THE LAW CLUB

PRESENTS
Melvin Stamper, JD.
Professor of law
A LAWSUIT IS AN ACT OF WAR

"We can have intellectual individualism and the rich, Cultural diversities that we owe to
exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes.
When they are so harmless to others or to the State,... the price is not too great; But
freedom to differ is not limited to those things that do not matter much. That would be a
mere, shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that
touch the heart of the existing order."

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high
or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." West
Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, (1943).

Introduction 2 The Law 173 Jurisdiction 284

Shelter Assets 29 Rules of Court 193 War Powers 315
Legal System 63 Expatriation 228
Tax 124 Juristic Personality 240
6 INTRODUCTION

This warning was sounded by William Pitt before the British House of Commons in his
message he addressed the need for Privacy, the Protection of Life, Liberty, Property and
the Pursuit of Happiness.

"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It
may be frail its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the
rain may enter, but the King of England may not enter; all his forces dare not cross the
threshold of the ruined tenement."

No longer is this the free country established by our forefathers. Under common law we
had immense personal freedom so long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others.
Today we seldom know any of our rights. The book of Hosea writes, "My people perish
for lack of knowledge." In 1797, 96% of all Americans had law books (Blackstones
Commentaries and the Geneva Bible) in their homes. They knew their rights, and were

1
belligerent litigates’. Today very few of us have such an awareness of, nor recognize the
differences in the courts of law and how each are applied and used against us, let alone
what our rights are.

Instead we place our faith in the hands of Lawyers and rely upon the light and knowledge
they possess to protect our liberty. We are encouraged to remain incompetent by seeking
professional, financial and legal council. We don't realize that an attorney is an officer of
the court and that his/her first obligation is to the court, not the client. As we begin to
recognize our vulnerability, it is vital we protect ourselves and our families from special
interest groups that would deprive us of knowledge, right to property, unalienable rights
and privacy.

Today we continue to find ourselves more heavily regulated by federal and state agencies
to whom we voluntarily place ourselves subject too, instead of claiming to be of the
posterity of those known as the sovereign class of “We The People”. These agencies
continue to place legislative influence over our businesses, education, commerce,
industry, transportation, communication, legal, medical, health, religion, and so forth. We
have given up control of our lawful rights for that of Federal “legal privileges” (Civil
Rights). By subjecting us to attorneys and the courts (Tribunals) virtually, a sovereign
government exercising Martial Law Rule now regulates every aspect of our lives.
Moreover, once again history repeats itself.

Have you been reduced to the role of a subject serving the interests of an oligarchy? Are
you a citizen of the UNITED STATES? If you are, you have my profound sympathy.

We are to blame, ignorance of our rights is worse than not having any rights at all. There
is a price for freedom and a cost for restoring it. The special interest groups exercising
Martial Rule control over us are hungry and broke and not likely to serve the best interest
of the people, as they struggle to survive and promote their tyranny.

Finally after years of research, I developed methods enough to get away from the
problem and get on with my life with some degree of peace and security. This weeklong
course is designed to aid you in that same quest and I hope that my years of trial and error
will eliminate the necessity for you to travel that same bumpy road.

For example, some of you may feel that the best course to follow is to keep an Ostrich
profile and don’t attract any attention to yourself. You might want to consider this
comment from one of our federal appellate courts:

“The cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his
constitutional rights…” United States v. Dickerson (1969), 413 F2d 1111.

It probably never occurred to you that you have an absolute right to cut down on what
you pay to big government. The fact is, the highest court in the land has told us:

“The legal right of a taxpayer. . .to altogether avoid (taxes), by any means which the law permits,
cannot be doubted…” Gregory v. Helvering (1934)239 US 465, 469.

2
This is what one of our illustrious Assistant Attorney Generals has to say about voluntary
compliance with the tax laws.

“We encourage voluntary compliance by scaring the hell out of you…” Roger M. Olsen, 1987.

Do not confuse love of country and obedience to law, with trust in, and submission to
government. That’s the Ying and the Yang. We will examine over the next few days
some of the practices of various, alleged, agencies of government, and I will ask that you
exercise some independent judgment as the basis for any actions you take in the future.

Do you think that your government might have misled you? Do you have a feeling of
impending doom deep in the base of your neck? That something out there is just not quite
right?

Well you’re not alone in those feelings. There is a “sea change” revolt in this country that
has the federal government terrified. I am going to attempt in the following days, to
instruct you about your rights, and expose you to information, that you are not likely to
have run into in your ordinary daily activities. I am certain that you will not ever hear
any of this information by listening to the media, as they are totally controlled by the
pestilential, monstrous body we refer to as the “Establishment.” The information you are
about to receive should have been given to you in high school.

I hope that in your free time, you might read my book, “High Priests of Treason”. That
book was written as a primer for the uninformed citizen of this country. Let’s face it, we
were all uninformed, that is the “national” educational system design. Their philosophy
is simple, classic, mushroom theory, “Keep them in the dark, and feed them plenty of
cow-manure”.
Your rights do not have any real meaning unless there are corresponding-duties. Rights
and duties can only exist in a natural person. For the person to have any benefit from a
right, other people who might be in a position to infringe on the right must be under a
duty not to do so. What defines the rights and duties of people is the rule of law.

This does not necessarily mean that the law is written down. In fact, when fundamental
rights are mentioned, they are attributed to “God’s higher authority.” They are deemed
inherent, unalienable and natural, and are so basic to the human condition, that everyone
ought to understand them without any writing. The Declaration of Independence has
ascribed such rights to the Creator. Similarly, there are restrictions on conduct, which are
so manifestly necessary in a civilized society that it is needless to record them. Such
restrictions are simply the duties, which attach to those fundamental rights of living.

Your right to life imputes a duty not to kill. Your right to property imputes a duty not to
steal. However, not all rights are fundamental, and not all duties are really necessary. To
separate these categories of rights and duties you must select a means of classification.

For this presentation the classification is three-fold:

3
I. Natural law: Do what is right. We are all born with an abundance of this knowledge.

2. Man's law: Do what you agree to do. Do not trespass on me, or my property.

3. Vulgar law: Do what I say. This incorporates nearly all, statutory law.

That part of the Natural law, which has been adopted into the practical laws of society,
has been merged with man's law. Those parts, which, deal with moral issues do not
belong in the law, unless they also involve real and immediate physical danger. Such
laws interfere with your freedom of choice, sometimes called free agency. Usually, as
you are well aware, when men try to enforce moral laws by so-called social engineering,
they are resorting to the vulgar law. Statute law as is practiced in our current courts of
law, unlike the common law, compels performance, and is in fact, Vulgar Law.

The entire field of social welfare legislation belongs to this class, along with the myriad
of special-interest laws, which plague every aspect of our lives.

Governments’ elite purports to protect us in our rights and compel us in our duties. If we
were capable of abiding by the highest principle, that of brotherhood, government would
be unnecessary. However, we are not so universally noble; thus we have had to submit to
the authority of government.

There are two basic types of government. One is a government, which has absolute
power. The other is a government, which is limited by law. Governments may be led by a
single person (monarchy, dictatorship), or a select group (oligarchy), or by all of the
people (democracy). The democracy usually operates by majority rule. What is
significant is that if law does not limit a democracy, and then it is mob rule. It is mob rule
because the same individuals are not always the constituents of the majority, as to each
matter upon which the people must have a rule. By contrast, if law, as in a constitutional
monarchy limits a monarch, you may have an orderly society even though it has the
appearance of aristocracy. In either case, order and freedom will only exist when leaders
have rules of law by, which their positions are regulated. The highest form of rule we
have developed is called a Republic. That form employs’ representatives, who are elected
by the majority, to administer the power of government in accordance with specified
restrictions. The point is that the majority does not rule, it only elects.

The French Revolution espoused the ideas of equality, liberty and fraternity. It tried to
operate as a democracy, calling itself a republic. However, there were no specified
restrictions, and under the direction of influential but tyrannical leaders, it degenerated
into a blood bath.

In our own country, the Declaration of Independence should have freed the slaves. As
actually applied, and as blessed by the Constitution, that Declaration failed to do so.
Lincoln thought that the Emancipation Proclamation would do the job. Apparently it did
not. Even a Civil War left the blacks as slaves in the South. It was thought that
Amendment 13 finally made them free, and that by Amendments 14 and 15 our black

4
brethren finally received their sovereignty, along with the rest of us. This is a lie. The
actual effect of those amendments was to bring the entire country into a kind of bondage,
a form of voluntary servitude, recognized as villeinage in merry old England. It made us
all equal all right - equally devoid of freedom.

My hope is that this course will show you how this bondage was brought about, how it is
maintained, and what you can do about it. Later I will summarize concepts of law and
government, which will give you enough understanding of both to enable you to use the
information to regain some of your liberty.

I know just a fraction of what the truth really is. However I have a personal quest to
uncover as much of the lies and subterfuge as is possible, and then to reveal that
knowledge to the American people. To give you the benefit of independent judgment on
their credibility, I will identify who said what, so that you can check it out. My own
opinions are clearly stated. You can take them for whatever you may think they’re worth.
The people upon whom I rely are men like the authors of the Constitution and their
contemporaries. Various modern public figures, justices of the United States Supreme
Court, justices from other courts around the country, and a lot of people who have tried
some things which worked and some things that did not work. I quote judicial opinions
and decision a lot, and try hard not to quote out of context. Just to be sure, I will refer you
to the whole case involved, so that you can check my interpretations out.

CHAPTER I
SHELTER OF ASSETS

IT’S TIME TO GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!

There are three phases to controlling the system. The first phase is your estate protection
work. You are placing the things, which creditors might seize beyond their reach.
However, be aware that this effort may be useless if you are already in debt. Transfers
without full consideration can be set aside, if you have creditors out there, including the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). You must first deal with those creditors, by settlement or
by bankruptcy. Of course, if you sell for full consideration, no one has a right to
complain, unless they can somehow show that the purpose of the sale was to hinder or
delay creditors. In addition, if the proceeds of sale can lawfully find their way beyond the
jurisdiction of the courts, there is not much anyone can do about it.

The second phase is to utilize all of the defenses allowed by law, to defeat the claims of
the IRS. As you will see, most of their enforcement efforts are fraught with defects, and
can be defeated by a determined resistance, both before a lawsuit and through the courts.
Never hesitate to initiate action against the IRS where they are in the wrong (which is
most of the time). Phase two enables you to deal effectively with the efforts of the IRS to
entice you back into their clutches. It also will nullify most of their efforts to collect any
tax. To reach this enviable position, you must know exactly how to respond to their
letters and calls, and you must utilize the procedures, which are legally available for your

5
protection. These procedures are set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC);
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA); under the Privacy Act (PA) and by reason of the laws relating to delegated
authority. Further information on these IRS pressure points will be explained in detail.

Finally, if you are not satisfied that the IRS stinger has been sufficiently pulled by your
estate protection measures, or if you desire, as a matter of principle, to draw the line
against governmental abuse, you may do your reclassification, work. This places you
beyond the reach of the taxation system, which applies to subject citizens, unless you get
back into it again by a subsequent consent, waiver or other form of voluntary action.

What you are doing is perfectly legal. You are simply making a public record of your true
status, which renders you a non-taxpayer, or at least a payer of very limited taxes.

The vital importance of this is, that if you are charged with a revenue law offense, you
have this reclassification record to establish your legal basis for refusing to file tax
returns. Even if the court rejected your reclassification, it would be hard put to convict
you of willful failure to file. Your belief in your lack of liability under the law is now a
matter of record.
How to become comfortably impoverished

I) RESTRUCTURING YOUR ASSET ATTITUDE

Most of you have developed an attitude about property, which tends to disable you
when it comes to dealing with your creditors. This is the attitude, which says that your
success in life is measured by how much you have acquired, “He who dies with the most
Toys wins.” The falsity of this concept is readily apparent when you examine the affairs
of those whom we call the super-rich. Upon close examination, you find that such people
have access to every conceivable luxury, but they never seem to owe a tax or be in debt.

Why is this? Simply because they don't own anything of significant value, some trust,
corporation, foundation, or the like owns everything they use. Such people have learned
that the enjoyment of wealth, undisturbed by the envious, requires a separation of the user
from the ownership of the property. When properly done, the user has the full benefit of
unlimited assets, but he is legally unable to control any of them. The property is thereby
beyond the reach of creditors, public and private.

Of course, you might worry about being taken care of when you have no control.
However, if you handled your paperwork properly in the first place, control would no
longer matter. The paper work does the job. The paper work commands the managers to
do certain things, most of, which will inure to your benefit. What does not, inures to the
benefit of those you care about.

There are numerous methods to arrive at the enviable position of being completely
insulated against creditors. I simply mention a few of them, sufficient to start you on your
way.

6
What you select will depend upon what you need and desire.

The point is that estate protection is undertaken not to defeat your creditors. Indeed, this
cannot be done, lawfully. If you physically remove assets from the jurisdiction, you may
actually be committing some crime. However, if you clean up your affairs first, then you
can cause the implementation of a program, which gives you the benefit of full usage of
property, none of which is available to your creditors, public or private. This use can even
pass to your family members, with the same insulation against their creditors. After all, if
you have done your work properly, you have not misled any creditors, not even the IRS.
This is neither tax avoidance nor tax evasion; those terms simply do not have application
to what you have done (if done properly, and timely).

RESTRUCTURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PROPERTY

I) CLEARING THE WAY

Many of you will receive the information contained in this presentation at a time when
you are significantly in debt, and perhaps already under pressure from the IRS. The
existence of these demands, present and impending, requires special legal consideration
in re-arranging your financial affairs. A person in debt is not allowed to simply resituate
his assets, and then thumb his nose at his creditors. If the transfer is not made for fair
value, or if it is made simply to hinder or delay creditors, the transfer will be set aside as
a fraudulent or constructive conveyance. It will be the same as if no transfer were made
in the first place. If the creditor is the IRS, they will not even bother to seek a court
evaluation of such a conveyance. The IRS will simply declare the transferee to be your
"nominee" or "alter ego." With this label ascribed, seizure will be made, and your
transferee will be required to go to court in an effort to prove the validity of the transfer,
to recover the asset.

Of course, if your transfer is to an entity in a foreign land, with no branch in the USA
subject to local jurisdiction, neither court action nor seizure will be effective against that
transferee, unless the foreign jurisdiction is a party to a treaty of some kind allowing
American creditors (or our government) to be assisted in debt collection (usually taxes) in
that foreign place. Be aware, however, that such a transfer might be punishable as a
crime. To determine whether or not you are open to claims of fraudulent conveyance or
alter ego, you must understand the three different classes of creditors: present, future, and
potential creditors.

A present creditor is one to whom you now owe money, or some legal duty. As to him,
any conveyance for less than fair value, whether or not you intended to hinder or delay
collection, will be set-aside on demand. The IRS claims this position as to any tax, which
has been assessed against you.

A future creditor is one with whom you are involved financially, or doing business,
wherein a future liability is presently determinable. This may arise where you built a

7
home, subject to some guaranty, and the building is defective. Common sense should be
sufficient to tell you whether or not any relationship, which you have with another,
involves a determinable future financial or other obligation. Such a creditor can reach the
transferred assets if it can be shown that they were transferred for less than fair value, or
with intent to hinder or delay collection or enforcement. The IRS would be in the position
of a future creditor as to any income, which you have become entitled to receive, for
which you have a duty to make a return at any time.

In both of the foregoing situations, the IRS will assert that your transfer was to a
nominee, and will proceed with a seizure. If the transferee was a person who conspired
with you to conceal assets, that person may become personally liable for your taxes to the
extent of the value of assets so concealed. By contrast, if the conveyance of property was
to an entity formed with a substantial business purpose, and all of the procedures required
for due creation of the new business entity were satisfied, the integrity of the business
will be respected.

Moline Properties, Inc. v. C. I. R. (1943), 329 US 436; Perry R. Bass, 50 TC 59

A potential creditor presents no problem to anyone. You are not required to structure
your life to protect everyone who might at some future day extend you credit, or have a
claim against you. If it were otherwise, the laws pertaining to gifts would be meaningless.
The IRS is a potential creditor as to taxes on income, which you have not yet become
entitled to receive. Neither the IRS, nor any other potential creditor, will ever have a legal
claim on assets which you sell, transfer, give away, or dispose of, no matter to whom or
by what means you may do so.

Also, always look up the local statute of limitations concerning conveyances, because
even a fraudulent conveyance may be immune from attack, if done long enough ago.

If you are exposed to the problem of present or future creditor claims, you must be sure
that your conveyances are completely valid. If you have sufficient assets to deal with all
claims, you are solvent. If the transfers, whom you contemplate, will not make you
insolvent, you probably have no problem. However, if transfers might render you
insolvent, you cannot make them without regard for the consequences. This means that
you must receive fair value, and be acting without intent to hinder or delay collection.
The matter of fair value seems quite simple: just sell or trade the asset for money or
equivalent value. Unfortunately, many things, which are actually of equal value, are not
so treated, when the creditor comes calling. A transfer to a trust, in exchange for
certificates of interest, or to a corporation, for its shares, is clearly fair value transactions.
In fact, even if the certificates or shares are made assignable to a third person, there is fair
consideration. The problem is, in the first instance, it might be deemed to be a transfer to
hinder or delay creditors; and in the second, the assignment of the consideration is a gift,
without fair value to you, and may be treated the same as if no assignment were made.
Unless the transferee is outside of the reach of local law, he may be required to return the
asset to you (meaning to your creditors).

8
 By this analysis we have reduced the solution of the problem to two obvious steps: get
money for the transfer; unless it is to defeat a tax claim, move the money to a jurisdiction
where it cannot be seized. If the IRS is involved, you cannot make such a transfer unless
it is to purchase some asset for value from a foreign source. However, there seems to be
no requirement that the asset be returned to a jurisdiction within reach of the IRS. Just be
sure the transaction was not intended solely as a devise to defeat collection!

A special warning that must be heeded: if the IRS has substantial claims against you,
you may find yourself unable to secure a passport to do those "offshore" things you wish
to do. Unless you have secured a foreign passport of some kind, you will be locked in
until you get your tax problem under control.
BANKRUPTCY

An alternative method for clearing the way is to file a bankruptcy. This will bring all of
your creditors forward, and settle all claims, once and for all. In the absence of fraud, all
taxes owed on returns timely filed over three years ago, or on late returns filed over two
years ago, are discharged in a Chapter 7 (liquidation) or 11 (reorganization) type of
bankruptcy. A discharge will also apply to un-filed returns (for which returns were due
more than three years past) or to late returns filed after the bankruptcy, if you file a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy (wage earner plan); even fraud will not prevent discharge of taxes
under that Chapter. (11USC§§507 (A) (iii) and 1328 (a) and 523)

Chapter 13 is not available to one who has no regular earnings, or who has debts over
$100,000 (unsecured) or $350,000 (secured). However, one may file even though the
claims of creditors (including the IRS) exceed these sums. He is entitled to dispute the
claims. If he prevails against his creditors sufficiently to reduce the tax to the limits
permitted, he may proceed with his Plan. For the person with excessive debt, he would
file what I like to call a "Chapter 20" bankruptcy: first a Chapter 7, to reduce the debt to
the allowable maximums, then a Chapter 13, to arrange installment settlement of what
remains. After filing the bankruptcy, in order to satisfy the government's concept of
"good faith," one must file all past due-returns; a homemade return is recommended
(explained later).

However, even if you filed no returns, if the IRS fails to file a claim, demand discharge
for taxes, which are not otherwise dischargeable! The literal language of the Bankruptcy
Act will not permit discharge of current taxes, but that should not dissuade you from
making the effort.

Caution: be sure to wait 240 days after any tax first becomes assessable (in non-Chapter
13 cases), to insure discharge ability.

The significance of bankruptcy is that, under any form, the old taxes can be discharged,
and the current taxes can be paid in installments over a period of three to five years -
installments which you determine, not installments imposed upon you by the IRS.

9
 Another blessing of bankruptcy is that the bankrupt can challenge the amount of the tax
claim due without first paying that amount. This would apply even to an amount
previously adjudicated in the Tax Court (although not where the District Court has made
the decision. Then, wait for the time limit to elapse before filing bankruptcy).

By reason of the potential of bankruptcy, you may be able to make a deal with your
creditors, fully documented, executed and enforceable, or with the IRS, under their rules
concerning compromise. Then you may be able to proceed with your estate protection.
You need only be sure that you have made adequate provision to comply with your
agreements. If this is not possible, and you are unable to move forward with the debt
burden, which you have, select the proper form of bankruptcy and get a discharge. Forget
about the damage to your credit. If you are really in such a situation, your credit is gone,
anyway!

ESTATE OPTIONS

In selecting an entity, first decide if it will simply hold, protect, and maintain assets’, or if
it will be used for business purposes. If not for a business purpose, the tax consequences
are less onerous, but it may not be an entity capable of bankruptcy. If for business
purposes, be prepared to handle its records in complete compliance with IRS
requirements (unless it is a foreign entity with no jurisdictional exposure). Of course,
regardless of tax exposure, the success of any entity depends to a significant degree upon
the completeness of the records it maintains. However, remember that those records are
private and immune from forced production, as business entities are regarded as
privileged activities and they are subject to taxation, regulation and disclosure of records.

In addition, be sure that the entities are completely independent of each other. If they are
not disconnected, they may be bunched together and treated as one entity, or as your alter
ego. Separate management (separate from yourself), proper capitalization and complete
records are your best protection against this danger. Avoid any claim that the
management is a thinly veiled substitute for the debtor.

A common problem with estate protection programs is that the programmer shows
negligible sources for his opulent life. Common sense dictates that you have a lifestyle
and income, which are mutually compatible. Let the records reflect that you are paying
for those things, which you use. The fact that the payments ultimately benefit a person or
entity whose increase pleases you is beside the point. If you haven't the means to pay
cash, borrow. Just be sure that your income can support the interest on what you borrow!
Ideally, give security on what assets (if any) you retain, to secure what you borrow.

The Unincorporated Organization

The Common Law Trust, Massachusetts business trust, pure trust, business trust, or
unincorporated business organization is best called by the name, "unincorporated
organization"(UO). This is the title used in the IRC to designate an entity, which is not
simply an association, which should be taxed like a corporation. If the UO operates a

10
business, it will be called a business trust and it may pay taxes. However, if it is properly
formed, it will be taxed as a partnership, not as a corporation.

This is the entity used by the super-rich to cloud their interests. It can exist for the
period of life, plus 21 years, and can be renewed time and again. By its use, like a
corporation, probate is avoided. Death of a beneficiary, trustee, or grantor has no effect
on its assets, so there is never anything to probate. Ownership is manifested by an
attachment listing the beneficiaries, or by certificates of interest. There can be no gift or
inheritance or other tax applied to the transfer of a beneficial interest (unless capable of
valuation because it was acquired at one fixed value and sold at another). Since one
purpose of the entity may be to avoid regulation and to minimize tax exposure, common
sense would prevent value-fixing transactions.

While the law generally recognizes the separate existence of the UO as an entity, in
bankruptcy the entity has no recognition unless it is actually a business entity. For this
reason, it may be prudent (though unnecessary) to register the UO under the fictitious
name laws, and pay for a business license.

The particular virtue of this entity is that it arises by contract, which contract is
protected against impairment by Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. This means that
it is not an entity, which arises by statute, so it is not taxed on that theory of law. In
theory, at least, it is not subject to governmental regulation, as is a partnership or a
corporation, or even a statutory trust. Regulation of the UO is a technical violation of the
Constitutional prohibition against contract impairment.

Structurally, the UO is in the nature of a trust. The laws of contract and agency
combined govern it. It comprises three essential parties: the grantor, who conveys assets
to the UO (or to the trustee thereof); the trustee who operates the UO in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the instrument creating the UO (usually called a "trust
indenture"), and the beneficiary, who receives the assets (upon termination of the UO)
and interim distributions (if directed by the terms of the trust agreement or determined by
the trustee in accordance with his authority).

There is usually only one grantor. The grantor might be an individual or an artificial
entity, such as a corporation. The trustee may be one or many, and might be an artificial
entity. The beneficiary may be one or many individuals and artificial entities. Obviously,
any of the three, or the UO itself, may be of foreign domicile.

Because of the possibility that the UO might be taxed as a corporation, it is important to

minimize the "badges" of that form. One such badge is an association of individuals.
Having a single trustee helps to minimize the appearance of this badge, although a board
of trustees does not create an association. Absolutely no direct or indirect management
control in the beneficiaries can be allowed; otherwise, there is a merger of interest, an
association arises, and the UO effectively disappears.

11
 Another severe problem is that the IRS will always want to pierce the UO and call it
your nominee. Exchanging assets for certificates of interest would be deemed to be
removing your assets from the reach of your creditors. Since the "grantor trust" arises
when there is no trustee with an adverse interest (meaning an ownership interest), it
would impossible for one to create a trust, as a grantor, in, which any relative has a
beneficial interest!

Therefore, someone unrelated to yourself must create any trust you use. In addition,
unless you are completely debt free and tax clear, you must make any transfer a sale for
fair value and let the trustee handle the issuance of certificates of interest independently.
You must stay out of management or control yourself, or the trust will be treated as your
alter ego.

To insure the continuity of a trust, it is prudent to have successor trustees selected by the
trustee when he is appointed. If there is any uneasiness in the grantor with regard to the
integrity or future performance of the trustee or his successor, the trust agreement should
provide for a "protector". This “protector Trustee” must have the authority to approve of
the trustee's compensation, to move the trust to another jurisdiction, and to remove any
trustee at any time without cause. This protector should not be either the grantor or any
beneficiary. In addition, the protector must have no power to direct the trustee, or he
effectively becomes the trustee himself.

v) The Sovereign Trust

Almost unique in America is an entity known as the Sovereign trust. It was specially
imported from England in the mid-80's and has begun to be used here. The Queen of
England and the Pope have this type. If its’ good enough for them it will probably suite
your purposes.

Basically, it is a common law type of trust. However, it has no domicile, because it is

created in a place, which is not within the jurisdiction of any particular government.
Having it executed in international waters or airspace does this. In a boat or aircraft,
which has joint ownership by citizens of different nationalities - preferably three or more.

In addition, the trust may recite that the law of three of more nations governs it,
simultaneously. The effect is to create a multi-national non-domiciled trust. It
incorporates both "Kingdom" law and "Canon" law. It is the form of trust used by
English Royalty and by the Vatican. It appears that this form of trust is utterly
unassailable in any court. However, so far as is known, no court case has tested this
viewpoint, as the Queen of England, nor the Pope, to my knowledge has been the object
of a suit.

DOMICILE OF THE ENTITY

While it may be essential for your purposes that the estate entity be established outside
of the USA, be aware that other jurisdictions may present problems worse than those you

12
fear may. Foreign seizure of assets is not uncommon, particularly in Mexico. Treaties
with the USA may exist which could defeat your purposes. Your passport to travel may
expire and not be renewable. For many purposes, it might be sufficient simply to go
outside the country to conclude your transaction, and thereby avoid a sales tax.

Since most states share tax information with the IRS, privacy is impossible for any
domestic entity. Of course, if you have a Sovereign trust, there is no problem of
domicile. The only question is whether the trustee of such a trust is found within any
particular jurisdiction at any time, and thereby within the authority of the local
government.

Jurisdictions, which have sufficient independent jurisdiction, are fiscally sound,

friendly, convenient and compatible, include Turks and Caicos Islands, Isle of Man, and
Channel Islands.

Tax free, jurisdictions include Turks and Caicos, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Monaco, Jersey,
Guernsey, Malta, Panama, Bahamas.

Turks and Caicos have the rare quality of allowing a corporation to issue bearer shares.
Having the entity offshore provides tremendous protection. For one thing, neither an
American court nor the government can make enforceable orders against the entity or its
offshore assets (so long as there is no domestic branch). For another, if you have
borrowed money abroad, and given a security interest in domestic assets, the foreigner
can come into our courts and enforce its priority claim over other creditors and the IRS.
However, the IRS has begun with maniacal prosecutions of anyone with offshore
interests in the form of Trusts or Limited Liability Corporations. Choose carefully any
offshore entity.

Another benefit merits special mention. If you have sold property to one of the entities
created for estate protection, you are certainly free to lease the property for fair value.
This avoids the IRS claim that the transferee is just a nominee. As for the proceeds of
rents paid to the entity, these could be invested in an annuity offered by an offshore
entity, payable over 20 years or so. The consideration is clearly fair, the payee is beyond
reach, and it has years to play with your money.

Only the UO or its successor has any power to enforce the contract of annuity. If it is
deferred for a period of years, there is nothing to enforce for that period of time. In
addition, nothing prevents the annuity payments from being deposited to an offshore
account.

Once you have an arrangement of some kind with a foreign entity, it is simple and
appropriate for you to move money offshore simply by paying the bills which the
domestic entity incurs doing business with the foreign one. Money can be paid offshore
to purchase corporate stock, annuities or insurance policies. These purchased investments
can be the source of borrowing money to capitalize a business, domestic or foreign,
without a tax consequence.

13
 TAX FACTORS

Be aware at all times that withholding of amounts up to 30% on income paid to a

nonresident alien is required, unless a favorable tax treaty is in force. This rises to 35%
on a transfer of a property without paying gains tax on any increased value.

Tax Procedures

If the UO expends all of its income on expenses and distributions, it has no income to
report, and no tax to pay. If it does retain any accumulated profit, it will report it on a
Form 1041. The tax rate applicable is that of a married person filing separately. The
trustee can deduct medical expenses on trust income both for himself and his entire
family." Because it is usually a business entity, the UO should apply to Philadelphia for
an ID number, which will commence with the numbers 52. There is no estate tax
involved when the UO is used.

The UO or UBO, Business Trust, etc., is the newest and most often, recently challenged
entity, by the IRS, because it gives the privacy and tax reduction that drives the Agents
crazy, so I will dwell a little deeper into the structure and benefits of the UBO.

A TRUSTWORTHY TRUST

Most all of us has been or will be either directly or indirectly exposed to a "judgment
creditor." Obtaining a judgment against another individual or company is now big
business. Attorneys advertise through TV, radio, newspapers, and even on park benches
encouraging every one to think of someone they can sue. They even offer a great
diversity of ideas at no cost to the plaintiff unless the case is won. Sue for slander,
headaches, injury, for lack of disclosure, for disclosing too many etc. etc. In addition to
attorneys, the infamous IRS is well known for the atrocities and havoc they play on the
lives of families, businesses, and companies. The IRS doesn't think twice to place a lien
on a home, seize a bank account or levy a person's wages. Whatever happened to the right
to work state? What happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Under
common law all of those things are an absolute right! Our government is leading us to
believe those things are not really a right but a privilege for which we must pay an excise
tax. Are we a free country or a police state? We are what "We the People" allow.

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933 and we are the scapegoat. Taxes,
penalties, and interest are out of control and will get worse and never better, that’s the
way it is intended to be. Major financial institutions are being forced out of business and
the battle to collect money and assets from "We the People" continues at an ever-
increasing pace. Recently there was a card circulating around the IRS offices which said
"Seizure Fever Catch it". Many individuals have approached me only after judgment
liens have been placed on their homes, bank accounts, and businesses. Although I would
like to help and occasionally can, it's usually too late. Your assets are a lot like an egg,
the contents are safe and protected until the shell is broken. Once the integrity of the egg

14
is breached, the contents are vulnerable to the adversary, be it a snake or a hostile two-
legged pin-stripped suit. I have personally spoken to people whose lives have been
shattered, whose homes have been levied upon, whose farms have been seized, and
whose businesses have been ransacked by those organizations that act as though we are a
police state rather than a country for and by the people.

Don't put all your "Risks" in one basket.

Very wealthy families have used one of the greatest defenses we have, for a great many
generations. We call it a UBO, the “Unincorporated Business Organization.” It is not a
typical trust as set up by an attorney. Attorneys are taught to practice statutory or
equity law, not common law.

Equity law, described by one Supreme Court Justice as “…equity is brutal...” takes away
our fundamental rights, because it is primarily contract law, where the Constitution has
no relevance, while Common law allows for a great deal more privacy and protection. Let
me give you an example.

Corporate law, which is a form of equity or statutory law, allows an individual the right
to contract with the state when setting up a corporation for the privilege of reducing
personal liability. Among your obligations as a corporation are:

Disclosure of all officers

A minimum tax required each year!
Double Taxation - Any corporate earnings that are paid out as dividends to the officers
are taxed once at the corporate level and again at the recipients.
All financial records are subject to seizure and audit at any time without any prior
notification.

Now compare a UBO trust.

A No yearly fee. (A one-time charge to set up the trust.)

Limited liability - by virtue of the fact that the UBO operates as its own fictitious person
and can operate just as you do. Each trust has its own accountability and risk.
Privacy - All officers or Board of Trustees do not have to be revealed.

Your financial records are private and under common law, require notification and a
court order to be seen. Why don't more businesses use the UBO trust? My research has
led me to consider that certain special interest groups in the 1800's were frustrated that
Common law did not give them enough control over individuals and businesses. One of
our constitutional rights under Article 1, Section 10, guaranteeing an absolute prohibition
against state interference, is our common law right to contract. It can work for us or
against us. These special interest groups used this right to establish a new legal system,
which we now know as equity or statutory law. To market their legal system they set up
or contracted with universities in the various states and only allowed those who graduated
in their "school of thinking" to practice their law. These universities did not and do not

15
promote common law, which is protected throughout the United States, so their graduates
were limited to the state in which they were licensed by contract to practice. Equity law
gives these special interest groups greater power over individuals and businesses.
Therefore UBO trusts would not provide enough control by these special interest groups.
Additionally attorneys simply wouldn't make as much money.

