$64.95 SECURED PARTY CREDITOR PROCESS PACK

Official PayPal Seal

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

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

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

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


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

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by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


13.     What is a “Withholding agent”?

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

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

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

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


14.     What is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Welcome to the light! Secured Party Creditor Process Pack $64.95

2017 MASTERS DEGREE

 UPDATES WITH ALL NEW INFO 
NEW INFO:SECURED PARTY CREDITOR PROCESS..

Acquire Vacant Homes..  1. Find any vacant house
.
 2. Do some fix-up and/or yard work (keep it under two hundred dollars).
 
3. File a lawful lien (claim to the property) arising from the fix-up work.
 
4. Foreclose on the lien, in the small claims court.

 5. Receive your default Judgement and conveyance to the property.

Included in the Secured Party Creditor Pack





Thanks for stopping by my blog,Ive spent the past 8 years going to expensive seminars and compiling some of the most sought after books and material (some info I cannot disclose here,but be assured this is the most up to date technology out there)on the Internet and I thought I could help people who are interested in this information get it all in one shot,If your interested in the accepted for value process,this is the step by step guide that walks you through the entire process.you need to start setting off your debt,this is a proven process that has been evolving over the last 30 years.This information is cutting edge and proven.You must get this information and share it with everyone you know.Below you will see a list of all the books you will receive and also a massive amount of bonus information that I cant disclose here.If you are in foreclosure now or it looks like your heading in that direction,or your struggling with your finances due to the current financial climate all of this info will help you to keep your home but more importantly understand how the system works.

All of this info will be sent to you in pdf format.Here is a list of just some of the books you will receive,plus a massive amount of insider secrets I cant name here.




1.ACCEPT IT FOR VALUE RETURN IT FOR VALUE,Private document, For entertainment purposes only, this is not legal advice. This is strictly a administrative/contract remedy, We are not tendering payment. There is no money to pay anything… The contracts are already in place in the background. We are simply accepting the credits they have established and authorizing them to set-off the debt with the said credits.Written in proper Bank-speak, it is possible to “set-off” unsecured debt items to the IRS and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to issue Money Orders to pay off those debts using your public side Strawman Social Security Number. On the back side of that SSN, there is an alphanumeric account number in your Strawman name that is your private account that can be drawn from. By doing so, you help reduce the National Debt!

Accessing and utilizing your credit lawfully, safely, and wisely requires considerable education in just who you are in relation to the CORPORATION and your strawman. This process takes time. It requires you relearn your role in society. It requires courage and conviction to go against everything you have been told all your life. It requires responsible teachers and well-developed technology.

Ill show you my process and how it works for me.

2.How To STOP
The FORECLOSURE
On YOUR PROPERTY
A simple guide to save your house.

DEFENDING NONJUDICIAL DEED OF TRUST FORECLOSURES
PROCEDURE FOR RESTRAINING TRUSTEE'S SALES

POST-SALE REMEDIES
RAISING DEFENSES IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER
(EVICTION) ACTION

DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
300 + pages

These steps are taken into consideration
when you know you are not going to be able to pay for the loan but a
default is most likely in the future. You can also use some of these to protect
yourself way in advance of any default or foreclosure action.
1. File with the State a UCC1 Financing statement and addendum.
2. File an amended promissory note with the County Recorders office.
(notarized)
3. File a notice of replacement of Trustee and Beneficiary. (notarized)
4. File a Rescission of Power of Attorney. (notarized)
5. Send in a RESPA request.
6. File the UCC 3 amendment.
a. Vested Interest, UCC3
b. Security Agreement, (notarized)
c. Possessory lien. (notarized)
7. Send an AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH. (notarized)
Start educating yourself on the Rules of Court and the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
easy to follow instructions.

Also a easy to use guide on the PRODUCE THE NOTE process...

Using the “produce the note” strategy is something all homeowners facing foreclosure can do. If you believe you’ve been treated unfairly, fight back. We have created templates for a legal request, a letter to your lender and a motion to compel to help you through the process.

How to handle the "UNLAWFUL DETAINER" AND MUCH MUCH MORE!
Dont ever leave your house...


3.BRAND NEW ! Property Protection Package.Proven method to postpone a sale date on your property.All forms included.Along with step by step instructions.

4.
1) SECURED PARTY CREDITOR PROCESS,Properly filing a UCC-1 form to establish a public record that you are not the STRAWMAN and in fact are the holder-in-due-course of it. This is the single most important tool in your tool bag because this alone changes the presumption of law from the side of the STATE to your side;

2) Making yourself the Power of Attorney over the corporate fiction.

