New Court Strategy For The WIN!

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It’s benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It CANNOT BE CLAIMED BY ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR. It is valid only when insisted npon by a BELLIGERENT CLAIMANT IN PERSON.” McAlister vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am.Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.


When playing chess, sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice a queen if it puts you in a position to win.

The point of the game is to win, not to collect pawns, points or a score.

I used to go to court and get jammed up initially because I would try and make the prosecution answer questions about status and standing. When I would answer the plaintiff or prosecutor directly, and what I didn’t realize was that my answers were essentially a non-sequitur and put me in dishonor which was really irrelevant and counter-productive to the point where the judge would actually tell me that “we’re not here for that”. Which was just a kick in the shins when I realized that the judge was right, we are not here for that. The reason that we are not here for those arguments, is because we had not given the court notice that we had wanted to talk about those things.

This is where the “Notice of Appearance” (or Notice of Visitation) comes into play. You need to give them notice of the things that you want to talk about so that they are on the same page as you are.

There are two different trains of thought that I have when I am in the courtroom. The first is where I want to ask about status and the second is if the prosecution has filed a claim upon which relief can be granted. These type of issues should not be brought up at arraignment without first giving the court notice that you are wanting to discuss these things. They automatically presume that you have waived those things or that they don’t matter to you because you never brought them up in the proper way.

These issues that you want to bring up with the prosecution are things that should go into your notice of appearance which you send to the court ahead of time. When you do this, you can then address the plaintiff or the prosecutor directly with the matter at hand that they wrote, and then you stay in honor along with providing the court your side of the case. These conversations tend to be a lot shorter as well when done properly.

You want to catch them with their own rules and win because they didn’t do something that was required, rather than forcing them to do something that they can’t do… which will always be a tougher uphill and unsustainable fight.

It helps if you have authenticated the BC, but this is not necessary. The beauty is that you can handle your status at the last minute. And I have been eyeballs to eyeballs with judges and I can promise you that there really is something to what I am about to express to you. So, when the judge calls the name, I say “I am here on that.”, so essentially I am kind of taking a step back in the conversation figuratively, while also compelling the judge to say more. He will likely raise his voice and say “are you JOHN DOE OR NOT?!?!” It may not be so intense but you know we have all seen the judge white knuckling it trying to get you to admit to being the name, right?

Following Gordon Hall, and contract and understanding language I will say “I am John Doe, as long as it doesn’t give you the idea that I have agreed to joinder or surety to a fiction.” In other words, I am taking control of it. He KNOWS he needs the trust all caps nonsense, but I make sure to say when I use that word, this is what I mean by it. We clarify what that name means when we use it, which forces him to do one of two things; either he will have to explain in detail what the name really means (which is impossible), or he has to let you have it. And they do, they let you have it. So I say, “As long as it doesn’t give anyone the idea that I agree to joinder or surety to a fiction”.

What will happen at this point is that the judge will stumble along and respond one of several ways. He will probably say something like: “what do you mean by that?” In other words, you got him and he is now trying to fix it. So then we shift gears and handle how he is trying to fix it.

Another thing they will try is to give you a command addressing you as “Mr. Doe”. We have all seen how they will address you as “Mister” even when you ask them not to. As a matter of fact I have a recent video on my YouTube channel where the defendant asks the judge to please not address him as “Mister” and then he does it again not more than a minute later! If you don’t catch them when they call you “Mister” and correct them you end up acquiescing to a lower position and they get you that way. So, what we do is we clarify this up front and redefine it from the beginning and nip that whole Mr. Mister game in the bud from the get-go. Say: “The same terms and conditions apply to Mister.” Now, whenever he uses it, it does not give him joinder or surety to the fiction. As a matter of fact, the judge can use that title now without it doing you any harm!

Just tell them that the same terms and conditions apply to the name as they do to Mister! In other words, when you use that word, you are talking to the Man… I don’t know about this other stuff.

Now let’s skip over the rest of the hearing because there is a way that he will get you later on as far as status with the person and the “Mr.” and all that. What he will do is go on and on about this and that and tell you all about how what you are trying to do is this or that. But you have to pay close attention because at some point he will bury the needle in the haystack so to speak and he will talk about representation. It will likely go something like: “Whenever someone is not represented by an attorney, and representing themselves such as you are…” then x,y,z. In other words, he is slyly implying that you are “representing yourself”. This may not sound so bad until you look up the definition for “represent”.

You need to respond to this accusation that you are “represented” or he will have acquired your consent unwittingly. So you respond with “I am not representing myself, I am myself.”

By accepting representation you are essentially giving up your inheritance. “7. To stand in the place of, in the right of inheritance. “ (

This is also why he may be ok with letting you do some of this stuff at the beginning, he knows that he always has that “represent” card up his sleeve.

Also, it likely will not be enough that you only say it once because you have to show that you have conviction. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a pattern. They will capitulate the third time.

In the 1828 Noah Webster’ dictionary refusal is defined as: “1. The act of refusing; denial of any thing demanded, solicited or offered for acceptance. The first refusal is not always proof that the request will not be ultimately granted.“ ( Pay particular attention to that second sentence.

But the judge still has another ace up his sleeve. How they will usually ultimately get out of it is to tell you that they will have your decision in a week. What they are doing is asking you for your permission for them to use general discretion. (Black’s 4th 1968 / Pg 523 – DISCRETION. Power or privilege of the court to act unhampered by legal rule.)

Respond by saying: “Very well your honor but I object to general discretion and I want the decision based on the facts as they have been expressed (as opposed to presumed) here today.”

For the notice of appearance, you need to say two things:

1) I am unrepresented, not politically affiliated (essentially status information).

2) I am not an expert in law. (You have to say this because all the presumptions are in favor of the one who is well versed in law. For example, if you go silent they will presume that you do it deliberately or willingly unless you are not an expert in law.)

There is a common misconception in the liberty movement and that is that the word “understand” means to “stand under” their authority or what they said, but I am not convinced that this is the case. If you look up the word “understand” in the Noah Websters 1828 dictionary you will see a bunch of definitions for “understand”, one of which is: “12. To know what is not expressed.” (

So, when he asks if you “understand” him, he is really asking you if you know what has not been expressed. But if you say that you “don’t understand” he will act like it means the general definition and public’s understanding of that word. He will say “Well, what is it that you don’t understand?” How can you possibly understand what has not been expressed? To answer the “Do you understand?” question, I believe that it would be safe to say: “To some degree I do, but not completely because I can’t know everything that is in your mind.” You don’t want to respond in a way that puts a padlock on it up to that point. You also need to remove any agreement that you have implied up to that point.

At this point, I must tell you to make sure that you don’t push it too far or get into irrelevant topics. We want to avoid being made a ward of the court and having them assign an attorney to us, or even worse if you push it too far they may order a mental evaluation onto you.

You know that these judges sit around and have the same kind of conversations that we do, except they are discussing how to keep us in their system, while we are discussing how to withdraw from it. Sometimes it helps to look at the chessboard from the other side’s perspective.