Since attorneys are not taught or encouraged to practice common law, they know very
little about it. There are no universities that I know of that teach it. It is up to “We the
People” to learn it and use it. We must know and practice our Common law rights, our
forefathers fought and died for them. They will work for us, when we work for them.

There are many advantages of a UBO trust when used for personal and business affairs:

Privacy in personal and business dealings.

Greater control over what you've acquired and accomplished.
Reduced exposure from potential lawsuits and claims of adverse parties and to
discourage sue-happy lawyers by maintaining an effective "empty pockets" program.
Reduced liability when owning and operating high-risk asset or performing high-risk
professional services, thereby saving money on high-priced insurance premiums.
Increased profits via reducing business costs.
Flexibility and creativity in personal and business planning.
Simplicity of doing business in this increasingly complex society; including the buying
and selling of big-ticket capital assets, businesses and real estate.
Preserve and distribute assets at your sole discretion.
Avoid probate and eliminate death taxes.
Reduce or avoid federal and state income/franchise taxes.
The trust may develop its own credit and investment program to provide security and
protection for the beneficiaries at retirement.
And more....

Having title of property in your name greatly increases your exposure of a potential
lawsuit. A creditor, by running a title search based on the social security number, can
access your assets and target them. Properly placing your assets in a private UBO trust
under its own Employer Identification Number would help shield assets. This offers you
a chance to bargain with legitimate creditors from a position of strength and have
protection from those who are illegitimate. Remember the more assets you have in your
name the greater the target you are.

A UBO Trust is a wonderful estate-planning tool, a means of reducing taxes, protecting

assets, and preserving privacy.

The symptoms of a growing bondage are all around us. Thousands are being victimized
daily without the knowledge to defend themselves. Having ownership with your name
and social security number attached to anything places you in a glass house as a target.
The more you own the more likely a target you may be to some frivolous lawsuit. A trust

16
properly set up and managed can protect your privacy and property. Privacy is still a right
until we give it up.
The trust offers reduced liability from potential lawsuits and claims of adverse parties
- and discourages suit happy lawyers by maintaining an effective "empty pockets"
program. Allow you to deal with frivolous lawsuits and judgment creditors from a
position of strength without being victimized.

There is another method of protecting assets which is gaining in popularity know as the
Corporation Sole. UBO Trusts can be used in conjunction with the Corporation Sole for
greater protection.

THE CORPORATION SOLE

WHAT IS A CORPORATION SOLE?
Corporation sole. Unusual type of Corporation consisting of only one person whose
successor becomes the corporation on his death or resignation; See aggregate and sole.
Black’s Law—Sixth Edition
Aggregate and sole. A corporation sole is one consisting of one person only, and his
successors in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them
some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural
persons they could not have had. In this sense, the sovereign in England is a sole
corporation, so is a bishop, so are some deans distinct from their several chapters, and so is
every parson and vicar. Black’s Law—Sixth Edition
HISTORY
During the Reformation period in Europe (1500-1550), the Church of England was in
desperate financial straights. What got them into this difficulty has all but been disregarded
by History text of this time-period lest it embarrass the Church and the English Crown.

The Bible had just recently been put to print. Only Churches and the nobility owned copies,
due to the extremely high cost of paper. The handwritten versions were outrageously
expensive, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: Churches, Crowns and the
nobility.

The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were un-sworn and un-allieged. The
market for Bible was not the wealthy, they already had a handwritten copy, nor was it the
tenants, they were far too poor to make the purchase. The market was the tradesman - and
the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family
Bible. The other reason was that Tradesmen, were the Market. They had also been taught
how to read as part of their apprenticeship, other than the families of the super-rich, (and the
priests) nobody else knew how to read.

These men overwhelmed when they read Jesus’ command against swearing oaths (Matt 5:
33-37). This was news to them, for well over a millennia they’d been trusting that the
Church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been

17
telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus
said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about a revelation.

Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths, there
would have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in
return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society claimed it was Christian
yet it violated a very simple command of Christ! In addition, the tradesmen had done it also,
by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the
guilds. They had no way of knowing oaths were prohibited by Jesus! They were angry
"livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming, but what could they
do ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia
long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better
scheme.

In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This

treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a Church; it was considered a State
right. The Church would be granted a charter; it only had to do one very simple thing to
obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty. Buried in those provisions,
most of which were innocuous, was a statement that the Church would never oppose the
swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The Churches all said (and still say), "None,
except . . ."

The tradesman left the Church of England, but with every new "reformed" Church still
opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no Church for them to join - or found, but they
could not establish a Church, which followed Jesus’ words, for that would have required
assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded.

With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who had
been the more charitable to it in the past - the Church was technically bankrupt. It was not
just the losses from the tradesman. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed
Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church had amassed sufficient assets
to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.

The Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, cannot go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of
the State to support it in difficult times. Parliament did so, they enacted a tax, a nice
religious tax and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe of (10%). Nevertheless,
Parliament made a deadly mistake in that; the Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized
this income tax as a tax “without jurisdiction”, at least so far as they went. As men Unsworn
and unallieged, they pointed out that they did not have to pay it, or provide a return. Absent
their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction" and they were right.
Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax none
were arrested or charged.
That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who had thought the Quakers
"extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. These men were keeping all they earned,
while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out
10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once evidenced in the

18
marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The
taxes were not enough to offset these further losses. The tithe tax was actually
counterproductive to the goal of supporting the Church.

If the movement continued to expand at that current rate, no one in the next generation
would swear an oath. The Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be
sold-off, with what remained of that Church greatly reduced in power and wealth.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the clergy of the Anglican Church were permitted to
marry and raise families. The entire congregation even the Vicars and Bishops had been
charged this religious tax to support the Church. The hierarchy of the Church in agreement
with the King permitted the clergy to take vows of poverty like the Catholic clergy in order
that they became exempt from taxation of their incomes. The fact that the clergy were
exempt from the tax did not set well with the congregations so the concept of Corporation
Sole was established.

The Corporation Sole permitted the Bishop and the Vicar of the Church to become a Church
-- making all income and property of the Clergy technically belonging to the Church. That
concept in place the clergy’s tax exemption status was more palatable with the people. The
benefits were enormous to the clergy, in-that probate was avoided upon the death of the
Bishop or Vicar and the next in bloodline became the Corporation Sole (Church)---all
accumulated property at the disposal of the next Corporation Sole and their families in
perpetuity.

APPLICATION IN COMMON LAW TODAY

In early American History, the Patriarch of every household was legally considered the
Overseer of a common-law Corporation Sole. In analyzing the historical context, it would
appear that the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against "corruption of blood" is the legal
foundation and support for this concept.
No law can restrict the right, for the children to inherit the fruits of the parent’s labor. This is
identical in context to no law being able to take away the right of future members of your
congregation or religious order [family religious unit] to use and enjoy the property of
previous generations. The American founding fathers considered the family the basic
religious unit of society. As a Corporation Sole, we are acting as a fiduciary for our
grandchildren and the family property is not ours, but belongs to the Church, and the family
benefits by using the property as if it were their own, in the furtherance of the stated mission
of the Church.
A Corporation Sole is a private Religious organization; it is not controlled by statute,
however, it does interface with statutory law and is recognized by most State
governments. Your Corporation Sole will make application for a UBI number,
pursuant to 26 USC §508 of the Internal Revenue Code. With that number, it can
contract, open bank and checking accounts. The Corporation Sole permits the
individual a greater degree of privacy in their personal affairs; combined with
religious convictions, which are in conflict with present day statutory law, to still
function with relative ease within our society. A Corporation Sole consists of one

19
incorporated office and provides for a succession of office holders, with no board of
directors, no shares, no bylaws and no other offices.
This form of corporation grew out of a need for the Church of England and the Roman
Catholic Church to find an orderly and secure way to hold and pass title to Church property
and protect the clergy’s personal assets. The modern Corporation sole is the result of 450
years of common law experience. It is extremely rare that a court action involving a
Corporation sole will be prosecuted because the concepts have been tested for centuries and
most all defects have been corrected.
Why use a Corporation Sole?
The Corporation Sole is a legal entity that can hold property and protect that property from
liens, levy’s, seizures and confiscation due to the personal actions of the individual. This
includes all assets, including homes, boats, automobiles and other such property. When a
Corporation Sole possesses property, it is as if the Church owns it --- not you personally.
You are the Overseer of the property only and upon your death, your successor would then
manage the property of the Church. This is similar to a Bishop, or other heads of organized
religious groups; all assets will be owned by the Corporate Sole and will pass on to your
family without probate or taxation.
This structure is without inherent disadvantages of other corporations and entities. Law
incorporates Corporation Sole in order to give it legal capacities and advantages that other
corporations do not enjoy (i.e. operational rule and statutory regulations). The government
cannot dictate how a Corporation Sole is to operate, so it acts with limited government
interference.
IS A CORPORATION SOLE A LEGAL ENTITY?
Corporations Soles to be formed for the purpose of acquiring, holding, and disposing of
Church or religious society property for the benefit of religion, for works of charity and for
public worship and of property of scientific research institutions maintained solely for pure
research and without expectation of pecuniary gain or profit. This description found in
many State statutes.
Some States specifically recognize Corporation Sole, but do not permit statutes to be written
regarding them because of the first amendment prohibition against government making laws
respecting an establishment of Religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There exists
explicit statutes in seventeen states that describe Corporation Sole; there are functioning
Corporation Soles in over half of the states because of the rule of comity.
A Corporation Sole is registered as a religious society, with the Secretary of State of your
State and the County recorder’s office. The Corporations Soles mission maybe education,
medical services, legal services or whatever the religious society decides is a worthy
endeavor in its Articles.

BENEFITS OF CORPORATION SOLE

Upon recording ownership of the property as a Church, the Corporation Sole is entitled to
all the consideration of other Churches and religious societies. The Church may buy, hold,
and sell property (real and personal) with complete tax immunity. There is absolutely no
statutory limitation on how much money may pass through the Church or religious society.

20
Corporation sole can be responsible to provide for all you needs (i.e. shelter, food,
transportation, clothing, medical, etc.)
This occurs by first conveying all that you own and all future earnings to Corporation sole.
You make a record, by recording a vow of poverty. This lets the world know that you are
now a pauper and own nothing. If you work for someone or company, you do so on behalf
of the Corporation Sole. None of these earnings are taxable because they are paid directly to
the Corporation Sole. These payments are made without deductions, diminishments or taxes
of any kind. You do not become an independent contractor. One feature of religious
societies is that they can accept vows of poverty by their members (i.e., monks, nuns, priests
and Overseers). The IRS recognizes these vows of poverty. When one is under a vow of
poverty, the physical objects in their possession are not their own, although it may be their
job to look after and use those objects, in a fiduciary capacity to the Corporation Sole in the
furtherance of the stated mission of the Church. Thus, when you see a Catholic Bishop
chauffeured in a stretch limousine, he is still under a vow of poverty, recognized by the
Internal Revenue Service and not questioned or harassed by the government. Virtually, all
Catholic dioceses are structured as Corporation Sole.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CORPORATION SOLE
To form a Corporation Sole a Church official (Secretary), is elected or appointed in
conformity to the Church Constitution, Cannons, or Articles. There are states, which have
statutes that require a Church Seal; in addition, they specifically provide for ownership of
property in any state or any foreign country. It provides for smooth, tax-free transfer of title
property. You will be provided with a 9 digit Federal Identification Number to open a
checking account for the Corporation Sole. However, because you will be the signatory for
the Corporation Sole, some banks require your personal Social Security Number to verify
through the Banking Commissioners office, assurance that you personally have not been
involved in banking or checking fraud within your state. You will find that not all banks
require your SSN#. You may give it to them or refuse and go to another bank if you wish. It
is not mandatory by law for them to require this it is strictly a policy of the bank you choose.
Title 5 USC §552 (a) prohibits the bank from denying you a privilege or a benefit for not
revealing your Social Security Number. Many Banks have been sued for denying that
benefit.

Normal legal procedure when a Corporation Sole finds itself in court is for the Holy
Bible, (1611 King James version)(non-copy write) Constitution, Canons, or Articles of
the Church, replace the state statutes and rules of court. If a Church regulation covers
a particular situation, the Church regulation takes precedence over the state statute,
rule or procedure. Since the government has no power over any Free Church, all
enforcement procedures must use the rule of the Church! That being the case the
Articles of Corporation Sole should be expansive enough to deal with the above legal
requirements. The religious society’s property that is in the custody of the Overseer
cannot be taken by a court for satisfaction of personal claims against the Overseer,
because the property is held in the Overseer’s fiduciary capacity. Corporation sole is
required to maintain meticulous records of dealings. However, it is charged with never
divulging those records.

21
Most Catholic Dioceses consist of many Corporation soles by one incorporated office of a
Bishop. Each building or automobile may be in its own corporation. The reason is purely to
limit insurance liability. Pure Trusts can be used in this capacity, which are owned and
controlled by the Corporation Sole.
There are no annual renewal fees for the Corporation Sole, as there are with most Trusts and
other type corporations. Future expenses will include only the cost to the county recorder
every time another person replaces the person occupying the office of Overseer to the
Corporation Sole. The name that you use is important, it will describe the organization and
the visions that you have for your Corporations Sole. A name should reflect an image of
your intent with the use of Fellowship, Brotherhood, Services, Alliance, Ministries, Center,
Awareness, Health and/or a name that would be used to describe the following titles;
Church, Synagogue, Mosque or a name related to the religion practiced in them. NOTE: Do
not use your personal name.
Applying for permission for exemption under 26 USC §501 (c)(3) voids the natural
immunity against regulation found in the First Amendment to the Constitution as well as the
Internal Revenue Service Code, 26 USC §508.
The Corporation sole is by nature a form of limiting liability within the assets of the
Corporation. The Washington statutes on Corporation Sole stipulate that the property is held
"in trust" for the membership of the organization. This makes this kind of Corporation
function as a Trust! In fact, the Oklahoma statutes describing Corporation Sole are found in
that state’s trust successor provisions, with a waiver of the "rule against perpetuities ".
One guaranteed way to fail in an attempt to avoid taxation is to work for W-2 wages and
donate 100% of your income to a Corporation Sole of which you are the Overseer. In cases
like this, there is a contractual obligation not to exceed a certain percentage of one’s income
in charitable donations within the taxing statutes. In addition, the IRS justifiably claims that
the Corporation Sole is an "alter ego" of the W-2 wage earner, and liens, levies, and seizes
all of the assets of the Corporation Sole. The best way to avoid this scenario is to never
work for W-2 wages, but if you do, stay within the guidelines of the IRS when donating to
the sole. You may use other tax strategies for lowering the tax bite. Corporation sole can be
engaged in any lawful occupation, business or profession. All earnings from the lawful
endeavors are exempt from income tax. In fact, no state or federal tax returns are to be filed.
Taxation is the only means for governments to work corruption of blood. Because no
law may impair obligation of contracts and when one places their family’s property
under contract (mortgage or otherwise), the “corruption of blood” provisions of the
United States Constitution no longer protect property. The Corporation Sole has
worked well for over 450 years and there is no reason to suspect that it will not
function the same way for you and your family.

CASE LAW ANALYSIS

ON CORPORATION SOLE
The fact that the modern American corporation sole works satisfactorily is, perhaps, best
illustrated by the relative absence of recent cases carried to the appeal level. Corporate
structure is seldom at issue, but the cases tend to run the gamut: torts, 1 contract, 2 civil

22
procedure, 3 piercing the corporate veil, 4 workman's compensation, 5 taxation, 6 eminent
domain, 7 estates8 and simple fraud.9 Property disputes are relatively rare, perhaps because
there would be first amendment implications for most corporations sole.10
The corporation sole seems to have a settled existence. There has been no rash of new
legislation, nor have there been any repeals of earlier laws. Most legal disputes involving a
corporation sole would be simple torts resolved in insurance settlements or at the trial level.
There may also be a reluctance for potential plaintiffs to sue an officer of a church or for
officers of a church to permit disputes to go to trial.
Special Circumstances
Eight additional states have circumstances meriting comment. The constitutions of Virginia
and West Virginia specify that no charter of incorporation can be granted to any church or
religious denomination.11 At least one commentator attributes this prohibition to the
influence of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. 12 Although the tradition of church-state
separation in Virginia may in-deed be traced to the two former presidents, the constitutional
provision in Virginia dates to 1851,13 long after the deaths of both.14
The West Virginia courts have acknowledged that the provision in that state is descended
from Virginia.15 While these constitutional provisions pose no problems to the titles of
church property in either state, they obviously preclude a corporation sole. 16 An article in the
Kansas constitution, which required title to property of religious corporations to be vested in
elected trustees, was repealed in 1974.17
Connecticut has a provision in its corporation code that gives the local archbishop or bishop
special powers in trust if a Catholic parish corporation violates or surrenders its charter. 18
The courts have interpreted this provision to mean that, if a charter is surrendered, "all the
property vests in the bishop and his successors, as a corporation sole." 19 This section
provides emergency powers that are not normally required.
Oklahoma allows for trust succession in the name of an ecclesiastical office. 20Vermont, in
contrast, specifically forbids any such succession.21
Finally, case law in Arkansas and Florida also deserves attention. The Supreme Court of
Arkansas, in dicta, has recognized the Roman Catholic Bishop of Little Rock, as a
corporation sole without any special act of the legislature. 22 The Florida situation is even
more compelling. The Supreme Court of Florida has repeatedly held that the common law
corporation sole is in full force in Florida. 23 The court relies on the fact that the common law
has been adopted in Florida and remains in force unless expressly or impliedly repealed by
organic or statutory law. This unique position initially attracted journal comment, 24 perhaps
because it seemed contrary to the earlier United States Supreme Court position.25
A Federal Corporation Sole
Only rarely has there been mention of a federal charter for a religious or quasi-religious
organization.26 When Congress voted, in 1811, to incorporate an Episcopal church in the
District of Columbia, President Madison vetoed it. 27 In his veto message, the President
implied that a charter of incorporation was in some sense an approval of a religion, in
violation of the Constitution.
More than a century later when incorporation was so common, the Congress and the
President took another view. In 1948, the Vatican completely severed the Archdiocese of

23
 Washington from the Archdiocese of Baltimore. The new Archbishop of Washington, with
the help of President Truman, sought to have a corporation sole established as a framework
for the new ecclesiastical territory. 28 Congress complied by passing a private law that
established the Archbishop of Washington and his successors as a corporation sole.
More Modern Form
A number of authorities warn against confusing the corporation sole with the modern one-
person corporation.29 In fact, courts have held that a stock corporation is not automatically
transformed into a corporation sole simply because one person has purchased all of the
stock.30
It is possible, however, to structure a one-person corporation in such a way that it closely
resembles a corporation sole in operation. In fact, the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Wilmington is so structured under the general corporation laws of Delaware. The
Wilmington diocese is not incorporated under the terms of the Delaware Code for Religious
Societies and Corporations. Rather, the diocese is incorporated under the General
Corporation Law, which already contains provisions for a board of one, for non-stock
operation, and for formation of a close corporation. 31 By carefully writing the by-laws, and
by addressing the problems of succession, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilmington has
fashioned a corporation that contains all the advantages of the corporation sole in a state that
has no regular provision for one.32

Summary
From historical beginnings, with King Saul and King David, Corporation Soul have had
many transformations. From its quaint operation in English law, the corporation sole has
established a modest, yet solid, foothold in the United States. To churches with a
hierarchical structure, and particularly to the Roman Catholic Church, it has been a secure
method for both ownership of property and daily operation. Most dioceses today incorporate
each parish and institution separately to limit insurance liability. The corporation sole thus
becomes a holding company with multiple subsidiaries. In a society characterized by
religious and ethnic pluralism, the corporation sole has provided a useful legal option, well
adapted to the needs of certain groups. The corporation sole has arguably made a greater
contribution in the United States than in its native land. The corporation sole is destined to
be a continuing part of American law for years to come.

1. Decker v. Bishop of Charleston. 247 S.C. 317, 147 S.E.2d 264 (1966); Barabasz v. Kabat, 86 Md. 23,
37 A. 720 (1897).
2. Hurley v. Warley, 203 So. 2d 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1967).
3. Zani v. Phandor Co., 281 Mass. 139, 183 N.E. 500 (1932).
4. Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. App. 3d 405, 93 Cal. Rptr. 338
5. Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 194 Cal. 660, 230 P. 1 (1924).
6. People ex ret. Pcarsall v. Catholic Bishop, 311 111. 11, 142 N.E. 520 (1924).
7. City of Little Rock v. Linn, 245 Ark. 260, 432 S.W.2d 455 (1968).
8. In re Estate of Zabriskie, 96 Cal. App. 3d 571, 158 Cal. Rptr. 154 (1979).
9. Baldwin v. Commissioner, 309 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. 1981).

24
10. Judicial Intervention in Disputes over the Use of Church Property. 75 HARV. L. REV. 1142 (1962);
Note, Judicial Intervention in Church Properly Disputes-Some Constitutional Considerations, 74
YALE LJ. 1113 (1981); Oaks, Trust Doctrines in Church Controversies. 1981 B.Y.U. L. REV. 805.
11. VA. CONST. art. IV, § 14(20); W. VA. CONST. art. 6, § 47.
12. Kaupcr & Ellis, supra note 37, at 1529.
13. 1 A. HOWARD, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA 545 (1974).
14. Thomas Jefferson died in 1826; James Madison in 1836.
15. Powell v. Dawson. 45 W. Va. 780, 32 S.E. 214 (1899).
16. Kauper & Ellis, supra note 37, at 1530.
17. KAN. CONST. art. 12, § 3 (repealed 1974).
18. CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 33-281 (West 1987).
19. State ex rel. Barry v. Getty, 69 Conn. 286, 289, 37 A. 687, 688 (1897).
20. OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, § 563 (West 1986).
21. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 27, § 703 (1975).
22. City of Little Rock v. Linn, 245 Ark. 260, 432 S.W.2d 455 (1968).
23. Reid v. Barry, 93 Fla. 849, 112 So. 846 (1927); Willard v. Barry, 113 Ha. 402, 152 So. 411 (1933);
Hurley v. Worley, 203 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1967); 8 FLA. JUR. 2d, Business Relationships, § 6 (1978).
24. The Corporation Sole, 26 MICH. L. REV. 545 (1928); Recent Cases. supra note 17, at 296
25. Wright v. Morgan, 191 US. 55, 59 (1903).
26. For a brief history of "The Question of Federal Incorporation," sec 3 A. STOKES, supra note 50, at
413. Stokes was not aware of the 1948 legislation incorporating the Archdiocese of Washington.
27. M.at 414.
28. 62 Stat. 355 (1948).
29. H. HENN & J. ALEXANDER, supra note 7, at 697 n.l; 1 W. FLETCHER, supra note 6, at § 54.
30. Louisville Banking Co. v. Eisenman, 94 Ky. 83, 21 S.W. 531 (1893). 33. DEL. CODE ANN. tit 27, §§
115-17 (1975).
31. The General Corporation Law of Delaware is found in DEL CODE ANN. tit. 8, §§ 101-398 (1984 &
Supp. 1986). The number of directors is treated in § 141; section 242 deals with non-stock
corporations; and Subchapter XIV, beginning with § 341, addresses close corporations. The Diocese
was incorporated on December 2, 1972.

We are not in the business of establishing Trusts or Corporation Soles. However, many
of our students have asked for them so we have developed a UBO and Corporation Sole
which has to date not been challenged by the Internal Revenue Service. If you are
interested in this package, inform your instructor for information.

SECTION II

WHAT IS A SOVEREIGN
AND HOW DO I BECOME ONE?

25
There were three blind men who were asked to describe an Elephant. The first blind man
carefully inspected the trunk of the Elephant and quickly determined that an Elephant is
accurately compared to a Snake. The second blind man, after much scrutiny of the Elephant’s
tail, announced that an Elephant is indeed more closely identified as a rope than anything else is.
The third blind man after laborious inspection of the Elephants leg determined that no, and
elephant must be best described as resembling a Tree trunk.

Whether it is three blind men describing an Elephant, or a federal judge, asked to describe your
citizenship status, no one is so blind as those who will not see.

PEOPLE, PERSON or CITIZEN

WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

As Americans, we are socialized to believe that we are all Citizens of this great nation we
call the United States of America. Quite frankly, most Americans are pretty emotional about
the issue. Try telling your neighbor, who fought against Hitler in WWII, that he's not a
citizen of the United States, and see what reaction you get!
The problem is that the people who write laws don't write them in the same manner that you
and I speak. Laws are written to achieve certain goals and the words used within laws are
selected to achieve those goals. Sometimes the goals are legitimate and the language that is
used, while confusing at times, is necessary to achieve the goal. Other times confusing
language is used for no other reason than to obscure the truth from the casual reader.
The issue of citizenship is no less clouded by such use of language than is any other area of
law. The definitions of words or "legal terms" must be sought out diligently and the context
in which they are used always carefully considered.

26
In the Constitution of the United States, the phrase "Citizen of the United States" appears.
Because this phrase appears within a Constitution, not a statute, the meaning of the phrase is
determined by the meaning intended by those who wrote and signed the Constitution. If the
intended meaning is manifest, there is no power on earth, including that of a criminal in a
black robe, which can alter the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase "Citizen of
the United States" is well understood. That phrase is shorthand for the sentence, "All the
Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution".
The important element that you should understand is that the "Citizen of the United States"
spoken of in the Constitution of the United States is more properly and accurately a Citizen
of the state in which he lives. The phrase "Citizen of the United States" is actually a
euphemism used for convenience and brevity, and not a legal title.
After the Constitution was signed by all the states, the federal government began acquiring
"territories". At the time, these territories were limited to the lands west of the established
boundaries of the states, and lands not claimed by the states. People born in those federally
held territories, by parents who were not Citizens of a state, became de facto "citizens of the
United States". Although at that time there was no statutory authority for such a thing,
international law had (and still has) a long established doctrine that, absent any extenuating
circumstances, a person is a citizen of the national jurisdiction (or sovereignty) in which he's
born. The federal territories were outside of the sovereignty of the individual state
governments, and within the sovereignty of the United States government; hence the de facto
status as a "citizen of the United States". This principle also applies to persons in Washington
DC, which is under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States. [For the sake of clarity,
we use a lower case "c" for a citizen of the federal government and an upper case "C" to
denote a Citizen of a state of the Union.] It should be noted that "citizens of the United
States" are not The People who created the states, then by state action, created the
federal government. These "federal citizens" are not "parties to the Constitution" and
therefore did not have legal claim to the same rights, privileges, and immunities that
state Citizens did.
One should take careful note that the Citizens of the states of the Union are the only Citizens
who possess all the rights, privileges, and immunities spoken of in the US Constitution, plus
whatever additional rights are secured to them by their own state Constitutions. At the end of
this section you will see federal and state court cases that clearly show that the rights of one
class of Citizen are thoroughly different from the "rights" (actually Congressionally granted
privileges) of the other class of citizen. This distinction in the "class of citizenship" continued
without significant comment or concern until the end of the Civil War.
Although the Civil War was not fought over slavery (despite what you were taught in the
public schools), the end of the Civil War nevertheless brought about the end of involuntary
servitude and slavery in America. [See Article XIII of the Constitution of the United States.]
Prior to the Civil War, the southern states did not recognize blacks as persons who could
become Citizens of their states. In fact it was well understood by the Citizens of these
southern states that when their state Constitutions protected the right to own "property" or
"chattel", that right included holding slaves. That was exactly what the framers of these
southern Constitutions had intended and so that understanding was accurate and factual.
After the South lost the rebellion, the United States took the opportunity to free the slaves.
This was easier said than done because the Constitutions of the Southern states hadn't

27
changed a bit just because the South had lost the War. Their Constitutions still did not
recognize blacks as persons who could attain citizenship.
"Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted
sovereignty and retained the same even afterward…except as such was surrendered to the
federal government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States
Constitution." Blair v Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249, S.P. People v. Coleman, 60 D. 581
Congress was faced with a difficult dilemma; it wanted the freed blacks to become Citizens,
but there was nothing in the US Constitution that gave Congress the power to alter the
Constitutions of the Southern states. The best Congress could do in an immediate sense was
to consider the South under "military occupation" of the United States (which it was) and
recognize that as such, the Southern states came within the authority of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the US Constitution. What this meant was that as long as the Southern states
were held as a "defeated foe" Congress could pass legislation that would operate within the
area known as "the Southern states". However, in the future, when Congress would restored
the Southern states to their former status as regular states of the Union, all such federal
legislation would cease to operate in the Southern states. This meant that Congress needed a
two-phase solution. The first phase being the enactment of federal laws to operate within the
"occupied territories" and the second phase being a Constitutional amendment to secure the
principles of those laws even after the laws themselves lost authority in the Southern states.
It should be noted at this point that although the slaves were now free, and had been born in a
state of the Union, they still were not Citizens of that state. In short, they had no citizenship
at all. Under long established doctrines of law, a person who is not a citizen of a place in
which he resides is an alien. The legal position of the freed slaves was tenuous - yes, they
were free, but they were aliens in the land of their birth and were thus not entitled to the same
rights, privileges, and immunities as Citizens. Although defeated in battle, the people of the
South were not yet ready to capitulate on the slavery issue and they moved quickly to use the
"alien" status of the blacks against them. Almost immediately after the surrender of the
Confederacy, many Southern states started enacting "Black Codes". These laws were
intended to operate only upon "persons not citizens" (a phrase right out of Dred Scott v.
Sanford, 19 How. 393), and thus effectively limit the new found freedom enjoyed by the
former slaves by requiring them to apply for licenses to do anything from holding a job, to
hunting for food.
Because the Southern states were under the "exclusive legislative jurisdiction" of
Congress at this time, any state or local laws that conflicted with federal law would
immediately become void and unenforceable. Congress moved quickly to quash the Black
Codes. In rapid succession Congress passed the Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau
Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Collectively, these acts prevented the enforcement of
the Black Codes and simultaneously imbued the freed black slaves with federally granted
privileges that are euphemistically called "rights". It is in the Enforcement Act that we first
see the phrase "citizen of the United States" used as a "legal term" embracing only the
recently freed black slaves. This term is then used again in the both the Freedman's Bureau
Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the same limited manner. It should be noted at this
point that the phrase "citizen of the United States" had been used for nearly 8 decades before
the Civil War, but always to speak of persons within federal territories. This was the first
time that Congress had used the phrase to denote a person who had been born within a state

28
of the Union. Congress could only apply the term in this way, within federal law, at that
specific point in history because the South (where the freed blacks lived) was "federal
territory" as long as it was being held by the United States military as a "defeated foe".
Phase two of Congress' plan was put into action with the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
Here are its pertinent parts to this discussion:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What is the significance of the word person in law?
The Congress and the State legislatures are cognizant of their delegated authority given by
the Sovereign body politic under the federal and state constitutions, granted them by “We the
People Sovereign” and are specific when legislating law for the sovereign body politic and
for subjects of the federal government. In order to gain control over us, “We the People”,
they use “Word Art” and by the definitions such as “person”, “including”, “states”, etc, they
begin stripping away our basic fundamental rights by sophistry. And they depend upon our
apathy of government for their success and the general obscurity of knowledge regarding our
status vs. the citizen subject of the District.

Person: In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include
labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees,
trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page1142

Notice that there are two types of person described.

1) A human being (natural person with natural rights).

2) May include (Artificial entities or legal fictions with legal rights)
The significance in our jurisprudence:
The word ‘Person,’ in its primitive and natural sense, signifies the mask with which actors, who
played dramatic pieces in Rome and Greece, covered their heads. These pieces were played in
public places, and afterwards in such vast amphitheaters that it was impossible for a man to make
himself heard by all the spectators. Recourse was had to art; the head of each actor was enveloped
with a mask, the figure of which represented the Part he was to play, and it was so contrived that
the opening for the emission of his voice made the sounds clearer and more resounding, vox
personabat, when the name persona was given to the instrument or mask which facilitated the
resounding of his voice. The name persona was afterwards applied to the part itself, which the
actor had undertaken to play, because the face of the mask was adapted to the age and character
of him who was considered as speaking, and sometimes it was his own portrait. It is in this last
sense of personage, or of the part which an individual plays, that the word persona is employed in
jurisprudence, in opposition to the word man, homo. When we speak of a person, we only
consider the state of the man, the part he plays in society, abstractly, without considering the
individual".1 Bouvier’s Institutes, note 1.

29
As you can see from the definition in Bouvier’s, in our jurisprudence the part the “person”
plays in society, the “mask” he wears, determines the natural or legal rights he may or may
not have and the jurisdiction of the different courts over his persona.

Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States defines the jurisdictions of the court.

