral was a closed casket, when he died of natural causes?”
I didn’t know the answer! Then the elder gentleman responded: “Because my father didn’t know how to hide a bullet hole to the head!”
The man went on to elaborate how the Secret Service and FBI had visited the funeral home during this timeframe and made everyone swear under threat of death, not to reveal what we saw or knew! Nothing was ever reported to the public or printed about it in the history books and, “I’m too old now to give a shit about their threats!”
Just in case the old guy was simply trying to best my research on JFK; I wrote down the name of the Funeral Home and his last name, once I entered my vehicle. Later that afternoon I began to research FDR’s death and burial and discovered that the name of the Funeral Home matched! I then found a censes report for Washington, DC of that year and discovered that the old gentleman’s father was in fact a Mortician and he resided at the Funeral Home with his wife and two children!
5) Not knowing as much then as I do today; I telephoned the Washington Post and spoke to Bob Woodward, who was one of the two famous investigative reporters responsible for bringing down the Nixon Administration. I told Mr. Woodward about the possibility that FDR had been assassinated in office and was covered up! I gave him what information I could and told him that I hoped he would be able to solve this incident as well! This was seven years ago and nothing was ever printed, discussed in the Post or was ever released by any news service! Two years ago, I found the evidence of the Treaty of Verona and many other details discussed herein, which strongly suggests that freedom of the press no longer exists in America, (if it ever did!)
Some of you “Doubting Thomas’s” may want to argue with me that: “If this is such a huge conspiracy; how is it that you and your Internet friends can research everything on computers and write about it?”
The answer is that our Masters and their government agents are quite full of themselves! They have intelligence, wealth, influence and absolute power and control over everything and everyone on this earth but, they are human and suffer the same common frailties that every powerful leader has endured since the beginning of time; “fame and the desire for recognition!” They can’t talk or brag about their conspiratorial accomplishments while they are alive out of a fear of retaliation, which is in direct conflict with their human egos! So they are forced to settle for their accomplishments to be recorded in expectation that one day the MATRIX will be revealed and they will be recognized, revered and ogled by future generations of their kind!
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 DÃaz-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 DÃaz-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."
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 DÃaz-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 DÃaz-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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)