You can expect the judge to eventually likely go off on a monolog and a tangent to move you away from that topic.

Let’s talk about shifting the burden. The good thing about the “Notice of Appearance” (or Notice of Visitation) is that it is not to the prosecutor or plaintiff, but to the court. You give them notice that you are going to be making a special appearance as a visitor. Because a visitor according to Websters 1828 is: “2. A superior or person authorized to visit a corporation or any institution, for the purpose of seeing that the laws and regulations are observed, or that the duties and conditions prescribed by the founder or by law, are duly performed and executed.

The king is the visitor of all lay corporations. (

Effective shifting of the burden will require that you inquire from the court if the plaintiff or prosecutor has filed a claim upon which relief can be granted. I am coming in to ask that question before we go any further. And what isn’t going to happen this time is we are not going to hear “We are not here for that” because we ARE HERE FOR THAT.

So you would say: “Your honor, did you get my notice of appearance? Because that’s where I told you what I am here for. Do you have a rebuttal for my notice of appearance? Because I never got one and it seems to me that if I didn’t get a rebuttal to my notice of appearance then that must be what we are here for.”

To be able to explain, and understand (pun intended, lol), and deflect the “we’re not here for that” statement put forth by the judge, you have to know why you are there, and you have to have provided notice to the court as to why you are there as well.

The plaintiff has entered paperwork to the court and that is why he is there. He can’t enter in documents or papers that don’t have to do with why he is there. They can’t see anything outside of what is brought in by either side of the court. So, we do the same thing. We let them know specifically why we are there as well. Like the two sides of the chess board. The game is not able to be played without each side having their pieces on the board. The prosecutors side is only half of the whole story. It is up to us to tell our side so that we figuratively have all of our pieces on the board.

Conversely, once all of the pieces are on the board, there is no bringing in new pieces. In other words, we can only talk about what we brought in. We can only use the pieces on the board. That is exactly what that is if you have ever hear the prosecution say: “Objection, your honor that is outside the scope of the pleadings.” Which means that you didn’t bring it in, you can’t bring it up now. We don’t want to ambush them, an ambush will not work.

So essentially we want to know if the prosecution has stated a claim for which relief can be granted, and if he hasn’t, we need to know. So you ask the judge: “Has the plaintiff/prosecutor filed a complete claim upon which relief can be granted?”

Would the defendant be obliged to respond to anything that is not complete? And guess what the funny part is… they can NEVER file a claim upon which relief can be granted. Checkmate. But what they get you to do is argue back, and then they gotcha and they can skip past that.

So when we go in, it is appropriate to ask that question because we have laid the foundation by giving them notice. This also means that you never have to say anything that might trip you up.

Ask again: “Have they done that?” The judge will say: “no” (or if he says “yes” then he is full of shit) and he relies on a refusal. So that brings us back to “The first refusal is not always proof that the request will not be ultimately granted. “

So if the judge says that the prosecutor HAS filed a claim upon which relief can be granted, that is kind of like they are REFUSING your claim. You need to get them to refuse it three times. Make sure to not get excited about it though. Just run the same request again, twice.

NEVER again accept the first refusal or denial. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. You simply MUST get to three when being refused in court. How many times have you seen one refusal or denial destroy an argument? I have seen it plenty of times, and all they needed to do was ask two more times to be certain. And you know the absolute worst thing about accepting the first refusal is that you are led to believe that you were wrong and it really just simply defeats you. Look at it this way, you will NEVER be right the first time in any court. You have to do it three times to be right.

You need to have conviction. This is a fight, it is a battle. It is not a time to throw everything at the wall just to see what sticks because you heard it on the internet. This gives them a way to separate the wheat from the chaff, the serious and knowledgeable from the weak and fearful.

Intent is truly the spirit of the law when you have said it three times and have come back with conviction and you really intended it. You didn’t say it on accident.

So when the judge says that the prosecution HAS filed a claim upon which relief can be granted, you say: “Well, your honor I have inspected the file, and I don’t see a corpus delicti. Not only that, but no one has come forward with a first-hand claim that they have been injured. Would you happen to have that in YOUR file?”

Where exactly is the corpus delicti? Where is the injured party with a first hand claim of injury? Can you show me that?

And then no matter what he says… yada, yada, yada, lecture, etc.

You Say: ” I want you to say, for and on the record that there is an injured party, that there is in fact a corpus delicti that you know of for a fact and you have taken judicial notice of.”

When he tries to wiggle out of it, you say it again… I want you to tell me “YES” there is in fact, for and on the record that there is an injured party, that there is in fact a corpus delicti that you know of for a fact and you have taken judicial notice of… and when he tries to wiggle out you do it a third and final time for the pattern.

It is also imperative that you reduce the answer to a “yes” or “no” answer so there is nowhere to go. He is unable to evade you. Either there IS or there ISN’T. Period.

Here is a sample of a Notice Of Appearance to get you going and also if they ever happen to actually find an injured party, we will cover that type of situation in an upcoming article when we get to the “Bill of Particulars”. If you have read this far I congratulate you. Just to be able to comprehend what is written here is so valuable. While we are on the topic of value I want you to know that there are people out there who would charge you a thousand bucks for this information, but I have chosen to gift this to you free of any charges. I am working on doing some incredible things in this world, but I need your help. Please visit and if you have the means to be able to purchase a product that I have available there it will go a long ways in showing me that you support what I do and how much my work means to you. We have items priced as low as $0.99 cents so we are also really not asking for much. But on the other hand, we have some big plans and are in need of some investment capital. If you are interested in helping us further our mission and possibly supplying us with some investment capital that would be repaid quickly, we would be extremely grateful. You can use this link to contact us if you are able to support us in this fashion and to learn about what we have planned. We only need about $5K to give us the boost that we need. Thank you so much for your support, and God bless you.

Peace be with you, and please feel free to share this article if you found it helpful.

(Visited 2,699 times, 8 visits today)


By Neil Rowe P.A.G.; Professor of Law

No, I’m not going into to traffic court and arguing illegitimate corporate government, or any of the other varied long winded arguments people and persons propose. Just not interested in approaching it that way for reasons of my own. What follows is my standard template for transportation code or driving offense charges and I’m retiring from answering any more questions related to traffic tickets, until and unless you can quote this back to me verbatim and understand it and still have a problem, moving on to more important issues and frontiers in law. Yes, I could use dozens of additional citations, and you may add them and over complicate matters if you choose, I just don’t think it’s necessary to go into much more detail. Keep it simple stupid.

Submitted to the Public Domain without copyright. Copy and share.

Notice of and Motion for Bill of Particulars and Discovery Request for Brady Material In Answer and Response to Inadequate Notice and Defective Service of Process by Complaint or Information that Fails to State the Requisite Jurisdictional Elements of a Valid Cause of Action and Controversy of Both Fact and Law Required to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Proposed Jury Instructions

COMES NOW the accused defendant herein named by special appearance in Pro Se, by liberal construction waiving professional rules of pleading practice, and for his preliminary Answer and Response, Discovery request for Brady Material and Motion as styled and en-captioned above, by his own hand and under oath affiant shows this honorable court and states as follows; To Wit:

Based Upon information and belief, affiant states:

1. THAT the undersigned writer is charged in the instant action and proceedings with a Transportation Code or Driving offense.

2. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law narrowly define “Driving” as the professional commercial activity of “transporting persons or property for profit.”

3. THAT Federal and State statutes and provisions of law defining the elements of “Driving” omit “traveling for recreation or pleasure,” the writer contends, because ‘A Citizen must be free to travel throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.’ (Shapiro v. Thomson, 394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 ( )); “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” (Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22). “As has been well said in the case of Ex parte Dickey (W.Va. 85 S.E. 781): The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” (Thielke v. Albee, 79 Or. 48, 153 P. 793); “It is to clear for the purpose of extended discussion that it was competent for the legislature under the police power to regulate the use of the streets and the public places by jitney operators, who, as common carriers, have no vested right to use the same without complying with a requirement as to obtaining a permit or license. The right to make such use is a franchise, to be withheld or granted as the legislature may see fit.” (Fifth Ave. Coach Co. V. New York, 194 N.Y. 19,86 N.E. 824, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 16 Ann.Cas. 695; Dill. Mun. Corp. 1210, 1229); “[W]hile a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion…” (State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. (For further distinction between traveling and transportation, See : Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784).

4. WHEREFORE the writer contents and asserts, based on information and belief supported by points in authority provided, that transporting persons or property for profit in commerce is a condition precedent and form the requisite jurisdictional elements of any transportation code driving offense.

5. THAT the Plaintiff officer by state attorney has failed by sufficient complaint or information to state or inform the accused defendant of the “person(s)” or “property” the accused defendant is accused of transporting, or for what “profit.”

6. THAT the plaintiff prosecution is required to inform the accused defendant of the essential elements of, and material facts alleged substantiating the crime as charged and to prove these same elements and material facts beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, and for this reason the accused defendant contends jury instructions must reflect the requirement that the prosecution plaintiff establish and prove the person(s ) or property that were transported for what profit, and who those persons or what that property transported for what profit was, with particularity.


WHEREFORE all the good and proper reasons stated, the undersigned accused defendant prays this honorable court grant the motion for bill of particulars, or provide discovery of the essential material facts constituting the driving or transportation code offense charged, and compel the plaintiff prosecution to amend defective information or complaint to apprise the accused defendant of the same so that he might reasonably respond or prepare his defense having notice of both the nature of, and, cause for the instant charges and proceedings as required by rules of substantive and procedural due process, or in the alternative quash the information or complaint for inadequate notice and defective service of process and dismiss the instant action and proceedings for failure to prosecute, and grant any other relief this court deems equitable and fair in good faith and conscience.

Foot Note: I am not arguing against statutory authority. Travel is mentioned, but Statutory authority to regulate Transportation is accepted and acknowledged.

I am asking for fair and proper notice. The elements of driving are clear.

If charged with assault, how, by punching, kicking or slapping?

If contempt of court for disrupting proceedings, how? By what noise, outburst or disruptive behavior, specifically?

If murder, who, and by what means?

The prosecution must demonstrate the case he intends to put on, so the defendant is informed of the case he must meet.

Driving drunk? Driving on suspended?

Forget drunk, forget suspended…

How driving?

It’s simple calculus.

And with that having been said, I’m charging for the next question.

Dedicated to my parents, who took a clever little six year old intent on being the worlds greatest liar and cheat, and changed the course of his life by paddling his behind, conditioning him to study instead and violently hate liars and cheats.

(Visited 384 times, 2 visits today)


Affidavit of Rescission




Certified Mail Number: __________________________________________


Date: __________________________________________



John Q. Doe

c/o general delivery

Marin County

San Rafael, California Republic

united States of America

zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)











)        Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed

MARIN COUNTY                )





I, State Citizen John Q. Doe, being a free Sovereign adult, natural born in Massachusetts, living and working as a State Citizen domiciled in the California Republic since 1952 and I, as such status, hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of California and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all government agencies when dealing with them.  Wherefore, the undersigned Affiant, named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and evidences the following:


I, John Q. Doe, am of lawful age and competent.  I am a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen domiciled in the California Republic (see 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the U.S. Constitution), and thereby in the united States of America, in fact, by right of heritage, a Sovereign State Citizen inhabiting and domiciled in the California Republic, protected via hereditary succession by my predecessors’ previous contracts with government as found in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Organic Act of 1849 (the original Constitution of California), the Articles of Confederation of 1777, the Constitution for the united States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the Bill of Rights (1791) including its Preamble;  and, as such, I retain all my unalienable rights granted by God in positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and binding rights upon myself and my parentage, on this day and for all time now and hereafter.  And further,


I, John Q. Doe, a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, with Assistance, Special, receiving mail c/o general delivery, San Rafael, California Republic, zip code exempt (DMM 122.32), being duly sworn and affixing my signature to this document, do hereby make the following statement of fact and affirm:  the so-called “Social Security” number 123-45-6789 is rescinded in application, in body and in signature, for I affirm that this agreement was imposed upon me by usage of threat, coercion, withholding of material facts, and uninformed consent, and that I was not at age of majority;  therefore, this aforementioned government action constitutes constructive fraud and placed me under duress of mind and therefore deprived me of giving any meaningful consent to the original “Social Security” application and agreement.  This agreement is null and void, ab initio (from its inception), due to the aforementioned fraud.  And further,





I, the undersigned, in order to protect my unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, inclusive of my right to the proper in rem and in personam State Citizenship status, have been forced to amend certain legal documents and statements, due to the continued revelation and increased discovery of the continuous acts of fraud upon me by the de facto governments, both State and Federal, and therefore I declare that I am now and fully intend to remain free to amend any and all such documents and statements, as a matter of substantive right, for I cannot be held liable for either the acts or the omissions by governments which are out of my control, which acts and omissions constitute fraud in one form or another.  Therefore, I proceed at all times “WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS”, inclusive of my personal right to substantive and procedural due process proceedings under the Judicial Power of both my State and my Nation.  And further,


I, John Q. Doe, do state and affirm the following:


  1. That material facts were withheld, such as Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1746, Subsections 1 & 2 (being without or within the “United States”, respectively), which caused me to be unaware that a completed, signed and submitted “Form 1040” or “income tax return” and other Internal Revenue Service and State Franchise Tax Board forms and documents are voluntarily executed instruments which could be used as prima facie evidence against me in criminal trials and civil proceedings to show that I had voluntarily waived my Constitutionally secured rights and that I had voluntarily subjected myself to the federal income/excise tax, to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the IRC), to the authority of the State Franchise Tax Board (hereinafter referred to as the FTB) and to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter referred to as the IRS) by signing and thereby affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the “United States”), that I was, in effect, a “person” subject to the tax;  that the above induced and/or forced action, via State and Federal governments, clearly indicates a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (1:9:3), to wit:  “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed” and also Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 (1:9:4), to wit:  “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken” in the United States Constitution.  These above same injunctions are found in the Northwest Ordinance and in the California Constitution.  And further,


