Simply put, we live on a planet we call earth and not in Countries. In fact Countries are not land under the real system of law, they are imaginary Seas, upon which Admiralty Law applies and the NAMES you use are imaginary ships floating on the Sea, where Piracy reigns as the system of Commerce, between your and all the other imaginary ships. But because you are not imaginary, they have to give you a play piece in the game. This is called a PERSON and its attributes are a NAME and BIRTH DATE. The Game is rigged from the start. The pirates simply set up laws and wait for you to break one so that they can plunder your wealth and freedom. A name is an imaginary thing you are given, typically when you were born. However, a name is simply hearsay; you do not know what your true name is, no one does. The other attribute of a person, a Birth Date, is hearsay because no one can say when exactly the Universe was created and making use of an event such as Jesus' Death, hence A.D., is only hearsay. Further Jesus was Crucified and died in the spring during Passover so the Calendar should actually start its new year in the spring. What they have done is to overlay an imaginary world over the earth and make you believe that it is real, when in fact it is simply fiction. So if you do not exist in their imaginary world, how is it that you must follow their laws and pay taxes? You are not responsible for paying taxes and following their laws and their laws even say so!
The pirates simply set up laws and wait for you to break one so that they can plunder your wealth and freedom.
Simply put, we live on a planet we call earth and not in Countries. In fact Countries are not land under the real system of law, they are imaginary Seas, upon which Admiralty Law applies and the NAMES you use are imaginary ships floating on the Sea, where Piracy reigns as the system of Commerce, between your and all the other imaginary ships. But because you are not imaginary, they have to give you a play piece in the game. This is called a PERSON and its attributes are a NAME and BIRTH DATE. The Game is rigged from the start. The pirates simply set up laws and wait for you to break one so that they can plunder your wealth and freedom. A name is an imaginary thing you are given, typically when you were born. However, a name is simply hearsay; you do not know what your true name is, no one does. The other attribute of a person, a Birth Date, is hearsay because no one can say when exactly the Universe was created and making use of an event such as Jesus' Death, hence A.D., is only hearsay. Further Jesus was Crucified and died in the spring during Passover so the Calendar should actually start its new year in the spring. What they have done is to overlay an imaginary world over the earth and make you believe that it is real, when in fact it is simply fiction. So if you do not exist in their imaginary world, how is it that you must follow their laws and pay taxes? You are not responsible for paying taxes and following their laws and their laws even say so!
The IRS is a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico
Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑315 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).
At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.
2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?
Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.
In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97‑2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.
When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.
3. By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?
Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.
Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (“ACTA”), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.
However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining “IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question 1 above.) Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.
4. Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?
Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count of mail fraud. See also 31 U.S.C. 333.
5. Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?
Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal “agency” by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ. The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees. Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above. As far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.
6. Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so‑called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVITs that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.
Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.
The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.
Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” (See Answer to Question 19 below.)
For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.
7. Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?
Answer: Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for “employment” taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.
8. Can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?
Answer: No. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article I, Section 1. The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever. This means that agencies of the Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.
If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that tax. Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.
“[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.” See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added]. However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.
9. The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?
Answer: The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all “citizens of the United States” and all “residents of the United States”. However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin). The Acker case cited above held that federal regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority. (See Answer to Question 8 above.)
10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?
Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.
The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)
Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.
11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
12. Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.
Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.
Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.
The most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court’s opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a “domestic corporation”. This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.
13. What is a “Withholding agent”?
Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.
One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W‑4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.” In plain English, by signing a W‑4 workers designate themselves as “employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.
If workers do not execute a valid W‑4 form, a company’s payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes, until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding ‑‑ by signing Form W‑4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.
Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of this form. A properly executed Form W‑4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees” of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.
14. What is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?
Answer: A “Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative to Form W‑4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in lieu of Form W‑4. Although section 3402(n) does authorize this Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed Products Catalog”).
In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates. In simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal income tax liability during the current calendar year. Because there are no liability statutes for workers in the private sector, this certification is easy to justify.