They are “Law”, meaning the common law with all constitutional protections, “Equity”,
Admiralty, Maritime, meaning contract law (private international law) with no constitutional
protection. The common law has jurisdiction over the natural person (mask) by use of Article
III courts, the remaining jurisdictions have jurisdiction over legal fictions (MASK) i.e. NON-
NATURAL PERSONS under Article IV courts. A natural person can change his “acting
role” in business and assume a different mask, if he for instance enters into a partnership,
corporation or contract. He may still be a living soul, but his status (mask) under the
Constitution has changed to that of a LEGAL FICTION or STRAWMAN (CORPORATE
MASK), and the court’s statutory jurisdiction over the STRAWMAN is now presumed.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their
respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians
not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President
and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and
Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the
male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United
States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis
of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such
State.
In drafting the Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the
Enforcement Act, the Freedman's Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part
of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have
certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled its army out
of the South and restored the Southern states to their previous status as states of the Union.
The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the
provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them.
Because the Congressional Acts were merely intended to "hold the line" until the 14th
Amendment was ratified, their intent is significant in determining the intent of the 14th
Amendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding
Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizen of
every race and color shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States
to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and
property as is enjoyed by white citizens."
Please note that when the drafters of this bill meant to indicate a Citizen, they clearly used
the word "citizen", however when defining "who" the Act applies to, the drafters used the

30
word "person". As they used both words within the same paragraph, it is obvious that the
drafters were keenly aware of the distinction.
Clearly Congressional intent was to provide non-citizens with the same fundamental rights as
de jure state Citizens (who in that day, were exclusively white). This intent was further
clarified in President Johnson's speech when he vetoed that bill. President Johnson made this
statement as part of his speech:
"It [the Civil Rights Bill of 1866] comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians
subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks,
persons of color, Negroes, mulattoes and persons of African blood. Every individual of those
races born in the United States is made a citizen thereof."
Once again, it can clearly be seen that the intent of the this Act was to embrace "persons" (as
defined in Dred Scott case), but in no way was intended to address or alter the relationship of
the de jure white Citizen to his state of birth or domicile.
In the case of United States v. Otherson, the US Supreme Court found it necessary to review
the historical foundations of the Enforcement Act. The Court found that Senator Stewart,
who had sponsored the Enforcement Act legislation, had made the following remarks
regarding the Act's intent. Stewart noted that the bill,
"...simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protections of our laws".
He also added that,
"This bill extends [the equal protection of laws] to aliens, so that all persons who are in the
United States shall have the equal protection of our laws."
These realities were not lost upon the various courts that were later called upon to make
determinations as to the intent of the various civil rights acts or the 14th Amendment. In Van
Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal Sup Ct. 43, the Court made the following statement:
"No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their
jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal
Constitution."
As we are now repeatedly drawing a distinction between blacks and whites, this is probably a
good point to stop and address the topic of racism as it relates to this chapter. This is a
historical examination of the law as it existed in the various states and the United States prior
to, and after, the Civil War, and how the foundations laid down in those laws and court
decisions may still affect our lives today. This chapter is not intended to critique or pass
judgment upon the moral correctness (or lack thereof) of the laws which existed at that time,
or upon the decisions of the US Supreme Court in reference to slavery, the Civil War, the
various Civil Rights Acts, or the 14th Amendment. It is merely a history lesson with certain
inevitable conclusions drawn at the end. Please do not impute any bias, in either direction, to
Original Intent.
As we have examined, courts in the latter part of the 19th century were quite clear on the
intended purpose of the Freedman's Bureau Act, the Enforcement Act, the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, and the 14th Amendment. However, what has the Supreme Court said in this
century?
In Hurd v. Hodge (1948), the court explained that in order to understand the Civil Rights Act
of 1866,

31
"...reference must be made to the scope and purpose of the 14th Amendment; for that statute
and the Amendment were closely related both in inception and in objectives which Congress
sought to achieve".
The Court further stated that the purpose of the 14th Amendment,
"was to incorporate the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the
land".
The "original intent" link can also be found in several other cases as well. Justice Harlan
noted that privileges and immunities protected by the 14 Amendment included [used in its
restrictive sense] those set forth in the first section of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Thurgood
Marshall noted that,
"the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment is the same Congress that passed the 1866
Freedman's Bureau Act".
He concluded that the rights set forth in the Freedman's Bureau Act were dispositive of
Congress' intent in the 14th Amendment.
In 1987, Justice William Brennan traced the "rights" [actually congressionally granted
"privileges"] that are secured by the 14th Amendment to the Freedman's Bureau bill. He then
went on to state that,
"The main target of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were the 'black codes' enacted in the
Southern States..."
As can be readily seen, even relatively recent Courts have acknowledged the fact that
the 14th Amendment was simply intended to integrate elements of the Civil Rights Act
of 1866 and the Freedman's Bureau Act into the Constitutional structure of the nation.
Accordingly, the 14th Amendment only applies to non-citizens (aliens) who were the
exclusive focus of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman's Bureau Act.
Now that the intent, meaning, and proper application of the 14th Amendment have
been illustrated, it is clear that the Amendment made "federal citizens" out of specific
aliens who otherwise would have had no form of citizenship at all. By converting these
"aliens" into "federal citizens", they fell under the protection of the federal government
with regard to those "rights" that had been conferred upon them by the 14th
Amendment.
In consideration of these facts, Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines the 14th
Amendment this way:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates
or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that
of the states;...
Note the vagueness in the definition - "...creates or at least recognizes for the first time...".
This vagueness is because Congressional intent purported to embrace only the recently freed
slaves, but at the same time, the bare language of the Amendment, (without consideration of
Congressional intent) seems to merely recognize the long standing principle that the federal
government has its own citizens, who are not state Citizens; a legal reality that existed long
before the 14th Amendment.
We have covered a lot of ground in this chapter and it is important to note that with all of the
evidence that is available, it has never once been asserted by any member of Congress, or

32
 by the courts, that the 14th Amendment, or the phrase "citizen of the United States" as
used before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, applies to native born Citizens of a
state of the Union. It should also be noted that the original use and application of the
phrase "citizen of the United States" still continues today, unaffected by the 14th
Amendment, which embraced only a very narrow and specific group of persons.
To summarize the points that we have touched upon thus far:
1. There is an original Citizen of a state of the Union.
2. There is a "Citizen of the united States" as that phrase has always been used.
3. There is a "citizen of the United States" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment.
At this juncture one might rightly ask what the practical distinctions are in the three forms of
citizenship. Before we move forward with that, we should observe that the 14th Amendment
merely incorporated into the Constitution the concepts by which the United States had been
operating for decades under the doctrine of international law, defining the derivation of
citizenship. What made the 14th Amendment necessary was that for the first time the federal
government intended to grant federal citizenship to persons born within a state of a Union.
Rights of Citizens of the states of the Union
The Declaration of Independence states that, "all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…" This clearly lays out the
foundation of our rights - we are all equal before God, and the law; we possess rights which
are "unalienable"; those rights are given to us by God (our Creator). Although the men who
wrote the Declaration of Independence said that "all men" are created equal, when it came
time to create the legal framework of a government, they understood that they could not
include "all men" in a Constitution, but could only speak of those people who had formed the
states, which then resulted in the states creating a national government of limited power. It is
the state Citizens to whom the phrase "all men" would have to be limited for governmental
purposes. Accordingly, as the form of our governments began to take shape, the people who
would be able to claim these, "unalienable rights", which the "Creator" granted, would only
be the Citizens of the states. While this may seem like a narrow restriction, one must
remember that a government can only make laws (including its Constitution) for its own
"body politic", and no one else.
So what are these mysterious "unalienable rights"? The Declaration of Independence says
that, "among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". While "Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is pretty all encompassing, the words of the Framers
tell us that there are more rights involved, and that "among them" are found the rights of
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". In other words, the language of the Framers
tells us that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a designated group of rights
within a larger body of rights referred to as our "unalienable rights".
This larger body of "unalienable rights" is vast. In fact, it is so vast that no one, not
even the judicial branch, has ever attempted to list the rights contained therein. This is
best illustrated by the old adage that, "My right to swing my fist ends somewhere
before it hits your nose". In short, a Citizen can do virtually anything he or she wants,
so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another Citizen, or endanger the
community. Also inclusive in these rights are your protections against mistreatment by

33
government; the primary protections being expressly stated in the Bill of Rights in the
US Constitution.
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed
or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
-- John Adams, Second President of the United States. (1792-1801)
The US Supreme Court has stated that because these rights existed antecedent [prior
to] the formation of either the states or the national government they are outside the
government's power to alter, modify, or abolish. How's that for some strong protection!
With these powerful rights in our hands, one might wonder what sort of "rights" are
possessed by "citizens of the United States".

The Poor Stepchild "citizen"

If the Citizens of the states of the Union have their "unalienable rights", what then do
"citizens of the United States" have? Frankly, nothing much of value. For the balance of this
section, we will use the term "federal citizen" to denote a "citizen of the United States".
A federal citizen has only those rights that have been granted to him by Congress by way of
the numerous and various civil rights acts, and such rights as may have been invested in him
by an activist US Supreme Court that felt it could legislate from the bench.
Let's be clear - God does not give the “rights” of federal citizens to them, as are our
unalienable rights. Congress gives their rights to them alone, and the most significant point to
understand and keep in mind is that, "What Congress gives, Congress may take away". It has
always been this way and it will always be this way. The only thing that may be surprising in
all of this is that this is the first time you're hearing it! Most Americans have no idea that
there are two "classes of citizenship", nor do they understand the vast distinction between the
two, and what it means in their lives.
Let's look at what the courts have said about federal citizenship:
"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment
thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."82 CA 369. 373, 255, P 760.
"The persons declared to be citizens are, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely
subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely
subject..."Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)
While Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is still true concerning all
federal citizens. In other words, all federal citizens must be, by their very definition, a person
who is "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the federal government (such as a citizen of
Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th
Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights
because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens.
(See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this
provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it
does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp.
1226

34
"...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action
by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment]."Hague v. CIO, 307 US
496, 520
"The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to
bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges
and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in
effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by
indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be
confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment,
made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th
Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those
words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from
compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship
guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment."Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the
United States and one of the state". Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160
Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909) "The governments of the United States and of each state of the
several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite
different from those which he has under the other". Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct.
252 (1935)
"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in
state citizenship". Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the
United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such". Ruhstrat v.
People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each
of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has
citizens of it's own..." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a
state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or
circumstances in the individual". Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed.
394 (1873)
It should be noted that many of the rights not attributed to federal citizens in the cases above
have since been granted to them either by Congress or by the courts. These early decisions
simply clarify and solidify the reality that federal citizens are not the same "class of citizen"
as state Citizens.
Like so many areas in which the federal government has tread, it has unbalanced the
equation. Where at one time there was no real problem with there being different classes of
citizenship, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Congress went into overdrive with
civil rights legislation. The result was a labyrinth of "rights" and protections for federal
citizens. Some of these have even found their way into additional Constitutional
amendments. Because the state Citizen is a member of The People; the people in whom the
sovereignty of the states, and by association, the national government resides, such a Citizen
is left to protect his own rights, with no special process to help him accomplish that end. In
short, he must defend his rights with all his will, his energy, his money, and passion in the
courts for as long as it takes to reach a final outcome.

35
Conversely, the federal citizen need only lodge a complaint with the appropriate federal
agency and the power of the federal government moves to punish the person who has
allegedly violated that federal citizen's rights. Of course this is legally appropriate since a
federal citizen is little more than a ward of the national government. The government must
care for such second-class citizens as they are not the masters of their government, but mere
servants to it, and it is the master's responsibility is to care for his servants.

THE BUCK ACT

Introduction
In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain
laws to you.
When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according
to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of
the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual
nexus is the "Social Security Number".
In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then
created 10 Social Security "Districts". The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a
"Federal area" which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.
In 1939, the federal government instituted the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This Act is a
municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal and state government
employees and those who live and work in any "Federal area".
Now, the government knows that it cannot tax state Citizens who live and work outside
the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section
3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act",
(4 U.S.C.S. §§ 105-113). In § 110(e), the Act authorized any department of the federal
government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act" of
1939. This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. § 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the
Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area"
overlay.
"4 U.S.C.S. § 110(d). The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States."
"4 U.S.C.S. § 110(e). The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or
for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and
any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State,
shall be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State."
There is no reasonable doubt that the "federal State" is imposing an excise tax under the
provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. § 105, which states in pertinent part:
"Sec. 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal areas; sales or use tax.
"(a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment of, collection of, or accounting for any
sales or use tax levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing authority therein, having
jurisdiction to levy such tax, on the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such tax is
levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal area; and such State or taxing authority shall
have full jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in any Federal area within such
State to the same extent and with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal area."

36
Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to produce revenue, it is an
"income tax" or a "receipts tax" under the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. §§ 105-110]. Humble
Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971), affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert.
den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed. 2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.
Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area
designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government.
This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security
Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a
federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the
federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d
65 (1951 App.). This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security
Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this
mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the
Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the
states under the [purported] authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal
Constitution, which states:
"2. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any
particular State."
Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of
the states of the Union, are classified as "property", as franchisees of the federal
government, and as an "individual entity". See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S.
193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the "Buck Act", (4 U.S.C.S. §§ 105-113), the
federal government has created "Federal areas" within the boundaries of all the several
states. These areas are similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through
purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in
these "Federal areas". Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's
yellow-fringed U.S. flag flying in schools, offices and all courtrooms.
You must live on land in one of the states in the Union of states, not in any "Federal
State" or "Federal area", nor can you be involved in any activity that would make you
subject to "federal laws". You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a
"resident" driver's license, or a motor vehicle registered in your name. You cannot
have a "federal" bank account, a Federal Register Account Number relating to
Individual persons [SSN], (see Executive Order Number 9397, November 1943), or any
other known "contract implied in fact" that would place you within any "Federal area"
and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress.
Remember, all Acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the
territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213
U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10
(1949); New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45
S.Ct. 402 (1925).)
There has been created a fictional "Federal State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking
Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v.

37
O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts
51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional "State" is
identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like "CA", "AZ" and "TX", as distinguished
from the authorized abbreviations like "Calif.", "Ariz." and "Tex.", etc. This fictional State
also uses ZIP Codes, which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
Congress.
This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the "Buck Act", (4 U.S.C.S. §§ 105-
113), to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act" of 1939 to workers within
the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers (who have a Social Security
number) to all state and federal laws "within this State", a "fictional Federal area"
overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is
established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state
that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a "Federal area" and
that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the
California Income Tax for residents who live "in this State".
The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their
municipal laws, which require some form of contract for proper application. This definition
is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:
"In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State ... and includes all
territories within such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America."
This definition concurs with the "Buck Act" (supra), which states:
"110(d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession of the United States."
"110(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of
the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States; and any Federal
area, or any part thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall be
deemed to be a Federal area located within such State."

HISTORY
Before the United States existed, there was no legal government. A group of representatives,
acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," declared the
independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain.
From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were
acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty, which authorized the
Declaration of Independence.
Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the
people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn't work as well as
expected.
In 1787 the people themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America" [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787, the states held a
convention, all those present unanimously joined in. [see last paragraph of U.S.
Constitution]
Therefore, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born
later to be ratified.

38
The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be
interpreted. After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and
establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their
own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than
the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self
governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the
people. Every man and woman were collective sovereigns--and none had any subjects other
than themselves and regulated only by Gods law. Upon declaring our independence, we all
became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).
"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights
which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their
Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been
exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to
those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."
The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in
the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own power
and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from
themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the
Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in
the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of
their own power and authority.
What was before continues to be so today.
From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do
not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are
sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United
States.
Because of Amendment X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the
People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted.
In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to
relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right, which cannot lawfully be
relinquished involuntarily. The subject himself must accomplish any removal of
sovereignty voluntarily.

DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY
Before ratification of the Amendment XIV, there was no legal definition of the term "citizen
of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the Civil War the slaves
were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment
XIV partially solved that problem.

39
"Free the slaves," was the rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in
Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the
United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the way, so could any of
the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV made possible the voluntary
relinquishment of personal sovereignty.
It was also during the mid 1800's that the various governments took control of the school
systems. The curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common law) to
American government (the study of civil privileges and statutory law). Emphasis was also
refocused on "good citizenship". To blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were
called civil rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching "civil rights"
took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's). During the 1950's the school systems
changed the courses named from "Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now
is aware of the subject of civics as a school course.
The phrase, "citizens of the United States," is defined in the Constitution for the United
States of America, Amendment XIV:
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Section 5. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article."
STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT XIV
WHO: All persons
QUALIFICATION:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States, and
(B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof
PURPOSE: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
ENFORCED BY: The Congress
ENFORCEMENT METHOD: Legislation
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT XIV
As discussed above, the People are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction
of the federal government.
Amendment XIV inverts the relationship. One of the qualifications to be a citizen of the
United States is that one must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's important to
understand that this is a vectored qualification. In other words, it is possible to be a citizen

40
of the United States without being born or naturalized in the United States or subject to the
jurisdiction thereof. However, if you are born or naturalized and if you are subject to the
jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.
From the point of view of the federal enforcers, the qualifications are not vectored.
They reverse-interpret Amendment XIV as saying that if you are a citizen of the
United States, then that automatically means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction.
The judicial branch does not share this opinion. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430:
The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in
which it is found [25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best
harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].
"One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other
purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political
purposes[27]. Therefore, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is
entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not
vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].
[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"
In any case, if you fail to object to the government's view of citizenship, then you will
most certainly be subjected to the laws of the government. That means no rights, only
privileges. To see a list of privileges granted or denied to the citizens (there is no list for the
People's natural rights because the People automatically have all rights) one must look to the
federal civil rights laws in 28 USC §§1983, and 1984, et. seq.

ONE OF THE PEOPLE—PERSON, OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?

The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one
entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a
clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, person, or there as one of the
people.
If you claim you are a citizen or person of the United States, then it is strongly implied
(though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the
other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal
king, with sovereignty superior to that of the United States, and subject only to the
common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the
government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.
PEOPLE --- GOVERNMENT --- CITIZENS

41
As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his
prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own
property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the
natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat
the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never
harm him.

Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of
the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty
(i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You
have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an
allegiance to you. When you say the pledge of allegiance, don’t say allegiance, say instead
“Loyalty”
As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no
rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a
license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no
specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a
waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and
your sovereign’s mandate that allegiance law, the government, though not absolutely
sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign.
Here is a typical example:
As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways.
You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a
gun and your servant the government shall not impair that right. You have a right to a
grand jury indictment and a trial by jury that is a trial directly by the people, not the
government.
As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless either you are a licensed
motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership
is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all
cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the
people.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON CITIZENSHIP

STATUS

This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish

presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of Evidence, and attending State rules) should
interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The
position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus

42
preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to
have general application.

Possibly hundreds of defendant’s have heard lawyers say that you cannot raise any
constitutional defenses concerning their taxes in the courts. This is true with regard to
challenging the power to tax, and the validity of the tax laws themselves. The correct
inquiry is, does a particular revenue law apply to the Defendant? The liability for taxation
depends upon a citizen’s correct status under the Constitution. The Defendant cannot assert
or defend that status without a full understanding of it, by this Court. This Memorandum is
in support of Defendants Citizenship Status. If Defendant did not understand his status, very
likely he would surrender the protection it could afford him.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In 1776 we had thirteen colonies comprised mostly of European immigrants who were sick
and tired of being directed by an English government too far away to be concerned with
local problems. King George was also too greedy for the wealth of the colonies to leave
them alone. The King failed to provide a reasonably adequate supply of currency for trade to
be carried on. The colonists developed a kind, of colonial scrip, a debt free currency, which
sufficed to allow local commerce. However, the bankers of Europe viewed this development
with great alarm.

They had worked very hard to create their privately owned central banking systems. The
English government was persuaded to outlaw the scrip. In due course this placed a
stranglehold on local colonial trade. The abolition of scrip was one of the major causes of
the Revolution, not a Tea tax, as most believe.

Obviously, the Revolution succeeded. However, it is critical to recognize that, when the
treaty with England, which established the peace, was made, it did not grant independence;
it recognized that independence already existed. (M’Ilvaine v. Coke’s Lessee, 8 US 209)
Also significant is that the Declaration of Independence actually recognized the inherent
truth that all men are created equal, in an era when inequality was universal and virtually no
one was truly free. Remember, at this time there were thousands of slaves in the colonies. In
the slave-holding states, none of them were considered in the declaration of equality in that
Declaration of Independence. However, it was recognized that many of the black people
were partakers of the benefits of the Revolution and the Constitution, which followed:

When the Constitution was adopted free men of color were clothed with the franchise of
voting in at least five states and were part of the people, whose sanction breathed into it the
breath of life. (United States v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases #16,151)

The colonies were declared to be "free and independent states" (nothing was said about any
united states at that point). It was not until two years later, in August of 1778 that an official
Confederation was formed, and the states were united. Its Articles specifically recognized
state "sovereignty" (Article II), which merely prevented these independent state entities

43
from being swallowed up by the Confederation. (The American concept of "sovereignty in
government" will be expanded on later.)

This Confederation might have continued indefinitely, except that the new states kept
charging tolls and trade imposts on each other. Foreigners could use their ports and facilities
and deal with them as competitors with impunity. There was no army formed to protect
these commercial interests. Without its commerce protected, the new confederation was
doomed to collapse unless something was done about it.

A group of businessmen and attorneys from each of the states gathered together in secret,
to draft something to overcome the problems. To pull off this ambitious goal, these men
knew that they had to be very careful with the rights of the people and the independence of
the states.

To insure public acceptance, the framers acknowledged that the proposed Constitution for
the united States of America was to be a document of "We, the People", not of the states.
(Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 US 304, 324) It was to become a compact, which provided
for the people to be its beneficiaries in perpetuity. It was intended as a compact between the
individual citizens on the one hand and the people as a whole, acting through their
representatives, on the other hand. (Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 4 US (4Dall.) 8). It, was a
compact drawn between the people, (Constitution, Preamble) but effective between the
states. (Constitution Article VII) This compact created a union of states, not a union of
people. The people are not members of the union; only the states are members. This is
a critical concept: one is a citizen of his state; national citizenship is derived from state
citizenship. Implicit in this process is the recognition that the true sovereignty was not
with the states, but rather with the people as a whole. (Gaines et al. V. Buford, 31 KY
481, 500-501)

There is a proposition proffered by some researchers that because all signers of the
Constitution are dead, the instrument itself is dead. This preposterous proposition
ignores the principles of the third party beneficiary contract, which endows non-
parties to the instrument with its benefits. They receive those benefits unless they
reject them. This is the essence of a trust. To reject the benefits of the Constitution, one
only needs to expatriate. This does not require departure from the American soil; it
only places one in a resident (alien) status. (For tax purposes, he may be a nonresident
alien, as will be explained.)

By virtue of this compact, three concepts of "United States" came into existence.

First, is the concept that the United States is a sovereign nation in the family of nations. This
requires foreign governments to deal with the government of the United States of America,
rather than with each state or citizen separately.

Second, is the idea that the United States is sovereign over its territory. This refers to the
sovereignty of the government over that territory which is subject to its exclusive

44
legislation, not to the territory of the 50 states. (Constitution, Article 1 §8 Clause 17) This is
usually conceived to be the political jurisdiction of the United States.

Third, the term is merely the collective name of the 50 states, which are united under the
Constitution. ( Hooven v. Evatt, 324 US 652, 671-672)

As will be shown, federal sovereignty is not sovereignty over We, the People.

Patrick Henry was violently opposed to the Constitution. He feared that a central
government with any strength would eventually devour the freedom of the people and the
independence of the states. He was opposed to giving anything that seemed like "sovereign"
power to the central government. Sophisticated observers will confirm that his fears have
been substantially realized! Thomas Jefferson recognized this risk, and vigorously warned
the framers that the Constitution be drawn so strongly that it would bind the men of
government down, as if by chains. He would laugh at the idea that we should teach our
children to trust government.

In order to understand the intent of the Constitution, we must read its language with the
meanings, which applied at the time it was drafted, not by modern definitions. Keep in mind
that the Constitution is a compact, a sort of contract. Everything in our system operates on a
contract principle. We give something to government, and get something in return. If there
is no return benefit, there is no obligation. It is a basic principle of contract that the contract
is not enforceable without consideration, ie., and a form of benefit, enuring to both sides of
the agreement. In America, this compact was prepared by a group, which sought to establish
a national government for thirteen independent states. This group purported to act for the
people as a whole.

The representatives of the governments of the states executed the document on behalf of the
individual people of the states, and for their benefit. By their ratification, it would appear
that the authority of the group who prepared the compact to act for the whole body of people
was validated. No state and no citizen surrendered any sovereignty to any government. It
was merely agreed that the national government, the state governments, and the people
would be bound to obey proper laws made under the authority of that compact. They would
suffer penalties if they did not obey. This is a common law viewpoint, applicable among
free men. It does not make the sovereign people subject to their government. The
beneficiaries (the people) and their descendants remain bound because the compacts (state
and national) have created governmental entities pertaining to specific territories. If a person
lives in the territory, either he obeys the government thereof, or he is an outlaw.

CONSTITUTIONAL FORMAT

The Constitution is comprised of seven Articles and twenty-six Amendments. It sets up the
three branches of our government then describes the relationship between that government
and the states. The remainder deals with amendment, ratification, old debts to be paid, and
oaths. It also provides that it (Constitution) is the supreme law of the land. It is not

45
important to review the entire document to understand this treatise, although certain portions
should be explained.

Article I deals with the structure and powers of Congress. If Congress does not have a
power to legislate in some area, then, generally speaking, the other branches have no powers
there either. Obviously, if there is no law, there is nothing for the executive to enforce and
nothing for the judiciary to interpret. Therefore, the function of Congress is to make our
laws, to the extent that the Constitution permits lawmaking. Article I also deprives the
states of power to do those things for which the national government was formed.

Our government is a limited government, and this is made clear by the fact that it can only
act within those powers, which are specifically delegated. These are called enumerated
rights. (Constitution, Amendments 9 and 10)

Most are set forth in Article I, § 8, and Article IV, § 3, and include:

Taxing, Borrowing, Coining, Valuation, Naturalization, Postal service, Regulate trade,

Regulate patents, copyrights, Regulate bankruptcies, Regulate weights and measures,
Control military and militia, Declare war, Establish lower courts, Control government
property, Punish certain crimes, and Exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

By this enumeration, Congress has power to makes laws, insofar as they are necessary and
proper for the exercise of its power. ( United States v. Bevans, (1818), 19 US (3 Wheat)
336, 387)

The power to make laws to carry into execution the enumerated powers is separately listed.

Particularly important is the power given to the government to have exclusive legislative
jurisdiction over the seat of government and such other lands as are ceded to the government
by the states for its military functions.(Article 1 §8 Clause17) This is a power limited in its
territorial scope, but not otherwise. Because this special power has no constitutional
limitation, unlike the other enumerated powers, it is similar to the power of a sovereign. It is
called the "political jurisdiction" of the United States. (Congressional Quarterly, 1989-90,
693-700). It operates in Washington D.C. and in all areas ceded by the states to the federal
government (as enclaves). A similar power operates in the possessions and territories of the
United States, but it has its source in a combination of the property power (Article IV §3
Clause2) and the inherent power to acquire territory. (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393)
The power to acquire territory and the power to govern that territory, are not delegated
powers. They are deemed to be inherent powers. As will be explained, "sovereign" power,
like the admiralty law, is deemed a necessity in those "uncivilized" territories. What is
critical to understand however is that such sovereign power in our government does not
operate within the 50 states (except in those ceded enclaves).

The delegated power over property is a power to protect the assets of the government and
to regulate their use. The control over property was originally intended to apply to, owned
assets, and did not relate to the government of territory. (Dred Scott, supra, at 443) When

46
what happened to the slaves after the Civil War is shown, it will be understood how this
property power has become a potent weapon, used by the internal revenue service to enforce
the tax laws.

Constitutional Guarantees do not generally apply in the sovereign federal areas, except
insofar as Congress chooses to enforce them. (Hooven, supra, 674) Although a fundamental
right should still exist, since it is deemed unalienable, Congress can take the position that
since We the People delegated sovereign power, all of the people must be subjects in those
areas, because there cannot be two sovereigns ruling in the same place! Having such power
it was not hard to predict that Congress would try to expand it beyond its proper limitations.

This expansion is manifestly evident in the application of the taxing power. That power is
limited by the Constitution: direct taxes must be apportioned, and excise taxes must be
uniform. These limitations however do not apply where the government has sovereign
power. Remember, while the enumerated powers, which operate all over the country, are
limited by the Constitution, the sovereign power in territories and areas ceded by the states
are not limited by the Constitution. By examining the revenue laws, it will be seen just how
the sovereign power has been used to invade our rights within the 50 states.

Congressional power over federal funds has also been used to expand government
authority. This is done by virtue of the practice of the federal government, placing
conditions, on its grants of federal assistance. After all, the sovereign citizen has the right to
contract, even with the government! If you sell a right, it's gone (even though
"unalienable"). By this process the federal government has invaded every conceivable phase
of our life, regardless of the Constitution. Individuals, companies, school districts, and states
all have surrendered rights in exchange for money, and present or future benefits in the form
of Trusts.

The President has only the powers to command the military, to appoint government officers
(the bureaucracy and the judges), and to make treaties; he has the duty to adjourn Congress
and to execute all of its laws. Congress is not supposed to give him any power to make new
laws. What he does instead is to make regulations! In addition, under the guise of
emergency powers, Congress has given him about every other power for which he could
possibly ask. Those he has not been granted have frequently been seized and assumed,
without regard to the limitations of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is supposed to be our protection against oppression by the federal
government. It was never designed as a protection against state authority. We look to our
state constitutions to see how carefully we have protected our fundamental rights against
state oppression. ( Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 US 36, 76-78)

Supposedly, powers not delegated to Federal government by the Constitution belong to the
people, except to the extent that the people in their state constitutions have given them to the
states. In actual practice, the government has grabbed a lot more power, and the Supreme
Court has ratified the seizure. We will find that this often happens simply because, in our
ignorance, we consent to the seizure.

47
 As carefully as the Constitution was drafted, it could not protect us from the wiles of evil
men. The Supreme Court, as late as 1856, ( Dred Scott, supra) reiterated the limitations and
prohibitions on Congress, specifically declared in Amendments 9 and 10. Un-delegated
powers were forbidden to Congress. However, Chief Justice John Marshall, back in 1816,
had emasculated this doctrine. He ruled that anything not expressly prohibited by the
Constitution, and which could be related to an enumerated power in some way, or to
constitutional objectives, was a thing authorized to be done under the power to enact
"necessary and proper" laws. (McCulloch V. Maryland, 17 US 316, 418) Since the
Constitution was adopted to promote the general welfare, more recent cases have decided
that this includes a power to spend for the general welfare. (Butler v. United States, 297 US
1)

(Even this expansion cannot explain away the unconstitutional application of tax laws, or
spending for education, social welfare, social security and foreign aid!)

The Supreme Court generated an equally serious problem in 1932, when it decided that
any law enacted by Congress or the states was not open to challenge by anyone who had
received any benefit under such a law. Nor could it be invalidated if there were some way
to construe or apply such law in a manner not in conflict with constitutional limitations.
(Ashwander v. T.V.A., (1932) 297 US 288)

The Citizen should be aware however, that whenever either a voluntary act or a
questionable law appears to deprive one of an unalienable natural right, if you are not aware
that such is the effect of that act or law, the individual should be able to prevent the
deprivation. Clearly expressed by the Supreme Court ruling, which prevents an unconscious
and unintended waiver of any such right. (Bradey v. United States (1937), 397 US 742)
Similarly, when an official violates the Constitution, he is not deemed to be representing the
government. (Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 234 FS 94)

SOVEREIGNTY AND CITIZENSHIP

A sovereign is one in whom supreme power is vested. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5 th). He can
delegate whatever of his total authority he wishes. He can consent to whatever outside
authority he may choose or none at all. However, he cannot be "subject" to outside
authority; this would be in contradiction to sovereignty. The creation of the enumerated
powers was done by delegation. (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 353; Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal1;
Amendment 10) This simply means that the power of the sovereign people remained with
them, (Gaines, supra, 500-501) but that the federal government may do its exercise on their
behalf. This relationship was well stated by the Supreme Court as follows:

“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in
our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself
remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” (Yick Wo,
supra, 370)

48
“What it means is that Americans are sovereigns without subjects, because all of us are
equal.”(Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), __US (2 Dall.) 419, 1 Led 440, 453, 471-472)

It is important to differentiate between sovereign power and unalienable rights. Sovereign

power is subject to nothing, except what the sovereign expressly agrees or consents may be
done. Unalienable rights are simply those rights, which cannot be taken away; but they may
be waived. In this context it may be understood how the people may remain sovereign, even
in the area where the federal government exercises its sovereign jurisdiction: by consent or
by waiver, the people may be without those fundamental rights, as to such areas. At least, it
appears that the federal government operates on that premise. (Hooven, supra, 674)
Therefore, although there might be some sort of waiver of rights, there is no fiction of law,
which can convert the natural born (sovereign) citizen of this country into a subject.
(M’Ilvaine, supra)

This nation was formed on the basis that it had declared independence from all other
authority. At that time there was no place on earth where men were free. Individual
sovereignty existed only for declared monarchs. However, with the Declaration of
Independence, one who had been a subject under English law became a sovereign in
America. (United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,208) Individual Americans had already
delegated some of their authority to their respective states and each was a species of
"sovereign" country, much as the United States is now a "sovereign" nation.

When the Constitution was adopted it was a delegation of authority and it "formed a
more perfect union" of the states. It acknowledged that citizens, both of the states and
of the United States, pre-existed its adoption. (Articles II§1,II§4 and IV§2/1) These
citizens ordained and established the Constitution, and the states consented to its
adoption. (Constitution, Preamble and Article VII) The framers also recognized that
the powers of the states had come not from the Constitution, but from the people.
(Federalist Papers #42, James Madison)

There have been complaints by members of our highest court that the application of a
concept of sovereignty in the territories has, in effect, given rise to the creation of two
national governments: one for the states (which is severely limited), and one for the
territories. (Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (dissent))

The Supreme Court has declared that, although the sovereign power may be in Congress
in the federal territories and enclaves, it also recognized that in the union states the
sovereign power remains with the people. (DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 US 1, 196) The
residual sovereignty of each state is also in the people of such state. (Chisholm, supra,
419, 471; Bevans, supra, 336,387) Congress is without power to revoke a citizen’s
sovereignty. (Perry v. United States (1935), 294 US 330, 353).

Decisions comparing our laws to those in England and on the Continent usually omit to
declare that all of those European laws apply in nations, which have no concept of
individual sovereignty. Their citizens have always been either subject to the king, or to the
government, which has replaced him. None of those nations have ever declared individual
sovereignty for their citizens.