3) Copyrighting the STRAWMAN's name. This doesn't just give you another defensive strategy - it gives you a very important offensive weapon, because from this point on, anyone who is coming after your STRAWMAN for anything without your permission is trespassing on your commercial property.

4) Properly filing your Public Notice and Surety Bond.

5) Properly filing these documents in your County Recorders Office.

5.Cracking the Code,redemption in law-how to become a sovereign,includes all forms and how to manual over 500 pages.The Uniform Commercial Code, "UCC," the subject of this manual, is the transcendent, paramount achievement of the efforts of a few thousands of intensely dedicated and single-minded collaborators (dare we call it "conspiracy"?) over the last two-plus millennia. It is the culmination of an almost incomprehensibly complex, systematic, intricate, pervasive, and far-reaching agenda of strategic and tactical global planning to secure absolute legal, financial, social, ecclesiastical, and political (military) dominance over the people of Earth. The fundamental medium chosen for accomplishing these iniquitous aims: Commerce. The UCC, first introduced in 1954, has been developed across the centuries with microscopically excruciating and painstaking attention to detail for avoiding forever risk of detection and revelation of its true nature. It was fully expected that the Code would never be cracked. Proof of this fact is the absence of any device/mechanism for the enforced reversal of the process and recapture of slaves who manage to break free. If you are a slave interested in breaking free, this manual has answers you have been searching for. Embarking on the pages of this volume, however, is comparable with "taking the red pill," and so should be carefully considered by worshipers of Big Brother and the faint of heart--for with such knowledge also comes the innate urge for responsibility, an unpleasant prospect for many. No matter your level of interest in the workings of the world around you and your commitment in making it a better place, if you "decide on the red pill" you will never again see it in the same way. The Code has been cracked, and awaits your decision.

6.How to discharge any traffic citation.2hr recording on mp3 file.

7.100 page booklet on filling your freedom documents.easy to follow instructions.all forms included.

8.All federal reserve routing numbers.

9.Exciting new Information on the 1099 OID Process,
PHILOSOPHY OF THE 1099-A METHOD

1099 OID Process:IRS works for creditors. IRS has forms that allow you to be a creditor and acquire funds that are in escrow. An outstanding balance, for instance, on an American Express card is in escrow. The funds are there – you just have to tell the IRS with the proper tax filings to access those funds and pay that guy off with them or return those funds to me.You can OID any funds that go out of your bank account – and get them back. Acquire escrow funds with a 1099-A.If you file a 1099-OID as Recipient, those get reported on a 1040 if you want to get the funds returned.1099-As don’t get reported; neither do OIDs when you’re the Payor. i1040 is available on the IRS website; it gives line by line instructions for the 1040.

Claiming Original Issuance - meaning any debt obligations you put out in the public. When money comes out of your checking account, when you swipe your credit card, when you sign a promissory note. Credit cards create obligations and thus as the creator you have the right to claim them. With the OID you can also fractionalize your account. Meaning pay for $50 dollars for gas with credit card A, then pay off credit card 'A' with credit card 'B', pay off credit card 'B' with your Checking account. Now with a $50 dollar purchase you created a $150 obligation which you can OID. Whether that is ethical or not is another discussion, but ITS BANKING. It's what banks do. This strategy can be used to fractionalize your account as much as you want. You can also acquire assets. Thus if I have a Student Loan for $15,000. I can use a 1099A acquisition and a 1099 OID, report it on my 1040, and poof I have acquired the asset.


10.Sure fire way to clean up your credit reports.All the inside secrets they dont want you to know.easy and fast!
step by step instructions.

11.Secured Party/Creditor Filing Procedures & Treasury Chargeback instructions/most up to date technology.

12. ***BRAND NEW*** IRS REMEDIES,How to operate in the Civil and Criminal courts.Youve got to get this!this will blow your mind!



13.******ALL NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO GO AFTER BILL COLLECTORS,STOPS THEM DEAD IN THERE TRACKS!
Debt collector attack plan/administrative process,with all forms.
1.NOTICE OF CORRECTION FOR FRAUD
2.CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONCE
3.CERTIFICATE OF PROTEST
4.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5.NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
6.NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND DISHONER
7.NOTICE OF RESCISSION
8.NOTARY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9.NOTARY PRESENTMENT LETTER
10.NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST
and much much more

ALL NEW
The Commercial Lien Strategy
You can file a commercial lien on property in another state or on property you ’ ve never
seen. With a commercial lien, you can attack the personal property of your adversary at
long range rather than merely fighting to defend your own property in your own back
yard. This offensive capability makes the commercial lien a powerful legal weapon. With
the commercial lien, you can literally take the fight to their back yards.

this 85 page tutorial breaks it all down.