Many public and private institutions have created their own form for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine, e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term “withholding exemption certificate” on the Internet. This term occurs several times in IRC section 3402.
15. What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?
Answer: “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal government “employee.” This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.
However, as discussed above, Form W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.
Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only “domestic” corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer’s essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and “domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.
If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine case supra.
For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.
16. Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer’s signature?
Answer: This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one’s signature.
This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications: (1) those executed outside the “United States” and (2) those executed inside the “United States”. These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.
What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed “outside the United States”. In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of the United States of America”.
Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of America” are both used in this same statute. They are not one and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.
It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”) if and when they are executed inside the 50 States of the Union (read “the State zone”).
Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed inside the “United States”.
The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone).
17. Does the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?
Answer: Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) [bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for clarity].
This is the very same definition that is found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.
It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in these Answers, that the definition of “United States” has now been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.
18. Is the term “income” defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it defined?
Answer: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term “income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC: “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).
Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of “income” because that term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the ratification of the 16th amendment, which would have introduced the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified).
In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.
19. What is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax provisions municipal law, or not?
Answer: Yes. The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.
A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the book “The Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.
One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of “State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.
In other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.
20. What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?
The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.
If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States.
Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any edition of Black’s Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory construction.
The many different definitions of the term “State” that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.
If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).
21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?
There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term “income” is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth. “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”
More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.
22. Has Title 26 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has not been enacted into positive law?
Answer: No. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of “this title”. Because the term “this title” is not defined anywhere in 26 U.S.C., least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context.
Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which govern all the federal courts -- the term “this title” clearly refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion that “this title”, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, as such.
Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of “this title”, they are men and women of UNcommon intelligence. The U.S. Supreme Court’s test for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differ as to the application of a vague statute. See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for vagueness.
Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect. (“F” is for enForcement!) This subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so on.
In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth; as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not even people with dentures!
23. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?
This question must be addressed in view of the Answer to Question 22 above. Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle F has ever taken effect. For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all. As always, appearances can be very deceiving. Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in Wonderland?
On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.
It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”). The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause.
This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail; begin reading at section “7(e)”.
The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.
For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. Further details on this point are available in the Press Release entitled “Private Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code” and dated November 26, 2001 A.D.
24. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay?
Answer: No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States –- the Article III constitutional courts –- are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.
The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. This principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong to the other two branches.
The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by defining “Party” to mean only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of “Party” that is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).
The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.
In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS. There you have it, from the horse’s mouth!
In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -– the highest Court in the land.
Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as “employees” of the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.
25. Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters?
Answer: No. Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters. Protest has never been illegal in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express our objections to any government actions, in written and in spoken words.
Strictly speaking, the term “illegal” cannot modify the noun “protesters” because to do so would constitute a violation of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.
Accordingly, for the term “illegal tax protester” to survive this obvious constitutional challenge, the term “illegal” must modify the noun “tax”. An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is protesting an illegal tax. Such an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.
Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial Code; the phrases “under protest” and “without prejudice” are sufficient to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law. See U.C.C. 1-308 (UCCA 1308 in California).
By the way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal law. See the Answer to Question 19 above, and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88‑243, December 30, 1963 (one month after President John F. Kennedy was murdered).
26. Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how is this routinely done?
Answer: Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government, and by misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as having any legal force or effect. Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been enacted into positive law either.)
They tamper with grand juries by acting as if “income” is everything that “comes in”, when there is no such definition anywhere in the IRC. Such false descriptions of fact also violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
They tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not constitute competent waivers of their customers’ fundamental Rights to privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment. The high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).
IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.
These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal offenses.
Finally, there is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester. (See the Answer to Question 25 above.) These kick‑backs range from $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH! They also violate the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal government subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.
As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)
27. What is “The Kickback Racket,” and where can I find evidence of its existence?
The evidence of this “kickback racket” was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) -- the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees.
Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these “awards” because most of them were paid in cash!
When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge, who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to that grand jury.
Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail. See 18 U.S.C. 1702.