49
Because of the corruption of citizenship, which came with the 14th Amendment, it is
important here to examine the fundamental character of the sovereign citizen. A citizen is
always a natural person. It will be remembered that a person has rights, and with those
rights, he has reciprocal duties. When a person is a sovereign, his basic right is the
possession of absolute power. He has no superior, except God. However, the connotation of
sovereign carries with it an implication that there may be subjects. The duty of the sovereign
to those subjects is to protect them.

It has been pointed out that the sovereign citizen was basically a sovereign without
subjects. We delegated some of our sovereign power, so that our representatives could help
us protect ourselves: we gave up the powers to wage war, maintain a navy, and to control
our military. In addition, this sovereign body politic, "We, the people", adopted a Bill of
Rights, which prohibited our government from impairing our rights. These rights are our
fundamental civil rights. Our political rights - to vote, hold office, and serve on juries - are
not mentioned in the Constitution. Political rights are basically covered by our State
Constitutions.

Before the Civil War, there really was not a true concept of "citizen of the United States".
In the strictest sense, everyone was simply a citizen of the state where he lived, and
naturalization was a state process. (ex parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal 300, 302) The only
subject in this country was the African slave. As we will see below, the amendments, which
"freed" the Slave, did not make him a sovereign citizen. He should have become sovereign
with the Declaration of Independence. However, white men in most states refused to allow
this Declaration to be made applicable to him. The Constitution officially recognized and
protected slavery. (Constitution, Article I §9 Clause1 and IV§2 Clause 3) When the white
conscience was aroused to remedy the error, crafty men emasculated the effort.

What is critical to recognize is that our original citizenship came by virtue of our
being state citizens; the Constitution did not create it. Thus, except for those who elect
to claim citizenship there under, Americans do not look to the Constitution for their
citizenship. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 676) It is officially
recognized that our state citizenship is a thing, which is separate and apart from our
national citizenship. (Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F2d 1176, 1180; Slaughter-House Cases,
supra, 73-74; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542)

“There is in our political system a government of each of the several states, and a government
of the United States; each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own ...”

So, what is the meaning of national sovereignty?

National sovereignty is a fiction. It operates in our relations with other nations, since other
nations simply cannot comprehend personal sovereignty and will only deal with a national
entity. Similarly, state sovereignty is an expression used to separate the powers and rights
invested in states by delegation from those invested in the nation, as recognized by the
Constitution. (Amendment 9and10) The only real sovereignty in this country is personal
sovereignty. (Gaines, supra, 500-501) Thus, it logically follows that, where any decision

50
declares the powers and immunities of sovereignty, which apply to a state or the national
government then a fortiori that declaration ought to apply to a sovereign citizen. Similarly,
since there can only be one sovereign authority operative in a specific place at a particular
time.

The term “foreign country" when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the
sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States. (26 CFR 1.911-2(h)

As already explained, the sovereignty of the federal government extends only to those
areas ceded by the states or acquired as possessions and territories. Our Supreme
Court has explained that enclaves within a state are like the territory of a sister state,
or a foreign land. (United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm., 412 US 363, 375) Even a
national park, such as Yosemite, is deemed to be under a "distinct sovereignty" from
that of California. (Collins v. Yosemite Park and Curry Co.304 US 518, 538)

In view of the fact that it is the citizens who are sovereign, we are entitled to wonder where
our government ever got the idea that it could claim sovereign immunity from suit by the
citizens. The law was once clearly stated that there is no inherent sovereignty in the
government of the United States. (Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421) Federal immunity
from suit lawfully can only be available as against a citizen who is "subject" to the federal
government. That is a type of citizen whom shall be clarified when the Civil War
Amendments are examined.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

Unalienable rights are those, which belong to a man because he is a man. However, before
we developed the idea of a sovereign individual, or a sovereign citizen, only monarchs
enjoyed such rights. In our nation, they are considered to be so fundamental and basic to
humanity that there is no humanity without them. Obviously, in the days of slavery, those
who were slaves did not have any rights, unalienable or otherwise. This censure on human
nature merely points up man's inhumanity to man; it does not change our history, nor the
legal effects of history on our institutions.

The Declaration of Independence characterized life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to
be included among our unalienable rights. Southern white people simply did not consider
blacks to be men. They were property. There were many who disagreed even in those days,
but in order to secure unanimous approval of the Constitution, it was necessary to insert
compromise provisions, which protected slavery until 1803. However, it took ninety years
before the country was ready to recognize the injustice. To rectify it all, still remains to be
done. Even after the Civil War and the supposed freedom of the black man, federal courts
seemed to tacitly recognize that certain citizens were not free, because only "free" citizens
were held to have unalienable rights! (United States v. Morris, 125 Fed 322, 331)

In reading the Constitution, remember that it is “We the People”, who are doing the
delegating and reserving of rights, not the government. This is evident from the
Amendments', which reserved undelegated powers to the people and the states.

51
 Not all, unalienable rights were listed either in the Declaration of Independence or in the
Constitution. Only those rights, which had been blatantly abused by governmental authority
in colonial experience, merited special mention. They dealt with such things as
administration of justice and personal freedoms. (Amendments 1-8) Property rights were
protected against seizure without due process of law and just compensation; (Amendment 5)
and contracts were protected against impairment. (Article I§10/1) However, the scope and
nature of those rights was left for state definition under the general category of fundamental
rights. (Slaughterhouse Cases, supra, 76) The importance of the distinction arises when it is
understood that, although fundamental rights have general constitutional protection, they are
recognized in the federal enclaves and territories only to the extent that Congress chooses to
recognize them. (Hooven, supra, 674)

The entire Bill of Rights is merely an expression of our intention to be free from the
burden of endless political laws, which merely restrict and regulate our lives. Constitutions
are not made to grant rights; they merely recognize rights and limit the power of
government. (In re Bergeraw, 33 Cal 349; 65 Pac 828) It was never intended that career
politicians would people Congress. Who would spend each year dreaming up laws for us.
On the contrary, the Constitution contemplated limited lawmaking. To be sure that the
legislators would not simply forget their elected duties, they were required to meet in
session at least once a year, starting on the first Monday in December. However, by 1933
legislation had become big business. Congress managed to obtain an Amendment to have
the mandatory session start on January 3 each year.

We must realize that specification of "fundamental" and "unalienable" rights depends on

where you live, or in what forum you are asserting such rights. While they are all deemed to
be inherent, and to exist independent of any Constitution, Amendment, or law, (Hale v.
Hinkel, 201 US 43,74) if your particular state, territory, or court chooses not to acknowledge
any such right, you may as well not have it. Fortunately, the rights spelled out in the Bill of
Rights seem to be enforced in every type of American court, so long as they are not
regarded as “waived.” ( Hale, supra, 74; Sullivan v. United States, 15 F2d 809, 812) That
protection is rather hollow, however, as a defense against taxation. This is true because the
original Constitution (exclusive of the Bill of Rights) protected no fundamental rights
against federal invasion. It merely required the states to give equal treatment to citizens,
without regard to the state from which they came.

The Bill of Rights purports to limit the federal government in its powers, but only to the
extent specifically designated. (Theoretically, our federal government is restricted by all of
our fundamental rights; in practice, this protection is invoked only when a court finds it
expedient.) The Bill of Rights left the states just where it found them, added nothing to the
power of the government, and took no power away from any state. It was strictly a control
devise against oppression by our central government. ( United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US
542, 552; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 74 US 321) In fact, with the exception of two
Amendments, (Amendments 14 and 16) none of the Amendments grant anything; they
simply prohibit certain types of legislation or conduct.

52
Unalienable means not subject to separation. However, we can separate ourselves from an
unalienable right simply by waiving that right. The Supreme Court has given us some
protection against inadvertent waiver. It has declared that a citizen does not waive an
unalienable right unless he does so knowingly, with full appreciation of the circumstances
thereof. ( Brady v. United States, 397 US 742, 748; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464;
Aetna Ins. Co v. Kennedy, 301 US 389, 393) One who loses his rights is not presumed to
have acquiesced in that loss. (Ohio Bell Telephone Co v. P.U.C., 301 US 292, 307)
Certainly, if we have inadvertently done any consenting to the invasion of such rights, we
ought to be free to revoke such consent.

While it is true that the original Constitution does not compel states to give us any rights,
except for equal privileges and immunities as state citizens and interstate travelers, it does
require that we have a Republican form of government. This is enforced for new states,
because before admission Congress reviews their constitutions. Such a form of government
is itself recognition of the existence of individual sovereignty and unalienable rights. Thus,
the popular fraud that the 14th Amendment is our guarantee of rights must give way to the
truth that such rights were protected before that Amendment existed. Courts have held that
the Bill of Rights was not carried to the states by the 14th Amendment, except to the extent
that any such right is independently deemed fundamental.

The inherent contradictions found in the foregoing analyses of "fundamental rights" and
their supposed protections arise not from a misunderstanding of the law, but rather from
conflicting applications found in the court decisions.

CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS

The Civil War did not end slavery, contrary to popular views. It merely separated the
slaves from their masters. These four million black people (Slaughter-House Case, supra,
69) continued to be in the status of subjects. (Chisholm, supra, Led at 472) They were not
even "free" subjects; had they been, no 13th Amendment would have been necessary. Even
after the 13th Amendment made them "free" they remained subjects. They were still
ineligible for citizenship, as the law was then interpreted. ( Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43
Cal. 43, 47) Since the emancipated black man was not a citizen, he became a resident alien,
or more simply, a resident.

This resident subject was a species of property, just as was the ancient English serf. The
13th Amendment prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude. Nothing was said about
voluntary servitude. Most bondservants from Europe had been in a state of voluntary
servitude, in that they had contracted for a term of service in exchange for some benefit. An
apprentice had been in a similar servile state. His voluntary agreement put him there. More
whites came to America as voluntarily indentured bondservants for seven-year terms, to
work off their passage, than all blacks that came here by force as slaves. After this country
was formed, the rules for the enforcement of Personal service ended in the concept of
personal sovereignty (for white people). However, the black was not a sovereign. After the
adoption of the 13th Amendment, he was free as to the entire world, but not as to his master.

53
His master was the American sovereign, meaning the American body politic: We, the
people.

The people had delegated to the government the power to administer their property.
(Constitution, IV§3/2) Thus, the power of administration of these subjects was in the
government: they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even those blacks
that had been freed by their masters, before the Civil War were not part of the body politic
(with rare exceptions). Our Supreme Court had confirmed this discrimination. (Dred Scott,
supra, 404-405, 410-411) Furthermore, as of 1787, every southern state had a constitution,
which prohibited blacks from voting or holding citizenship. Most prohibited land ownership
as well.

The effect of emancipation was to enable the black man to go where he chose. It was
thought he would go back to Africa (even though he had never been there, and was as native
to America as any white). Of course, America was his home, and he had no intention or
desire to leave. However, this left those millions without work, without homes, and without
means. They were a threat to the southern economy. The long-nurtured attitude of contempt
for black men caused the white legislatures of eleven southern states to pass laws, which
would guarantee that the free blacks had no rights and no jobs and no property. (Slaughter-
House Cases, supra, 70) However, martial law was still in force. The 14th Amendment was
prepared, and Congress let the recalcitrant southern states understand that their return to full
governmental power was suspended until the Amendment was ratified. (Slaughter-House
Cases, 83 US 36, 70-71) This was clearly duress. The Utah Supreme Court has openly
declared the invalidity of Amendment 14 as recently as 1968. However, it conceded that we
must submit thereto until the Supreme Court invalidates it officially. (Dyett v. Turner, 439
P2d 266)

The language of the 14th Amendment makes it quite clear that it does not apply to a
sovereign citizen. Not one single white person owes his citizenship to Amendment 14, (Van
Valkenburg, supra, at 47) nor did it give the white man any new unalienable rights.
(Twining v. Jew Jersey, 211 US 79, 86) The condition for receiving citizenship under the
Amendment is that one be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It also created a
new concept of residence. The subject, who had been a resident alien, now became a
resident citizen.

Allegiance is a concept, which applies to subjects, but not to sovereign citizens. It is a

feudal concept, which would not ordinarily apply in this country. In this country,
Citizenship is constitutional, while allegiance is personal; citizenship is freedom, but
allegiance is servitude; citizenship is a political tie, while allegiance is a territorial tenure.
(Talbot v. Janson, 3 US (3Dall.) 133)

No sovereign citizen owes allegiance to any power on earth. What we have is a concept
of mutual loyalty in supporting our Republic. After the 14th Amendment was adopted, cases
discussed allegiance and applied the concept for the purpose of explaining the rules of
citizenship by birth. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 665) However, Daniel
Webster has pointed out that we only perplex ourselves when we attempt to explain our

54
political relationships by reference to European nations. Sovereignty in government is an
idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. (American Law, Andrews, 164, 169)

Sovereign citizens need no protection of unalienable rights; they have civil rights by virtue
of their sovereign character. However, as sovereigns they have a duty to protect their
subjects. The property power delegated by the Constitution originally authorized Congress
to legislate to protect government property. Amendment 14 extended that power,
authorizing Congress to enact legislation to "enforce" the restrictions against which the
states were prohibited to legislate. Suddenly, we find Congress empowered to enact so-
called "civil rights" laws. This used to be a function of the states. Did anyone but the new
type of citizen need this "protection”?

One must remember that situs for property is somewhat equivalent to domicile for a
natural person. Since the 14th Amendment "subject" citizen is a species of property
(since he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) he may "reside" (as a
person) in a State, but he will always have his situs (as property) at the seat of
government: Washington, D. C. (the domicile of his "owner"). Alternatively, one could
look at it in a different manner: remember that it is usually the alien who "resides" in a place
which is foreign; citizens just "live" in their home state! Under Amendment 14 a new
concept of residing arose. It would seem that, as citizens of the United States, all of the new
kind of citizens living away from the political jurisdiction of the United States would have
continued to be aliens, as to the state in which they "resided." However, the 14th
Amendment also made them citizens of that state - but continued to call them "residents"
thereof. The Amendment does not apply to the sovereign citizen. Thus, he continues to be
alien to 14th Amendment citizenship and to that special residency; he is also nonresident
to the areas of the political jurisdiction of the United States. He has been transformed by
the 14th Amendment into a "nonresident alien," since very few sovereign citizens live
within the political jurisdiction of the United States.

The importance of the concept of situs, for tax purposes, becomes clear when we
consider what the courts say about congressional intent:

“We think the language of the statutes clearly demonstrates the intendment (sic) of Congress that
the source of income is the situs of the income-producing service.” (C.I.R. v. Piedras Negras HB
Co., 127 F2d 260, 261)

While it is obvious that the black man got a form of citizenship and that he did owe a
continental concept of allegiance to the federal government, that concept of allegiance
would contradict individual sovereignty. The distinction between sovereign citizenship and
subject citizenship was better defined by pointing out that the latter citizen was completely
subject to the direct and immediate jurisdiction of the United States. ( Elk v. Wilkins, 112
US 94, 102)

Nothing in the 14th Amendment protected any fundamental rights for the new
subject citizen against impairment by the federal government. (Cruikshank, supra, at
553-554; Slaughterhouse Cases, supra, at 74, 76-77, 79; Hague v. C.I.O., 307 US 496)
In addition, because the subject citizen has a situs at the Capitol, constitutional

55
limitations on governmental powers have no application to him. Under the
Amendment, no rights were created. The Amendment merely prohibited
discrimination. (Cruikshank, supra, 555) This was a restriction on the states, not a
restriction on the national government. (Hendrick v. Maryland, (1914), 235 US 610)

By Amendment 14, then, you find that the government has retained the power to regulate
the affairs of the black man, and to make any laws it chooses for his "protection". Herein
lies the secret of the tax laws. Privileges (called rights) of the subject citizen under the
Constitution are created by law, and are only as unalienable as the law has made them.
Anyone who claims rights under the 14th Amendment is volunteering himself into that same
status of subjection. (Ashwander v. TVA, 297 US 288, 347-348) No wonder we are told to
exercise rights under the 14th Amendment!

The Bill of Rights was not imposed upon the states by the 14th Amendment. (Bute v.
Illinois, 333 US 640, 657, 659; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 325) In fact, the 14th
Amendment gave no benefits to white citizens. Where there is no benefit, there is no duty.
(United States v. Rice, 17 US 246; Wong Kim Ark, supra, 683) Thus, the regulatory laws
made for 14th Amendment citizens create no duty in sovereign citizens. It was previously
demonstrated how the revenue laws actually place the sovereign citizen living in one of
the 50 states in a foreign status. [26 CFR 1.911-2(h)]

Now we can understand the strained logic of this application. The federal government
has avoided the restriction against legislating for the nonresident foreigner (alien) by
the simple device of encouraging our "voluntary compliance" with revenue laws. So
long as we sign documents, having the quality of commercial undertakings and
promises, we are volunteering to be subject to the entire panoply of laws and controls
applicable to the subject citizen. Whenever we do so, we can hardly be heard to complain
about such laws. Our own tax returns will be brought into court to demonstrate how we
voluntarily assessed ourselves and promised to pay our taxes. If we fail to file, an old return
will be produced to show that we "knew our duty" to file. Commercially, those tax forms
reveal our prior course of dealing. As will be shown, we have fully complied with
procedures set forth in the UCC, which render us obligated to pay a tax.

Citizenship did not create any political rights for the new citizens. It was for this reason
that another Amendment was adopted, forbidding abridgment of their voting rights.
(Amendment 15)

Obviously, the entire process has seriously defrauded the black man. Whatever might have
been the motivations of men in the 1860's in the 2000’s no reasonable person would desire
the kind of differentiation, which was perpetuated under the Civil War Amendments. Even
in 1867 it is doubtful that the public intended there to be this class distinction. It seems to
have been the undisclosed idea of certain men in government. Obviously, such bigots were
afraid to allow blacks full rights, and hence the language of the 14th Amendment. America
had an opportunity to validate the Declaration of Independence for all men. Instead, our
government has used the 14th Amendment as a devise to make us all equal in fact equal as
slaves. Justice Wilson predicted this fate, 200 years ago:

56
“How true it is that States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is
that his creatures and servants have first deceived next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master
and maker" (Chisholm, supra)

CORPORATE GOVERNMENT

A private corporation has no sovereign rights, and exists only as a governmental privilege.
Even a state, in such capacity, loses sovereign immunity from Federal power.

A fundamental precept of law is that when government, state or federal, engages in

business, the laws of business apply, as if the government were a mere private corporation. (
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 US 363; United States v. Burr, 309 US 242; Bank
of the United States v. Planters Bank, 22 US 904)

Our government has imposed upon us the private system known as the Federal Reserve.
That system uses commercial paper called Federal Reserve Notes. Constitutional gold and
silver has been abandoned as our legal tender. The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
acknowledges that commercial law applies, at least in tax lien enforcement. Collectively,
these realities make it hard to refute a prevalent claim to the effect that our tax and money
systems are governed by the same private law, which govern corporations. Thus, the claim
of sovereign immunity by the courts in these areas is constitutionally insupportable, and is
utterly disingenuous.

This idea gains substance when one remembers that the political jurisdiction of the United
States is actually limited to the enclaves and territories. Congress has created private
corporations, and has incorporated Washington, D. C. as a municipality. In fact, it is only
under that municipal charter that federal corporations can be created. (Daly v. National Life
Insurance Co. of the U.S.A. (1878), __Ind__) The Capitol may properly be called the
"corporate" United States. It is quite evident, that except for the subject citizen, the tax laws
only apply to income derived from the areas under this federal corporate control.
Unfortunately, the courts do not seem to understand this viewpoint. This is not surprising,
when it is clear that most Americans have voluntarily signed up with the government for tax
payments. Those commitments are being enforced against us. It isn't unconstitutional.

The Constitution simply does not apply to a person who has volunteered to pay those taxes.
The popular argument regarding source income at 26 CFR 861 which exempts the US
citizens labor from taxation is accurate, but it applies only to US citizens and that is not you.
The more accurate argument for exemption for non-resident aliens is 26 CFR 871. In that
Section of the code, if you are working within or for the United States, your income can be
taxed at a rate of 30%, but if you do not receive income from the United States or within
their political jurisdiction, you are exempt from taxation on your compensation for personal
labor.

You will find that even our relationship with the United Nations is of a corporate
character, in that the UN included the United States as one of the "corporators," and
as such, dispensed with the "sovereign" character of the country. In effect, the UN

57
charter declares that our country has given up any powers not set forth therein!
(United States v. Burr, 309 US 242; 22 USC§286(e)
SECTION III

THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Judges of men
A Biblical example of judgment that might help put into perspective our present courts of law,
can be found in the book of First Kings, Chapter three. Each of two prostitutes had given birth to
a son while they were, living in the same house. One of the sons had died. Both women claimed
the living child. Solomon called for a sword and said, "Divide the living child in two, and give
half to the one, and half to the other.'' The true mother of the living child cried, "0 my Lord, give
her the living child, and in no wise slay it." Then King Solomon the Wise said, "Give her the
living child and in no wise slay it; she is the mother thereof."

There can be no doubt that idealistically speaking all of our judges should be more like
Solomon, ruling in wisdom and the fear of God. However, if we were attempting to place the
overwhelming majority of the federal judiciary of this country into one of the categories above,
we would be forced to conclude that they are much more like the evil prostitute than either
Solomon or the natural mother.

No one in our society is in a better position to restore the rule of law, and in so doing teach the
proper application of law to all the people. However, rather than receiving a lesson in law and
justice when entering the arena of the courtroom, citizens receive lessons in craftiness, deceit,
sophistry and obfuscation. Most of our federal judges have indeed become judicial prostitutes,
and it would seem that rather than ruling justly, they would preside over the destruction of the
Republic in vain hopes of retaining some of their power. Melvin Stamper, JD.

The Law
Comment from the Professor - This section is not intended to give the student the tools to
fully understand the scope and nature of the laws under which the states and the federal
government operate. That goal takes years to achieve and I doubt any single resource could
make a significant contribution to that end. This section is intended as a “wake-up call”
concerning the idiosyncrasies and complexities of the law so that when you come in
contact with “law”, you are not immediately overwhelmed, and you have some
understanding of the issues you may be facing.

How would you define, “law”?

Most people have never really stopped to consider this question. For most Americans “law”
is something the police officer uses to make an arrest or issue a traffic ticket. To others it is

58
a bunch of confusing books that lawyers use to bamboozle you out of what is rightfully
yours. If you hold these opinions, you are right - but you’ve barely scratched the surface!

“The Law” is any system (or part of that system) that creates or recognizes rights,
duties, or obligations, and provides a forum through which to seek a remedy in the event
that any of those rights, duties, or obligations are breached.

Although one would ordinarily think that in the course of history there have been many
different forms of law, one would likely be surprised, if not downright shocked, to learn
how many different forms of “law” exist in America at this very moment. Here are but a
few of the styles of law that you may be called to operate within if you find yourself head-
to-head with the legal system:

Common Law Equity Law Admiralty/Maritime

Admin. Law Private Law Public Law
Constitutional Law Treaty Law Bankruptcy Law
International Law State Law Municipal Law
Federal Law Family Law Corporate Law
Probate Law Contract Law Tax Law
Civil Law Criminal Law Labor
Law

As you can see, things can get challenging rather quickly. Each form of law has its own
special doctrines and standards. Many times one form of law “nests” within another. Unless
one understands the idiosyncrasies of the type of law being used or applied in a certain
case, one will often feel railroaded toward an unpleasant outcome. Although this class
cannot possibly educate its students in every area of the law, it is our goal to make you
aware of the broad concepts that govern the legal trade. After that, it is you who must do
the work if you wish to better understand the Byzantine maze that is our legal system.

Before you get into a legal battle with a private individual or the government first send
them a Constructive Notice or an Implied Notice of the damage or injury they have caused
you. It is preferred evidence in court and complies with the UCC, if you do this you are
well on your way to winning the battle.

Notice and Demand

(Elements)
There is no penalty for making reasonable mistakes in good faith. However, if one
intentionally does harm, then he may be sued. Nevertheless, before he can be sued,
he must be given a fair opportunity to correct his error. The notice gives one that
fair opportunity. By it, he may have sufficient notice to assert proper diligence and
inquire further so as to discover that which an inquiry pursued in good faith would
disclose.

59
There is wide latitude in the style you use to write the notice. You can pretend you
are writing to your sweet old grandmother, or to the Devil himself (IRS). From the
court's point of view, the style does not matter if the legal points are made. Choice of
style is a strategy decision--what effect do you want to have on the offender? Before
sending the notice remember to apply Mark Twain's seven rules for good writing:
"Revise, revise, revise, revise, revise, revise, revise." It takes seven major revisions to
do a notice correctly.
In your notice to your adversary, make the following points:
1. What he is doing or not doing.

2. Your injuries (e.g. loss of substantive rights). (NOTICE! "Injury" and "damages" are
NOT synonymous words. Injury is the harm done. Damages are the compensation
for the injury.)

3. His duty to not cause you injury. The moral, public, and private laws that require
him to not cause you injury (e.g. Ten Commandments; Bill of Rights, 18 USC Sec.
241, 242; 42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986; and your own rules).

4. He is breaching that duty.

5. State the damages (what he owes you) for the injury. Cite the moral, public and
private measurements of the damages (e.g. Biblical; 18 USC Sec. 241, 242; 42 USC
Sections 1983, 1985, 1986; and your own estimate.

6. Demand that he, in good faith, do his duty, pay you the damages, and to do so
within a reasonable number of days (usually 60 days for government, 30 days for
everyone else).

7. If he does not do as demanded within the allotted time, then by tacit procuration
(assumed power of attorney) you will determine for him the facts, his duties, and the
damages he owes you.

8. If he does not perform as demanded, you will take lawful action (in personam and in
rem) to defend against him, and persons acting in concert with him, who cause or
attempt to cause said injuries; to secure your substantive rights; and to redeem the
damages owed to you.

The constructive notice should be served upon the adversary in the same manner
that one would serve a summons in a lawsuit. A proof of service should be
executed and held for use as necessary in a future lawsuit.

"Knowledge of facts which would naturally lead an honest and prudent person to make inquiry
constitutes 'notice' of everything which such inquiry pursued in good faith would disclose.
Twitchell v. Nelson, 131 Minn. 375, 155 N.W. 621, 624; German-American Nat. Bank of
Lincoln v. Martin, 277 Ill. 629, 115 N.E. 721, 729." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1210.

60
"In another sense, 'notice' means information, an advice, or written warning, in more or less
formal shape, intended to apprise a person of some proceeding in which his interests are
involved, or informing him of some fact which it is his right to know and the duty of the
notifying party to communicate." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1210.

"Actual notice has been defined as notice expressly and actually given, and brought home to
the party directly. Jordan v. Pollock, 14 Ga. 145; McCray v. Clar, 82 Pa. 457; Morey v.
Milliken, 86 Me. 464, 30 A. 102. The term 'actual notice,' however, is generally given a wider
meaning as embracing two classes, express and implied; the former includes all knowledge of
a degree above that which depends upon collateral inference, or which imposes upon the party
the further duty of inquiry; the latter imputes knowledge to the party because he is shown to be
conscious of having the means of knowledge. In this sense actual notice is such notice as is
positively proved to have been given to a party directly and personally, or such as he is
presumed to have received personally because the evidence within his knowledge was
sufficient to put him upon inquiry. Picklesimer v. Smith, 164 Ga. 600, 139 S.E. 72, 74; White
v. Fisher, 77 Ind. 65, 40 Am.Rep. 287." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1210.
"Constructive notice is information or knowledge of a fact imputed by law to a person
(although he may not actually have it), because he could have discovered the fact by proper
diligence, and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty of inquiring into it.
Baltimore v. Whittington, 78 Md. 231, 27 A. 984; Acer v. Westcott, 46 N.Y. 384, 7 Am. Rep.
355." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p. 1210.
"'Constructive notice' is a presumption of law, making it impossible for one to deny the matter
concerning which notice is given, while 'implied notice' is a presumption of fact, relating to
what one can learn by reasonable inquiry, and arises from actual notice of circumstances, and
not from constructive notice. Charles v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation, C.C.A.Okl. 282 F.
983, 988. Or, as otherwise defined, implied notice may be said to exist where the fact in
question lies open to the knowledge of the party, so that the exercise of reasonable observation
and watchfulness would not fail to apprise him of it, although no one has told him of it in so
many words. See City of Philadelphia v. Smith, Pa., 16 A. 493." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th
Ed., p. 1211.
(If you are prosecuted, submit a Bill Of Particulars as to the charges and authority,
jurisdiction, etc. of the government to the prosecuting attorney--NOT the court. If the court
gets their hands on it, they will treat it as a motion and dismiss it..) In the federal system,
they normally cannot answer or provide you with the exact nature of the charges because
they almost never have jurisdiction.

BILL OF PARTICULARS
The people through their respective constitutions granted authority to the Congress and
state legislature to adjudicate only a few matters: Actions at law, actions in equity, and
actions under the rule of necessity (military). Admiralty was remanded to the federal
government and the states (are supposed to) have no authority to legislate in this
jurisdiction. There was a time when someone aggrieved of harm would file a tort at law.
And the nature of the action governed the rules of the procedure. If there was a breach of
contract, then this was an equity matter. If the aggrieved party could allege a tortious
breach of contract, this matter was moved from the equity side of the court into the law
side.

61
This is because the people must have access to a remedy at law if this type of action could
give relief. If one were in the military, or if one were under territory under martial law, the
court was a military court. If there was a breach of an international contract, the matter was
federal and heard under admiralty.

The Congress nor the state legislature cannot vest a "court" with authority that has
not been delegated to it by the people via the constitution of the state. They cannot
create a new "nature of action" out of thin air. Later on, when the Constitutions of the
several states were amended to recognize and administrate corporations, a separate court
was established, and the action was in the nature of administrative.

Human beings could not be brought into administrative courts, as the only matter at
issue was a breach of corporate charter by an artificial person. Somewhere along the
line, the announcement in the complaint of the nature of the action was lost.

The attorneys all got together and decided that it would be much "simpler" (for them) if
there were only one form of action. So today, there is no disclosure of the nature of the
action, unless one demands to know the nature and cause of the accusation by using a
demand for a bill of particulars.

I have been quite successful with this procedure, even in states that have decided that a
demand for bill of particulars is a discretionary motion before the court. For example, in
Pennsylvania, the demand for bill of particulars used to be prior to arraignment so that one
had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements of personal
jurisdiction and "venue" (to include territorial jurisdiction as well as the "nature of the
action" that used to be a part of subject matter jurisdiction).

Within the past couple decades, they moved it into "discovery", which is after arraignment,
so the ability of one to challenge the jurisdiction and venue of the court was lost.

This is because entering a plea ACCEPTS the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject
matter jurisdiction was challengeable. If they say this is a matter at law, my defense against
this jurisdiction is whether or not there is a damaged party. I do not ask if this is an equity
jurisdiction because equity is not a criminal type of action.

If they say this is a matter in hustings (which is the true nature of action of all
administrative law), my defense against this jurisdiction is that I am not an artificial
person (unless I am a federal citizen - but that is quite another matter entirely), unless
they can show from the records in the Secretary of State's office that I have charted as
such.

If they say this is an admiralty matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether the
offense was committed on federal territory over which the state has retained concurrent
jurisdiction (although I still have-not found how the state exercises an admiralty
jurisdiction in light of 28 USC § 1333).

62
If they say this is a military matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is that 1) I am not a
member of their military (I am, however, a member of the militia of one of the several
states - but they do not operate as such anymore), 2) the nation is not under martial law (or
is it?).

Given the fact that there are currently 14 Notices from the President’s of a
Declaration of National Emergency published in the Federal Register, we may very
well be in a state of martial law. The one from March 6, 1933 is still in effect today.

However, they are not going to admit the nature of the action, as this will admit their want
of jurisdiction on the record for all to see, so THEY move to dismiss the charges. Nearly
every time.

While we will never succeed in bringing down the current regime in this manner, at least
other folks see what we are doing and some decide along the way that they want to learn
this procedure.

I contend that if only 10% of the people enforced their right to know the "nature and
cause" of the accusation, we could most certainly shut down the incessant stream of
revenue being fleeced from the people by these "administrative" courts. As far as the
"compelling government interest" doctrine, this is clearly matter founded in law martial
rule - the military authority is in the process of returning control to the civil authorities, but
has not yet completed the process

“I simply do not understand the nature and cause of the accusation with regard to the
elements of personal jurisdiction, venue, and the nature of the action until the
prosecution properly alleges them. I am therefore unable to enter a plea to the charge
until I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against these elements.
I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.”

The courts operate on silent judicial notice of presumption all the time. It is time for
this to end.

Fundamental Forms of American Law

In America, our laws are comprised of several fundamental levels. The first is
Constitutional law. No other law, of any form, is valid unless it comports with the
applicable Constitution. A law that cannot find its basis in the applicable Constitution
is an unconstitutional law, and thus null and void.

At the state level, the next operative form of law is the common law. The government
has done everything within its power to wipe common-law from the face of American
court rooms, but the common law was, is, and always will be, the proper form of law
for the de jure state Citizen. Some modern reviewers have stated that the common law is

63
“harsh”. We might observe that it is unforgiving and inflexible when a person transgresses
the rights of others. I am not convinced that this makes the common-law harsh, so much as
it does strict. God’s Law is harsh---it is meant to be---so that people understand that they
must obey the law.

Equity law. Equity law covers a broad scope of legal issues and is used extensively in
today’s courts. Equity is distinct from common-law. Equity must always be voluntarily
accepted and there must be a contract nexus. In the federal system, jurisdiction always
attaches by contract. What kinds of contract do you have with the federal government?