  1. That material facts were withheld, which caused me to be unaware of the legal effects of signing and filing income tax returns, as shown by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the 1974 ruling in the case of Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876, 880, wherein the Court explained how a State Citizen became a “taxpayer” by stating: “Accordingly, when returns were filed in Mrs. Morse’s name declaring income to her for 1944 and 1945, making her potentially liable for the tax due on that income, she became a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.” [emphasis added]  And further,


  1. That material facts were withheld, which caused me to be unaware that the signing and filing of an income tax return and other IRS forms are acts of voluntary compliance for a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen inhabiting the united States of America, when executed and submitted by said Sovereign living and working within the States of the Union;  that I was unaware that, in a legislative court such as a United States District Court, the completed IRS documents can become prima facie evidence, sufficient to sustain a legal conclusion by a judge, that the signer has voluntarily changed his lawful status/state FROM that of a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen who is not subject to any federal income tax and who possesses all of his God-given, Constitutionally secured rights when dealing with government, TO the legal status of a “taxpayer” (any individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation subject to federal excise tax), that is, a “person” who is subject to the federal excise tax andis, therefore, subject to the authority, jurisdiction and control of the federal government under the IRC, to the statutes governing federal taxation and to the regulations of the IRS, thereby imposing the tax on himself, waiving his God-given Constitutionally secured rights to property and labor in respect to the federal income/excise tax statutes and their administration by the IRS, and establishing himself as one who has privileges only, but no rights, in dealings with the IRS, the same as a corporation;  that it is my understanding that the change of status/state resulting from the signed IRS documents is very similar to the change of status that occurs when one enlists in the military service and voluntarily takes an oath that subjects him to the authority, jurisdiction and control of the federal government under Title 10 of the United States Code (i.e., the statutes governing the armed forces and the regulations of the military service), thereby waiving his Constitutionally guaranteed rights in relation to dealings with the military services.  And further,


  1. That I, as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and inhabitant in the united States of America, domiciled in the California Republic, and as a Free Man, am endowed by my Creator with numerous unalienable/inalienable rights which include but are not limited to my rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property)”, which rights are specifically identified in the Magna Carta (1215) and the Declaration of Independence (1776), and protected and secured by the Constitution for the united States of America (1789) and the subsequent Bill of Rights, Articles in Amendment 1 thru 10 (1791);  that my birthright to the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” has been interpreted by both the Framers of the Constitution and by the U.S. Supreme Court to include my unalienable right to contract, to acquire, to deal in, to sell, rent, and exchange properties of various kinds, real and personal, without requesting or exercising any privilege or franchise from government;  that I have learned that these unalienable property rights also include my right to contract for the exchange of my labor-property for other properties and remuneration, such as wages, salaries, and other earnings;  that I have never knowingly, intentionally or voluntarily waived any of these unalienable rights, nor can I, John Q. Doe, be forced to waive any of these rights granted to me by God the Father, my Creator, because I am endowed with these rights by my Creator and by nobody else and nothing else (see Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970)).  And further,


  1. That I understand that, if the exercise of my rights were subjected to taxation, these same rights could be destroyed by increasing the tax rates to unaffordable levels;  therefore, courts have repeatedly ruled that government has no power whatsoever to tax or otherwise “lien” against the exercise of any rights, particularly the rights of Sovereign State Citizens, as shown by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), which stated:  “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.”;  that unalienable rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-lien-able;  that America’s founding documents enumerate some of my unalienable rights, none of which rights I have ever waived knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally;  that I freely choose to obey all American Law and to pay all Lawful taxes in jurisdictions which are applicable to me for the common good;  that I stand in Propria Persona with Assistance, Special;  that my status and unalienable rights, as stated hereinafter and in the foregoing, are not negotiable.  And further,


  1. That, for years past and at least since the year 1964, I have been influenced by numerous cases of people going to jail and being punished, and also by numerous and repeated public warnings made by the FTB and by the IRS, via radio, television, the printed press and other forms of public communication media, warning of the “deadline” for filing State and Federal forms, such as a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return” and/or other IRS forms and documents;  this therefore caused me to file said forms under threat, duress and coercion.  And further,


  1. That, in addition to the aforesaid warnings, I have also been influenced by the misleading and deceptive wording of IRS publications and IRS-generated news articles, by the pressure of widespread rumors and misinformed public opinion, and by the advice and assurances of lawyers, C.P.A.’s and income tax preparers which misled me to believe incorrectly that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America abolished the Fifth Amendment of that same Constitution and authorized Congress to impose a direct tax on me, my property, my exchanges of property and/or property received as a result of exercising my Constitutionally secured right to contract;  that I was further misled into believing that I had a legal duty and obligation to file a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return” and other IRS and State tax forms, schedules and documents, and that I was unaware of 28 U.S.C. 1746, wherein there are two perjury clauses:  (1) one stating that you are without the “United States” and also (2) the other stating that you are within the “United States”, respectively.  The perjury clauses on both State and Federal tax forms stipulate, under penalty of perjury, that I was stating unknowingly, involuntarily and unintentionally that I was within the “United States”.  This is an act of fraud by both State and Federal taxing agencies.  And further,


  1. That I have also been further influenced, misled and alarmed by rumors, by misinformed public opinion and by the advice and assurances of lawyers, C.P.A.’s and income tax preparers to the effect that “the IRS and the FTB will get you”, and that it would be a crime punishable by fines and/or imprisonment if I did not fill out, sign and file with the IRS a “Form 1040”;  that, in point of fact, the only person actually named within the IRC as a person required to collect an income tax, to file an income tax return and to pay an income tax is a “Withholding Agent”;  and that, to the best of my knowledge, I am not now, nor have I ever been a “Withholding Agent”.  And further,


  1. That, in addition to all of the reasons stated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above, I was influenced by the common and widespread practice of employers who, either knowingly or unknowingly, without Power of Attorney, misled me and their employees to believe that they and I must have a Social Security Number and that all are subject to the withholding of “income taxes” from their earnings, either with or without their permission, based upon the employers’ possibly mistaken assumption that they, as employers, are required by law to withhold “income taxes” from the paychecks of their employees, which is contrary to the Sections 3402(n), 7343 and 7701(a)(16) of the IRC, absent a voluntary execution of Form W-4, the “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate”.  And further,


  1. That I have also been mistakenly influenced and mistakenly impressed by annual public displays and indiscriminate public offerings by the IRS and the FTB of large quantities of the Forms 1040 and 540 in banks, in post offices and through the U.S. mail, which public displays and indiscriminate public offerings also had the effect of reminding me of, and inducing me to respond mistakenly by filling out, signing and sending “Form 1040” to the IRS and “Form 540” to the FTB.  And further,