Obviously, the federal judge -- John M. Roll -- did NOT want the grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks. They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for Legal Affairs.
28. Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?
Answer: No. The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of American constitutional practice. Put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before any property can be seized by any federal government employees, agents, departments or agencies.
A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property, i.e. the funds on deposit in that account. No such seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its course. This means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.
Only after this process has run its proper or “due” course, can a valid court order be issued. The holding in U.S. v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER could ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their “day in court.”
29. Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government services and, if so, which government services are funded by federal income taxes?
Answer: No. The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). As such, their records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.
They are technically not an “agency” of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of “agency” in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). (See also the Answer to Question 5 above.)
All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq.
They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican. See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341.
The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.
30. How can the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) help me to answer other key tax questions?
The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.
As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document(s). If the requested document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding weekends and federal holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.
If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) -- to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). The general rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed.
This writer has pioneered the application of the FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do not exist. A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. For example, see the FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne Meredith.
Of course, by now we already know the answer to this question, before asking it. (Good lawyers always know the answers to their questions, before asking them.)
It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an “agency” as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). Address it instead to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, District of Columbia, USA. This is the format for “foreign” addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.
As James Madison once wrote, “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
DEBT VALIDATION LETTER
Date: April 4, 2023 Delivery Confirmation: Certified Mail Number
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO VALIDATE DEBT CLAIM
From : YOUR NAME
Street Location YOUR ADDRESS
City & State YOUR CITY & STATE
Zip Code YOUR ZIPCODE
To: DEBT COLLECTOR NAME
Address STREET ADDRESS
City & State CITY & STATE
Zip Code ZIPCODE
REF: Your correspondence purporting to allege a debt claimed by:
Name ORIGINAL CREDITOR NAME
Address STREET ADDRESS
City & State CITY & STATE
Alleged Account # THEIR ACCOUNT NUMBER
Alleged Balance $ ALLEGED BALANCE
This is an offer to fully pay/discharge the attached claim of debt on the condition that the claiming parties comply with this notice within 30 days of receipt of this correspondence.
NOTICE OF CLAIM DISPUTE
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
APPLICABLE TO ALL SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
*******SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE*******
_____________________________________________________________________
NOTICE AND DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST COLLECTION ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO VALIDATION OF PURPORTED DEBT
Pursuant to the truth in lending laws of the United States Code, Title 15 § 1601 et. seq. and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act laws of the United States Code § 1692 et. seq.
This notice constitutes a timely written response to your Fair Debt Collection Practices Act notice that you are attempting to collect an alleged debt and is not a dishonor of your alleged claim of debt.
This notice is my, required by law, demand to “cease and desist” collection activities prior to validation of purported debt and you must validate the enclosed claim of an alleged debt. You must provide verification that an actual debt really exists by producing the following:
(1) The name and address of the organization or other governmental unit alleging a debt;
(2) The name and address of the person or persons in that organization or other governmental unit alleging a claim of a debt;
(3) The name of the actual creditor even if that is myself;
(4) The origin of the funds used to create this alleged claim of a debt
(5) The actual records of the organization or other government unit showing the time and place of the deposit and distribution of the funds used to create this alleged claim of debt.
(6) The actual records of the organization or other governmental unit showing that an actual loan was made from the organization or other governmental unit’s own funds that resulted in the enclosed alleged claim of a debt.
(7) The actual records of the organization or other governmental unit with a live signature on any and all document/instrument(s) used to allege the existence of a real loan of funds or debt from the organization or other governmental unit to myself or anyone else by a similar name.
(8) Be advised that verification is defined (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) as follows: “Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath or deposition”. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party.
(9) The actual records of the organization or other governmental unit showing that an honest disclosure of facts relating to the alleged loan was made by the organization or other governmental unit in compliance with the truth in lending laws of the United States Code, Title 15 § 1601 et. seq. and Regulation Z.