Equity - “.. a system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, ‘law”’.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Equity Jurisdiction - “That portion of remedial justice which is exclusively administrated by

courts of equity as distinguished from courts of common law”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

And here is a fascinating definition, from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [1856]:

Equity, Court of - A court of equity is one, which administers justice, where there are no legal
rights...

The most succinct (although not exhaustive) definition of “Equity” would be this:

“The term ‘equity’ denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would
regulate the intercourse of men with men Gil/es v. Dept. of Human Resources Development, 11
Cal.3d 313

It is important to note that whenever the word “fair” is involved, it means that a third party
will decide what is fair for you. Despite the lofty ideals of “equity”, what is thought to be
“fair” in the mind of one person, may often times be thought completely unfair in the mind
of another. If the common-law is competent to provide a remedy, one need not acquiesce to
the jurisdiction of a court of equity. This is where the Savings to Suitors Clause comes in to
save the day for us plain folk.

Next would come statutory law. This is the form of law that most Americans know as “the
law”, although it is a form of law with extremely limited power. Statutory law is comprised
solely of the acts of the legislature that have become law and are currently in force. Most of
these legislative acts (statutes) have been codified to one “title” or another within a set of
‘codes”.

There are a couple of significant points to remember. First, most codes are not law, but are
merely indicative of the law (prima facia); the law is the actual statute (positive law) that
was passed by the legislature. It is conceivable that a statute could have been repealed; yet
the code section still exists. If you are in a legal fight, always check the statute behind the
code section. Second, keep in mind that not every statute passed into law is codified; some
statutes simply stand-alone and remain non-codified, hence the name “statute-at-large”.

64
When searching out what the law say’s, always look to the annotated version of the
statutes; this is what the Supreme Court has said the law is.

And here’s the real kicker concerning statutory law:

A statute is an enactment by a legislative body bringing into existence its creatures

(e.g. corporations) and setting forth the privileges, immunities, and responsibilities of
each creation. A statute applies only to the “rightful subjects of legislation” (ie. the
creatures created by statutory fiat). The phrase “rightful subjects of legislation” does
not mean “The People”, unless the statute specifically states its intent to apply to
private Citizens. Do you have a license? Is your name spelled in all capital letters on
your Credit Cards and Driver License? You have a ton of contracts out there that
makes you a person wearing a mask, who is subject to the legislation written to
control it, and you have to get rid of them.

Of course one should remember that one could create an obligation to a law that would not
otherwise bind him by involving himself in various regulated activities or by entering into
an agreement with the government (such as acquiring a business license, resale permit, etc.)

Other Important Distinctions

Classifications

Every law that defines an offense falls into one of two categories. The first category is
mala in Se, and the second is mala prohibita.

A mala in se offense is a crime that is, by the laws of nature and God, a true crime.
Examples of this would be, murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc.

A mala prohibita offense is one that would not be an offense were it not for the legislature
passing a law that makes a particular act a punishable offense. Examples of this would be,
possessing or smoking marijuana, buying and selling more than seven cars a year without a
dealer’s license, not obeying road signs and speed limits, etc.

Application

Various laws also only apply to certain “groups” of persons and not persons outside that
group or groups. An example if this would be laws concerning “licensed contractors”. The
state has no blanket authority to require every person who, for profit, plumbs, or installs a
lighting fixture, or builds a patio deck, to apply for and acquire a license.

Here is a list of the persons who must have a contractor’s license:

65
 1. Any person conducting certain defined types of construction on State property.

2. Any person who has entered into a contract with the State to perform certain
defined types of construction.

3. Any person who has acquired a contractor’s license and has not properly
cancelled it.

4. Any foreign corporation doing business in your State.

Nature
All legal actions fall only within one of two broad categories; civil or criminal.

1. Civil.
2. Criminal.

The Penal Code of each state is the code from which crimes are prosecuted.
In California, as in most states, the Code of Civil Procedures states:

Section 31 - The Penal Code defines and provides for the prosecution of a criminal action.

Please note that there is no criminal action that is prosecuted from any other code.

Civil actions arise out from either an obligation, or an injury. Here is how the California
Code of Civil Procedures defined those two terms:

Section 26 - An obligation is a legal duty, by which one person is bound to do or not to do

a certain thing, and arises from:

One--Contract; or, Two--Operation of law.

An “injury” is defined thusly:

Section 27 - An injury is of two kinds:

a. To the person;
and,
b. To property.

An injury is fairly self-evident, as is an obligation connected with a contract. However, the

obligation that arises from an ‘operation of law’ may seem less clear.

Operation of law - This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities,
devolve upon a person by the application to the particular transaction of the established rule of law,
without the act or co-operation of the party himself. Black’s law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

66
 In other words, an operation of law is simply some event or circumstance that lays a right
or liability upon a person through no action of his own and that right or liability may justify
a civil court action

How Federal law Differs from State Law

Federal law only defines mala in se crimes that occur within the “federal places”. In other
words, federal law cannot define “murder”, as such term may be used within, say …
Florida. That’s because the federal government may only define a mala in se crime for use
within places that are under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Congress.
Compared to a state penal code, there are relatively few mala in se crimes defined with the
United States equivalent of a penal code. (Title 18 USC or United States Code) Most
crimes that are contained within 18 USC are actually regulatory in nature (mala prohibita)

When dealing with federal law, the trick is to determine (through research) what is the
exact nature and authority of the law being examined. It will fall into one of three
categories:

1. A true criminal statute [mala in se] that applies to persons and property located within the
geographic United States (i.e. Washington DC, other federal lands, US possessions and
territories).

2. A regulatory law [mala prohibita] that applies to persons and property located within the
geographic United States (i.e. Washington DC, other federal lands, US possessions and
territories), and/or to those who have entered into a licensed activity under the authority of
the United States.
3. A regulatory jaw [mala prohibita] that applies to persons and property located within the
states of the Union under the enumerated powers of the federal government, which are
expressly defined in the US Constitution.

Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction

The federal government frequently moves in Admiralty jurisdiction. The term used
and preferred by the government more recently is ‘Special Maritime Jurisdiction”.
They are the same snake with two heads.

Admiralty jurisdiction deals primarily (or maybe I should say “originally” with ships and
occurrences upon the water. This special jurisdiction was a result of the issues of
international shipping, questions of ownership over ships and their cargo, “prize” issues
[defeating a ship in a sea battle], piracy, controversies over shipped goods when the owners
are not in America, salvage of vessels and goods, and various Custom’s issues.

When our nation was first founded, Admiralty jurisdiction was restricted by the ‘rule of
tides”. Under this rule, Admiralty jurisdiction could only be invoked if the circumstance
took place on water (or at the dock) subject to the natural forces of the tides. However, over
time that yardstick was throw aside and Admiralty’s reach was expanded (by court

67
decisions) to embrace all actions previously cognizable under, Admiralty, but which took
place on any navigable waterway under the jurisdiction of the United States. In other
words, if it’s a navigable waterway that is in United States federal territory, or if the
waterway is used for interstate commerce, certain controversies that arise in such
circumstances can be heard in Admiralty jurisdiction.

It should be noted that the states of the Union also have Admiralty jurisdiction when
dealing with issues of intrastate commerce, or when a state is acting as an agent (under
agreement with the Secretary of Transportation) for the federal government in the
enforcement of interstate commerce regulations associated with navigable waterways.

It is widely theorized by tax law researchers that IRS seizures are all made under Admiralty
jurisdiction derived from alleged violation of a Customs regulation, in the Virgin Islands.
The government is currently disputing this argument by stating that federal court actions
involving seizure are commenced under the (28 USC) Federal Code of Civil Procedure.
Guess what, Title 28 USC are rules of Admiralty/Equity.

The Federal Code of Civil Procedure controls many but not all procedural aspects of
Admiralty actions. There are common law rules sprinkled among the rules, but require
research to find them.

Civil Codes with Criminal Penalties

Having discussed the difference between civil actions and criminal actions, one might
wonder why some offenses contained in civil (non-penal codes can result in consequences
usually thought to be exclusively for criminal acts (such as going to jail).

In most states there are two doctrines that seem to be at first glance in conflict with one
another.

One item of controlling case law states that if you are engaged in an activity that s
cognizable under the authority of one of the various civil codes: these codes can include
penalties that are, in the nature, criminal penalties. While the courts were not specific as to
when such “criminal penalties” attach to a civil offense, we can only conclude that they are
limited to cases that are regulated through a license or contract.

It’s only in such a circumstance that the defendant made a prior agreement to abide by the
conditions of the code and is therefore presumed to know that criminal penalties are a part
of the “agreement” In short, the court appears to be saying, “If you don’t like the water,
stay out of the pool.’

In the second case, an appeals court struck down the jail time portion of a sentence handed
down to a former Los Angeles County Supervisor who had been convicted of the misuse of
campaign funds. In its decision, the court stated that the offense was civil in nature and
therefore the maximum sentence that could be imposed was a fine, not jail time. This
would appear to be a regulatory violation that was not supported by any form of ‘License’

68
(i.e. prior agreement) and therefore the defendant had never ‘agreed” to allow criminal
penalties to be applied to him for a civil offense.

The Metamorphous of the Law

Laws do not actually metamorphize, but their language is altered over time to obscure the
true purpose and intent of the law. One would think that once a law is passed it would not
need to be altered unless some ‘shortcoming’ becomes apparent, or some circumstance
changes that requires the statute to keep up with the times. I think the average citizen would
be surprised to learn that statutes are amended to alter the language for no apparent reason.
I stress the word apparent because the ‘legislative draftsmen’ who propose these charges
know exactly what is, their purpose.

In the following fictitious example, we are going to provide you with the year that the
statute was passed as well as the text. I will then give you the year of each amendment of
the statute that changes the prior language. After viewing the progression of the changes,
look again at the original version and take note of all the clarity that has been lost. You will
see how the changes have rendered it impossible for a person to know what was the intent
of the original law. This practice is more the rule than the exception for the Congress and
the state legislators.

1959 - It shall be illegal for any foreign corporation to produce widgets except between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without
having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section
12345.

1970 - It shall be illegal for any corporation to produce widgets except between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having
first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1973 - No corporation shall produce or sell widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having first obtained
a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1979 - No person shall produce or sell widgets except during the times allowed by law.
Widgets may not be produced or sold without having first obtained a license in accordance
with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1990 - No person shall produce or sell widgets except in accordance with regulations
pertaining to this section. Widgets may not be produced or sold without having first
obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1994 - No person shall produce or sell widgets without first having obtained a license.

69
 What is important for the reader to understand is that the intended meaning and application
of the law, as indicated by its original language, cannot be altered by amendment! The
1994 versions still means the same exact thing as the 1959 version. If there are any
questions as to the proper meaning and application of a law, the prudent person will seek
out the earliest possible version of the statute in order to confirm the issues.

The “Other” Law

There is a form of “law” that is not really law at all. It’s commonly referred to as “case
law” (also known as “decisional law” or “precedent”). Case law is the previous ruling on a
point of law by a court of competent jurisdiction. Case law, when used properly, was/is
intended to provide consistency concerning points of law over time. In theory, this allows a
person to go into court on particular subject in the year 2005 and feel confident that the
court will make the same ruling on a particular point of law that a neighboring court made
in 2003. On the surface, who can complain?

Unfortunately, that leaves the meaning and/or application of specific points of law up to
just about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wears a black robe. We believe that today most
practicing attorneys will admit that case law has become a quagmire of conflicting opinions
that all to often lead to more confusion, than clarity.

There are two institutionalized problems with case law that need correction before this
disaster called “case law” can be rectified; they are integrally connected.

The first problem is a general unwillingness on the part of lawyers to challenge existing
case law. There are three arguments that can be used to challenge case law:

1. Aver that the circumstances that led to the ruling on a point of law in the previous case are
not substantially the same as are at issue in the current case and therefore the ruling on the
point of law in the previous case is not controlling in the current case.

2. Aver that the circumstances that led to the ruling on a point of law in the previous case are
the same as in the current case, but that the previous court simply ruled in error concerning
the issue of law in question.

3. Show that what has been passing for case law is actually nothing more than obiter dictum.

Option 1 Stated plainly, most lawyers are just too lazy to tackle option number one. This
sort of argument takes time and effort to put forth and is rarely seen except in high-dollar
corporate legal battles. In most courtrooms case law is never challenged - even when it’s
not terribly applicable.

Option 2 is basically dead on arrival. Lawyers will almost never aver to one court that the
decision of a previous court is just flat out wrong. Even on the rare occasions that an
attorney is motivated enough to make the argument, the court is virtually never willing to
overturn a fellow judge’s ruing on a point of law. We get the impression that like the

70
aristocracy of old; today’s judges consider it impolite to publicly declare another learned
and honorable judge to be wrong.

Option 3 would require an attorney to actually read the court’s decision and sometimes all
the briefs, motions, and others filings from the very beginning of the case. Reading
previously decided cases is very time-consuming and at times exceedingly boring. Neither
of these are the kind of things with which attorneys like to involve themselves. For most
attorneys that kind of arduous effort ended on the day they graduated law school.

The second significant problem with case law is that while many judges are willing to
follow it blindly, other judges seem unwilling to follow the precedent of their state
Supreme Courts or the decisions of the US Supreme Court, even when the issue before the
court is well settled by the higher courts. While the motives of such judges may be
speculated upon by layperson and lawyer alike, the solution is cheered by the public and
dreaded by the BAR associations. Judges who disregard case law that is clearly and
correctly applicable to the matter before them should be removed from the bench by a
panel of Citizens, their pensions should be forfeit upon removal, and judgments should be
issued against them for any injury done to their victims.

The Language of Law

One of the greatest stumbling blocks for the American public in understanding the laws
their representatives enact is that laws use words in a different manner than we do in
common speech.

There are two kinds of language that are primarily used in law -one is “words” (just as we
use in common speech) and the other is “terms” (which can be substantially different than
we use in common speech).

“Words” are just that – words, they are presumed to be used in their ordinary manner and
they are subject to the “plain meaning rule” when interpreting a statute. Their meaning
must be sought through the common English dictionaries of the era in which the statute was
written. In the absence of any clear contrary intent by the legislature, the meaning found in
these dictionaries is the sole meaning that must be given to the word.

“Terms” are another matter. Terms appear no different, to the layperson, than words. The
difference is that terms are not subject to the “plain meaning rule” because the legislature
has provided its own definition for the term being used. Where the legislature has provided
its own definition, the ordinary English dictionary must be thrown out the window; the
definition given to the term by the legislature controls the meaning completely.

Seeking out the “definitions” section applicable the text that you are reading can identify
the meanings of terms. Unfortunately, this may not always be as straight forward a
proposition as one might imagine.

71
Most codes provide a section that gives definitions that are generally applicable throughout
the entire code. However, any of the definitions given for the entire code are subject to be
redefined in any given subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause. Any time a term is
redefined for a specific subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause, that redefinition of
the term takes precedent (within that subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause) over
the general definition provided for the entire code.

Of course, to make matters more confusing, any time a term is redefined for use in a
subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause, it can be redefined again and again as you
move from subtitle to chapter; chapter to chapter; chapter to section; section to section;
section to clause, etc. In other words, you always have to be on your toes and make sure
you know the definitions that apply to the exact text your reading!

Here is an example. 26 USC § 7701 contains definitions that are applicable for the entire
Internal Revenue Code. Section 770 1(a) (20) defined “employee”:

For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life
insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104,
105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for
the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a
stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under
such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125
with respect to cafeteria plans, the term “employee” shall include a full-time life insurance
salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21, or in the case of services
performed before January 1, 1951, who would be considered an employee if his services were
performed during 1951.

The term is redefined for use in chapter 24 of the Code: (26 USC 3401(c))

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official
of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any
agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes
an officer of a corporation.

As you can see the terms are defined very differently. The title-wide definition addresses
insurance salesmen, while the definition for chapter 24 addresses only government workers
under the direct or indirect authority of the federal government. [The corporation that is
mentioned is a corporation wholly owned by the federal government.]

Words of Art
Although “Words of Art” are often placed (by the layperson) in the same category as
“terms”, they are not the same thing. Words of Art are words or phrases that are particular
to specific technologies, sciences, arts, professions, etc., and generally do not have the
same meaning, or any meaning at all, outside their own field. One example of this is the
medical word, “orthopod”. The word, “orthopod” is generally used within the medical
community to indicate a person who has surgical training and experience in arthroscopy.

72
Outside the medical field, “orthopod” has no meaning whatsoever. While “terms” are often
used by politicians and lawyers to mask the true intentions or application of legislation
from the general public (especially in tax law), “Words of Art” are proper and necessary
parts of effective communication in the legal arena.

Does the Law Work?

At this juncture we would like to warn the uninitiated student that politicians, lawyers,
government employees and officers, and judges, do not really care what the law says.
Read that sentence again and then burn it into your memory; it will save you a lot of angry
days and sleepless nights.

There is a vast difference between what the law says and “how the system works”.
Here is something else for you to burn into your memory - the system has been
hijacked from The People and it now functions for four primary purposes:
1) Government control of persons and property.

2) The receipt of revenue, either by lawful action or extortion.

3) The protection of the system that provides for points 1 and 2.

4) The protection of persons who facilitate points 1, 2, and 3.

If you are one of the uninitiated, the statement made above may seem somewhat
reactionary to you. However, all one need do, to learn that these statements are true, is to
stand your ground when the government comes for you and they are legally in the wrong. If
you are a person of integrity and good faith, you will expect your government to sit down
with you, read the law, and cease their unlawful actions against you.

What you will not be prepared for is the attack that will be made upon you by your
government in retaliation for your audacity! On the other hand, if your government is not
accosting you, but you notice that it is acting in a manner that is contrary to the written law,
if you bring that fact to the government’s attention, the government will fall completely
silent and never respond (with anything substantive) to your comments, observations, or
requests for correction.

“The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.” John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872

The government generally uses the law as an offensive tool to compel the population to
comply with its edicts. In most cases the government could care less whether it is acting
lawfully, or whether it is even applying the law to the intended persons or property. The
government only cares that there is a superficial appearance of legality. Americans can
use the law as either an offensive tool or a defensive tool depending on the circumstance
and your preference. I prefer to be the aggressor.

Lawyers

73
 Many people despise lawyers. We suspect that much of that is due to various realities of the
legal trade and not because the men and women who become lawyers are inherently bad or
evil. However, nearly all lawyers have one fatal flaw that damages the law, the truth,
your rights, and the very fabric of our nation. The flaw is their unwillingness to argue
the law. That may sound odd, but it is true.

For the most part, lawyers operate within the courts. Those who do not function within the
courts, usually work within the corporate environment. Both the courts, and most
corporations, operate within “the box”. One might hope that “the box” means our system of
laws. Unfortunately, “law” takes a distant backseat to politics and monetary objectives.
Sadly, in the America of the new millennium, “the box” is whatever government
bureaucrats, politicians and money-powers say it is. Lawyers understand this, and
with rare exception, are unwilling to buck “the box”. If I have one direct criticism of
some lawyers, it is that some of them are moral cowards, not caring what is truly
right, nor willing to fight for it.

Let me give you a common example: We will speak to an attorney about something of a
general nature. During the discussion, we will state a rule of statutory construction and ask
the attorney to agree. He/She will agree that the rule has been stated correctly, including its
proper application. We will then lead that attorney to a more controversial area, such as tax
law, and apply the rule that was just discussed to the exact same circumstance of
construction. Once we point out how the rule must be applied and make note of the
consequences thereof, the attorney either falls silent or becomes defensive and angry.

I do not wish to leave you with the view that all attorneys are rotten or worthless. Like all
professionals, they may serve a purpose at times. However, I encourage you to gain as
much legal expertise as possible on your own through reading and study, and urge you to
not blindly place your faith, you future, your rights, or your possessions, in the hands of
lawyers because they will on occasion, not serve you well or faithfully.

SEEING THROUGH THE SMOKE AND MIRRORS

In this section I will attempt to enlighten you on the entire mystic and obfuscation of the
legal system that lawyers and the judiciary have used over the years to intimidate you. Their
reasons for doing so is that you will not readily seek judicial remedy against the oppressive
bureaucracy, which has enslaved you. They do this by using your ignorance of their system
and rules against you. As far as you are concerned, the tide is about to change!

The very first things you must know are what elements constitute a crime.

ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

All crimes have several basic common elements. (1) a voluntary act ("actus reus"); (2) a
culpable intent ("mens rea"); and (3) "concurrence" between the mens rea and the actus reus.
A showing that the act was the result of the culpable intention. The fourth major element,

74
 “causation of harm”. We will only cover the first two. If the mens rea is not established,
then there can be no criminal prosecution, therefore the other two elements become mute.

I. ACTUS REUS

A. The significance of "actus reus" concept: The requirement that the defendant have
committed a voluntary act ("actus reus") can best be understood by analyzing three basic
kinds of situations in which the requirement may be held not to have been met. The required
voluntary act is distinguished from (1) thoughts, words, states of possession and status; (2)
involuntary acts (e.g. sleepwalking); and (3) omissions (i. e., failure to act).

B. Distinguished from thoughts, words, possession and status: Mere thoughts are never
punishable as crimes. Even the crime of conspiracy and the various crimes of attempt, exist
only where the defendant has gone beyond thoughts, however evil and detailed, and
committed an overt act. The refusal to punish mere thought stems both from fears of
"thought control" as well as from practical problems of enforcement and proof.

1. Statement of intent made to third party: Even if the defendant; has confessed his evil intent
to some third person, this will usually not be enough to constitute the actus reus. For
instance, a statement "I intend to kill X" would not constitute the requisite criminal act.

Words as acts: But they’re a few situations in which, by the nature of the crime in question,
words may constitute the requisite act. For instance, in some jurisdictions, an agreement
between two persons to commit a crime is a sufficient act to constitute conspiracy;
similarly, words spoken to encourage another to commit a crime might well be enough to
give rise to a prosecution for aiding and abetting criminal activity.

2. Possession as criminal act: Mere possession of an object may sometimes constitute the
necessary criminal act, For instance, possession of narcotics frequently constitutes a crime
in itself.

a. Knowledge of possession: However, the act of "possession" is almost always

construed so as to include only conscious possession. Thus if the prosecution fails to
prove that the defendant knew that he had narcotics on his person, there can be no
conviction.
b. Knowledge of guilty character of object: But for possession to be a criminal act, it is
not necessarily required that the defendant have been aware of the ACTUS REUS
and MENS REA object's illegal or contraband nature.

Example: D is prosecuted for possession of marijuana, and is convicted. Held, on appeal,

D was entitled to have the jury instructed that it could not find him guilty unless it was
convinced that he knew that he had the marijuana in his possession. However, he was not
entitled to have an instruction that he could be convicted only if he knew that the drug was
illegal contraband. People v. Gory, 170 P.2d 433 (Cal. 1946).

75
 c. Requirement of control: In order to be in possession of drugs, the defendant must not
only be aware of their presence, but must have "control" over them. This requirement
is hard to interpret in cases where several persons are found together in a room, and
drugs are found on a table or some other place (rather than on someone's person).
Most courts have held that anyone in the room can be found to have been in
"possession" of such drugs; see, e.g., People v. Valot, 169 N.W.2d 873 (Mich. App.
1971).

d. Model Penal Code: The Model Penal Code provides that possession can be a criminal
act only if the defendant knew he had possession of the object, and was aware of his
control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession."
M.P.C. §2.01(4).

e. Presumptions: The prosecutor's burden of proving knowing possession is frequently

made easier by statutory presumptions. For instance, New York Penal Law
§265.15(3) provides that if an illegal weapon is found in an automobile, all persons in
the car shall be presumed to be in possession of the weapon, unless it is on the person
of one of them.

i. Overcoming presumption: However, a defendant can always overcome such a

presumption of possession by producing evidence that he did not know of the
object's presence, or that he had no control over it.

ii. Possible unconstitutionality: Such presumptions, even though rebuttable, have

occasionally been held unconstitutional. The test generally has been whether the
presumption corresponds to a logical and empirically supported inference. For
instance, a Federal statute providing that a person's presence at the site of an illegal
still gives rise to a presumption that the person was in "possession, custody and
control" of the still, was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. v.
Romano, 382 U.S. 136 (1965).

The Court noted that a person might be in the presence of the still solely because he
was bringing supplies to it or taking its production from it (neither of which has
anything to do with possession of the still), and that the presumption was therefore
not rational.

iii. Weapons presumption upheld: On the other hand, the New York weapon-in-
automobile presumption referred to above was recently found to be constitutional by
the Supreme Court, at least as it was applied on the facts of that case; County Court
of Ulster County v. Alien, 442 U.S. 140 (1979). The Court held that the test of the
validity of a "permissive" presumption, such as this one, is whether the presumed
fact is "more likely than not" to follow from the basic fact, and that in making this
determination, all evidence presented to the jury may be considered. Since the
defendants were adult males, and the weapons were large handguns found in the
open pocketbook of their 16-year-old female co-passenger, it was "more likely than
not" that the defendants' presence in the car indicated that they had possession

76
 (defined as "dominion or control") of the weapons. A four justice, dissent, argued
that the "more likely than not" question should be decided without reference to
anything except the fact of presence in the car. Thus the fact that the defendants
were adult men, and the pocketbook belonged to a female minor, should have been
disregarded in testing the presumption's validity, according to their dissent.

2. Status: A defendant may not be convicted for merely having a certain status or
condition, rather than committing an act. Thus the Supreme Court has held that a
statute making it a crime to be a narcotics addict imposed an unconstitutional cruel
and unusual punishment. Robinson v. State of California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

a. Act stemming from condition: But the Supreme Court and other courts have refused
to extend very far the Robinson court's prohibition on status crimes. For instance,
the Court held that a defendant could constitutionally be punished for the crime of
public drunkenness, even though some evidence suggested that he was a chronic
alcoholic. Who once he became intoxicated had no control over his actions (and
could thus not prevent himself from being found drunk in public). Powell v. State of
Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968).
Act must be voluntary: An act cannot satisfy the actus reus requirement unless it is
voluntary.

1. Model Penal Code examples: The Model Penal Code, §2.01(2), lists three particular kinds of
acts, which it holds to be involuntary:

a. Reflex or convulsion: "A reflex or convulsion”.

b. Unconsciousness or sleep: "A bodily movement during unconsciousness or
sleep";
c. Hypnosis: "Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion."
d. Other acts: The Code also provides that an act is involuntary if it is "a bodily
movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the
actor, either conscious or habitual." §2.01(2)(d).

2. Reflex or convulsion: An act consisting of a reflex or convulsion presents the dearest case
for being involuntary, and thus not giving rise to criminal liability.

Example: D is walking down the street, when he is stricken by epileptic convulsions.

While in the midst of these convulsions, his arm jerks back, and he strikes’ X in the face.
The striking of X was not a voluntary act, and cannot give rise to criminal liability.
But if D knew beforehand that he was subject to such seizures, and unreasonably put he in a
position where he was likely to harm others (e.g., by driving a car), this initial act might
subject him to criminal liability.

Quick but conscious decision: But an act is voluntary, not reflexive, as long as the defendant
has time to make some decision as to whether to take that action. For instance, if D is about
to fall, and reaches out to grab someone or something to stop himself, he has not acted
reflexively, since his mind has "quickly grasped the situation and dictated some action."

77
 Unconsciousness: It is universally agreed that an act performed during a state of
"unconsciousness" does not meet the actus reus requirement. However, there is a great deal
of dispute about exactly what constitutes “unconsciousness.”

Defendant who "blacks out": The most difficult issue, which arises frequently, occurs when
the defendant testifies that prior to the crime, he "blacked out," and has no recollection of
committing the crime. Virtually all courts agree that his amnesia by itself does not constitute
a defense; see, e.g., Bratty v. Attorney General, [1963] A.C. 386 (Eng. 1961).

However, if the defendant can demonstrate that at the time of the crime, he was on
"automatic pilot," so to speak, and was not conscious of what he was doing, there is a good
chance that his act will be held to be involuntary.

Example: D (the black radical, Huey Newton) is tried for the murder of a police officer. D
testifies that he and the officer were involved in a skirmish, that the officer shot him in the
stomach. That D felt a "sensation like boiling hot soup had been spilled on my stomach,"
and that he does not remember anything that happened next until he was found at the
entrance of a hospital. A doctor also testifies on D's behalf that such a gunshot wound in the
stomach is very likely to produce shock and unconsciousness.

Held (on appeal), the California Penal Code prevents anyone from being convicted for an
act he committed "without being conscious thereof." D produced enough evidence of
unconsciousness that he was entitled to have the jury instructed that if it found him to have
been unconscious, it could not convict him. The conviction is therefore reversed. People v.
Newton, 87 Cal.Rptr. 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).

1. Relation to insanity defense: At first glance, this unconsciousness defense, often called
the defense of automatism, appears almost indistinguishable from the insanity defense.
However, there are some important practical differences between the two defenses. First,
in most states, there is a statutory requirement that any defendant acquitted by reason of
insanity be committed to a mental institution automatically; there is seldom such a
requirement as to a defendant successfully using the automatism defense.

2. Burden of proof: Another difference is that the insanity defendant often has the burden
of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was insane at the time of the
crime. Many courts, however, require the defendant merely to present some evidence
supporting his automatism defense, and then shift to the prosecution the burden of
proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant was not acting unconsciously.

3. Contrary view: But see State v. Caddell, 215 S.E.2nd 348 (N. C. 1975), as an example of
a recent case making the defendant establish the automatism defense by a preponderance
of the evidence. Where this rule applies, the defendant will presumably never be entitled
to have the jury instructed on the automatism issue merely by his testimony that he
"blacked out" at the time of the crime and does not remember anything.

78
4. Hypnotism: There is dispute about whether acts performed under hypnosis are always
(or indeed ever) sufficiently involuntary" that they cannot give rise to liability. The
Model Penal Code, as noted, provides in §2.01(2)(c) that such acts are always
involuntary.

a. Contrasting view: But the opposite view, that liability should attach even to acts
performed under hypnosis, relies on the often-stated view that no one will
perform acts under hypnosis that are deeply repugnant to him (and that therefore
the hypnotized subject must be exercising his will to some extent).

5. Self-induced state: Although the defendant's acts while unconscious, while in the midst
of an epileptic seizure, etc., will not meet the actus reus requirement, his acts prior to
such a state may be enough to meet the requirement. For instance, if the defendant had
himself hypnotized for the purpose of emboldening him to commit a crime, the act
requirement would be met. This would probably be the case, for instance, if a cult
member allowed himself to be hypnotized by a leader known to induce his subjects to
commit crimes while hypnotized.

a. Tendency to seizure: Similarly, the act requirement may be met where a person
knowingly puts himself in the position of imposing risk on others. For instance, a
driver who drinks heavily, and then falls asleep at the wheel, could undoubtedly
be held guilty of manslaughter or vehicular homicide; his act consists of drinking
and getting in the driver's seat, not of losing consciousness while driving. This
principle was carried even further in one case, in which a driver who knew that
he was subject to epileptic seizures nonetheless drove, and caused a fatal
accident; he was convicted of negligent homicide. People v. Decina, 138 N.E. 2nd
799 (N. Y. 1956). (A dissent pointed out, however, that the defendant was being
punished for merely driving at all, something, which his driver's license explicitly
allowed him to do.)

Omissions: A completely distinct effect of the actus reus requirement is to prevent criminal
liability from arising from most omissions to act (as distinguished from affirmative actions).
For instance, if the defendant sees a stranger drowning in front of him, the defendant will
normally not be criminally liable for failing to attempt to rescue, even though this could
have been done with perfect ease and safety. (This principle also bars tort liability.)

1. Distinguished from affirmative acts: In most situations, it is not difficult to distinguish

between an affirmative action and an omission to act. If A pushes B into a lake, where he
drowns, we would all agree that A has acted affirmatively. If A merely comes upon B
already in the water, and walks away, we would agree that A has simply failed to act to save
B. There are situations however, in which the line between acting and failing to act is
fuzzier.

a. Respirator cases: One such situation arises when a physician is faced with the
care of a comatose patient, whose life can only be maintained by the use of
artificial means, such as a respirator. If the physician fails to use the respirator,

79
 or uses it and then turns it off, has he acted affirmatively, or has he simply
omitted to act?

i. Omission to act: Most commentators agree that the physician's decision not to
use the respirator, or to turn it off, constitutes an omission to act; that is, it is
"not a positive act of killing the patient, but a decision not to strive any longer to
save him."

2. Limited liability for omissions: Anglo-American law has always been much less willing
to impose liability for omissions than for affirmative acts. Various reasons for this have been
advanced, including: (1) the fact that rules governing failure to act would necessarily be
much vaguer than rules prohibiting affirmative conduct and would be likely to violate the
principle that forbidden conduct must be carefully specified; (2) the difficulties of deciding
which of the various people who could have acted and did not should be prosecuted (e.g.,
which of the 38 people who watched Kitty Genovese get stabbed to death, if any, should be
charged?); and (3) the general feeling that there is an important causal difference between
precipitating an event and merely failing to intervene to prevent it. (e.g., if an old woman
dies of pneumonia in New Jersey, does it make sense to say that the failure of a particular
physician in Florida to attend to her "caused" her death, just as did the failure of every other
physician in the world to do so?).

a. Bases for liability: Liability for omissions has been limited by restricting it to a
few kinds of situations. These may be summarized by saying that there is
liability only where there is either: (1) a statute which explicitly makes it a crime
to omit the act in question; or (2) there are other factors giving rise to a distinct
legal duty to act.

3. Statutory requirement: There are a number of statutes, which impose a duty to take
affirmative action in particular situations. For instance, the Internal Revenue laws allegedly
make it a crime to fail to file an income tax return. Similarly, many states have statutes
making it a crime to fail to report a crime in a certain situation. Where omission is explicitly
made a crime, most of the practical conceptual difficulties mentioned above are not present.