  1. That said “Forms 1040” contained no reference to any law or laws which would explain just exactly who is and who is not subject to, or liable for, the income tax, State or Federal, nor did it contain any notice or warning to anyone that merely sending said completed “Form 1040” to the IRS would waive my right to privacy, as secured by the 4th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, and also waive my right to not be a witness against myself, as secured by the 5th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, and that a completed “Form 1040” would, in itself, constitute legal evidence, admissible in a court of law, that the filer is subject to and liable for the income/excise tax, even though and regardless of the fact that I, as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, am actually and legally not subject to the statutory jurisdiction of the IRC, nor liable for any income/excise tax, and regardless of the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no legal duty or obligation whatsoever to complete and file any “Form 1040” or State income tax forms, nor did they ever evidence 28 U.S.C. 1746.  And further,


  1. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS or by the State of California, nor by any of their agents or employees, nor by any lawyer, C.P.A., or tax preparer, of the fact that the so-called 16th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, as correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), identified the income tax as an indirect excise tax in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (1:8:1) of the United States Constitution; that the so-called 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does notauthorize a tax on all individuals but is applicable to nonresident aliens (e.g., Frank R. Brushaber) who involve themselves in activities, events or occupations which come under, or are within, the taxing authority of the “United States”, as explained in Treasury Decision 2313, dated March 21, 1916;  that the so‑called 16th Amendment was never actually ratified nor could it have been enacted into positive law because the requisite number of States (i.e., 36) did not meet the lawful requirements for amending the Constitution at that time;  and that a mass of incontrovertible material evidence available since the year 1985 proves that the act of “declaring” the so-called 16th Amendment “ratified” was an act of outright fraud by Philander C. Knox in the year 1913.  And further,


  1. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the FTB nor by the IRS, their agents or employees, nor by any lawyer, C.P.A. or tax preparer, of the fact that, because of various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), and Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 492 (1895), the indirect excise tax on incomes identified by the so-called 16th Amendment is also a tax upon corporate privileges granted by government, which tax is measured by the amount of corporate income (see Corporations Tax Act, Statutes at Large, 1909, vol. XXXVI, section 38, page 112);  that this indirect excise tax is also imposed on the taxable income of foreign corporations, and on the taxable income of nonresident aliens to the extent this (latter) income is either effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, or derived from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States” although not effectively connected with the conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, according to Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC.  And further,


  1. That my attention has been called to Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws” published by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, updated January 17, 1980;  that this publication describes the tax on “income” identified in the so-called 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an indirect excise tax;  that this report stated:  “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the United States Constitution, quoted above.”;  and this report further stated:  “Therefore, it can clearly be determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax ….”, thus proving in my mind that the “income tax” is not a tax on me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, but is, rather, an indirect excise tax as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. supra, wherein the high Court defined excise taxes as “… taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges ….”, none of which aforesaid classifications apply to me.  And further,


  1. That I was unaware of the truth of the rarely publicized statement by the IRS that the “income” tax system is based upon “voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax”;  that I was unaware before June of 1990 of a posted notice in the main lobby of the Federal Building in San Francisco, California, outside the offices of the IRS, which notice reads, in pertinent part, “The purpose of the Internal Revenue Service is to … encourage and achieve the highest degree of voluntary compliance in accordance with the tax laws and regulations.”;  that I was unaware before June of 1990 that Mr. Roger M. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., made the following statement to an assemblage of tax lawyers on May 9, 1987:  “We encourage voluntary compliance by scaring the heck out of you.”;  that it has never been either my intention nor my desire to voluntarily self-assess an excise tax upon myself, nor to give up my right to property, nor to voluntarily subject myself to such an excise tax;  that I had always thought that compliance was required by law.  And further,


  1. That I have examined Sections 871 thru 878, 1441, 1442, 1443, 3401(c), 6001, 6011, 6012(a), 6331(a), 7203, 7205 and 7343 of the IRC, and I am entirely convinced and completely satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever, any such “person” or individual referred to by these sections.  And further,


  1. That, after careful study of the IRC, and after consultations on the provisions of that Code with informed lawyers, tax accountants and tax preparers concerning the provisions of the IRC, I have never found or been shown any sections of the IRC that imposed any requirement on me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and unprivileged inhabitant, living and working within a County within a State of the Union, to file a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return” or any other State income tax form, or that imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on “income”, or that would classify me as a “person liable”, as a “person made liable”, or as a “taxpayer” as the term “taxpayer” is defined in IRC Section 7701(a)(14), which states:  “The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.”  And further,


  1. That, after the study and consultations mentioned in paragraph 17, the only mention of any possible requirement upon me, as an individual, to pay a tax on “income”, that I could find, or was shown in the IRC, was the title of Part I under Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A (which is deceptively titled “Tax on Individuals”) and Section 6012(a), Subtitle F, Chapter 61-A, Part II-B, Subpart B, and the California Tax Statutes;  that a careful study and earnest examination of these parts of the IRC revealed that the “individuals” to whom these sections refer are, in fact, either individuals who work within a foreign nation like France and are taxed according to a tax treaty, or they are nonresident aliens who receive income which is either effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, orderived from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, although not effectively connected with the conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, according to Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC;  and that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted any trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”, nor have I ever derived income from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the “United States”.  And further,


  1. That, after the study and consultations mentioned in paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to the IRC, Chapter 21, entitled “Federal Insurance Contributions Act” (Social Security), and my attention was also called to Subchapter A of Chapter 21 entitled “Tax on Employees”, which includes Section 3101, wherein the Social Security tax is identified as a tax on “income”, not as an “Insurance Contribution”, not as a “Tax on Employees”, and not as a tax on wages or earnings;  that my attention was further called to these facts:  there is no provision in the IRC that imposes the tax on employees or requires them to pay the tax;  a voluntarily signed and completed Form W-4, “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate”, allows an employer to withhold money from a worker’s pay for Social Security “income” tax, even though the worker has claimed on that form to be “exempt” from the graduated “income” tax;  and an employer has no authority to withhold money from a worker’s pay for the Social Security “income” tax, for the graduated “income” tax, nor for any IRS‑imposed penalty or assessment, if there is no voluntarily signed “Form W‑4” in force and no “Form 2678” in force Granting Power of Attorney.  And further,


  1. That, after the study and consultations described in paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to Section 61(a) of the IRC, which lists items that are sources of “income”, and to the following facts:  that IRS Collections Summons Form 6638 (12‑82) confirms that these items are sources, not “income”, by stating that the following items are “sources”:  “wages, salaries, tips, fees, commissions, interest, rents, royalties, alimony, state or local tax refunds, pensions, business income, gains from dealings in property, and any other compensations for services (including receipt of property other than money).”;  that sources are not “income”, but sources become “income” if they are entered as “income” on a signed “Form 1040”, because the signer affirms, under penalty of perjury (within the “United States”), that the items entered in the “income” section of the “Form 1040” are “income” to the signer;  that Section 61(b) clearly indicates which sections of the IRC identify and list items that are included in “income” by stating:  “For items specifically included in gross income, see Part II (sec. 71 and following)“.  And further,


  1. That my attention was then called to the said Part II entitled: “Items Specifically Included in Gross Income”;  that I studied sections 71 thru 87 and noticed that wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, pensions, rents, royalties, etc., are not listed as being included in “income” in those Sections of the IRC;  and that, in fact, those items are not mentioned anywhere in any of these sections of the IRC. And further,