(10) The actual records of the organization or other governmental unit showing that any and all document/instrument(s) containing my signature or the likeness of my signature were not negotiated or pledged by the organization or other governmental unit against my credit to create the funds used for the appearance of a debt and resulting in this alleged claim of debt.
(11) The person that prepares and swears to the validation of debt must describe: 1) your job description on a daily basis; 2) if you are the regular keeper of those books and records and are familiar with how they are kept and their contents; 3) how long have you been in your position; 4) when did you first come in contact with the alleged account/debt; 5) how frequently do you work with the files and information they are presenting to verify/validate the alleged debt; 6) are you the person/employee who regularly works with the alleged account/debt; and 7) do you have personal knowledge about the alleged debt and/or any alleged account.
15 U.S.C. § 1692 (e) states that a “false, deceptive, and misleading representation, in connection with the collection of any debt,” includes the false representation of the character or legal status of any debt and further makes a threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken a deceptive practice.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (g) (4) Validation of Debts, if you have evidence to validate your claim that the attached presentment does not constitute fraudulent
misrepresentation and that one owes this alleged debt, this is a demand that, within 30 days, you provide such verification/validation and supporting evidence signed and certified under penalty of perjury to substantiate your claim. Until the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act have been complied with and your claim is verified/validated, you have no consent to continue any collection activities.
This is a constructive notice that, absent the validation of your claim within 30 days, you must “cease and desist” any and all collection activity and are prohibited from contacting me through the mail, by telephone, in person, at my home, or at my work. You are further prohibited from contacting any other third party. Each and every attempted contact, in violation of this act, will constitute harassment and defamation of character and will subject your agency and/or attorney and any and all agents in his/her individual capacities, who take part in such harassment, and defamation, to a liability for actual damages, as well as statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each and every violation, and a further liability for legal fees to be paid to any counsel which I may retain. Further, absent such validation of your claim, you are prohibited from filing any notice of lien and/or levy or judgment and are also barred from reporting any derogatory credit information to any credit reporting agency, regarding this disputed purported debt.
Further, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (g) (8), as you are merely an “agency” or other governmental unit of the United States, acting on someone else’s behalf, this is a demand that you provide the name of the original “principal”, or “holder in due course”, for whom you are attempting to collect this alleged debt.
Please take notice that this is a criminal investigation of the business practices of the above named organization or other governmental unit, its agents, officers, employees and attorney to determine violations of the United States criminal laws. Your enclosed claim of collection of a purported debt appears to be founded upon a false record in violation of U.S.C. Title 18 § 2071 and 2073 (falsifying records) and further; uttering and possessing false obligations and counterfeit securities based upon the falsified records in violation of U.S.C. Title 18 § 471, 472, 473 and/or 513, and further: using corrupt business practices to make and possess false records and claim of obligation, not substantiated by truthful facts in violation of the Federal Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organization (RICO), U.S.C. Title 18 § 1961 et. seq. and further: using the U.S. Mail to present such fraud and false instruments amounting to Mail Fraud, criminal conduct falling under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Frauds and Swindles laws, and further sending mail with false and fictitious names, a criminal conduct falling under Title 18 U.S.C. § 1842 – Fictitious Names.
TAKE NOTICE
Debt Collector’s failure in providing Respondent with the requisite verification, validating the above referenced alleged debt within the requirements of law as codified in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act and the corresponding laws of each state, signifies that Debt Collector tacitly agrees that:
a. Debt Collector has no lawful, bona fide, verified claim, re the above-referenced alleged account:
b. Debt Collector waives any and all claims against Respondent and
c. Debt Collector tacitly agrees that Debt Collector will compensate Respondent for all costs, fees and expenses incurred in defending against this and any and all continued collection attempts, re the above-referenced alleged account.
d. Failure of Debt Collector to properly and legally verify/validate alleged debt as required in this notice is a self executing irrevocable power of attorney authorizing Respondent/Alleged Debtor named herein to direct the permanent removal, on behalf of the alleged Creditor, of any and all references to said account in any and all credit reporting agency files of any type.