4. Existence of "legal duty": A different situation is presented when the defendant has
omitted to act, and the state attempts to prosecute him under a statute that speaks in terms of
positive acts. For instance, the statute may proscribe "unlawful killing," and the defendant is
prosecuted for simply failing to prevent a death. The courts have worked out four principal
categories in which the defendant will be held to have been under a special legal duty to act,
so that his failure to do so may make him criminally liable.

a. Special relationship: A special relationship between the defendant and the victim may
give rise to such a duty to act. A close blood relationship is the dearest example. Thus a
parent who fails to give food or medical attention to his child could be held liable for murder
or manslaughter, based upon the parent-child relationship and the corresponding duty to
furnish necessities.

80
 ii. Interdependence: Other relationships, not involving ties of blood or marriage, may
be characterized by such mutual dependence that a failure to aid may give rise to
liability. For instance, it has been suggested that if two mountain climbers are
alone together, and one falls into a crevasse, the other have a duty to attempt a
rescue (if it could be done with reasonable safety). Similarly, two roommates
living together might have a duty to render assistance to each other.

II MENS REA

Just as the term "actus reus" symbolizes the requirement that there be a voluntary act, so the
term "mens rea" symbolizes the requirement that there be what might be called a "culpable
state of mind."

Not necessarily state of mind: In most situations, the requirement of mens rea refers to what we
would all agree is a mental state, either "intent" or "knowledge." However, some crimes are
defined in such a way that the “mens rea" is merely "negligence" or "recklessness"; in these
cases, it is often stretching things to say that there is a particular state of mind involved at
all.

Negligence and recklessness: When one acts negligently, even with "criminal negligence," a
term that usually refers to a greater deviation from the ordinary standard of care than the
deviation that would be enough to give rise to civil liability, it is hard to say that he has had
any special mental state. The essence of his act is that he acted without consciousness of the
risk that he was imposing. Even "recklessness" is defined in some courts as acting without
consciousness of an extremely great risk. The Model Penal Code, require that there be a
conscious disregard of a known risk for an act to be reckless. Nonetheless, negligence and
recklessness are said to fulfill the mens rea requirements of certain crimes.

b. Strict liability: Finally, some crimes are defined so as to require no mens rea at all. These are
generally referred to as "strict liability" crimes. Generally, they tend to be what might be
called "public welfare" violations (e.g., parking without putting money in the meter). They
are usually punishable only by fine and not by imprisonment, and carry no great social
opprobrium.

2. Ambiguity in statute: Most crimes have a number of material elements, each of which the
prosecution is required to prove (and prove, generally speaking, "beyond a reasonable
doubt"). In many cases, the mental state required as to each of these material elements may
not all be the same.

Example: The crime of rape requires that the defendant have intended sexual relations; it is
also generally required that the defendant not be married to the victim, and that the victim
not has consented. The prosecution must certainly show that the defendant intended to have
sexual relations. But if the defendant argues that he mistakenly thought that the victim was
his wife (e.g., he thought she was his wife, when she was in fact his wife's twin sister), or if
he mistakenly thought that the victim had consented, it is not at all clear that the defendant
will win. That is, it may suffice that the defendant behaved negligently, rather than
intentionally, with respect to marriage or consent.

81
 Unclear statutes: Notwithstanding this possibility that there may be different mental states
required for the various elements of the crime, most statutes are not drawn so as to make it
clear which state is required for each element. For instance, suppose that a statute provides
that "Whoever shall knowingly receive stolen property" is guilty of the crime of receiving
stolen goods.

Must the defendant be shown to have known that the property which he was receiving was
stolen, or must he merely be shown to have known that he was receiving property, and
simply negligent in failing to realize that the property was in fact stolen? The Model Penal
Code attempts to avoid such ambiguity in its definitions of crimes, and a comment states;
"The problem of the kind of culpability that is required for conviction must be faced
separately with respect to each material element of the offense, although the answer may in
many cases be the same with respect to each element." M.P.C., §2.02, Comment 1, Tent. Dr.
No. 4.)

B. General versus specific intent: Courts have traditionally classified the mens rea
requirements of the various crimes into three groups: (1) crimes requiring merely “general
intent"; (2) crimes requiring "specific intent"; and (3) crimes requiring merely negligence.

Obviously this classification does not encompass crimes as to which no culpable mental
state is required at all, i.e., strict liability crimes.)

"General intent": When courts hold that a crime requires merely "general intent," they usually
mean that all that must be shown is that the defendant desired to commit the act which
served as the actus reus.

Specific intent: Where a crime is said to require "specific intent" or "special intent," on the other
hand, the courts usually mean that the defendant, in addition to desiring to bring about the
actus reus, must have desired to do something further.

a. The distinction between "general" and "specific" intent can best be illustrated by considering
a crime for which general intent is usually held to be sufficient (simple assault) and a crime
for which specific intent is usually held necessary (common law burglary).

i. Assault: It is enough for assault if the defendant had "intent to willfully commit an act the
direct, natural and probable consequences of which if successfully completed would be . . .
injury to another." People v. Rocha, 479 F.2d 372 (Cal. 1971). The prosecution is not
required to show that the defendant thought that his conduct was wrong or unlawful, or even
that he intended to cause bodily harm; thus if the defendant touches the victim with a knife,
intending merely to graze his skin and frighten him, this will be sufficient intent, even
though no actual injury is intended.

ii. Burglary: For common law burglary, on the other hand, it must be shown that the
defendant not only intended to break and enter the dwelling of another, but also that he
intended to commit a felony once he was inside the dwelling. This latter intent is a "specific

82
 intent," in the sense that it is an intent other than the one associated with the actus reus (the
breaking and entering).

b. Significance of distinction: Those courts that adhere to the distinction between "general" and
"specific" intent rely on it principally to dispose of two issues: (1) the effect of the
defendant's intoxication; and (2) the effect of a mistake of law or fact. Intoxication is usually
held insufficient to negate a crime of general intent, but possibly sufficient to negate the
specific intent for a particular crime (e.g., a defendant who breaks and enters, but is too
drunk to have any intent to commit larceny or any other felony.) Similarly, a mistake of fact
may be enough to negate the required specific intent (e.g., a defendant who breaks and
enters, in an attempt to carry away something, which he mistakenly thinks belongs to him)
where the mistake might not negate the general intent (e.g., the intent to commit the
breaking and entering by itself).

Common law vs. statutory crimes: When the criminal law developed in England, it did so
principally as common law (i.e., Judge-made" law or "case law"). In most American
jurisdictions, the original English common-law crimes have been codified in statutory form.
Thus in many jurisdictions, there are no common-law crimes at all anymore, and in others
there are only a few. By and large, American criminal law is statutory law. That is, conduct
is criminal only if it is prohibited by statute.

1. Statutory offenses not existing at common law: In addition to statutory codifications of

the common-law crimes, American legislatures have also enacted a huge body of modern
statutory crimes that have no common-law counterpart. Many of these are defined so as to
have elaborate mens rea requirements, similar to those of most common-law crimes.
However, many others are essentially strict liability crimes; these are often referred to as
"public welfare" offenses or "violations".

Presumption of intent: It will often be quite difficult for the prosecution to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the defendant did something with a particular state of mind
(especially "purposely" or "intentionally"). This burden is made easier by statutory and
judge-made presumptions under which, from the existence of what might be called the
"basic" fact, the jury is permitted to infer, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumed fact
(e.g., the fact that the defendant acted purposely or intentionally).

Example: D, angered at having to fill out a certain form to get unemployment benefits,
shoots the official in charge of the unemployment office. He then shoots at two policemen
who try to arrest him and then points his loaded gun (but does not shoot it) at a third
policeman. He is tried for "assault with intent to kill," and the jury is told that they may
accept D’s carrying an unlicensed loaded gun as proof of his intention to commit the assault.
This instruction is given pursuant to a statute providing that "in the trial of a person for
committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence, the fact that he was armed with a
pistol and had no license to carry the same shall be prima facie evidence of his intention to
commit said crime of violence." (On these facts the court held that the presumption was
unconstitutional, for reasons discussed below; State v. Odom, 520 P.2nd 152 (Wash.1974).

83
 1. Constitutional test: It is now required, as a matter of constitutional due process, that the
defendant not be convicted of a crime unless he has been proved guilty “beyond a
reasonable doubt." In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). A judge-made or statutory
presumption, insofar as it allows the jury to find that a material element of the crime exists
merely because some other fact (the basic fact) exists, may conflict with this due process
standard. Some state courts have held that for a presumption in a criminal case to be valid, it
must be the case that a reasonable juror could conclude that the presumed fact follows
beyond a reasonable doubt from the existence of a basic fact; see the following example.

Example: On the facts of State v. Odom, supra, the Washington Supreme Court held to be
unconstitutional the rebuttable presumption that one has intended to commit a crime of
violence with which he is charged if he carried an unlicensed pistol during that violent act. It
could not be said that a juror could find, beyond a reasonable doubt that one who carried
such a pistol intended to commit a crime of violence. In fact, in this particular case, the
defendant had bought the gun two years before the shooting, in the belief that he needed it
for protection in his work as a night janitor. (However, the jury could properly conclude
that, even apart from the statutory presumption, the defendant intended to shoot the three
people at whom he actually did fire.)

Note: But the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in County Court of Ulster County v.
Alien, supra, probably means that it is only necessary that the presumed fact be "more likely
than not" to follow from the basic fact, and that all the evidence, not just the presumption,
may be used to determine whether the presumed fact exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

E. Different states of mind: The Model Penal Code sets forth four distinct states of mind that
may give rise to culpability, depending on how the crime in question is defined: (1)
"purposely"; (2) "knowingly"; (3) "recklessly"; and (4) "negligently." Because this Model
Penal Code scheme has had a substantial impact upon the drafting of criminal statutes in the
seventeen years since its publication, we will focus on that scheme here. Then, we will
discuss crimes and offenses not requiring any culpable mental state, i.e., strict liability.

F. "Purposely": Under the Model Penal Code, §2.02(2)(a), a person acts purposely with
respect to a particular element of a crime if it is his “conscious object" to engage in the
particular conduct in question, or to cause the particular result in question. If the element in
question relates not to conduct or result, but to "attendant circumstances," then the defendant
has acted purposely with respect to those circumstances if he is "aware of the existence of
such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist."

Distinguished from "intentionally": Most pre-Model Penal Code statutes do not use the word
"purposely," but rather, the word "intentionally." Within the term "intentionally" is often
included not only a conscious desire to bring about the results, or to engage in the conduct in
question, but also the awareness that the conduct or result is certain to follow. That is most
older decisions do not distinguish between "purposely" and "knowingly." For instance, if the
defendant has a conscious desire to kill A, and he does so by putting a bomb on board a
plane that contains both A and B, he would be held by these courts to have "intended" to kill

84
 B as well as A since, although he did not desire to kill B, he knew that B's death was
substantially certain to result from his actions.

"Maliciously": Pre-Model Penal Code statutes often use the word "malicious” to denote a
particular mens rea. The term always includes intentional conduct by the defendant, but is
also usually interpreted to include reckless conduct, i.e., conduct taken in disregard of a
known high probability of risk. However, most decisions hold that neither negligence, nor
the fact that the defendant was intentionally engaging in some other, unrelated, crime, is
enough to establish that he acted "maliciously" with respect to the harm that in fact occurred.

Example 1: D steals a gas meter from the home of his prospective mother-in-law. However,
D fails to turn off the stop tap to the meter, located only two feet away, and coal gas seeps
through the walls, partially asphyxiating V, a woman sleeping next door. The applicable
statute requires a finding that D acted "maliciously." The trial court judge defines
"malicious" as a generally "wicked" state of mind during the commission of an act.

Held (on appeal), for D. In order to establish that D acted maliciously, the prosecution
must prove that D either (1) intended to harm V or (2) acted recklessly in that he foresaw a
risk of harm to V but imposed the risk on her anyway. It was not sufficient that D was
"wicked," which he clearly was by stealing the meter at all. Regina v. Cunningham, 41
Crim. App. 155 (1957).

Example 2: D, a seaman, enters the hold of his ship for the purpose of stealing rum from
the cargo. He lights a match to see what he is doing, and the rum catches fire, burning up the
ship. He is tried for the crime of "feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously" setting fire to his
ship.

Held, D's conviction reversed. It was incorrect to instruct the jury that D necessarily
acted maliciously if he was attempting to commit some other crime (e.g., larceny of the rum)
at the time he committed the act (lighting the match) in question. At the very least, the
prosecution should have been required to show that D acted in disregard of the fact that the
fire was a "probable" or foreseeable consequence of his act. Regina v. Faulkner, 13 Cox.
Crim. Cases 550 (Ire. 1887).

Note: Despite the decisions in Cunningham and Faulkner, there are many situations in
which a defendant who intends or desires to produce one result will be treated as if he
intended or desired a different, even unexpected, one.

For instance, if the defendant shoots at A, desiring to kill him, and instead the bullet hits B
and kills him, the defendant will be held to have purposely killed B, under the doctrine of
transferred intent. Most of the problems of unintended results of wrongful conduct are
treated in the material on concurrence.
The defendant may intend to commit a particular act only on a certain condition, if so shall
he be deemed to have "intended" that act?

85
The Model Penal Code, in §2.02(6), provides that the existence of such a condition is
irrelevant, "unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law
defining the offense."

Example: Suppose D breaks into a house, intending to steal something only if no one is at
home. He will be found to have had the necessary intent for burglary (i.e., intent to break
and enter and also intent to commit a felony; since the evils sought to be prevented by laws
against burglary (breaking and entering, and subsequent commissions of felonies) present
despite the condition. But if D had broken in for the purpose of having sex with the
dwelling's owner, but only on condition that she consent, he will be held not to have had the
necessary intent for burglary (since there is no statutory purpose to discourage consented-to
sexual intercourse). M.P.C., §2.02(6), Comment 8

Motive: It is often said that the defendant's "motive" in committing a certain act,
distinguished from his "intent" or "purpose," is irrelevant. The dividing line between
"motive" and "intent" is often blurry, but the idea of motive usually refers an "ulterior" or
"ultimate" intent. As one well-known illustration puts it, if A murders B in order to obtain
B's money, A's "intent" is to kill, and his "motive" is to get the money.

Good motives no defense: Good motives will not normally negate a state of mind that
otherwise furnishes the required intent. This is most frequently demonstrated in mercy-
killing cases, in which the defendant has killed a close relative to spare the latter the
suffering of a terminal illness. The defendant can certainly be convicted of murder or
voluntary manslaughter, even though his ultimate objective, his motive, may have been the
lofty humanitarian one of sparing needless pain.

Defenses of necessity, self-defense, etc: But there are a number of special, well recognized,
defenses as to which motive may be relevant. For instance, a defendant who commits what
would otherwise be a criminal act may be entitled to the defense of necessity, if he can show
that he was preventing a greater harm; his desire to prevent that greater harm might be said
to be his "motive." Similarly, a person who has killed another in self-defense might be said
to have had the "motive" of self-defense. But unless the defendant's conduct and mental state
fit within one of these fairly well defined defenses, his motive will be irrelevant to his
liability (although it may have a bearing on the sentence imposed by the court).

Knowingly: The Model Penal Code marks a new tendency to distinguish between
purposely" and merely "knowingly." A person acts "knowingly" under the Code, with
respect to the nature of his conduct or the surrounding circumstances, if he is “aware" that
his conduct is of a certain kind or certain circumstances exist. More significantly, if the
crime is defined with respect to a certain result of the defendant's conduct, the defendant has
acted knowingly if he was "aware that it is practically certain his conduct will cause" that
result. M.P.C., §2.02(b).
Willfully: Statutes often use the ambiguous term "willfully." The Model Penal Code takes
the position that for a person to have acted willfully, it is not necessary that he acted
"purposely"; it is sufficient if he acted "knowingly," unless the statute indicates otherwise.
M.P.C. 62.02(8). For instance, if murder is defined in a particular statute as the "willful

86
taking of the life of another," the defendant can be convicted if it is shown that he knew that
the victim's life was substantially certain to be taken, even if he did not desire that result
(e.g., he put a bomb on board a plane carrying the victim, for the purpose of killing one of
the other passengers).

Subjective test: The Model Penal Code, and most recent decisions impose a subjective test
for determining the defendant's knowledge. That is, the test is whether the defendant actually
knew or believed something, not merely whether a reasonable person in the position of the
defendant would have had that knowledge or belief. The effect of this is that if the defendant
can show that he was unusually stupid or gullible, he may escape having knowledge imputed
to him.

Example: D runs an antique store. One of his customers notices that some of the antiques
that D is selling were stolen from her house. After she tells her suspicions to the police, D
hides or sells the objects in question, and is arrested for knowingly concealing stolen
property. That crime is defined by local statute so as to apply only where the defendant acted
"knowing [the goods] to be stolen."

Held, the prosecution must prove that D actually knew or believed that the goods had
been stolen, and it is not enough to prove that a "reasonable person" with the information
available to D, would have known that the goods were stolen. (However, it does not have to
be proven that D was certain that the goods were stolen; "it is enough if he was made aware
of circumstances, which caused him to believe that they were stolen. A stricter requirement
would make the various "possession of stolen property" crimes virtually not provable, since
a thief almost never admits to his fence that the goods are stolen.) State v. Beale, 299 A.2d
921 (Me. 1973).

"Willful blindness": There is one situation in which the defendant is not required to have had
actual knowledge or belief of a fact for him to be held to have acted "knowingly." This is the
situation that has often been called "willful blindness." It occurs where the defendant has a
suspicion that something is the case, but in order to be able to deny knowledge, has
purposely refrained from making inquiries, which would have led to the knowledge in
question. As the Model Penal Code, §2.02(7), puts the idea, such knowledge is established if
the defendant is "aware of a high probability of its existence," unless he actually believes
that the fact in question does not exist.

Example: D is arrested when driving into the U.S. from Mexico, for having 110 pounds of
marijuana concealed in a secret compartment in his trunk. He testifies at his trial that he was
paid $100 by the owner of the car to drive it across the border, and that he, D, knew that
there was some kind of void in the trunk, but did not know what was in it. The trial judge
instructs the jury that it may convict if the government has proved that D's lack of
knowledge of the contents of the trunk "was solely and entirely a result of his having made a
conscious decision to disregard the nature of that which was in the vehicle, with a conscious
purpose to avoid learning the truth." The jury convicts.

87
 Held, conviction affirmed. The jury instruction as to D's willful refusal to ascertain for
certain that which he suspected (the presence of the marijuana) was a correct statement of
the "willful blindness" doctrine. (A dissent argued that this instruction did not meet the
Model Penal Code requirements, principally because it may have confused the jury into
thinking that D could be convicted if he actually believed that there was no marijuana, if his
belief was unreasonable.) U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976).

Presumption of knowledge: A statutory or judge-made presumption may be to help prove

that the defendant acted "knowingly," just as it may be used to show that the defendant had a
particular "intent." One frequent illustration of this of presumption is in statutes governing
stolen property, which typically provide the defendant's unexplained possession of property,
which is in fact stolen gives to a presumption that he knew that it was stolen.

Example: D is charged with, inter alia, possession of treasury checks stolen from the mails;
the statute requires the prosecution to prove that D knew the checks were stolen. The jury is
instructed that "possession of recently stolen property, if not satisfactorily explained, is
ordinarily a circumstance from which you may reasonably draw the inference . . . that the
person in possession knew the property had been stolen." D is convicted and appeals.

Held, the presumption is not unconstitutional since, at least in this case, the evidence (that
D possessed recently stolen treasury checks payable to persons he did not know, and
provided no plausible explanation) would allow a reasonable juror to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that D knew the checks were stolen. Barnes v. U.S., 412 U.S. 837 (1973).

Recklessly: A person is said to act "recklessly," under the Model Penal Code, when
consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. . . ." The Code gives a further
explanation of what constitutes a "substantial and unjustifiable" risk, by at the risk "must be
of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature purpose of the actor's conduct and
the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard
of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. MPC §2.02 (2)
(c).

Must be aware of risk: The Code thus takes the position that for the defendant to be reckless,
he must have been aware of the high risk of harm stemming from his conduct. To put it
another way, the Code applies a subjective standard for recklessness.

View of some courts: The M.P.C.'s subjective standard is in sharp contrast to the "objective"
standard applied by a number of courts and statutes, under which the defendant can be
reckless if he behaves extremely unreasonably (i.e., disregards an extremely high risk of
harm) even where he was unaware of this risk.

Example: D owns and runs the "New Coconut Grove," a Boston nightclub. One night, a
sixteen-year old employee, while trying to replace a light bulb in the club's basement,
accidentally sets fire to some flammable decorations with a match he is using for a light. The
fire spreads to the main floor of the crowded club, and panic results; many customers die
from burns and smoke inhalation several emergency exits are shown to have been locked at

88
the time. Although D himself is in the hospital at the time of the fire, he is charged with
manslaughter.

Held, D's manslaughter conviction is affirmed because he acted recklessly, not just
negligently. It is irrelevant whether D knew that he was creating a large danger by the
inadequate fire exits. "[E]ven if a particular defendant is so stupid [or] so heedless . . . that in
fact he did not realize the grave danger, he cannot escape the imputation of wanton or
reckless conduct in his dangerous act or omission, if an ordinary normal man under the same
circumstances would have realized the gravity of the danger. A man may be reckless within
the meaning of the law although he himself thought he was careful." (Nor does it matter that
D did not directly cause the fire, since his reckless omission to perform his duty to protect
the safety of his patrons was the equivalent of an affirmative act.) Commonwealth v.
Welansky, 55 N.E.2d 902 (Mass. 1944).

All circumstances considered: In determining whether the risk was "substantial and
unjustifiable," all the circumstances known to the defendant must be considered. These
would include the end that he is seeking, which might be called his "motive". Thus if the
defendant drives very fast through a residential area, his conduct might be reckless if he was
simply trying to avoid being late for a movie. However, would not be reckless if he were
trying to get an injured person to the hospital. This would be true even though the risk
imposed on the outside world would be the same in both situations; the gravity of the
potential harm must be weighed against the "social benefit" that the defendant is attempting
to obtain.

Necessity for objective danger: Under the M.P.C. formulation, "recklessness" would seem to
require that there be an actual, not merely apparent, risk of harm. Nevertheless, not all courts
have agreed. Where a statute provided for punishment of the crime of "recklessly
endangering another person," and the statute provided for a presumption that "recklessness
and danger" existed "where a person knowingly points a firearm at or in the direction of
another, whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded." The court held that
even the pointing of a gun that was actually unloaded was reckless endangerment. "The most
dangerous weapon is the 'unloaded gun' and the legislature's intent was to proscribe the
pointing of all firearms at others." State v. Cushman, 329 A.2d 648 (Vt. 1974).

a. Criticism: The result in Cushman seems clearly wrong. There was no actual
danger at all, so either the court misinterpreted the legislature's intent, or the
presumption is unconstitutional, since it is not even "more likely than not"
that there is danger and recklessness in each case in which an unloaded gun is
pointed at someone.

Negligently: A number of statutes make it a crime to behave "negligently" if certain results

follow. The most common such crime is probably that of "vehicular homicide," which is in
some states a variety of "criminal negligence." The Model Penal Code defines the term
"negligently" so as to apply an objective, not subjective standard: a person is negligent
"when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable. The risk must be of such a
nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of

89
his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the
standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation."

Distinguished from civil negligence: Most courts and statutes require a greater degree of
culpability for conviction of a crime involving negligence than for the imposition of civil
liability for negligence. Sometimes this is done by holding that there is no negligence unless
the defendant is shown to have been aware of the risk imposed by his conduct; the Model
Penal Code rejects this approach, at least as far as it is merely the defendant's mental
attributes (e.g., the "heredity, intelligence or temperament of the actor") which are
concerned; otherwise, the negligence standard would be "deprived · of all its objectivity."
M.P.C. §2.02, Comment 4.

Physical attributes: But the defendant's physical characteristics are relevant, if they prevent
him from perceiving or avoiding a risk. "If the actor were blind or if he had just suffered a
blow or experienced a heart attack, these would certainly be facts to be considered, as they
would be under present law."

Gross negligence: The other respect in which many courts and statutes have imposed a
different standard for criminal negligence than for civil negligence is by requiring a greater
deviation from the standard of care which would be shown by a reasonable person. This is
sometimes expressed by saying that criminal negligence is "gross" negligence. The Model
Penal Code agrees with this view, insofar as it imposes liability for negligence only where
there is a "gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.
" M.P.C.,§2.02 (2) (d)

Example: L, is tried under a statute providing for the punishment of anyone who, "while on
a hunting trip negligently or carelessly shoots and wounds, or kills any human being.”

Held, on appeal, the statute, since it is a penal one, must be strictly construed. Therefore, it
will be interpreted to punish only gross, not ordinary, negligence. State v. Jones, 126 A.2d
273 (Me. 1956).

Unforeseeable results: Suppose the defendant should have known that there was a
substantial risk that a particular harm would come from his act, and instead a different harm
occurs, or the same harm occurs in a different manner from that which was foreseeable, or a
different victim is harmed. For instance, suppose that on the facts of Jones, supra, the
defendant was negligent in disregarding the risk that he might hit his hunting companion
with a shot, and the shot in fact hit some third person whose presence was completely
unforeseeable; has D committed the crime of negligent shooting while hunting?

Strict liability: The traditional common-law crimes are all defined in such a way that are
committed only if the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or at least,
negligently. As legislatures have become more and more active in defining crimes, however,
so-called 'strict liability" crimes have come into existence. These are crimes for which no
culpable mental state at all must be shown; it is enough that the defendant performed the act
in question, regardless of his mental state. Among the more serious strict liability crimes are

90
those of statutory rape (in which the defendant is guilty if he has intercourse with a girl
below the prescribed age, regardless of whether he knew or should have known her true age)
and bigamy (under which the defendant is guilty if he reasonably thought that a purported
divorce decree was valid, or that the prior spouse had died.

Constitutionality: The constitutionality of such liability statutes, particularly ones which

impose substantial criminal penalties such as imprisonment, has often been attacked by
defendants, usually on the grounds that conviction without a showing of culpable intent
violates the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Such an argument
has practically never succeeded. Thus in U.S. v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922), the Supreme
Court upheld a federal statute making it a crime to sell certain drugs including opium,
without a written order on a form printed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. "The
state may in the maintenance of public policy provide, as to certain acts, 'that he who shall
do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in defense good faith or
ignorance.' See also Wright v. Edwards, 343 F. Supp. 792 (N.D. Miss. 1972)(rejecting a due
process argument as to a strict-liability conviction for possession of marijuana).

Imprisonment or other severe penalty: But a few courts have recently held that where the
statute is not of the "public welfare offenses" variety, and imposes imprisonment or other
severe sanctions, it violates constitutional due process if it does not require a showing of
conscious wrongdoing. Thus in State v. Campbell, 536 P.2d 105 (Alaska 1975), the court
invalidated a statute making one who finds lost property and keeps it, without making efforts
to return it to its owner, guilty of larceny; the statute contained no intent requirement.

The court further held that the statute departed so significantly from the intent, applicable to
that common-law crime could not be read into the statute to save its constitutionality.

Interpretation: The legislature seldom makes it clear that strict liability is to be imposed.
Instead, statutes typically simply omit any particular mental requirement. Since many
statutes (particularly old ones) fail to specify a mental state even where some mens rea
requirement is intended, the courts are often faced with a difficult problem of statutory
interpretation: did the legislature intend to impose strict liability, or did it simply omit an
intended mental requirement?

Rules for interpretation: In deciding what the legislature intended, courts often rely upon
factors listed by the Supreme Court in Morisette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246 (1952); there, the
Court stated that "public welfare offenses" (as the less serious strict-liability offenses are
often labeled) are generally characterized by the following factors, among others: (1) the
violation is in the nature of neglect or inaction, rather than positive aggression; (2) there is
no direct injury to person or property, but simply a danger of such, and it is this danger that
the statute seeks to curtail; (3) the penalty prescribed is small; and (4) conviction does no
grave damage to the defendant's reputation.

Not applicable where statute codifies common law: Another important factor is that where
the statute is more or less a codification of a common law crime, it is much less likely to be
held to be a strict-liability offense than where the statute has brought into being a whole new

91
kind of offense not known to the common law. This factor was, in fact, the deciding one in
Morissette, supra, the facts of which are set forth in the following example.

Example: D enters an Air Force practice bombing range, and takes used bomb casings that
have lying around for years rusting away. He sells them as junk, for an $84 profit. He is tried
and convicted of "knowingly converting" government property. He defends on the grounds
that he honestly believed that the casings had been abandoned, and that he was not violating
the government's rights by taking them.

Held, the statute in question was not a strict-liability one, and required the prosecution to
show an intent to steal (which apparently, according to the Court, was negated by D's belief
that the property had been abandoned.) The statute was merely a codification of the
common-law crime of larceny; therefore, the fact that Congress did not specify a
requirement of intent to steal does not warrant the assumption that strict liability was
intended, since intent to steal has always been an element of common-law larceny.
Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246 (1952).

CONCLUSION

The object of learning the requisite acts necessary for a criminal penalty is absolutely
essential if you are attempting to challenge the big bullies of our society. (i.e.,
Government, Banks, etc.

The only thing that will save you from prosecution is that of pure intent even though you
may have committed an act in violation of some law and sometimes that isn’t enough.
The only thing that will supply you with that pure intent is knowledge. The genuine
pursuit of newly discovered knowledge, and the faith that the knowledge is substantially
in compliance of the law, removes the necessary element of intent. This is of particular
importance when dealing with the Internal Revenue Service, whose “Law” 26 USC is
fraught with ambiguity. A through knowledge of your status, law and your legal remedy
will enable you to reclaim that, which has been stripped from you; your freedom.

THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

We will be using Blacks Law Dictionary and 28 USC for understanding. Other books you
will need are 18 USC, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence.
Blackstones Commentaries will be helpful in understanding the common law as it relates to
you. We will be concentrating on the Federal System however State Civil Courts are
remarkably similar in their operation.

Precedents
The use of Precedents in the courts throughout this country is an established policy, an
inheritance from the English court system.
Is the use of Precedents a good or bad practice?

92
The lawyers, judges and legal system as a whole will scoff at this discussion saying the use
of precedent is nothing more than a time saver, a time management tool. That would be true
if valid precedents were being used. They might even add that, "it is to make certain that
everyone presenting the same or similar set of facts governed by the same laws will be
given the same decision."
Allegedly this ensures equal protection under the law.
What exactly is a precedent?
Aside from being a legal term, it’s the court policy that says,
". . . . we’ve decided this set of facts and applied this law so from now or whenever these or similar
issues are raised we will rule this way."
What attorneys do and courts encourage, frequently even require, is write briefs disclosing
previously decided cases relating to the same or similar issues so the court can use them to
guide or determine the outcome of the current litigation. It could logically be said that this is
an accepted method of prejudicing or predisposing the court.
Precedent. Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition (B4E), page 1340:
An adjudged case or decision of a court of justice, considered as furnishing an example or authority
for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law.
It means that a principle of law actually presented to a court of authority for consideration
and determination has, after due consideration, been declared to serve as a rule for future
guidance in the same or analogous cases, but matters which merely lurk in the record and
are not directly advanced or expressly decided are not precedents. Empire Square Realty
Co. v. Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York, 43 NYS2d 470, 473, 181 Misc. 752; Kvos,
Inc. v Associated Press, 299 US 269, 279, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183.
Before moving on, consider the meaning of that definition. The first sentence uses the
phrase adjudged case or decision.
Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition at page 63 defines Adjudge as:
To pass on judicially, to decide, settle, or decree, or to sentence or condemn. People v. Rave, 364 Ill.
72, 3 N.E.2d 972, 975. Judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; equivalent of convicted and
sentenced. In re Tarlo’s Estate, 315 Pa. 321. Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry
of a judgment.
Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition at page 494-495 defines Decision as:
A popular rather than technical or legal word; a comprehensive term having no fixed legal meaning.
It may be employed as referring to ministerial acts as well as to those that are judicial or of a judicial
character. … A judgment or decree pronounced by a court in settlement of a controversy submitted
to it and by way of authoritative answer to the questions raised before it. … A judgment given by a
competent tribunal. … The findings of fact and conclusions of law, which must be in writing and
filed with the clerk. …. A determination of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature.
So adjudge means the court has heard the issues and after due consideration has made up its
mind. Having made a decision the judge or judges write a judgment order or decree to
resolve any and all legal questions regarding the facts presented and the evidence heard.
Frequently the judge writes a Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law allegedly advising
the litigants how and why the law applies to the specific set of facts thus resolved.

93
Review the definition of precedent, with special attention to this quote:
"It means that a principle of law actually presented to a court of authority for consideration and
determination has, after due consideration, been declared to serve as a rule for future guidance in the
same or analogous cases."