  1. That, after further diligent study, it appears entirely clear to me that the only way that property received by me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, living and working within the States of the Union, in the form of wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, rents, royalties and/or pensions could be, or could have been legally considered to be “income”, is if I voluntarily completed and signed a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return”, thereby affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the “United States”), that the information on such “Form 1040” was true and correct, and that any amounts listed on the “Form 1040” in the “income” block were “income”, and thereby acknowledging under oath or affirmation, that I am, or was, a taxpayer subject to the tax and have, or had, a duty to file a “Form 1040 Income Tax Return” and/or other IRS forms, documents and schedules, none of which instruments I have ever signed with the understanding that I signed them knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally and by means of knowingly intelligent acts done “with sufficient awareness of all the relevant circumstances and likely consequences” (see Brady v. U.S. supra);  and that, when I have sent in State and Federal tax forms purposely not signed, they were returned to me with a letter instructing and stipulating that I must sign the forms under the penalty of perjury, thereby claiming that I was a “United States citizen” due to the wording of the perjury clause (see 28 U.S.C. 1746(2)).  And further,


  1. That, with good faith, with an honest reliance upon the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court rulings and with reliance upon my constitutionally protected Natural Common Law Bill of Rights, Amendments 1 thru 10 (1791), to lawfully contract, to lawfully work and to lawfully acquire and possess property, I am convinced and satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever subject to, liable for, or required to pay an income/excise tax;  that I am not now, nor have I ever been a “taxpayer”, and there has never been a Judicial Power proceeding in which it was ruled that I was a “taxpayer” as that term is defined and used in the IRC;  and that I have never had any legal duties or obligations whatsoever to file any “Form 1040” or to make any “income tax return”, or to sign or submit any other IRS “individual” forms or documents or schedules, to pay any “individual” income tax, to keep any personal financial records, or to supply any personal information to the IRS.  And further,


  1. That the U.S. Congress, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Banks and the Internal Revenue Service, by means of vague, deceptive and misleading words and statements in the IRC, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in official statements by IRS Commissioners in the Federal Register, in IRS publications and in IRS-generated news articles, committed constructive fraud and misrepresentation by misleading and deceiving me, as well as the general public, into believing that I was required to file “Form 1040 Income Tax Returns” and other IRS forms, documents and schedules and that I was also required to keep records, to supply information and to pay income taxes.  And further,


  1. That, by reason of the aforementioned facts, I do hereby exercise my rights as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, upheld by various court decisions, to rescind, to cancel and to render null and void, Nunc Pro Tunc, both currently and retroactively to the time of signing, based upon the constructive fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated upon me by the Federal government, the U.S. Congress, the IRS, the “State of California”, and the FTB, all IRS and FTB forms, statements, documents, returns, schedules, contracts, licenses, applications, articles, certificates and/or commercial agreements ever signed and/or submitted by me, or on my behalf by third parties (including but not limited to Forms 1040 and attached schedules, Forms W-2, Forms W-4, and Forms 1099) on the accounts bearing the account numbers 123-45-6789, and 98-7654321 and all my signatures on any and all of the aforementioned items, including the original “Social Security” application, which caused the account bearing the account number 123-45-6789 to be established;  that this notice of rescission is based upon my rights with respect to constructive fraud and misrepresentation as established in, but not limited to, the cases of Tyler v. Secretary of State, 184 F.2d 101 (1962) and also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979), which stated:  “Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument.”  And further,


  1. That I do hereby declare that I am not and never was a “taxpayer” as that term is defined in the IRC, a “person liable” for any internal revenue tax, or a “person” subject to the provisions of the IRC, and I do hereby declare that I am, and have always been, a “nontaxpayer”;  that courts have recognized and acknowledged that individuals can be nontaxpayers, “… for with them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither the subject nor the object of revenue laws ….”, as stated in the cases of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179, and Gerth v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955).  And further,


  1. That evidence now available to me proves that the Internal Revenue Service has to date failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous requirements imposed on allfederal government agencies by the following Congressional statutes: the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);  that the IRS failure to comply with the requirements of these statutes constitutes further constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary trust between Sovereign State Citizens and public servants, and violations of the solemn oaths of office required of federal government officials, thereby relieving me of any and all legal duties which could or might otherwise exist for me to file any returns, schedules, or other documents with the IRS;  and that, after having read these three statutes and summaries of related case law, I thereby conclude that there is no reason why the IRS would be exempt from any of the clear and unambiguous requirements imposed upon federal government agencies by these three statutes, notwithstanding any and all allegations to the contrary that heretofore may have been published by the IRS or the Treasury Department in the Federal Register without also citing the proper legal authorities, if any, for such allegations.  And further,


  1. That recent diligent studies have convinced me of the above, and that as such I am not “subject to” the territorially limited “exclusive legislation” nor to the foreign jurisdiction mandated for the District of Columbia, federal enclaves, federal territories, and federal possessions by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, including its “internal” governmental organizations therein (hereinafter referred to as the “Federal Legislative Democracy” and elsewhere referred to in this Affidavit as the “corporate jurisdiction of the United States”);  that I am not “subject to” this foreign jurisdiction by reason of any valid contract or any  valid commercial agreement resulting in adhesion thereto across America, nor are millions of other Sovereign State Citizens, unless they have provided “waivers of rights guaranteed by the Constitution” by means of “knowingly intelligent acts”, such as contracts or commercial agreements with such government(s) “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences”, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. United States supra;  and that I myself have given no such “waivers”.  And further,


  1. That these same diligent studies have also proved to me that misrepresentation and a shrewd and criminal constructive fraud have been perpetrated upon Sovereign State Citizens by government, under counterfeit “color of law”, through the apparent entrapments of “certain activities (monopoly occupations) and privileges (other benefits)” allowed by statutory acts or otherwise;  that, by reason of American Law which has never been repealed, such sources of past and present criminal element in and behind government should be brought to justice in a Constitutional Court of Law for aiding and abetting this misrepresentation and constructive fraud as willing accomplices;  that it is for such a Court, with a 12-member jury of peers, to decide who is and who is not guilty among personnel of government, media, schools, lawyers, accountants, clergy and other purveyors of misinformation and other mind-set propaganda, in this and related regards.  And further,


  1. That, due to such shrewd entrapments over many years, I have unwittingly signed many related documents, contracts and commercial agreements, some even under the “perjury” jurat (within the “United States”) as was supposedly required;  with American Law on my side, I hereby rescind and cancel any and all such signatures and render them null and void, nunc pro tunc, except for those which I may choose to have considered as being under “TDC” (Threat, Duress and/or Coercion), past and present;  that this is also my lawful notice that all such signatures of mine in the future on instruments of government or other entities, including banks, which might otherwise result in contract adhesion, are to be considered as being under “TDC”, whether appearing therewith or otherwise;  that my Constitutional “Privileges and Immunities” (per Article 4, Section 2) are apart fromthose mandated for the Federal Legislative Democracy by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, and shall not by Law be violated ever;  and that my status, in accord, is stated for all to see and to know in 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 of the Constitution for the united States of America.  And further,