This response will constitute my effort to resolve this on-going debt claim between the parties involved. Until full disclosure is achieved, there can be no case, collection or action. “No civil or criminal cause of action can arise lest, out of fraud, there be a valid, honest contract.” See Eads v. Marks 249 P. 2d 257, 260.
Done this _____Day of ______________ 2010
I declare under penalties of perjury in accordance with the laws of the United States of America (without the “United States”) Title 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1) the forgoing is true and correct and is admitted when not rebutted, so help me.
______________________________
On the _____ day of ________ 2009 Your Name personally appeared before me in Your County & State and placed his/her signature above.
____________________ Seal:
Notary Signature
Public Servant Questionnaire
This questionnaire must be filled-out by any public servant before he can ask the citizen any question. Federal law, including the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 88 Stat. 1896, et seq., 1974, authorizes this.
1. Public servant's full legal name:
2. Public servant's residence address:
3. Name of agency:
4. Full legal name of supervisor and office address:
5. Will you as a public servant uphold the constitution of the United States?
Yes No
6. Did public servant provide proof of identity?
Yes No
7. ID number:
Badge Number:
Bonding agency and number:
8. Will you as a public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation that authorizes the action being taken or information requested in this case?
Yes No
9. Will you as a public servant provide in writing, that portion of the law authorizing the questions asked?
Yes No
10. Are answers voluntary or mandatory?
Voluntary Mandatory ?
11. Are the questions being asked based upon a specific law or regulation, or are they a discovery process?
12. What other uses may be made of this information?
13. What other agencies may have access to this information?
14. What will be the effect upon me if I should not choose to answer any or all of these questions?
15. Name of person in government requesting this information:
16. Is this investigation general or special?
Note: by ‘general,’ it means any kind of blanket investigations in which a number of persons are involved because of geography, type of business income, etc. By ‘special,’ it means any investigation of an individual nature in which others are not involved.
17. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relating to this matter?
Yes No
If yes, give identity of all such third parties: (Use back of sheet if more area is needed.)
1. ___________________________________________________________________
2. ___________________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________________
4. ____________________________________________________________________
18. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the information, which you seek?
Yes No
19. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency?
Yes No
20. Is this agency using any information on me, which was supplied, by another agency or government source?
Yes No
21. Will the public servant guarantee that any other department other than the one by which he is employed will not use the information in these files?
Yes No
I hereby sign and affirm under the penalty of perjury that the answers are true and correct in every particular.
_____________________________________
Signature of public servant
Notice: If any person or agency receives any request for information relating to me, you must advise me in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or criminal action as provided by this act or other law(s).
CITATIONS AND OFFERS TO CONTRACT
When a Police Officer issues you a CITATION, he is actually requesting you to CONTRACT with him! He is alleging that you violated a corporate regulation in writing, which you have accepted by signing and thus requires you to respond.
The Police Officer is instructed to explain that your signature is merely an acknowledgment that you received a copy of the CITATION but in actuality, your signature is notification to the Court and Judge that you have accepted or CONSENTED to this offer to CONTRACT, which also grants the Judge CONSENT; PERSONAM and SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over you and the case!
You can cancel that CONTRACT however by rescinding your CONSENT. The Federal Truth in Lending Act provides that any party to a CONTRACT may rescind his CONSENT, within three business days of entering into such a CONTRACT. So across the face of the CITATION you should print or type in large print, the following words:
I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS OFFER TO CONTRACT
and
I DO NOT CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
Use blue ink [for admiralty] or purple ink [for royalty]. Admiralty is the Court and Royalty represents your Sovereignty. Either way is appropriate. Sign your signature underneath in blue or purple ink and in front of a Notary and under your signature type: Without prejudice, UCC 1-308. This is another way to declare that you may not be held responsible for this Contract pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code.
Serve Cancelled Citation back it on the Clerk / Court, along with a Certificate of Service, by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This kills the CITATION; removes your CONSENT and removes the JURISDICTION of the Court, all at the same time. It really is that simple!