Complaints, petitions, pleadings and papers must be filed in a court with the authority to
adjudicate the issues and grant the relief requested. Most precedents, habitually used in the
federal system, are not valid. Why?
Because most cases quoted by US Attorney's, can best be identified as summary decisions.
Summary decisions are those cases, which were dismissed because the court lacked either
jurisdiction, or the authority to grant the relief requested. The case was dismissed without
adjudication of the complaint. Rather, the court ruled on the affirmative defense motion
known as a Lack of Jurisdiction or Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon
Which Relief May be Granted. Remember, the court must have authority to determine the
issues and grant the relief. If the court lacks the authority to do either, it doesn’t have
cognizance of the matter (subject matter jurisdiction). In these cases the court only
possessed sufficient authority to determine its jurisdiction and/or authority, which was to
rule on the motion before it. However, if there was no evidence by testimony, depositions or
affidavits the court cannot have subject matter jurisdiction.
Absent a specific waiver for the action presented, all litigation regarding internal revenue
matters is outside the purview of the court, because of the exclusionary aspects of the
Declaratory Judgment (28 USC §2201) and Anti-Injunction (26 USC §7421) Acts. The
dismissal occurs because the facts cannot be litigated in this court therefore the legal
question is all that is resolved.
What legal question? Can the complaint be litigated in light of the law? No.
Summary judgment.
The validity of the arguments in the complaint is never resolved only because the court
merely tests the argument against the exclusions and does not try the facts as a controversy.
One such infamous case is Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440. This is a 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals case. The Lonsdale’s’ filed what they called a Quiet Title Action in
Federal District Court. What follows is the actual ruling. It has been embolden so that you
may see that portion which alone is quotable as precedent.
"The government moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, and, in the alternative, for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)). The district court granted the
motion without specifying the basis upon which it relied. The Lonsdale’s’ subsequent motion for
reconsideration was denied. On appeal the Lonsdale’s reassert the arguments, which they made in
the district court and raise other issues as well. However, because the dismissal below was
necessarily based upon the complaint itself, we address only those matters pled in the complaint. For
the reasons stated below, WE AFFIRM THE DISMISSAL OF THE LONSDALES’ ACTION."
Nothing was pled in the Lonsdale complaint that would allow the court to hear the issue.
They failed to "state a claim upon which relief could be granted." (FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)).
The complaint did not have a means around the Declaratory Judgment and Anti-
Injunction Act and was of necessity looked at for only that legal question. If the case

94
doesn’t fall within the scope of the exclusions of those acts it cannot be litigated in a federal
court.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and then provided the litigants with a detailed
dissertation more commonly called Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law explaining
why it ruled the way it did. This dissertation is in actuality dicta and or obiter dicta and
can have no bearing as precedent in other cases even though such 'dissertations' are used
or quoted. Everything within the first segments of the decision is fine, right up until the
court begins to wax prolific with its commentary. Keep in mind the appellate court is
hearing an APPEAL not an original jurisdiction action. The only thing appealable is whether
or not the lower court erred. The Lonsdale's cannot file an original jurisdiction action under
the guise of an appeal. When a court case is taken up as an appeal, nothing other than
error can be presented.
The Lonsdale's lower court decision was clearly made because it could determine that the
complaint was prohibited by statute. The issues within the complaint were only looked at to
determine if in fact they constituted a quiet title action. The issues were not litigated.
Think about this.
If the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the issues in the Lonsdale's complaint, how
could the lower court rule on the validity of such issues?
A real no-brainer, it couldn’t. As shown earlier in this discussion a precedent can only be
generated by a fully litigated case, which this was not.
The court as quoted above clearly stated that the Lonsdale's merely restated the original
complaint. If the lower court could not hear the issues presented because it lacked
jurisdiction, the appellate Court cannot hear them either. The appellate court proceeded to
commit outright prevarication when it began to detail the alleged issues resolved by its
ruling. The 10th Circuit sua sponte construed the Appeal from the Lonsdale's as though it
were on an alleged lower court error.
Everyone challenging the IRS has received letters claiming victory on behalf of the agency
under Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 US 1 (1916). We have all been told this
decision extolled the validity of the statutes and labeled the tax as an indirect tax in the
nature of an excise. Focused examination of Brushaber will reveal an entirely new
perspective to its meaning and importance.
"As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the
corporation from complying with the Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913,
(Section II, ch. 16, 38 Statutes 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising, the case is here
on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was
stated."
It appears that the United States Supreme Court viewed the Brushaber case as a
dismissal under what would be identified today as a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 12 (b) (6) ‘Failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.’ The
Supreme Court will not decide on a constitutional question if it can eliminate the case
on a statutory basis.
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346-348 (1936)
The Ashwander Rules [in part]

95
Rule 4.-- The Court will
not pass upon a
constitutional
question
although
properly
presented by
the record, if
there is also
present some
other ground
upon which the
case may be
disposed of.
Rule 5. -- The Court will
not pass upon
the validity of a
statute upon
complaint of
one who fails
to show that he
is injured by its
operation.
Rule 6. -- The Court will
not pass upon
the
constitutionalit
y of a statute at
the instance of
one who has
availed him-
self of its
benefits.
Rule 7. -- When the
validity of an
act of the
Congress is
drawn in
question and
even if a
serious doubt
of
constitutionalit
y is raised, it is
a cardinal
principle that
this Court will
first ascertain

96
 whether a
construction of
the statute is
fairly possible
by which, the
question may
be avoided.
[ emphasis
supplied ]

Then of course there is the Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916) which stated this:
“Further also like the Brushaber case this is before us on a direct appeal prosecuted for the purpose
of reviewing the action of the court below in dismissing on motion the bill for want of equity.”
Neither of these critical initial Supreme Court cases ever rendered a decision on the
facts of the complaints filed by the litigants.
The court ruled on whether or not the lower court acted in error. The importance and
meaning of both of these cases has been misinterpreted.
The errors continue with another infamous action frequently cited by US Attorneys; US v.
Studley, 783 F2d 934 a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This case was criminal. Tried pursuant
the penalty statute, 26 USC § 7203, Willful Failure to File. The opinion and ruling is quoted
below with the ruling emboldened, so as to identify that portion which is actually quotable
as precedent.
"Studley, a real estate broker, was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of willful failure to file
tax returns for the years 1978, 1979, and 1980. (Footnote) 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Studley filed a timely
notice of appeal and raises a host of issues before us. WE AFFIRM."
The case was before a jury. The charge the government was compelled to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt was whether or not Studley willfully failed to file returns. The decision of
guilt or innocence was determined by the jury, and with the exception of the rulings on
admissibility of evidence there were no issues before the court other than Studley’ s alleged
willful failure to file.
On appeal Studley attempted to present two legitimately appealable issues and was denied
on both, one being an invalid search warrant and the other jurisdiction. Studley then
attempted to raise new previously un-litigated issues, one of which was that of Taxpayer
Status.
"Studley contends that she is not a "taxpayer" because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural
individual. This argument is frivolous. An individual is a "person" under the Internal Revenue Code
and thus subject to 26 U.S.C. § 7203. United States v. Romero [81-1 USTC P9278], 640 F.2d 1014,
1016 (9th Cir. 1981)." (footnote)
The above quote isn’t a ruling by the court it is commentary and constitutes dicta and/or
obiter dicta. Contrary to the desire of the courts to raise themselves to the status of
demigods every utterance by a judge simply isn’t a ruling, decision or in some cases even
the truth.

97
Just for the fun of it, a short review of the Romero case, a criminal conviction on willful
failure to file (26 USC § 7203). Below is the actual ruling by the 9 th Circuit Court of
Appeals. Again, the ruling is emphasized, because it is what becomes precedent and
quotable.
"Robert Romero appeals his conviction, on five counts of willful failure to file income tax returns,
alleging that he was denied a fair trial and that the United States failed to prove all the elements
which were necessary to constitute the crime charged. WE AFFIRM ROMERO'S CONVICTION."
Romero argued on appeal that the lower courts instructions to the jury regarding the terms
income and person were erroneous. This is absolutely an appealable issue. The dictum
regarding the issue was on point up until the portion emboldened. Once it started into this
phrase the court was off into an aside, it isn’t a finding of fact. Why? Because it isn’t at
issue, the issue is whether or not the lower court erred in its instructions to the jury on the
terms, not whether Romero’s beliefs were in line with the law. See for yourself. The 9th
Circuit states as follows in its findings of fact and conclusions of law:
9th Circuit Court of Appeals:
“Romero also alleges bias and error on the part of the trial judge based upon the judge's comments
and instructions concerning the legal meaning of the terms "income" and "person" in 26 U.S.C.
§§61and 7203. We find this allegation to be frivolous. 26 U.S.C. §61 provides in part: "(a) General
definition.--Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from
whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for
services, including fees, commissions, and similar items[.]" In addition, the reference to the word
"person" in section 7203 of title 26 is intended to encompass not only all individuals subject to
income tax liabilities, but also legal entities liable for tax payments or required by law and
regulations to make a tax return. The trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of these
terms. Romero's proclaimed belief that he was not a "person" and that the wages he earned as a
carpenter were not "income" is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect.” See Lucas v. Earl [2 USTC
P496], 281 U. S. 111, 114-15, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731 (1930);
Furthermore the 9th Circuit alludes to a reliance on Lucas v. Earl for its commentary. The
Earl court wrote a one-page decision for a civil action having nothing to do with whether or
not salaries constitute income. The Earl court stated the issues as follows:
United States Supreme Court: Lucas v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111
This case presents the question whether the respondent, Earl, could be taxed for the whole of the
salary and attorney's fees earned by him in the years 1920 and 1921, or should be taxed for only a
half of them in view of a contract with his wife, which we shall mention. The Commissioner of
Internal Revenue and the Board of Tax Appeals imposed a tax upon the whole, but their decision
was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 30 F. (2d) 898. This Court granted a writ of certiorari.
The ruling is in 'caps' and bold type:
By the contract, made in 1901, Earl and his wife agreed "that any property either of us now has or
may hereafter acquire . . . in any way, either by earnings (including salaries, fees, etc.), or any rights
by contract or otherwise, during the existence of our marriage, or which we or either of us may
receive by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance, and all the proceeds, issues, and profits of any and all
such property shall be treated and considered, and hereby is declared to be received, held, taken, and
owned by us as joint tenants, and not otherwise, with the right of survivorship." The validity of the
contract is not questioned, and we assume it to be unquestionable under the law of the State of
California, in which the parties lived. NEVERTHELESS WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
COMMISSIONER AND BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WERE RIGHT.

98
It could be construed that it was the intent of the 9 th Circuit to mislead the reader of the
Romero decision into believing that a decision had actually been made regarding the
meanings of the terms income and person.
Additionally, it could be construed that the 9 th Circuit Romero court was fostering a
continued reliance on the allusion that a decision had actually been made regarding the
meanings of the terms income and person. It would seem that these two circumstances
constitute a deception
There are many more such instances of what has been shown above, far to many to list here.
A careful reading of all of the decisions relied upon by the government is mandatory.
Eventually the actual 'decision' in any given case will be determined and it may well be that
the referenced case is off point and not within the ambit of the case at hand. Such
misunderstandings can be construed as "court created fallacy."
Congress granted the federal district courts cognizance of all issues arising in a case or
controversy from the federal statutes.
The Congress then prohibited the federal district courts from hearing internal revenue
issues before payment by enactment of the Declaratory Judgments (28 USC § 2201) and
Anti-Injunction Acts (26 USC § 7421).
These two acts work in tandem. If there isn’t a specific waiver of immunity within 26 USC
then the federal district courts cannot grant the relief requested.
If a case is lost in the lower court the proper format for an appeal is to move on the errors
made by the lower court. An appeal is not the forum for rehashing the arguments in the
complaint.
Proper Appeals address issues determined by the lower court; they are not original actions
in the Circuit Court.
What did the lower court decide? In the case of a summary decision it determined that it
lacked jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief requested.
It never decided any of the issues in the complaint, only whether or not the court could
hear them.
An appeal must subsequently establish that the lower court had the authority to grant the
relief and/or hear the case.
Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition page 124, Appeal
In Civil practice.
The complaint to a superior court of an injustice done or error committed by an inferior one,
whose judgment or decision the court above is called upon to correct or reverse.
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 82; Appeal
Any form of appellate review other than by one of the extraordinary writs. 4 Am J2d A and E § 2.
Generally regarded as a continuation of the original suit rather than as the inception of a new action,
confined normally to consideration of the record which comes from the court below, with no new
testimony taken or issues raised in the appellate court 4 Am J2d A and E §2.

99
To revert to a terminology arising from distinctions that are rarely recognized in modern practice, an
appeal brings up questions of fact as well as of law, but upon a writ of error only questions of law
apparent on the record can be considered, and there can be no inquiry whether there was error in
dealing with questions of fact. Behn, Meyer, and Co. v. Campbell and Go Tauco, 205 US 403,
407…..
To emphasize precisely what goes into the appeal pay special attention to the definitions
provided above where the issues have been highlighted. The appeal is confined to
consideration of the record, no new testimony is taken or issues raised. There was never any
testimony taken and no evidence proffered. A summary decision is a preemptory decision
not fact based, but an issue of law.
Read Chapter 83 of Title 28 USC sections 1291 through and including 1296.
28 USC §1291 reads as follows:
28 USC §1291 Final decisions of district court
"The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall
have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, the
United States District Court for the District of Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the
District Court of the Virgin Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.
The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the
jurisdiction described in sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this title."
28 USC §1292 deals with interlocutory decisions, which is not applicable on summary
decisions. 28 USC §1295 pertains solely to the Federal Circuit and isn’t applicable to
anyone outside that authority. 28 USC §1293 and §1296 were repealed.
28 USC §1294 has a direct bearing on the appeal definition and application. It reads as
follows:
28 USC § 1294. Circuits in which decisions reviewable
Except as provided in sections 1292(c), 1292(d), and 1295 of this title, appeals from reviewable
decisions of the district and territorial courts shall be taken to the courts of appeals as follows:
1 >From the
district court of
the United
States to the
court of
appeals for the
circuit
embracing the
district;
2 From the
United States
District Court
for the District
of the Canal
Zone, to the
Court of
Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit;

100
 3 From the
District court
of the Virgin
Islands, to the
Court of
Appeals for the
Third Circuit;
4 From the
District Court
of Guam, to the
Court of
Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
Notice that the statute authorizes a review not a trial de novo. The word review means:
Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition page 1483 to re-examine judicially.
A reconsideration; second view or examination; revision; consideration for purposes of correction.
Used especially of the examination of a cause by an appellate court, and of a second investigation of
a proposed public road by a jury of viewers.
The federal system of courts was created to allow the trial of the facts at the lower level
and designed to avoid constitutional confrontations. Court policy has always been to
resolve all issues at the statutory level whenever possible. See Ashwander reference
above. If the appeals courts constituted the trial de novo, as opposed to the review of the
lower court decisions then two trials would be taking place at double the taxpayer expense
and double the time, with all decisions reviewable then only by the Supreme Court. That is
not the way the system works.
Appellate courts are fond of laboriously detailing what it calls frivolous arguments when in
reality the appellate court only has cognizance of the lower court decision, not of the
complaint as originally filed.
Appeal arguments presented to the Circuit Court are frivolous when they merely restate
issues in the complaint not adjudicated and fail to detail valid appeals issues -- the error of
the lower court.
Egregious decisions such as Lonsdale v. US, US v. Studley and many others routinely
identified as tax protester cases are uniformly applied as precedent.
Criminal cases are alleged to have decided everything known to God and Man, when, in
reality, the only thing in front of that jury is the criminal statutes and whether or not the
government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellate courts determine error in lower court decisions and do not decide issues
adjudicated at the lower court level. The Appellate Courts cannot obtain, and do not have
jurisdiction over the complaints brought before the lower courts.
Be very careful when reading court decisions. The judges and justices have been and
remain verbose, loquacious and frequently prevaricate, literally assuming a literary license.
Many times it was the Supreme Court that was responsible for the problems with which we
are now forced to deal.

101
Judges are supposed to apply the law to the facts before them, not interpret the law and
constitution. Decisions contain an abundance of unnecessary historical fact and fiction
(dicta), as well as simple asides (obiter dictum).
Recall that the definition for precedent includes the following phrase:
…but matters, which merely lurk in the record and are not directly advanced or expressly decided
are not precedents
This phrase is the key to the identification and use of a valid precedent, and directly
applicable to hundreds if not thousands of litigants. It cannot be over emphasized.
The government and the court should not be allowed to quote from the commentary (dicta
and or obiter dictum) of any previously decided case.
The only part of a judgment decree that is precedent is that segment which literally
provides the resolution.
Nothing leading up to the decision is precedent.
If the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law discuss God, Country, Food or a
history of the Iraqi war, none of it is applicable. That tiny infinitesimal segment
pronouncing the ruling is the only portion that becomes precedent.
Having discussed what a precedent is and is not, the concept of the Doctrine through which
it lives must be explained. It is called the Doctrine of Stare Decisis.
Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition at page 1577 defines Stare Decisis as follows:
"Stare Decisis, Lat. To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. Policy of courts to stand by precedent
and not to disturb settled point. ... Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law
as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future
cases, where facts are substantially the same. Moore v. City of Albany 98 NY 396 ... Under
doctrine, when point of law has been settled by decision, it forms precedent which is not afterwards
to be departed from, and, while it should ordinarily be strictly adhered to, there are occasions when
departure is rendered necessary to vindicate plain, obvious principles of law and remedy continued
injustice. McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323. ... The
doctrine is a salutary one, and should not ordinarily be departed from where decision is of long
standing and rights have been acquired under it, unless considerations of public policy demand it.
Colonial Trust Co. v. Flanagan, 344 Pa. 556, 26 A.2d 728, 729. The doctrine is limited to actual
determinations in respect to litigated and necessarily decided questions, and is not applicable to
dicta or obiter dicta. In re Herle’s Estate, 165 Misc. 46, 300 NYS 103."
A doctrine is a rule, principle, theory or tenet of the law that is widely used, known and
accepted amongst the legal professionals. Technically a doctrine is just policy, albeit policy
that was created by a court and has been accepted for years and is treated as though it were
law.
Treating some 'thing' as though it were the law, doesn’t make law out of that some 'thing.'
To sum it up, a doctrine is a policy of the court that supposedly is based on a previous
decision where the issue was adjudicated with the court receiving evidence from both sides
and then applying the appropriate law to the facts.
Not all precedents become Doctrine but all Doctrine resulted from precedents.
Policy today, seemingly allows all decisions to be perceived as precedent.

102
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis deals only with fully litigated cases. Remember this quote
found in the definition:
The doctrine is limited to actual determinations in respect to litigated and necessarily decided
questions, and is not applicable to dicta or obiter dicta. In re Herle’s Estate, 165 Misc. 46, 300 NYS
103.
This prohibits the use of Summary Decisions as a precedent.
Most of the cases currently being cited by the government in tax cases can be classified as
Summary Proceedings. So now we need to define Summary Procedure:
Summary, Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition page 1604;
Short, concise. Immediate, preemptory; off-hand; without a jury; provisional; statutory. The term
used in connection with legal proceedings means a short, concise, and immediate proceeding.
Vance v Noel, 143 La. 477; and trial of a summary character is a trial without a jury. State v King,
137 Tenn. 17.
Provisional, Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition page 1389
Temporary; preliminary; tentative; take or done by way of precaution or ad interim.
Summary Proceeding. Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition, page 1369;
(n) An abridgment; brief; compendium; also a short application to a court or judge, without the
formality of a full proceeding. Wharton.
(adj.) Any proceeding by which a controversy is settled, case disposed of, or trial conducted, in a
prompt and simple manner, without the aid of a jury, without presentment or indictment, or in other
respects out of the regular course of the common law. In procedure, proceedings are said to be
summary when they are short and simple in comparison with regular proceedings; i.e., in
comparison with the proceedings which alone would have been applicable, either in the same or
analogous cases, if summary proceedings had not been available. Sweet. Phillips v Phillips, 8 NJL
122.
The definitions are to set the stage for presentation of 26 USC at § 7852(a). The statute is
entitled the Separability Clause.
26 USC §7852(a)
Separability Clause. – If any provision of this title, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the title, and the application of such provision to
other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
Phrase by phrase analysis.
No. Statute Meaning
segment
1 Separability to separate
2 If any Refers to any
provision of section of Title
this title 26
3 or the Refers to
application enforcement
thereof to any of the statute
person or against anyone

103
 circumstance or any
transaction
4 is held invalid A win against
the
government
5 the remainder All other
of the title sections not
involved in the
transaction
6 and the The
application of enforcement
such provision against
to other everyone else
persons or and their
circumstances transactions
7 shall not be Shall be
affected enforced as
thereby though the win
had never
happened.

The statute at 26 USC § 7852(a) distinctly admits the denial of the application of the
Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Precedents in totality as to tax matters.
This statute literally establishes the every man is for himself mandate by Congress and in so
doing further denies the Commissioner the use of his wins.
The language provides that the IRS can come after the same taxpayer for the same
circumstance for different tax periods.
It further provides that even if Taxpayer 'A' wins his action for a tax period, Taxpayer 'A'
may not rely on that win for a subsequent tax period and the agency can come after
Taxpayer 'A' again for any other period or circumstance.
Taxpayer 'B' cannot rely on Taxpayer 'A’s' win for any reason.
Congress reserved the right to continue application of the internal revenue statutes whether
or not defeated, i.e., held to be invalid against anyone. The concept being that what may be
invalid regarding one set of circumstances for one taxpayer for one tax period, might not be
invalid for another taxpayer for another set of circumstances for the same or other tax
period. Every man is for himself.
The statute was designed to protect and ensure longevity of the act. It prohibits one case
from overturning the entire code. Statutes similar to it are to be found in virtually every
title, both federal and state. In many instances it’s called Severability instead of Separability,
but it virtually always reads the same.
The United States Tax Court (USTC) is not a part of the federal district court system. It is a
separate court with it’s own unique rules. One such unique rule is USTC Rule 142, Burden
of Proof. This particular rule assigns the burden of proof to the taxpayer where not

104
otherwise assigned by statute which allegedly creates a presumption of correctness on the
part of the Commissioner (foot note). No such rule exists in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure applicable in the federal judicial system, which includes both district and
appellate courts. The federal district courts cannot rely on case law coming from the USTC
given that the tax court presumes the Commissioner to be correct while the federal courts do
not. For precedents to be valid the issues must be analogous and they simply cannot be. The
issues litigated in the two lower systems are so dissimilar as to be like comparing apples to
oranges.
The tax court has exclusive authority to resolve disputes before assessment as accepted by
the anti-injunction act, which cases are not, authorized to be heard in federal district court.
Technically the tax court is supposed to provide a trial de novo of the issues, however
because of so-called precedent the court will not usually look behind the stipulation of the
existence of a deficiency created by the petitioner at the point of filing of the tax court case.
The fallacy of the presumption appears to have been intentionally manufactured by the
Supreme Court (foot note). A use of USTC case law in the district courts creates a
bastardization of the federal precedent.
The point of this instruction has been to establish:

1 That precedents
aren’t valid
unless they
were actually
litigated in
front of a
plenary court;
2 That summary
decisions
cannot be used
as precedent;
and
3 That there is a
statute, which
actually
prohibits the
use of
precedent and
the doctrine of
stare decisis in
tax, matters.

It has also been the historical behavior of Judge and Attorney alike to denigrate and berate
the non-lawyer litigant. The claim is that they fowl up an already crowded system and create
bad case law. Cases dismissed on a summary motion are not precedents, which is the fate
of the bulk of the pro-se issues presented in federal district court.

105
Now that you understand the system that we must operate under, a careful preparation of
your complaint and evidence can avoid many of the patriot community mistakes. Now we
will proceed with other information that will enable you to feel more comfortable when
litigating an issue.
Substantive Rights and Essentials of Due Process
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States establishes several
“substantive” or constitutionally secured due process rights.

1) Is the right to know the nature and cause of action against you;

2) The right to confront adverse witnesses;

3) The right to compel testimony by whoever has relevant knowledge.

The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments secure due process in the course of the
common law. This, too, is a substantive right, with one of the more important
distinctions between due process in the course of the common law and due process in
the course of the civil law being that any case or controversy must clearly set out fact
and law.

Bills of rights in our respective state constitutions secure corresponding rights,

including rights to access to courts and redress of wrongs. All states other than Louisiana
are common law states. Louisiana implemented the civil law system. Insular possessions of
the United States also retained civil law process. The entire country now operates under the
civil law system but access to common law has been preserved.

Government, government agencies and corporations are creatures of law. Collectively they
are known as “juristic” entities. As creatures of law, they may exercise only powers they are
vested with by law. Where government departments and agencies are concerned, the scope
of authority and procedure are detailed in statutes, regulations and intra-departmental policy.
Officers, employees and agents of governmental entities must act within procedural bounds
prescribed by statutes, regulations and published policy. In a manner of speaking,
procedural requirements prescribed for the governmental agency secure public rights. If and
when government personnel fail to comply with procedural mandates and prohibitions, they
become personally liable to whoever is the object of their actions, they are subject to agency
discipline and in the event of knowing and willful abuse may be criminally prosecuted.

Supreme courts of the United States and our respective states have articulated government
personnel accountability principles time and again, but there has been a tendency for
government prosecutors not to prosecute government personnel, particularly in tax agencies,
when they’ve exceeded authority.

The problem has caused enough furor that via the Internal Revenue Service restructuring
and reform act of 1998, Congress enacted a new Internal Revenue Code section that
specifically makes IRS personnel accountable to the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury

106
regulations, and published policy, i.e., the Internal Revenue Manual, added a new
administrative discipline section, and created the office of Treasury Inspector General for
Tax Administration to investigate complaints against IRS personnel.
Another aspect of dealing with government is that government always has the burden of
proof either in civil or criminal forums as well as at both administrative and judicial levels.
In the new Internal Revenue Code § 7491, Congress spelled this out, too, by specifying that
when a taxpayer presents credible evidence of non-liability for Subtitle A and B taxes, the
Secretary, i.e., IRS bears the burden of proof.

Treasury regulations in Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations spell out the right to
discovery in dealings with Internal Revenue Service personnel. Per § (d)2 of 31 CFR Part 1,
Appendix B of Subpart C, whoever has dealings with IRS is entitled to whatever evidence
of liability the Service has in its systems of records:

Internal Revenue Service procedures permit the examination of tax records during the
course of an investigation, audit, or collection activity. Accordingly, individuals should
contact the Internal Revenue Service employee conducting an audit or effecting the
collection of tax liabilities to gain access to such records, rather than seeking access under
the provisions of the Privacy Act.

With these basics, we can set out minimum requirements for administrative or judicial
liability:

The government agency must have evidence of one sort or another to establish fact.

There must be a competent witness with first-hand knowledge of facts to verify the
evidence.

The advocate must prove application of law to verified facts.

By utilizing discovery, the target of government initiatives can force disclosure in the
context of Sixth Amendment rights. Substantive rights do not begin at the courthouse door.
They are ever present in all dealings with government agencies and personnel. Where tax
issues are concerned, knowing the nature and cause of action includes forcing the tax
agency, via the revenue officer or whomever the target is dealing with, to disclose taxing
and liability statutes, and disclosing whatever competent witness there is. Where authority is
concerned, i.e., subject matter jurisdiction, the agency or agent has the burden of proof when
authority and procedure is challenged.

Does a government agency have authority, i.e., statutory or delegated authority, to do

whatever it is attempting to do--then is the agency complying with procedural mandates?

Where an agency doesn’t have statutory or delegated authority over the “subject matter”,
any action by that agency is unlawful and void and where the agency doesn’t comply with
procedural mandates they lose subject matter jurisdiction. Unless a procedurally proper
assessment has been executed, there is no tax liability. Various secondary reports may

107
constitute presumptive evidence that an assessment has been made, but only the assessment
certificate constitutes conclusive evidence. The actual assessment certificate, or a verified
copy, qualifies as self-authenticating evidence.

What does a witness do?

He testifies to facts he has first-hand knowledge of. Testimony may be in one of three
forms: By affidavit (a sworn statement of fact), deposition (sworn testimony outside the
court setting in the presence of plaintiff and defendant or their respective representatives), or
direct oral examination in open court. The adverse party in all cases has the right to cross-
examine the witness. This is fundamental to our adversarial system.

Without a competent witness, any administrative ruling or court judgment is void and can
be vacated at any time without time limitation. If and when a government agency or
officer fails to disclose the nature and cause of action, evidence of liability, and whatever
witnesses will verify facts, the controversy shifts from the original issue to the substantive
rights the agency or agent may be depriving the target of. In the event a defendant’s
constitutionally secured rights are abridged, the agency or court loses subject matter
jurisdiction regardless of whatever liability the defendant might otherwise have.
Government agents and agencies must proceed in whatever A - B - C sequence the law
prescribes, they cannot jump from A to C unless the law authorizes elimination of B.

The social welfare taxes in Chapters 21-23 and government personnel tax in Chapter 24 are
collectively classified as employment taxes, which is a classification distinct from Subtitle
A and B income taxes. The Internal Revenue Service serves as delegate of the Secretary for
administration of Chapter 1, 2 and 21 taxes in insular possessions (See 26 CFR § 7701(a)
(12)(B)), and administers Subtitle A and B taxes in the several States (See 26 U.S.C. § 7491,
added by the 1998 act), but the Treasury Financial Management Service and the General
Accounting Office have primary responsibility for administration and enforcement of
Chapter 21 and 24 employment taxes in States of the Union. The Internal Revenue Service
merely maintains records, provides accounting services, and distributes information it does
not have direct administrative enforcement authority, particularly for Chapter 24
government personnel tax.

The Financial Management Service must notify and train government agencies responsible
for withholding at the source, and issue Form 8655 Reporting Agent Authorization
certificates to whatever agency is required to withhold at the source. (See Internal Revenue
Manual § 3.0.258.4 (11/21/97), January 1999 edition)

By submitting a disclosure affidavit, the individual has entered testimony concerning

his financial circumstance into record. In order to overcome the affidavit, the adverse
party must (1) disprove stated fact or prove alternative fact, then (2) prove application
of law to stated or alternative facts. In addition to these requirements, in this case the
Internal Revenue Service must prove subject matter jurisdiction by citing and/or
providing properly executed delegations of authority that vest the agency with
authority to administer Subtitle C employment taxes in States of the Union.

108
The typical statement from the IRS is “My research verifies that your company is liable for”
any given tax isn’t sufficient. When challenged, IRS and other government personnel must
prove authority and liability within the framework of and to the satisfaction of
constitutionally secured due process rights. In this particular case, the agent must (1)
provide verified copies of whatever documentary evidence he has, (2) provide copies of
whatever affidavits he has, (3) disclose whatever other fact witnesses he is relying on, (4)
provide a list of prospective witnesses, (5) prove application of law to whatever facts he is
relying on, and (6) prove subject matter jurisdiction.

It is important to understand that government personnel particularly tax agency personnel,

for the most part rely on documents prepared by third parties. They are rarely if ever
competent witnesses with first-hand knowledge of facts. Further, the various documents
they work from are for the most part declarations, not affidavits, as signatures are rarely if
ever verified by notary publics or the number of witnesses required by common law
standards. Consequently, third parties who submit documents are technically prospective
witnesses and they have not submitted testimony as such.

Somewhat the same disclosure is required for most criminal investigations where the
government is the alleged victim due to someone failing to comply with or doing something
prohibited by statute other than what are classified as common law crimes.

For example, 26 CFR § 601.107 generally secures rights of those being investigated for
offenses relating to income, estate, gift, employment, and certain excise taxes. General
disclosure requirements are outlined where there is a conference with the Chief of the
Criminal Investigation Division of any given district at § 601.107(b)(2):
At the conference, the IRS representative will inform the taxpayer by a general oral
statement of the alleged fraudulent features of the case, to the extent consistent with
protecting the Government’s interests, and, at the same time, making available to the
taxpayer sufficient facts and figures to acquaint him with the basis, nature, and other
essential elements of the proposed criminal charges against him.

This requirement of Substantive Rights and Essentials of Due Process is the weakness that
the government cannot get around. Once recognized and asserted the government must
comply or there exist ample collateral attack issues for a void judgment.

ON VOID JUDGMENTS

Most of the time, default and summary judgments are executed without they’re being a
witness. Unless there is a witness to verify whatever other evidence is introduced, the
court has nothing to go on. Even default judgments must be based on evidence in record,
or the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The judge is not a judge until he has subject
matter jurisdiction, and whatever judgment he gives is void.

There are only three ways to get evidence before the court.

109
 1) A witness may verify facts by affidavit;
2) Deposition;
3) Direct oral examination.

If one or more isn't in the record, the court lacks authority to issue judgment. Attorney
pleadings and oral arguments are not testimony; the attorney isn't a witness. A competent
witness must verify facts on the record; an attorney can't do it. A Corporation is a fiction;
it doesn't have life, personality, etc. The corporate witness must be a corporate officer or
someone else who knows and is willing to attest to facts, including legitimacy of all
documents by laying a foundation by testimony and cross examination before any
documents are admitted into evidence. If this is not done the documents are mere
hearsay.

These same general rules apply to administrative forums. A bare document has no affect
without a competent witness.

What if the Wisconsin Department of Revenue "assessed" $988 against one of your friends,
then seized the amount from the friend's bank via the Wisconsin equivalent to an IRS notice
of levy?

How about sending an affidavit to the Bank and a copy too the Wisconsin Department of
Revenue, informing that the Bank or the WDR had no legal authority to give your money to
the government.

What is the relationship between someone who deposits money in a bank and the bank? The
bank is a debtor that has a fiduciary responsibility to pay its creditor on demand. When you
establish these facts by affidavit, things happen quickly.

Was anyone from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue on the signature card and
therefore authorized to withdraw money from the account? If not, the only way the
Wisconsin Department of Revenue could lawfully get to the account and keep within
the constitutional restriction of Amendment 5 is by court order demonstrating that
jury accorded you due process rights of trial.

An affidavit is testimonial evidence. In fact, an affidavit is the highest form of evidence.

In order to overcome testimonial evidence, whether by affidavit or otherwise, the
adversary must produce contravening evidence supported by testimonial evidence. Where
does the burden of proof lie? It always lies with the advocate.

The IRS, the banks, etc., always have what appears to be evidence. They rarely if ever
have a competent witness, but they always have a raft of documents. What evidence does
the IRS have?