You will receive all of these books plus the bonus material I cant name here in pdf/word doc format,they will be sent to you the same day I receive your donation.Use the PAYPAL DONATE button at the top of this page. donate button will not show up on your phone,so you will need to email me and I will send you the link or send donation via paypal to atexascash@hotmail.com...
 Please email me after sending/making your donation.Also I will be sending you an email shortly after your donation is made please be sure to check your junk/spam folder!


All orders sent out by 10:00 am pst 7 days
thanks for your donation!


email: atexascash@hotmail.com





These documents are NOT secret! They ARE a matter of Public Record.

HERE ARE TRUTHFUL FACTS MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW, .... BUT SHOULD…
1. The IRS is Not a US government agency.  It is an agency of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Diversified Metal Products v I.R.S et al.  CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391)
2. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) is an agency of the U.N. (Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 816)
3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat. Ch 214 page 654)
4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF (International Monetary Fund) (Presidential Documents Volume 24-No. 4 page 113, 22 U.S.C. 285-2887)
5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States! No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. (Executive Order 12803)
6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never  part of the U.S. government, even though the “U.S. Government” held stock in the agencies. (U.S. v Strang, 254 US491 Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239)
7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the U.N. through the IMF (International Monetary Fund). The application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 forms and not the Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are “Department of the Treasury”. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111 Subpart B. 422.103 (b))
8. There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat 138-178)
9. There have NOT been any judges in America since 1789. There have just been administrators.  (FRC v. GE 281 US 464 Keller v. PE 261 US 428 1 Stat. 138-178)
10. According to GATT (The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) you MUST have a Social Security number. (House Report (103-826)
11. New York City is defined in Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Guiliani stated on C-Span that “New York City is the capital of the World.” For once, he told the truth. (20 CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Chap. 111, subpart B 44.103 (b) (2) (2) )
12. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a Trust Fund.  (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619 Steward Co. v. Davis 301 US 548)
13. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF (International Monetary Fund), which is an agency of the United Nations. (It says “U.S. Department of Treasury” at the top left corner, which again is part of the U.N. as pointed out above)
14.You own NO property!!! Slaves can’t own property. Read carefully the Deed to the property you think is yours.  You are listed as a TENANT. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)
15. The most powerful court in America is NOT the United States Supreme court, but rather the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 PA. C.S.A. 502)
16. The King of England financially backed both sides of the American Revolutionary War..   (Treaty of Versailles-July 16, 1782 Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80)
17. You CANNOT use the U.S. Constitution to defend yourself because you are NOT a party to it!  The U.S. Constitution applies to the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, a privately owned and operated corporation (headquartered out of Washington, DC) much like IBM (International Business Machines, Microsoft, et al) and NOT to the people of the sovereign Republic of the united States of America.  (Padelford Fay & Co. v The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
18. America is a British Colony. The United States is a corporation, not a land mass and it existed before the Revolutionary War and the British Troops did not leave until 1796 (Republica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774)
19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0
20. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)
21. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1, 53-54)
22. A 1040 Form is for tribute paid to Britain (IRS Publication 6209)
23. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.  (Papal Bulls of 1495 & 1493)
24. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people.(Papal Bulls of 1455 & 1493)
25. The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone.  (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix, c. vii, n. 4. Prati, 1844 Syllabus Prop 28, 29, 44)
26. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing, NOT even what we think are our children.  (Tillman vs. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten vs. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 438 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)
27. Military dictator George Washington divided up the States (Estates) in to Districts  (Messages and papers of the Presidents Volume 1 page 99 1828 Dictionary of Estate)
28. “The People” does NOT include you and me. (Barron vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 32 U.S. 243)
29. It is NOT the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect THE CORPORATION and arrest code breakers. (SAPP vs. Tallahassee, 348 So. 2nd. 363, REiff vs. City of Phila. 477 F. 1262, Lynch vs. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)
30. Every thing in the “United States” is up for sale: bridges, roads, water, schools, hospitals, prisons, airports, etc, etc… Did anybody take time to check who bought Klamath Lake?? (Executive Order 12803)
31. “We are human capital” (Executive Order 13037)  The world cabal makes money off of the use of your signatures on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, your social security number, etc. 
32. The U.N. – United Nations – has financed the operations of the United States government (the corporation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) for over 50 years (U.S. Department of Treasury is part of the U.N. see above) and now owns every man, woman and child in America.
The U.N. also holds all of the land of America in Fee Simple.
The good news is we don’t have to fulfill “our” fictitious obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another’s fictitious obligation.

Your Federal Withholding

The 1099 is for reporting gambling proceeds won or lost at casinos. When we look at the Federal Reserve Note we find that is a promise to pay, but it is not payment, but is a future event, and a future event that has not happened yet amounts to speculation whether or not the promise to pay would actually occur. Thus the use of Federal Reserve Notes themselves are gambling proceeds and thereby a Suspicious Activity reportable on 1099-OID and other means of reporting. Thus whoever is getting a paycheck in US dollars is receiving an ISSUE that is reportable on 1099-OID, because; the Federal Reserve Note otherwise referred to as US dollars are evidence of speculation on a future event, (promise to pay), that is gambling on the
future event, as one does not know if that promise to pay will return to the source or not. It seems that it will not return to the “Source” unless it is reported on Federal Tax Form 1099 to enable the ISSUE to enter the Electronic Circuit in a journey to the “SOURCE”. Without entry therein it is doubtful that the promise to pay can occur. (The Tax Return).
So it seems that wherever a check is issued, is the “ISSUE” reportable on 1099-OID; or, where a cash item in a Federal Reserve Note is given and/or received, or a bond or other type security given in commercial paper that is payable in Federal Reserve Notes or US dollars, is the gambling proceeds reportable on 1099-OID.
The 1099 OID filing instructions refer to the “ISSUE” as the reportable item, and that is the check at the source that has not yet returned to the source. It can’t return to the source until it enters the closed circuit via the Federal Tax Form 1099 in its journey back to the “source”. One could say that the first issue, the check, being the “Source”, is the venue, and after filing 1099 on that issue, the item returning to the “source” I suppose the difference in the Source of issue and the item returning to source, (a tax), is the returning item, is charged electronically and travels in a CLOSED circuit back to the source for settlement in exchange!
When you receive a bill for a product you have used, and there was no check, therewith, for you to pay the bill, the amount of that bill is Withholding and is a Federal Withholding in possession of the person who gave you the bill without a check to pay it. Thus, the action for settlement is to report a tax liability assessed in a 1040 tax return, and tax the same as income tax on a 1099-OID filed, therewith. It is the IRS, then, who will tell the bill collector that the amount of the bill is a Federal Withholding. (the withholding in the bill is the amount of Federal Withholding admitted in the bill). The bill is evidence of that amount withheld, and without a check or money order to accompany the bill sent to you, the absence of the check or money order is the admission of Withholding for that amount.
So, there you have the reason to tell the bill collector the amount billed to you is a Federal Withholding, withheld by the sender of the bill, and is cause to assess the same on 1040 and [to] tax the assessment on a 1099-OID, therewith, for settlement and closing in exchange Treasury Direct #(SSN-yours)
What is said above should be all you need to take care of your bills. When you get the bill that did not include a check for you to pay [that] bill, that should be sufficient information for you to report the same on a 1040 and 1099-OID without any further correspondence. (the bill was given for the cost of a product your personal credit was used to create…by assuming the use [of the ghost account]. The 1040 is the assessment of that taxable income debt and the 1099-OID is the Tax Return to the source of your credit for settlement and closing in exchange Treasury Direct #(SSN-yours).
So, it is the tax refund that is the remedy and that makes the action in Small Claims Court unnecessary. I suppose it could be made a Court of Record by putting copies of the 1040/1099 into the court record, but it is the IRS Forms 1040/1099 that makes an Administrative Court the Court of Record with a remedy. The Administrative Court is that of the IRS. That is what the tax court record will consist of, and that is probably the only Article III Court of Record bound with Revenue in the New Venue.
The Bill gives information that makes it obvious the actual payment is withheld, so it is that Withholding that is your taxable income! The requests for the billing agency to file 1099-OID on the issue(s) seems to be alright, but so far the requests have been met with silence and that silence is taken as a Refusal and Dishonor and therefore cause to go ahead and file both the 1040 and the 1099-OID. The tax assessment (1040) can be done on receipt of the bill…when the bill did not include a check, therewith, to enable you to pay the amount due. The fact exists that the funds have been Withheld from you, expressed in the bill, because it requests you to pay those absent funds. Obviously, they have been Withheld and the Withholding is Federal
because of the Public Policy HJR-192. So, I think the funds can be reported as a Federal Withholding in possession of the named recipient on the 1099-OID.
It is your credit they use to pre-pay any plan to use the agency services. So, you might ask for the plan to use their services, and provide you the papers to file Federal Tax Form 1099-OID on the issues, to enable you to pre-pay the available services used to make settlement for closing in exchange Treasury Direct #(SSN-yours).
Request the plan to enable us to use their services pre-paid. That will require the use of 1099-OID. Maybe, when one gets a bill from a company or agency one can accept the bill and return it asking for the plan to enable him to make settlement by set-off or report the item/issue as taxable income and request your tax refund from IRS in tax recovery.
When we focus our attention on the Withholding, we see it as, in fact, Federal Withholding, by virtue of HJR-192 and subsequent legislation thereon; and we can report it as such when we get a bill, and there is no check therewith. Thus, they have withheld the payment, and the same is Federal Withholding. (They probably obtained use of the Withheld credit by assuming the use of the amount used and Withheld from us, and admitted the same was prepaid when they sent us a bill for the product of our own credit (the ghost)-That was identity theft!)

Become a Secured Party Creditor via a UCC/UCC-1 Lien Filing Process through our UCC Redemption



A secured party creditor is someone who holds the superior lien over the (Strawman) debtor. As a Secured Party Creditor you can eliminate your credit card debt and stop foreclosures. Become a Secured Party Creditor TODAY via a UCC/UCC-1 Lien Filing Process through our UCC Redemption Book.

Becoming a Secured Party Creditor is your first step toward Sovereignty. Once completed, you will have established the foundation to manage the commercial affairs of the debtor, and the standing to protect yourself from all public claims made against your straw man (strawman), which is your name in ALL CAPITIAL LETTERS. This can be accomplished by filing your UCC-1(Uniform Commercial Code-1).

While the Secured Party Creditor status rebuts the presumption that you are property of the state, you must still bargain for your rights as a Sovereign. Only citizens (slaves) of the state have privileges. For Sovereigns, rights without contract are a fantasy. If you do not see your image in the depiction of the founding fathers at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, you are not party to the contract. This last statement may be a shocking revelation to many of you, but it is nonetheless true. If you did not gather in private discussion with your fellow man for the purpose of determining how you wish to govern and be treated by other sovereigns-If you have not framed a declaration of your rights for which you pledge your life, your wealth, and your sacred honor, as did the signatories to the U.S. Constitution, then you have but one unilateral right-to institute a claim. However this right is negated under the Declaration of International Rights and Duties if the Individual, which reads as follows:

"VII. Every individual is entitled to be protected and assisted by the state to which he belongs, in the manner and form established by treaties and by international law. No individual who, according to the law of the state against which he institutes a claim, as a citizen of that state, shall be entitled to such protection ". The United Nations Conference on International Organization page 105, Department of State publication 2490, Conference Series 83, 1946.
Strawman Redemption
Establish your Strawman account by doing your UCC/UCC-1 Lien Filing Process through our UCC Redemption Book.

The first step in returning yourself to a sovereign individual is that you have to take back your artificial straw man (strawman), and reclaiming it as YOUR debtor. If you were to take a look at your driver's license, social security card right now, you would see your name in all capital letters. That is your straw man (strawman) that the government created for you. In order to take back your straw man (strawman) you need to file a UCC-1 Financing Statement, filed with your Secretary of State's office. The UCC-1 defines exactly who the debtor is and who is the secured party creditor. Your name in all capital letters is the debtor and your name with initial capitals and the rest lower case letters, is you, the secured party creditor. As more and more people perform this process, some states are making the filing of UCC-1 forms more difficult, some states are refusing to file it all together.

The other part of the reclamation of your straw man (strawman) process is the Security Agreement. Though this document is not filed with the UCC-1 form, it should be referred to in the Financing Statement section of the UCC-1. It is a properly executedSecurity Agreement that makes your filing legitimate since it is an agreement between your flesh & blood you and your artificial you. You cannot go around making other people or entities your debtors unless you have something to back up your claim.
UCC-1 Lien Filing Process
The UCC-1 Lien Filing Process begins by doing a proper and professional UCC process with the help of the UCC Redemption Book.

The UCC-1 form should be filed in your state of birth since that is the 'port of entry' for your straw man (strawman). If you are living in and own property and/or do business in a different state at present, for your property protection, a UCC-1 should also be filed in your current state.

The UCC-1 Financing Statement as well as the other information filled in on the UCC-1 is most critical not only for the effectiveness of it, but also on the success in getting your forms filed. The UCC Redemption Book gives you step by step instructions on how to prepare your UCC-1 Financial Agreement and your Commercial Lien, Security Agreement, Hold Harmless, Power of Attorney and Copyright Notice documents.

Our UCC Redemption Book will guide you through the complete process of becoming a secured party creditor. It is highly recommended that you read through the entire UCC Redemption Books a few times until you are comfortable with the overall process before proceeding with document preparation. Every effort has been made to provide clear and complete instructions for all phases of the process. Be forewarned that accuracy is essential to the process and there is considerable detail involved.

The Commercial Lien Strategy.

Faced with corrupt lawyers and judges, no litigant can expect to win in court by simply
playing defense. To beat them, you must be able to scare them. You must be able to make
them respect you, and that means you must be able to take the offense — attack them
personally.
Unfortunately, judges, lawyers, and other government officials enjoy various levels of
personal immunity provided by both law and "professional courtesy." How do you sue a
lawyer for malpractice? You hire another lawyer — if you can find one who’ ll take the
case. How do you sue an IRS agent for violating your Constitutional rights? Only with
great difficulty. How you sue a judge for railroading you in court? You don ’ t.
As a practical matter, private citizens can’ t sue the President of the United States, a
Governor, judge, or even an IRS agent for failing to obey or enforce the laws. If we try to
sue in court to compel our government officials to obey the law and perform their lawful
duties, the judges routinely ignore our petitions and laugh us out of court.
Because legal and de facto immunities shield government personnel from being sued for
committing crimes against the People, the public is legally disarmed, unable to
aggressively sue the government or its agents and compel them to obey the Law. As a
result, the public’ s legal posture is fundamentally defensive: we try to duck, dodge, and
hide in legal loopholes to defend ourselves against the government and the courts. We try
to escape, evade, and avoid, but we seldom counter -attack against our antagonists, largely
because we think there are no lawful weapons to do so. However, it appears that a
powerful offensive legal weapon may now have been discovered, tested, and proven for
common Citizens — the commercial lien. We don’t try to sue a government official for
failing to perform his lawful duties. Instead, we simply file a lien that encumbers the
official’ s personal property and credit rating like a ton of bricks until he voluntarily
satisfies our demand to perform his lawful duty, and we, in turn, voluntarily agree to
excise the lien.
Example 1 — Edward J. Wagner, an hourly, unionized employee at General Electric,
received Notices of Levy from the IRS, garnishing his wages and moneys received from
several other sources. Wagner tried to persuade G.E. not to honor the Notices, since they
were not properly attested as "true bills of commerce." His efforts met with no success.
After giving G.E. proper Notice and Demand, Wagner and his wife filed a Commercial
Lien in the amount of $224,640,00.00. In the lien, Wagner impounded G.E. inventory
that he had worked on (including air conditioning units, analyzing equipment, etc.) as
security for the lien. This is similar t o an auto mechanic impounding a car he had repaired
("mechanic’ s lien"). This meant that G.E. could not lawfully sell or transfer the
equipment until the lien was either extinguished or satisfied.
Among the reasons for the high dollar amount are that the law allows for such high sums
as rewards for damages incurred, and it generally has to be large enough in relation to the
size of the company involved, to get its attention. Otherwise such a large company might
just ignore it.
Consequently, a legal war followed, and by June of ’ 92, G.E. had gone to court several
times trying to remove Wagner’s lien, all without any real success. This was in spite of
the fact that G.E. had the best, most highly paid, and highly motivated lawyers.
In June of ’ 92, the first major victory for the Wagners came. The IRS issued four
different official Releases of Levy, one to General Electric, plus three other places where
they had wages and income that the IRS had levied — the Port of Seattle, Dean Witter
Reynolds, and Ohio State Life Insurance Company. These effectively released the IRS ’ s
attachment on the Wagners ’ income and assets. That’ s a pretty solid testimonial to the
power of the arguments in Mr. Wagner’s lien.


Although this lien strategy is explosive, it ’ s more like nitro-glycerin than hydrogen
bombs. You need to be knowledgeable and careful to use nitro -glycerin, but you don’ t
need to be a nuclear physicist. However, nitro -glycerin can blow up in your face if you
handle it carelessly!
Likewise, "bombing" government officials with liens is a craft, not a science, that can be
used as easily by knowledgeable pro se’ s as it can by lawyers and legal scholars. The
commercial lien is simple, inexpensive, and takes very little time. It requires no court
action or judge’ s approval. And, it has proven to be very direct and effective, if it is
handled correctly. However, a few careless pro se’ s have had their liens "blow up" in
their faces, so be meticulous when you use them.

Your birth certificate was made into a bond,its worth billions!


When the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy, pledged all Americans as collateral against the national debt, and confiscated all gold, eliminating the means by which you could pay, it also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay, and it did that by providing what is known as the Exemption, an exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that \"something\" is your credit.

Your value to society was then and still is calculated using actuarial tables and at birth, bonds equal to this \"average value\" are created. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars. These bonds are collateralized by your birth certificate which becomes a negotiable instrument. The bonds are hypothecated, traded until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes, and all that credit created is technically and rightfully yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number.



Need a good Attorney?

This is why you should never hire an Attorney: Because when you do, You are considered a WARD of the STATE!

When You Hire an Attorney, You Are Considered A Ward of the STATE ... An Imbecile, An Incompetent

The reason you are considered a Ward of the STATE is because your Mother signed your Record of Live Birth as the "Informant", ultimately acting as the Trustee of the Executors (Fathers) Estate.... In doing so, she unknowingly signed away the property (the Child) of the Executor (the Father) to the STATE. If married, she's acting as the co-Executor of the Estate, or in the capacity of a Trustee; one with authority to sign over property.

Your Mother Abandoned You At Birth. Have you noticed the Mother's address is already pre-typed in one of the boxes? Have you noticed there is no address for the Father on the COLB? Have you noticed, it's the address of the Mother's "MAIDEN" name in that box? And have you noticed they had the Mother sign as the Informant, and not the Father?

Look here what I found: The STATE of OKLAHOMA'S very own Instructions on Completing the Birth Certificate:

"Signature of Parent

Have parent review the Certificate of Live Birth for accuracy, read the statement contained in this section and sign this section certifying the accuracy of the certificate.We suggest that you ask only the mother to sign the birth certificate. Never have a parent sign a blank or incomplete certificate."

Now why would the Dept. of Health and Vital Statistics teach Doctors, Nurses, and Hospital Administrators to 'coerce' the Mother into signing the "Certificate of Live Birth" instead of the Father, who is the Executor of the Estate? ..... Because the Executor is the Highest Office of the Estate, and the STATE does not care to deal with Him; they would rather go after the Informant/Trustee instead.

Attempting to Administrate an Estate without written-authorized consent of the Executor is very costly; people go to prison, but if they can 'coerce' the Mother/Informant/Trustee to sign over the property, then they have a legal leg to stand on.

NOTE: An Estate must come before a Trust. The STATE issued the Child a "Certificate of Death" which created a new Estate; the legal-fiction, corporate YOU, in which They, were the creator of.

1. The Womb-man is her own Estate in which she's the Executrix if she has reached legal age. If not, her Father is the Executor of her Estate until that time.

2. The Man is his own Estate in which he's the Executor once he comes of legal age, or marries. Until then, his father is the Executor of his Estate.

3. When they get married, it forms a Trust.

4. The Womb-mans Estate now becomes property of the Man.

5. The Two of them come together and have a Child.

6. Women cannot own offspring, only the Man, therefor the Child is property of the Executor's Estate until he/she reaches legal age.

7. The Father is never made aware of this fact.

8. The STATE coerces the Mother into signing the Record of Live Birth as the "Informant", acting as the Trustee.

9. By doing this, she is acting as the Trustee of the Executors Estate (the Father) and giving the Child to the STATE, ultimately abandoning the Child.

10.The STATE runs an add in the local paper announcing the birth and abandonment of the Child (they leave out the abandonment wording).

***** That Was Public Notice and Due Process of Law *****

11.The Executor (Father) never shows up to claim his abandoned property, so the STATE takes ownership; they fulfilled due process by way of public notice in the newspaper.

12.The Doctor sends the Record of Live Birth to the STATE Health Dept. and Vital Statistics.

13.Now the Child is an Orphan; a Ward of the STATE; abandoned by it's Mother, via the birth announcement she signed as the Informant.

14.The STATE sends the Record of Live Birth to the Registrar's Office, where a New Estate is created and now placed in Probate.

13.The STATE takes the Record of Live Birth and hides it away in the vaults, never to be seen again; now to be used a Security Instrument to back the Nations Debt; The future labor of the Child, which is now One Stock Share in the foreign corporation: UNITED STATES.

13.They split the title and create what's known as the "Certificate of Live Birth", and send that newly created Office (The COLB) to the Child in the mail; it's his/her new identity, and when the Child reaches legal age, he can now become the Occupant of the Executors Office of that newly created Estate, but is never made aware of this.

NOTE: The STATE cannot do business with, or enter into contracts with a living-breathing human being. This is why they created the "Certificate of Live Birth" aka "Certificate of Death", which is the Office of a newly created "corporate" You; the fictitious entity and presumption in law You. They had to turn you into a corporation so they could control you by way of contracts using Trust-Estate, and Probate Law.

NOTE: The CESTUI QUE VIA Act of 1666 made us all dead at birth; cast beyond the sea; lost at sea; dead to the world, and if one day we were ever to return from sea and announce that we are alive, we can take our lawful throne as Executors of our own Estates.


14.Now the Child grows up and remains an incompetent Ward of the STATE because he/she never steps up and assumes their proper roles as the Executor/Executrix of their own Estate once they reach legal age.

15.The now adult uses this COLB as their sole source of identity, even though the STATE advised not to use it as identity (can you say incompetent?)... Just as they say not to use the SS Card as identity.

16.The now 'incompetent adult' aka 'Ward of the STATE', uses the COLB to get a drivers license, social security card, checking account, etc.

17.Now the adult-incompetent is masquerading around town, using this Certificate of Live Birth as identity to get into other adhesion contracts, and basically acting as an agent of the foreign corporation known as the UNITED STATES and is now obligated to pay an income tax; and excise tax; a property tax, and ultimately be subject to the STATE. Now you are obligated to abide by their statutes, rules and regulations.

NOTE: There is a catch to this #17: They are 'presuming' you're an employee of their corporation, but if you are not receiving a paycheck, and there was no employment contract, and they cannot provide proof of pay, then what do they have? Do you work for free? Can they compel you to work for free? That estate is an Office; you are the Occupant of that Office (the corporate-fiction you), and as the Occupant of that Office, shouldn't you be paid for your services?

18.You have lost your Inherent Rights and have been "granted" rights and privileges instead ... 14th Amendment US citizen!


Daddy never showed up to claim his property, and the STATE took it upon themselves to 'adopt' the Child; take it in as their own. The Child is now considered a Ward of the STATE; an incompetent bastard Child with no Father, and the Mother abandoned him/her.

The "Certificate of Live Birth" has a STATE Seal and Registrars Signature, which is certifiable proof the Estate is in or has been in Probate. The Registrar is the court of Probate and Probate deals with Estates of the DEAD, hence the legal fiction name (NAME or Name) on the "Certificate of Live Birth" ... the presumption of law, the other You.

To the courts we are dead; legal fictitious entities; wards of the STATE; bastard Children; Orphans, and they do not wish to deal with us directly. This is why they want you to speak to them (the judge) through one of their own (BAR Attorneys).

The BAR Attorney has a Superseding Oath to the BAR aka British Accreditation Registry; their first loyalty is to the court. They are there to lead the sheep to their slaughterer, the Undertaker in the Black Robe. The judge is Administering the Estate of the incompetent, and his main objective is to make revenue for the STATE, which is acting as the Beneficiary of the Estate, and You and I are being put into the Trustee position of our own Estates.

Now you understand why the Lord said "Woe unto Ye Lawyers".

BAR Attorney's first allegiance is to the Crown, not you. They are there to make you believe someone is fighting for you, but the truth of the matter is: They are there to help the presumed Administrator of your Estate (the BAR attorney wearing the Black Robe-Undertaker)make as much money as possible for the court, him/herself, and the STATE.

Read it again at the top of this post, right out of the Corupus Juris Secundum ... You are a WARD OF THE STATE, an IMBECILE, A MENACE TO SOCIETY, and INCOMPETENT, and that's the truth, take it as you will.

NOTE: I am not saying all attorneys are scumbags that are intentionally trying to harm you. Some of them know what they are doing, and some of them probably truly believe they are doing the best they can to help their clients. But, it's all about the Estate; it's all about the money, and it's all about your slavery and unjustly enriching the STATE in the end.

It is a Constructive Fraud upon you from birth, and that's my heartfelt opinion; take it as you will.