NOTE: A Certificate of Service is a letter that first identifies the Citation and then defines how and when you returned the document to the Court and is signed. If not denied, it becomes a truth in commerce by Tacit Procuration.
Remember to keep a copy of everything, in case the Clerk attempts to trash your response, which certainly will not happen with a Certificate of Service or if it is mailed back by the Notary. The Notary is actually a Deputy Secretary of State and is more powerful than the Court Clerk!
Public Notaries originate from the time of the Egyptian and Roman Scribes who were the purveyors of certified documents, which are sworn affidavits. Certified documents and sworn affidavits are truth in commerce. [e.g.] Birth Certificates are certified documents on bonded paper. The word bonded is derived from bondage as in slavery, which makes all of us Bond Slaves to whoever retains custody of our original Birth Certificates. I bet you believed that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves and it did for a short time and then the Birth Certificate and the 14th Amendment enslaved us all!
Canada, and the United States are corporations sole
A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole") incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") natural person.[1][2] This structure allows corporations (often religious corporations or Commonwealth governments) to pass without interruption from one officeholder to the next, giving positions legal continuity with subsequent officeholders having identical powers and possessions to their predecessors. A corporation sole is one of two types of corporation, the other being a corporation aggregate.[3]
Ecclesiastical origins
Most corporations sole are church-related[1] (for example, the archbishopric of Canterbury),[citation needed] although some political offices of the United Kingdom (e.g., many of the secretaries of state), Canada, and the United States are corporations sole.[4]
The concept of corporation sole originated as a means for orderly transfer of ecclesiastical property, serving to keep the title within the denomination or religious society. In order to keep the religious property from being treated as the estate of the vicar of the church, the property was titled to the office of the corporation sole. In the case of the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical property is usually titled to the diocesan bishop, who serves in the office of the corporation sole.
The Catholic Church continues to use corporations sole in holding titles of property: as recently as 2002, it split a diocese in the US state of California into many smaller corporations sole and with each parish priest becoming his own corporation sole, thus limiting the diocese's liability for any sexual abuse or other wrongful activity in which the priest might engage. This is, however, not the case everywhere, and legal application varies. For instance, other U.S. jurisdictions have used corporations at multiple levels.[5][6] In the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, a Catholic bishop is not a corporation sole, and real property is held by way of land trusts, a tradition dating back to the suppression of Catholicism by Henry VIII during the English Reformation and the Penal Laws of Ireland.[citation needed]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the corporation sole form for its president, which is legally listed as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".[7]
Iglesia ni Cristo was registered as corporation sole with the Insular Government of the Philippines in 1914[8] and with the People's Republic of China in 2014.[citation needed]
The corporation sole form can serve the needs of a religious organization by reducing its complexity to that of a single office and its holder, thereby eliminating the need for by-laws and a board of directors.[citation needed][original research?]
The Crown
Main article: The Crown
Within most constitutional monarchies, notably the Commonwealth realms, the Crown is a nonstatutory corporation sole.[9][10][11][12] Although conceptually speaking, the office and officeholder retain dual capacities in that they may act both in a corporate capacity (as monarch) and in an individual capacity (as a private person), they are inseparably fused in law; there is no legal distinction between the office and the individual person who holds it.[13] The Crown (state) legally acts as a person when it enters into contracts and possesses property.[14] As a person, the monarch (officeholder) may hold properties privately, distinct from property he or she possesses corporately, and may act as monarch separate from their personal acts. For example, Charles III as a natural person holds several separate offices, such as king of the United Kingdom, king of Canada, king of Australia, and the supreme governor of the Church of England, all of which are distinct corporations sole, even as he acts as a natural person in his private capacities separate and apart from his role filling these various offices (corporations). Likewise, the office of prime minister has use of certain properties and privileges, such as an official residence and decision-making powers, that remain with the office once the officeholder leaves, even as the officeholder may own property in a private capacity.[citation needed]