If an employer or business affiliate has filed a corporate, partnership or other tax return, the
W-2 or 1099 is "affidavit" evidence as the financial officer signed the master return under
penalties of perjury. Consequently, that has to be the point of attack. The evidence has to be

110
controverted. Can Internal Revenue Service personnel testify concerning legitimacy of a
W-2 or 1099? No, only those with personal knowledge are competent witnesses.

How do you attack legitimacy of the W-2 or 1099? You submit a request to the employer or
whoever asking that the W-2 or 1099 be corrected or withdrawn, or insist that whoever was
responsible for it disclose taxing and liability statutes that authorize withholding or
otherwise reporting taxable income. As long as there is a good faith effort, the request can
be attached to the 4852 Form and by supporting it with an appropriate affidavit of fact, you
have established viable if not contravening testimony. If the employer fails to rebut or
correct, the affidavit stands as the surviving and preferred evidence. If IRS wants to dispute
your evidence, whoever is responsible for making the W-2 or 1099 must disclose the two
taxing authority elements.

In other words, IRS would have to call whoever made the original form as the witness to
support the W-2 or 1099. Unless or until there is a procedurally proper assessment, there is
no tax liability. Until the tax liability is established in compliance with what the law
prescribes, all collection initiatives are illegal.

Next, how do we go about securing refunds of sums that have been erroneously and
sometimes illegally collected? The Form 8275 disclosure statement supports whatever
amended return is filed. We will support that with an affidavit of fact, and if we have had to
ask an "employer" to correct a 1099 or W-2, the Form 4852 will back that up.

IRS doesn't have anything similar to administrative due process rules. Consequently,
they don't appear to be in compliance with 5 U.S.C.§§ 553-559. They rely on the four
corners of whatever document they have. Which is to say, it is impossible to exhaust
administrative remedies with IRS, so their noncompliance has the potential for
creating extreme legal jeopardy for IRS personnel.

Any judgment by any court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void on its face. While
a defendant might waive personal jurisdiction, he cannot waive subject matter
jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. There is no time
limitation. The void judgment is vacated; it is not reversed by appeal. It may be attacked
within the existing case, or by independent action.

Regardless of what else they are our State and Federal courts are operating as "statutory"
courts. This narrows the scope of their "subject matter jurisdiction" considerably as all
elements necessary to prove jurisdiction, including standing of the government agency,
financial institution, or whatever, must be proven in record. If all necessary elements are not
in record, the judgment is void on its face.
THREE ELEMENTS THAT CAN RENDER COURT RULINGS VACATABLE

1. Existence of inherent fraud. 37 Am Jur 2d at section 8 states, in part: "Fraud vitiates

every transaction and all contracts. Indeed, the principle is often stated, in broad and
sweeping language, that fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, and
that it vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments."

111
 a. The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the
appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law
of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the
Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as
follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and
name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the
decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as
if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as
it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the
general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office,
bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a
statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is
bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Sixteenth
American Jurisprudence Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 3 (formerly Section 256)

2. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide jurisdiction.

a. "Although there formerly was a conflict of authority with respect to the proof of
jurisdiction or the lack of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has declared that one who claims
that the power of the court should be exercised in one's behalf must carry throughout the
litigation the burden of showing that he or she is properly in court.

Accordingly, if a party's allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by an adversary in

any appropriate manner, he or she must support them by competent proof, and, even where
they are not so challenged, the court may still insist that the jurisdictional facts be
established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the court may demand that the
party alleging jurisdiction justify his or her allegations by a preponderance of evidence.
However, it is not mandatory upon the court to call upon the party asserting jurisdiction to
establish it by proof, in the event that the party's jurisdictional averments are not properly
challenged by the adversary, and, in such a case, application may be made of the rule that
proof in support of jurisdictional averments need not be offered where the defendant does
not formally plead to [challenge] the jurisdiction." A7 2.455, Federal Procedure

Does that last statement wake anybody up to the critical reason why it is important to
always challenge jurisdiction to be sure it is truly bona fide? Since there is no statute of
limitations on fraud, jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even after a case has
been "decided". Further, were you ever given bona fide written full disclosure that by
hiring an attorney, you were presumed to have waived any jurisdictional challenge
because of the attorney being an "officer of the court"????

b. JURISDICTION the power to hear and determine a case. 147 P.2d 759, 761. This power
may be established and described with reference to particular subjects or to parties who fall

112
into a particular category. In addition to the power to adjudicate, a valid exercise of
jurisdiction requires fair notice and an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard.
Without jurisdiction, a court's judgment is void. A court must have both SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION and PERSONAL JURISDICTION (see below). See also
territorial jurisdiction; title jurisdiction.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION refers to the competency of the court to hear and
determine a particular category of cases. Federal district courts have "limited" jurisdiction
in that they have only such jurisdiction as is explicitly conferred by federal statutes. 28
U.S.C. A71330 see also 40 U.S.C.S. A7255] et seq. See LIMITED [SPECIAL]
JURISDICTION.

Many state trial courts have "general" jurisdiction to hear almost all matters. The parties to a
lawsuit may not waive a requirement of subject matter jurisdiction. TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION the territory over which a government or a subdivision thereof has
jurisdiction, 147 P.2d 858, 861; relates to a tribunal's power with regard to the territory
within which it is to be exercised, and connotes power over property and persons within
such territory. 94 N.E. 2d 438, 440. TERRITORIAL COURT a court established by
Congress under Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to
make "all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging
to the United States." 370 U.S. 530, 543; 371 F.2d 79, 81. Above definitions from: Barron's
Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

a.. "...Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be
acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been
accepted." Excerpted from 40 U.S.C.S. A7255 "In view of 40 USCS A7255, no jurisdiction
exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept
jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as
provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is
immaterial. Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S Ct 1122.
Excerpted from 40 USCS A7255, interpretive note 14.

3. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide due process of bona fide law.

a.. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Article IV in amendment to the
Constitution of the United States

b.. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on
a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived or
life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for

113
public use without just compensation." Article V in amendment to the Constitution of the
United States

c.. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of
Counsel for his defence." Article VI in amendment to the Constitution of the United States

d.. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people." Article IX in amendment to the Constitution of the
United States

e.. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article X in
amendment to the Constitution of the United States

f.. "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction." Article XIII in amendment to the Constitution of the
United States

g.. "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal
protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same,
whenever they may deem it necessary; . . Declaration of Independence.

ELEMENTS OF COURT/POLITICAL STRATEGY

Preparing for Battle in the Courtroom

Research all pertinent statutes, rules, regulations, legislative history, court cases, and
treatises. In short become expert on the narrow points of law of the case. Get a copy of "A
Guide to Federal Agency Rule Making."
Project the position of underdog, intelligence, honesty, fear, indignation, issue of principal,
belief, determination, calm, non-antagonism, non-arrogance.
Don't do, say or write anything that may be used against you legally or politically (foul
language, threats, radical invectiveness, and so on).
Draw battle-lines on important political issue championed by many of the public, even if of
secondary importance to the cause.
Publicity- News Release: Expose wrongdoing by government/court.
Limit opponent options through unilateral discovery, FOIA, jurisdiction, public acceptance
of one's behavior, or condemnation of adversaries' acts.

114
Don't limit own options: Do not itemize defenses or give information enabling preparation
to meet defense or amendment of charge to self-detriment.
Ensure credibility: Only one adversary per battle if possible. Do not add names or issues to
the debate.
Do not alienate any potential supporters by ignoring the "one adversary, one issue" rule.
Do not appear to be a legal know-it-all. It may work in a seminar but no chance with the
general public. Ideally the legal knowledge or other assistance comes from "unknown"
supporters.
If public perceives that subject is capable of handling himself and is not the underdog, then
public will not give support, especially if a subject goes on the offensive (as in filing a court
suit).
If you are going to assemble, bring your voice pocket recorder, notepads, pens and record
who, what, where, when, why, how e.g. time, place, witnesses, victims, specifics, as well as
recording badge numbers, names, rank, other notes if victim, give name to witness.
Always dress in the appropriate manner. Try and look better than the opposing counsel, that
dose not mean that you get into a fashion war with them, but always be clean and well
dressed. I have seen patriots go into court wearing camouflage uniforms as though they
were going into combat. All they accomplish is that they go to jail, because the jury looks
upon them as a dangerous lunatic that needs to be put away.

QUESTIONS TO ASK OF YOUR LAWYER ON THE STAND

In your supplement floppy, you have been given 125 questions to ask of your court
appointed attorney. If your lawyer cannot answer a large majority of the questions, you
would inform the court that he is not competent to represent your interests before the court
and request that they locate one that understands the common law as well as civil law and
the rights under each. If the court cannot find a lawyer who can answer the questions, and
assigns one against your objection, the case may be reversed on appeal for ineffective
assistance of counsel. Normally the case is dismissed for lack of prosecution within one year
or the prosecutor withdrawals the complaint.
If you are the plaintiff in a tax action be careful not to challenge the taxing statutes. The
court has been denied jurisdiction to hear any case that challenges the taxing authority, so
frame your complaint showing clear violations of the IRS agents in the application of the
taxing statutes against you and their violations of the mandates of Congress, NOT THE
TAX LAW ITSELF. If you do not heed this warning, your case will be dismissed as
frivolous or if criminal all of your motions will be denied and termed frivolous.
The following is another trick used by the government to dismiss your complaint in
federal court. The framing of your complaint is the most important part of your suit so
spend a lot of time on it so as not to fall into their traps.

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED

115
[5] "The general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a
complaint should not be dismissed '***unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Conley vs. Gibson, 1957, 355
U.S. 41, 45, 46, 78, S.Ct. 99, 102, 2LEd 2d 80; Seymour vs. Union News Company, 7 Cir., 1954,
217 F.2d 168; and see rule 54c, demand for judgment, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 USCA:
"***every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is
entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings." U.S. V. White County
Bridge Commission, 2 Fr Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535
"A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of claim, baseless though it may
eventually prove to be, and inartistically as the complaint may be drawn. Therefore, under our rules,
the plaintiff's allegations that he is suing in "criminal libel" should not be literally construed. [3] The
complaint is hard to understand but this, with nothing more, should not bring about a dismissal of the
complaint, particularly is this true where a defendant is not represented by counsel, and in view of
rule 8{f} of the rules of civil procedure, 28 U.S.C., which requires that all pleadings shall be
construed as to do substantial justice Bart vs. City of New York, 2Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 791.
Accordingly, the complaint will not be dismissed for insufficiency. [4,5] Since the Federal Courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction, a plaintiff must always show in his complaint the grounds upon
which that jurisdiction depends. Stein vs. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paper Hangers of
America, DCCDJ 1950, 11 F.R.D. 153.
"A complaint will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even though inartistically drawn and
lacking in allegations of essential facts, it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the party
be able to recover." John Edward Crockard vs. Publishers, Saturday Evening Post Magazine of
Philadelphia, PA (1956) Fr Serv 29, 19 F.R.D. 511, DCED Pa 19 1958
"FRCP 8(f): Construction of pleadings. All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial
justice." Dioguardi vs. Durning, 2 CIR., 1944 139 F2d 774
"Counterclaims will not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, even though inartistically drawn
and lacking in allegations of essential facts, it cannot be said that under no circumstances will the
party be able to recover." Lynn vs. Valentine vs. Levy, 23 Fr 46, 19 FDR, DSCDNY 1956 ,
Judiciary Act of 1789, suit cannot be dismissed because of errors in service

The next several days will be devoting much time to the “Tax Law”, and the methods with
which your friendly neighborhood revenue agent uses to make you believe that you are
required to do something that you are not. These alleged laws have contained within them,
grains of truth, which on the surface give them the appearance of positive law, which they
are not. You soon will be able to tell the difference, and guide your family and friends on
the safe method of combating these criminal elements within our society.

Everything you have and will be taught is lawful. It is your right as a citizen of one of the
50 republic states, to take every lawful method, to reduce or eliminate your “tax obligation”
to the federal government. Soon, in the year 2005, there will be an attempt to burden you
with a “World Tax”. This tribute will be to the United Nations, and you will be told it is to
be your fair share contribution for world freedom and peace. Here come the mushroom
plantations again, with all of their attendant buckets of cow manure. Only this time, you
will be ready to intelligently and lawfully refuse. If a tax on your labor is illegal in the
United States of America, it is even more egregious if it is being perpetrated by a foreign
entity like the United Nations.

116
 SECTION IV
TAXES
UNITED STATES vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF PUERTO RICO

The first civil governor of Puerto Rico established five bureaus in the Puerto Rico
Department of Treasury on May 1, 1900. The five bureaus were eventually merged to
become the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Early Puerto Rican administrative acts and
legislation were annually published in Senate Documents after 1900.

The acting Secretary of the Treasury changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to
Internal Revenue Service in 1953 before implementation of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954. The new Code, replaced the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which was based on
Reorganization Plan 26 of 1950 and Reorganization Plan 1 of 1952 both instituted by
President Harry Truman.

The Federal Register and the Internal Revenue Manual acknowledgement that Congress
never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue is enlightening; Congress never created a
Bureau of Internal Revenue or Internal Revenue Service. Consequently, the IRS has no
lawful authority to enforce anything in the Union as Congress is charged with responsibility
for establishing any government department or agency that the Constitution itself does not
establish. If law doesn’t establish it, enacted in compliance with the constitutionally
prescribed legislative process, an agency doesn't legitimately exist. It has no lawful
authority. Whatever it undertakes is de facto -- it may do one thing or another in fact, but all
acts are without lawful authority.

In the historical account by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue published in the Federal
Register and the Internal Revenue Manual, the Commissioner alleged that Congress
intended to create a Bureau of Internal Revenue via 1862 legislation that established the
Commissioner's office. However, by reading the 1862 legislation, it is easy to see that
Congress did what was intended. The act created the offices of assessor and collector, with
one of each for each revenue district. Assessors and collectors were appointed in the fashion
U.S. Attorneys are presently appointed. They were political patronage positions. The offices
continued to exist until implementation of Reorganization Plan 26 of 1950.

In order to come to terms with what happened via the Truman reorganization plans, it is
important to review the evolution of law relating to drugs and alcohol dating to the turn of
the century. A good beginning is with the termination of national alcohol prohibition, then
take another step back to the time immediately following the Spanish-American War in
1898 and the Chinese Boxer Rebellion in 1900.
In 1933, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth, which terminated national
prohibition. Each State of the Union was thereafter free to determine whether or not to

117
continue prohibition. However, Federal agencies continued to enforce state liquor laws to
the point of the Constantine decision in December 1935. In that decision, the Supreme Court
justices said that once the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed, State and Federal agencies
ceased to have concurrent jurisdiction for enforcement of alcohol-related laws as the
Eighteenth Amendment contained the concurrent jurisdiction grant of authority. Once the
amendment was repealed, concurrent jurisdiction was repealed.

Until the summer 1935, the Feds enforced the 1926 prohibition law; the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act of 1935 replaced the 1926 law. In the wake of the Constantine decision,
a director was appointed, but the Federal Alcohol Administration was never staffed. Then
via Reorganization Plan 3 of 1940, administration of the Federal Alcohol Administration
Act was transferred to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, predecessor of the Internal Revenue
Service.

Bureau of Internal Revenue Puerto Rico and/or internal revenue service, Philippines had
already effected encroachment into the Union via China Trade Act legislation, which
implemented maritime (customs) laws relating to trade in opium, cocaine and citric wines.
The first drug-related law significantly affecting the Union was passed in 1914, and then
with the 1918 amendment, Federal agencies began zealously enforcing drug laws in the
several States even though they applied only to international trade.

Timing was ideal. Significant political mobilization was responsible for the alcohol
prohibition amendment; so Federal enforcement agencies took advantage of considerable
empathy for purging any kind of intoxicating substance. In his letter supporting the 1940
Reorganization Plan, Roosevelt acknowledged that the Bureau of Internal Revenue had been
enforcing provisions of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act anyway so formal transfer
of responsibility didn't effect significant change. Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico,
and possibly internal revenue service, Philippines, had been engaged in covert operations in
the several States for at least two decades prior to transfer of administration of the Federal
Alcohol Administration Act.

This is an important point that can be framed by a question: Has the Constitution been
amended to impose national prohibition against drugs classified as controlled dangerous
substances? If it required an amendment to impose national prohibition against alcohol, and
alcohol prohibition was repealed when the amendment was repealed, it would obviously
take a constitutional amendment to impose national drug prohibition. No such amendment
exists. Yet approximately 60% of our Federal prisoners, and 35-40% of our State prisoners,
are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. This usurpation of power is responsible for
unlawful incarceration of at least a million Americans.

Via the Spanish-American War, the United States Government strengthened it’s global
empire position in the Atlantic and Pacific, then following the Boxer Rebellion, joined
hands with Britain, Germany and other maritime interests to carve up China for purposes of
the drug trade. Via the China Trade Act in 1904, Congress enacted domestic legislation that
for all practical purposes monopolized importation of opium and cocaine, both of which
have important medicinal as well as recreational usage.

118
The 1992 New York v. United States decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor used the term
"Cooperative Federalism". " What is Cooperative Federalism?" An article in the 1992
edition of The Book of the States mentions the term. The Executive branch has gotten into
the concept by the "Federalism" executive order President Ronald Reagan executed.
Presidents William Clinton and George Bush keep trying to liberalize the Federalism
executive order to further Federal encroachment. This particular executive order is simply a
policy statement. It doesn't meet publishing requirements of Title 3 USC § 301 of the United
States Code and the Federal Register Act, so it has intra-governmental application only (See
5 U.S.C. § 301 for limitations). While practice is something else; Mr. Reagan's Federalism
executive order ideally preserves the clear line between State and Federal authority, while
Mr.(s) Clinton and Bush it seems, would brazenly crash the Tenth Amendment barrier.

Although the second is a redundancy, let's address the Federalism/Cooperative Federalism

scheme through two constitutional questions:

Have Articles I § 8, clauses 5 and 6 and Article I § 10, paragraph one of the Constitution,
been repealed or amended?

Has the Constitution been amended to effect prohibition against opium, cocaine, and other
such substances?

Now follow those questions with two more:

Do we have gold and silver coin as our national monetary system?

Do we have national prohibition against drugs?

Obviously, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended is patently unconstitutional. At

least it is if it applies to the Union. However, it might not be if it applies to United States
Government itself and territories and insular possessions of the United States. Likewise,
Federal drug laws might be legitimate if they apply to the District of Columbia and insular
possessions of the United States. It is here that Congress has plenary or near absolute power
and we can lengthen the list. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act is legitimate in Puerto
Rico, but not in Wisconsin; likewise, the Social Security Act of 1935 is legitimate in Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc., but not in Florida.

In 1935, the Supreme Court judicially condemned Congress' first effort to implement a
national social welfare program. When the Social Security Act was subsequently enacted, it
applied only to the District of Columbia, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and insular
possessions such as Puerto Rico that were not incorporated in the constitutional scheme.

Definitions of "State", "United States" and "citizen" in Part 31.3121(e)-1 in title 26 of the
Code of Federal Regulations clearly prescribes the geographical limits where the Social
Security Act is applicable. These definitions demonstrate that the Social Security Act was
applicable in Alaska and Hawaii while they were territories, but no longer applied when

119
they were respectively admitted to the Union. It has never lawfully applied to States of the
Union admitted before 1935.

While in the grips of the thirties great depression, State officials were hell-bent on
accommodating destruction of the American democratic republic and liberties attending the
free enterprise system. At the January 1937 general conference of the Council of State
Governments, delegates from a majority of our state legislatures endorsed the Declaration of
Intergovernmental Dependence.

The declaration formalized what was already a working arrangement. Elected and appointed
state officials embraced the Federal dole system and by setting up the infrastructure,
provided a forum for state governing bodies to determine what Federal encroachment they
would accommodate. The intergovernmental dependence declaration is published in Book 2,
Volume 2 of The Book of the States.

Here are more relevant questions:

Does the executive branch have legislative authority?
Can the President unilaterally repeal law once Congress has formally enacted it?

Via Reorganization Plan 3 of 1940, Roosevelt reassigned duties of the Federal Alcohol
Administration to Bureau of Internal Revenue, thereby abolishing the agency Congress
established by law in 1935, then via Reorganization Plan 26 of 1950, Truman abolished
offices of internal revenue assessors and collectors that existed since 1862 legislation.
However, these draconian changes shouldn't adversely affect the American people at large:
Since implementation of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, there have been no Federal
internal revenue districts in the several States. The Internal Revenue Code limits IRS
assessment and collection activity to whatever revenue districts are established under
authority of 26 U.S.C. § 7621.

A vast majority of Internal Revenue Code taxing authority is geographically limited to the
District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States, exclusive of States of the
Union.

In 1998, via Executive Order #10289, as amended, the President authorized the Secretary of
the Treasury to establish revenue districts under authority of section 7621 of the Internal
Revenue Code. Although section 7621 isn't listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules, E.O. #10289 is. The implementing regulation is Part 101 of title 19 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. The regulation establishes customs collection offices in each State of
the Union; it does not establish internal revenue districts. A note at Part 301.7621-1 of title
26 of the Code of Federal Regulations confirms that E.O. #10289 is the only authority for
establishing revenue districts.

"So what are these people doing in Wisconsin and other States of the Union?" is an obvious
question begging an answer.

120
The Federal tax mystery is resolved to a certain extent by understanding that there is another
application other than the geographical. That is, many of these reorganization plans,
executive orders, etc. (executive legislation) are intra-governmental in nature. The
application is to government agencies and personnel, not the general population. This is
where Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code contributes to understanding:

Withholding from wages, salaries and tips is authorized for government agencies, not
private enterprise. The Federal Reserve System board of governors and Federal Reserve
regional banks collectively and individually serve as "fiscal agent" of United States
Government. As if by magic, they launder "public money" (revenue and obligations of
United States Government, commonly known as "credit") in such a fashion that the sleight
of hand is more bizarre than the Federal tax system.

Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, all territorial acquisitions until the Spanish-
American War were incorporated into the constitutional scheme. Whether the territory was
acquired by purchase, conquest or otherwise, it was destined to become a State of the Union,
and inhabitants of the territory were extended full constitutional rights and benefits.
However, when the King of Spain ceded Puerto Rico and the Philippines, these insular
possessions were not incorporated in the constitutional scheme. In the Insular Tax Cases
(1900-1904), the Supreme Court determined that these and other insular possessions are
"foreign" to the United States and the several States party to the Constitution, and they are
more about British crown colonies than traditional territories of the United States.

Here it is useful to understand that Congress has schizophrenic characteristics: Congress

may exercise only constitutionally enumerated powers where States of the Union are
concerned, but has plenary or near-absolute power over land belonging to the United States.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress exercises no restrictive power in the
Union, but may do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution in territory
belonging to the United States. Thus, where Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and
American Samoa are concerned, and the new arrival, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Congress does as Congress pleases.

Some time after 1908 and before 1918, non-constitutional insular possessions of the United
States entered a political compact or alliance. The name of this alliance is the "United States
of America", i.e., "Guam, U.S.A." on letterheads of the government of Guam. There exist
mutual assistance agreements among insular possessions that might provide a basis for this
second "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" confederation. States of the Union collectively
are called the United States of America.

The Articles of Confederation in 1777 formally established the original United States of
America, mentioned in the Preamble and Article II of the Constitution of the United States.
However, the Constitution creates and empowers a governmental entity designated and
known as the United States. The only authority conferred to the United States of America,
as a continuing public entity, is to elect the President and Vice President. When he takes his
oath of office, the "President of the United States of America" becomes the "President of the
United States".

121
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes "The judicial Power of the United
States," it doesn't vest authority in the United States of America, nor does it acknowledge
the United States of America as a principal of interest. The United States of America is an
illusion except in the description of the 50 Union States to the constitutional compact.

Yet since 1937, virtually all Federal civil actions and criminal prosecutions have been in the
name and by authority of the "United States of America", which is a non-existent entity
except in is usage as an adjective in describing the 50 Union states.

The United States Attorney’s bringing the actions captioned “United States of America”
isn't what law specifies. Title 18 USC § 3231, the Criminal Code, 28 USC§ 1345, the Civil
Code, and 26 USC §7402 of the Internal Revenue Code, all specify that the "United States"
is the proper principal of interest, not the United States of America. The only place found
where the "United States of America" as a principal of interest is in the current edition of the
United States Code is section 1001 of the Criminal Code, formerly 18 U.S.C. § 80 in the
1940 edition. Under this section, presently titled "statements and entries generally," the
United States of America can be a principal of interest where there is fraud against a
corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder.

Beginning with 1918 legislation, the "United States" and the "United States of America"
both appeared in the section, where the United States of America was not present in the
1908 statute. In Historical and Statutory notes following the current 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the
reviser's note says the following about deletion of phrasing: "Words 'or any corporation in
which the United States of America is a stockholder' in said § 80 [1940 edition] were
omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of 'agency' in § 6 of this title."

By some quirk of tortured rationale, this Johnny come-lately United States of America is
construed or defined as an "agency" of United States Government even though the U.S.
Supreme Court judicially proclaimed that these constitutionally unincorporated insular
possessions "foreign" to the United States.

In the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, which most States of the Union have adopted,
the "United States of America" is defined as a "State". The definition is “State' shall mean a
state of the United States; the United States of America; a territory or possession of the
United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."

Where United States Government has subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of a

constitutionally enumerated power, Federal agencies and courts have territorial jurisdiction,
commonly known as venue within States of the Union. In this context, the "United States of
America" is a unique and separate "State" within the framework of the Interstate Agreement
on Detainers Act. The United States of America doesn't have any more territorial
jurisdiction in Wisconsin and Texas than Florida does. If and when it has a criminal cause of
action against someone located in one of the several States, it must apply for extradition just
as one State must apply for extradition from another.

122
Aside from being a political alliance, it is a geographical alliance. It is this entity that
magically appeared between 1908 and 1918, that is the primary vehicle used for Federal
encroachment. The Internal Revenue Service is an agency of this Johnny come-lately United
States of America; it is not an agency of United States Government.

Two conclusions: The Internal Revenue Service is successor of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Puerto Rico, and does not have lawful authority in States of the Union; and the
United States of America is a political and geographical alliance foreign to the United States
and States of the Union.

Diversified Metal Products, Inc. of Idaho received an Internal Revenue Service notice of
levy for money the company allegedly owed to Steve Morgan. The notice was challenged,
so rather than get caught in the middle, Diversified Metal's attorney, John M. Ohman, filed
an impleader action in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho, in the
Booneville County Magistrate Court (Case #CV93-4117). The disputed money was
deposited with the court. Diversified Metal filed the impleader action to resolve the dispute
between T-Bow Company Trust, the Internal Revenue Service, and Steve Morgan. The
purpose of the litigation was to determine proper ownership of the money without
Diversified Metal having liability exposure to IRS or Morgan.

In the complaint, Ohman set out statements of what he believed to be fact. Averment #4 is
as follows: "Defendant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is an agency of the United States
government which has presented to Plaintiff a lien [actually, a notice of levy] against
monies to which Steve Morgan, or presumably Defendant T-Bow Company Trust for him,
may be entitled."

The United States Attorney for the district, Betty H. Richardson, answered on behalf of the
Internal Revenue Service. In her response to Ohman's #4 averment, she made the following
corrections: "Denies that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States
Government but admits that the United States of America would be a proper party to this
action."

The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of United States Government, but the United
States of America would be a proper party to the action? Richardson was in a corner where
she had to confess what other people have proven half a dozen different ways: Congress did
not legislatively create a Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Philippines gained
independence in 1946. That leaves only the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico as a
legislatively created governmental entity. The Internal Revenue Service is successor by
name change to BIR, Puerto Rico.

If the Internal Revenue Service were not an agency of United States Government, the United
States obviously would not be the principal of interest. Davidson glossed over her
presentation, but she told the truth. The Internal Revenue Service operates as an agent of this
Johnny come-lately geographical and political alliance know as the United States of
America, Puerto Rico being a party to the compact.

123
Recently it seemed that Congress might for the first time in a long, long time, have real
concern for the people of the United States of America, and were finally bringing the IRS to
task for all of the nefarious methods they were using to destroy entire families. I can assure
you that no substantive change will occur within the IRS because of their “Blue Smoke and
Mirrors” sideshow. That was strictly for our evening television consumption. Congress
wrote the tax law, and they know exactly what the IRS is up too.

This section on the IRS, and the tax code and their methods of forcing voluntary
compliance, will open your eyes to the vast amount of fraud on their part that at first you
may find it difficult to believe.

We will now begin a detailed review of Title 26 USC and an attempt to debunk the IRS tired
old line. I am sure that the revelations you are about to discover will fill you with anger,
knowing that for most of your adult life, you have been volunteering to be an indentured
servant to a ruthless gang of criminals. They would slit their children’s throat for a dollar,
and they dearly love their children.

You may think that on many of the following points, I am being redundant. That is done by
design, not by mistake. The elements that I re-emphasize are important for your total
comprehension. Bear with me.
LIABILITY

First, Title 26 USC is Constitutional! Regardless of what you may have been told, if you
challenge the tax code as being unconstitutional, you will loose. It is the application of the
tax law on individuals not subject to it that is unconstitutional and that is always done by a
revenue agent not the IRS. Therefore, if you are looking for a legal remedy, it is the agent
that has to pay the price---in state court, under state law, not federal.

The XVI Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America does not authorize
taxation of income derived wholly intrastate, it specifically authorizes the taxing of income
derived, interstate, among the several states. A citizen who has his/her income from only
Intrastate sources, not interstate, cannot be subject to tax among the several states. The
Supreme Court said in 1995 that the word ‘among’ means more than one state.

“Comprehensive as the word ‘among’ is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which
concerns more States than one...The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated and that
something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusive internal
commerce of a State”. U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 at 1627
Labor is not the income tax that everyone refers to. The Congressional Record for the
House of Representatives (Volume 89 Part 2 Page 2580, 1943) defines income tax, which
states:

“It [income tax] is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which measured by
reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis
for determining the amount of the tax.”

124
Title 31 at Section 321(d)(2) that “For the purposes of Federal income, estate, and gift taxes,
property accepted under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the
use of the United States.” There is no mention of a mandatory tax on your labor type of
income.

What is subject to an excise tax?

What and where is the liability for that tax?

The first section in the Internal Revenue Code that addresses any requirement and is also the
section that the IRS mentions in their privacy act statement is sections 6001 and 6011, as
written in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SECTION 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns

Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such
records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as
the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary, it is
necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make
such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show
whether such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records, which an employer shall be
required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records
necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements furnished by employees under
section 6053(a).

SECTION 6011. General requirement of return, statement, or list

(a) General rule--When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made
liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return
or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person
required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms
or regulations.

These two sections instruct one to file a return or statement for any tax they are liable for.
Indeed, Section 6001 refers to "Every person liable for any tax imposed by [The Internal
Revenue Code]..." and Section 6011 refers to "...any person made liable for any tax imposed
by [The Internal Revenue Code]...". However nowhere in either of these two sections are we
told who is liable for, in this case, the income tax. The government has, in effect, told us that
a response is mandatory if we are liable for the tax, but neglected to tell us whether or not
we are liable for the tax. Thus, even after reading the government's official notices under
the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act, we still do not know if an income tax return
is required of us.

Penalty: This is contained in section 7203 as follow:

IRC SECTION 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax

Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by
regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any

125
information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such
records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in
addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction
thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with
respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person
with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to
such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050, the first sentence of
this section shall be applied by substituting "5 years" for "1 year".

There are two essential elements that must be present before any penalty can result. First,
him/her must be required to pay a tax, or be liable for paying a tax. It is a crime only if
him/her is a person required by law or regulation to pay a tax, file a return or keep such
records. It is, therefore, important to determine who are a person(s) "required" to perform
these functions.

The government has to prove these elements in order to subject you to punishment. They
must first prove you had "taxable income", that you are "liable" for a tax, and that the
"liability" made you a "required person." If any of these elements cannot be proven, you
cannot be subject to punishment.

Title 5, Section 552a(e)(3) [The Privacy Act], and Title 44, Section 3504(c)(3)(C) [The
Paperwork Reduction Act].

The Privacy Act states that the Agency requesting information to:

(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form, which it uses to
collect the information or on a separate form that, can be retained by the individual ---
(A) the authority (Ether granted by statute, or by executive order of the President) which
authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information
is mandatory or voluntary;
(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used
(C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to
paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and
(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information...

The Paperwork Reduction Act states that the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget must include with his/her information request:

".... a statement to inform the person reviewing the request why the information is being collected,
how it is to be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit,
or mandatory..."

There are two statutes directing the government to tell the individual, whether giving the
IRS an income tax return is voluntary or mandatory. The IRS responds to the directives of
the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice with the following statement:

126
 "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code section 6001, 6011 and 6012(a)
and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are
liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."

Note that the IRS again uses the word "liable for".

Congresses right to tax comes from the United States Constitution, the supreme law of
the land, which authorizes the federal government to impose two broad categories of taxes:
direct taxes under Article I, §2 and Article I, Section 9, and indirect taxes under Article I,
§8. Direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states, while indirect taxes must
be uniform throughout the United States.

A direct tax is a tax on an ownership interest, which the owner cannot pass on, while an
indirect tax is on an event where the transaction and the impact of the tax can be passed on,
in whole or in part, to others. In order for a tax to fall into the indirect tax category the
individual liable for the tax cannot be the ultimate, final consumer. This is so since the one
paying the tax can then add it on to the price of the thing being taxed and recover it (pass it
on) when it is sold. The ultimate, final consumer would have no way to recover (pass on) the
tax, so any tax which the ultimate, final consumer is liable for would be a direct tax based on
an ownership interest.

"The Sixteenth Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects...,"
Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 165.

"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation..."Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240
US. 103, at 112.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cann