  1. That, with this accurate knowledge and with “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article 6, Section 2) again on my side, I do Lawfully and “squarely challenge” the fraudulent, usurping, octopus-like authority and jurisdiction cited above in paragraph 28, which authority and jurisdiction do not apply to me (see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533);  it is, therefore, now mandatory for any personnel of the Federal Legislative Democracy or its agents to FIRST PROVE its “jurisdiction”, if any, over me before any further procedures can take place in my regard, per Title 5, United States Code, “Government Organization and Employees”, Section 556(d), specifically by disclosing in writing any and all contracts or other commercial agreements whereby the Federal Legislative Democracy and its agents claim to have obtained controlling interest in me such that my specific performance to any third party debt or obligation can be compelled;  OR ELSE any of its personnel and accomplices who willfully violate this statute can and shall be personally charged as citizens under Title 18, United States Criminal Code, Sections 241, 242, 1001 and/or otherwise;  and, in fairness, it must be added that, to my knowledge, IRS agents have NO written lawful “Delegation of Authority” within the 50 States of the Union and their so‑called “Form 1040” appears to be a bogus and bootleg document on its face.  And further,


  1. That, with all of the above in mind, it appears that this Sovereign natural born free State Citizen is, by Law, as “foreign” and as much a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the Federal Legislative Democracy as he is to France, and thus shall be free to use related Forms of the Federal Legislative Democracy if and when they might be needed, required and/or appropriate at various future times and places yet to be determined (see paragraphs 12, 13 and 18 above), including but not limited to Form W-8 (“Certificate of Foreign Status”) or its equivalent for banks and/or other financial institutions, Forms 1040X (“Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”) and 1040NR (“U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return”) for refunds and for correcting the administrative record, and IRC Section 3402(n) which authorizes certificates of exemption from withholding.  And further,


  1. That, since my date of birth on June 21, 1948, I have always been a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the Federal Legislative Democracy of the “United States”, never having resided, worked, nor having any income, to the best of my recollection, from any sources within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or any other territory or possession within the “United States”, which entity obtains its exclusive legislative authority and jurisdiction from Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution;  that I have always been a non-taxpayer outside the venue and jurisdiction of the IRC;  that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never had any “U.S. trade or business” as defined in the IRC, in 26 C.F.R. or in 27 C.F.R.;  that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never had any “gross income” from any U.S. sources, as the term “gross income” is defined in IRC Section 872(a).  And further,


  1. That my use of IRS Forms 1040X and 1040NR shall be presumed to mean that they were filed solely to correct the administrative record permanently, retroactively to June 21, 1948, so as to claim any lawful refunds that may be due, to rebut any erroneous presumptions and/or terminate any erroneous elections of U.S. “residence” which may have been established in error by the filing of any prior IRS forms, schedules and other statements by mistakes resulting in part from the demonstrable vagueness that is evident in the IRCand its regulations, and by mistakes resulting also from the constructive fraud and misrepresentation mentioned throughout this Affidavit;  that I was neither born nor naturalized in the “United States”, I have never been subject to its jurisdiction, and I have never been a “United States citizen” as defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) and as defined in the so-called 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  And further,


  1. That the federal government has committed fraud, duress and coercion, exercised undue influence, and evidenced unlawful menace against the American people by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a lawfully ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof, published court authorities and other competent legal scholars have now established that it was NOT lawfully ratified.  (See State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975);  Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South Carolina Law  Quarterly 484.)  And further,


  1. That I am not now, nor have I ever knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily, with informed consent, entered into any personal, internal, public or private agreement, contract, stipulation, account or similar contrivance with the “United States”, the “Federal Government” or the “District of Columbia”, its territories, its agencies or other property appurtenant thereto, which would have altered or waived my de jure, Sui Juris status, or my unalienable God-given natural rights;  that any such agreements or contracts, expressed or implied, such as a Social Security number and application, or Driver’s License, or Bank Signature Card, or the use of Federal Reserve Notes (which are not lawful Specie) etc., have all been hereby rescinded ab initio, due to the fraudulent withholding of material facts, which became a snare and a trap and, as such, are a Bill of Attainder on this Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and inhabitant in the united States of America, for I cannot become a nexus by the effect of a fraudulent nexum, because my status and unalienable natural rights are not negotiable, and the government, both State and Federal, has not proved that they ever had jurisdiction to change my status, as required by Title 5 U.S.C. Section 556(d), or as defined and set out as a Constitutional requirement in Hagans v. Lavine supra (see also Brady v. U.S. supra);  that any change of status would lawfully have to take place in a Common Law (judicial power) court under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  And further,


  1. That this is to certify that I, John Q. Doe, am a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and inhabitant in the united States of America, domiciled in the California Republic, living and working in Marin County, living under the Common Law, having assumed, among the powers of the Earth, the Separate and Equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitles me, in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Myself and my Posterity, and in order to re-acquire the Birthright that was taken from me by fraud, do hereby asseverate nunc pro tunc and rescind, ab initio, all feudatory contracts with the Federal government and its agencies, and with the corporate State of California and its agencies;  for I, John Q. Doe, being of sound mind and body, do not choose, nor have I ever chosen, to give up, relinquish or otherwise waive any of my God‑given, natural, fundamental, Constitutionally secured rights.  And further,


  1. That my use of the phrase “WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)” above my signature on this document indicates:  (1) that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of government, whether international, national, state or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not;  (2) that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the “Remedy” they must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement into which I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally;  (3) that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the “compelled” benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements;  and  (4) that my valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.  And further,


  1. That I reserve my unalienable right to amend this Affidavit at times and places of my own choosing, according as new facts and revelations are made available to me at various future times and places as yet unknown, and as yet to be determined, given the massive fiscal fraud which has now been sufficiently revealed to me by means of material and other reliable evidence which constitutes satisfactory and incontrovertible proof of the fraud to which I refer in this paragraph and elsewhere in this Affidavit.  And further,


  1. That I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America, without the “United States”, that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge and belief, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1);  and



Further This Affiant saith not.



Subscribed and affirmed to Nunc Pro Tunc on the date of my majority, which day was June 21, 1969.



Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this  __________  day of __________, 199_.


I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207) (see paragraph 38 above):




John Q. Doe, State Citizen and Principal, by special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights


John Q. Doe

c/o general delivery

San Rafael [ZIP code exempt]



California All-Purpose Acknowledgement





COUNTY OF MARIN                 )



On the ________ day of ____________, 199_ Anno Domini, before me personally appeared John Q. Doe, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His signature on this instrument the Person, or the entity upon behalf of which the Person acted, executed the instrument.  Purpose of Notary Public is for identification only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.


WITNESS my hand and official seal.





Notary Public



Reader’s Notes:

(Visited 370 times, 5 visits today)

The police need to learn a few things!

The foreign Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners in the black robes serve commercial warrants so police can enforce commercial code upon living people. That’s against law!

Stop being order takers for a paycheck!

Stop shooting and assaulting so damn many unarmed people.

Traffic is COMMERCE!

Statutes and codes are COMMERCIAL.


Calling anyone a “sovereign citizen” reveals you don’t know what either of those two words mean.

A license is not required to travel, nor is a registration.

People are NOT persons.

The all caps JOHN H. DOE is B.A.R. fraud and human trafficking.

People have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, which shall NOT be infringed.

If you screw with the wrong people, your BOND will be attacked and you’ll be on the street.

You are not part of a government.

You work for a private, bankrupt, foreign corporation.

If there is no victim with an affidavit, there is NO crime, unless you witnessed it.

Warrants require an affidavit and a victim, not a stamp from a foreign jackass in a black robe running an Admiralty tribunal as a bankruptcy administrator.

December 26, 1933 49 Statute 3097 Treaty Series 881 ( Convention on Rights and Duties of States ) stated CONGRESS replaced STATUTES with international law, placing all STATES under international law.

December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations.

22 CFR 92.12-92.31 FR Heading “Foreign Relationship” states that an oath is required to take office.

Title 8 USC 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity).

Title 22 USC (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents.

Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state.

The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund.

In 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under definition. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people.

(Visited 161 times, 2 visits today)

Courtroom Ace in the Hole… Taxable Events

You know… when people attempt to stand up for their rights and defend themselves in their corporate tribunal administrative courts and the court plays dirty and attempts to circumvent rights and railroad people for victimless code violations it just makes them look bad and also typically makes the resolve of the one defending themselves stronger.

The fact that they are so quick to play dirty tells me that they have absolutely no legitimacy and everything that they do is strictly coercion under threat of violence. This house of cards is coming down. (keep reading)

Every bill we get from a corporation is a taxable event….Your Gas, Trash, Water, Cell Phone, Mortgage and car note…etc… It is all a tax. Because it is a tax, there are documents you should file with the IRS. The 1099-A reports the transaction and the 1099-OID returns the tax back to you…minus 10%. So if done correctly, a $150 bill should be returned to you in form of a treasury check of $135.00. But because the United States is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy since 1933…and no gold standard is in place… consequently every U.S. Corporation is also bankrupt due to lack of assets and are therefore unable to discharge any debts.

We, the American people who hold a SSN, have not been told that we are the “Bankers” in this Corporate world and the “Donors” in the world of trusts…and that we have all the tools at our disposal to discharge any public debt. The problem America faces today is not the actions of one man in office (U.S. President) it is that nobody wants to read anything meaningful or important…and because we refuse to educate ourselves, every generation after us gets dumber and dumber.

Almost 10 years ago, I went on a very long journey in trying to make sense out of this chaotic world we live in. I have read everything from the IRS code to the Laws of Nations. I was fortunate enough to have the time to research everything under the sun. It is an incredible maze to say the very least and also very rewarding if one can see the bigger picture of this “puzzle”. The average American’s view of taxation, financing, accounting, politics and the way the judicial system operates may be quite different than from those that have educated themselves. Nothing works the way we have been led to believe…in fact, everything is almost the opposite.

Debt is money, slavery is freedom, war is peace and schooling is education. That is what the “Matrix” wants us to believe. We put our children in the care of others (public schools) because we lack the ability to educate our own children, then we wonder why they can’t even open up a can of beans when they have reached the age of 18.

The powers that be have placed us in a gigantic “farm”…and very few people care about it or they seem to be overwhelmed by this very truth. There is a reason why humans have the same status as animals…this is not just my opinion…this is an actual fact. Why are food stamps under title 7 of the U.S. Code (Department of Agriculture)???

The schools are designed to remove our ability to think. This school model we have today was adopted from the communists believe it or not. Mom goes to the school with a birth certificate of her child and registers not the child, but the ALL CAPS NAME (Since living humans can’t be legally or lawfully registered) so they can do a role call every morning for 12 years and get the child to actually believe that they are the NAME they are calling out every morning. No real history, math, geometry or civics is taught in any of the U.S. public schools. There is a very good reason why the federal government funds State schools every year with about $2,500 per student….so they can decide on what goes into the head of a young man/woman and to make them obedient taxpayers.

Now since everybody today went to some form of “Public Fool System”…the ability to think and to question has been removed. So we end up getting a drivers license, become “patriotic” tax-payers, follow the doctors orders and our children get to pay the 30% Star-Spangled inheritance tax when we die.

This “matrix” that has us blind-folded, ignorant and unaware of the actual truth is not lawless and is limited by the world of the “dead”. It can only operate in the fictional world it has created. Therefore it requires “persons” (not people) to carry out the dirty work and to assist in enslaving all the other “civilly dead” humans. The world of the living is governed by and for the living…there are no “overlords” because the “living” are their own governors. In order for your so-called “Government” to get control over you, they had to get you to go down to the DMV with the Birth Certificate so you could get that drivers license. The Drivers License is what establishes “Legal Residency in the United States (D.C.)” and abolishes one’s lawful domicile in the 50 states of the Union. The Cops are none the wiser and are told to arrest or cite every “Person” without a driver’s license. The Drivers License or State ID has a “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” name…this NAME was created by the State and if it is used, the person using it is subject to penalties and taxes. If you look in the Passport, it has the “Family name” first, followed by the “Given names”. You are NOT using the State’s property when you use a Passport for Identification.

Why is it that we are led to believe that we are “citizens of the United States” if in fact, we are “Citizens of the United States of America”?
The answer to this is simple: to control and to tax you. The U.S. Constitution is very clear on this in the 14th Amendment and it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside”.

Notice that it does NOT say “Citizens of the United States of America”…because a “Citizen of America owes his/her allegiance to a republic and a U.S. citizen owes his allegiance to a democracy…and is subject to the rules of that democracy.

If you ever have to go to court for another stupid traffic ticket or some other victimless “crime”…walk in there with a W-9 form (request for EIN). Let the Judge know that you accept his/her oath of office and instruct the judge to enter a plea on your behalf upon condition that the prosecuting attorney fills out the W-9 form. You just might find out how powerful you are when you realize that every taxable event has to be sent to the IRS for recording because they are attempting to stiff YOU with the tax and to make you the trustee and themselves the beneficiary. I am almost certain they will make the case go away very quickly. If not, the IRS is your friend. They are there to do the accounting for a bankrupt corporation (D.C.)…so let them do it. All that is needed is a W-9, 1096, 1099-a and then a 1099-OID. You pay the fine…you file the forms with the IRS, then you get your refund. The prosecuting attorney gets a bill for the tax and will do everything in his power to prevent another case against that ALL CAPS NAME (not you).

In my honest and educated opinion…this is what being an American is all about. Standing tall in front of every unrighteous man and only serving the righteous one…his creator.

You can only be with God or without…there is no gray area. Chose wisely and govern yourselves accordingly.

I know it is not an "ace" but I liked this picture for this article. ;-)
I know it is not an “ace” but I liked this picture for this article. 😉



(Visited 858 times, 1 visits today)