The sovereign's status as a corporation sole ensures that all references to the king, the queen, His Majesty, Her Majesty, and the Crown are synonymous, referring to exactly the same legal personality over time.[15][16] While natural persons who serve as sovereign pass on, the sovereign never legally dies;[17] thus the corporate nature of the office of sovereign ensures that the authority of the state continues uninterrupted.[18] In other words, the sovereign is made a corporation sole to prevent the possibility of disruption or interregnum, thereby preserving the stability of the Crown (state). For this reason, at the moment of the demise of the sovereign, a successor is immediately and automatically in place.[10][19]
As a corporation sole, the legal person of the sovereign is the personification of the state and consequently acts as a guarantor of the rule of law and the fount of all executive authority behind the state's institutions.[20] As Australia and Canada have federal systems of government, the sovereign in these cases also possesses capacities as distinct corporation sole in right of each of the Australian states and Canadian provinces; for example, as His Majesty the King of Australia in Right of Queensland and His Majesty the King of Canada in Right of Alberta.[citation needed]
Secular application in the United States
Every state of the United States recognizes corporations sole under common law, and about a third of the states have specific statutes that stipulate the conditions under which that state recognizes the corporations sole that are filed with that state for acquiring, holding, and disposing of title for church and religious society property.[21][22] Almost any religious society or church can qualify for filing as a corporation sole in these states. There can be no legal limitation to specific denominations, therefore a Buddhist temple or Jewish Community Center would qualify as quickly as a Christian church. Some states also recognize corporations sole for various other non-profit purposes including performing arts groups, scientific research groups, educational institutions, and cemetery societies.[citation needed]
Examples of corporations sole in the United Kingdom
Governmental
The Crown (sometimes regarded as a corporation aggregate)[23]
Administrator of Japanese Property (no longer exists)[24]
Auditor General for Wales[25]
Chief Executive of Skills Funding[26]
Children's Commissioner for England[27]
Children's Commissioner for Wales[28]
Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland[29]
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Comptroller and Auditor General
The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons,[30] and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords,[31] two corporations established by the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992
The Dawat-e-Hadiyah[32]
Duke of Cornwall
Duke of Lancaster
Information Commissioner[33]
Mayor (of London)'s Office for Policing and Crime
Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman[23]
Lord Mayor of the City of London[1]
Official Custodian for Charities[34]
Immigration Services Commissioner
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland[35]
Public Services Ombudsman for Wales
Public Trustee[36]
Pubs Code Adjudicator[37]
Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District[38] (abolished)
Registrar General
many secretaries of state in the United Kingdom (various; most recently Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs)[39]
Solicitor for the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster[40]
Treasury Solicitor[41]
London Fire Commissioner[42]
Dai al-Mutlaq[43]
In the Church of England
Archbishop of Canterbury[44]
Archbishop of York[44]
Bishops of the Church of England[3][1]
Deans of the Church of England[1]
Rectors and Team Rectors in the Church of England
Vicars in the Church of England[45][46]
Examples of corporations sole in New Zealand
New Zealand Public Trustee
Māori Trustee, New Zealand[47]
New Zealand's Office of the Privacy Commissioner[48]
Examples of corporations sole elsewhere
The Diocese of Hong Kong[49]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the office of its Presiding Bishop[7]
Director of National Parks, Australian government[50]
Governor General of Canada[51]
Minister of the Government, Republic of Ireland
Public Trustee
The Archbishop of Manila
The Archbishop of New York
Office of the sovereign of Canada
The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, A Corporation Sole- The Archdiocese of Chicago
(Former) Administrator of the Southern Electricity Supply of New South Wales
IRS agents are neither trained nor paid by the United States Government.
The IRS is not who you think they are. IRS agents are neither trained nor paid by the United States Government.
Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 92, the IRS is trained under the direction of the Division of Human Resources United Nations (U.N.) and the Commissioner (International), by the office of Personnel Management.
In the 1979 edition of 22 USCA 278, "The United Nations," you will find Executive Order 10422. The Office of Personnel Management is under the direction of the Secretary of the United Nations.
Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91, the IRS entered into a "Service Agreement" with the US Treasury Department (See Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967, Reorganization (BANKRUPTCY!!!) Plan No. 26)and the Agency for International Development. This agency is an international paramilitary operation and according to the Department of the Army Field manual (1969) 41-10, pgs 1-4, Sec. 1-7 (b) & 1-6, Sec. 1-10 (7)(c) (1), and 22 USCA 284, includes such activities as, "Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area."
The IRS is also an agency/member of a 169 nation pact called the International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, found at 22 USCA 263a. The memorandum of Understanding, (MOU), between the Secretary of Treasury, AKA the corporate governor of "The Fund" and "The Bank" (International Monetary Fund, and the International Bank for reconstruction and Development), indicated that the Attorney General and its associates are soliciting and collecting information for foreign principals; the international organizations, corporations, and associations, exemplified by 22 USCA 286f.
According to the 1994 US Government Manual, at page 390, the Attorney General is the permanent representative to INTERPOL, and the Secretary of Treasury is the alternate member. Under Article 30 of the INTERPOL constitution, these individuals must expatriate their citizenship.
They serve no allegiance to the United States of America. The IRS is paid by "The Fund" and "The Bank." Thus it appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service agents are "Agents of a Foreign Principle" within the meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938" for private, not public, gain.
The IRS is directed and controlled by the corporate Governor of "The Fund" and "The Bank." The Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS collection agency are both privately owned and operated under private statutes. The IRS operates under public policy, not Constitutional Law, and in the interest of our nations foreign creditors.
The Constitution only permits Congress to lay and collect taxes. It does not authorize Congress to delegate the tax collection power to a private corporation, which collects our taxes for a private bank, the Federal Reserve, who then deposits it into the Treasury of the IMF.
The IRS is not allowed to state that they collect taxes for the United States Treasury. They only refer to "The Treasury."
For those looking for solutions, here's one.
Then you have an EQUITABLE CLAIM, and can argue that the State does NOT have security interest in that car. FYI, when you register your car, the State acquires PERFECTED SECURITY INTEREST in it. I.e. it has a LIEN against it, which is why it can make you obey State Vehicle Code.
But with an equitable claim, you can BAR the State from enforcing its Code against you, or otherwise get a REMEDY against the State, since Equity supersedes Law. That is, even if you lose the legal case against you, you still can get REMEDY in Equity. Here's what lawyers say about equitable claims:
There are two types of claims: legal and equitable. While plaintiffs pursuing a legal claim ask a court to award money, litigants bringing an equitable claim ask a court to either prompt or stop a particular action or event.
Equitable Claims
A plaintiff who seeks equitable relief is asking the court for an injunction. An injunction is a court order compelling a party to do or refrain from doing a specified act.
A court awards an injunction to prevent a future harmful action -- rather than to compensate for a past injury --or to provide relief from harm for which an award of money damages is not a satisfactory solution or for which a monetary value is impossible to calculate.
Example: The Springfield City Council decides to re-zone a parcel of residential land as commercial land. The neighbors, who own homes on the neighboring parcels, are not pleased by this decision. The neighbors can sue the City Council, and ask the court to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction to block the law from taking effect.
In this example the neighbors can't just say we don't like the rezoning, they gotta have a VALID REASON, i.e. an Equitable claim. Such as that the rezoning will harm them, or decrease value of their properties, etc.
So basically, when you buy a car with gold coins, and you're not a resident of their corporate State (no ZIP code in your address), then you could ask the court for injunction against the State, even before you get charged with any traffic violation. And if granted, then the corporate State would be barred from giving you any traffic tickets.
BTW, there already are some people who used injunction to be put on the DO NOT DETAIN list, so that when a cop pulls them over, he sees 'do not detain' in his car computer, and has no choice but to leave them go.
The Bankers Manifesto of 1892
![]() |
Arthur de Rothschild (1851-1903) |
The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, SR from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens. "We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them. At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation. The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes; they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism. The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party. By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."
THE BANKERS' MANIFESTO OF 1934 From New American, February, 1934. "Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished."