The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that:
“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What is the penalty for treason? Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”.
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added].
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”.
The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).
However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
JUDGE YOU HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED BY LAW.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
There was a time when you didn’t have to buy car insurance. Risky? Reckless? Maybe. But one thing’s certain: All of us now have to spend exorbitant sums on insurance — whether we ever need it or not.
Consider a modest annual premium of $500. Over five years, that’s $2,500 spent on…nothing, if you never have an accident or need to file a claim. And that’s a good bet, incidentally. You probably know someone — perhaps yourself — who has gone 20 or 30 years without a singe at-fault accident. Yet over a ten-year period, such a blameless driver would nonetheless have had to fork over $5,000 in insurance premiums; $10,000 over 20 years.
That is no small change. It’s also money that could have gone to savings, investments, the kids’ college fund — any number of useful, productive things.
Instead, it’s flushed down the financial black hole of state-mandated insurance.
It’s little wonder many of us have no more than a few thousand bucks in the bank (if that). By the time we pay Uncle Stinker 0- who extracts not just federal taxes but also the weekly fraud payment to Social Insecurity amounting to 7.65 percent of every dollar we earn and which none of us under 40 will ever see again – plus state and local taxes and then all the forced insurance we’re made to buy, we’re broke.
I drove around for several years without insurance when it was still legal in my state to do so. (This was Virginia, early 1980s — when the dying embers of personal liberty still glowed a little bit.) I saved thousands of dollars. Never harmed a soul — or cost anyone a red cent.
But what about the risk to others of allowing people to drive without insurance? It’s a valid question. An equally valid answer is: Should the theoretical risk that an individual might damage someone else’s property or person impose a definite obligation on them to buy insurance “just in case”?
Put that way, things get clearer.Arguably, the only time you or I should be forced to do anything is when it can be shown there is a direct, specific negative impact on others arising out of something we’ve done. Specifically, as individuals – not as members of a group based on age, sex or whatever.
Vague, generalized, broad-brush “risk” shouldn’t be sufficient cause for a legal corn-holing.
And speaking of which: What about the side effects of compulsory coverage?
For one, mandatory insurance cheats us all — because we’re all forced to do business with a cartel. When insurance is optional, insurers have to fight for our business as individuals. It’s much harder for them to shake us down at every turn over things like premium “surcharges” based on trumped-up speeding tickets. We can just say, No Thanks.
But when everyone has to buy a policy, the insurance cartels have us all by the soft parts. We’ve lost our leverage — and of course, they exploit it mercilessly.
It’s no coincidence that the cost of a typical insurance policy has increased obnoxiously since mandatory coverage went into effect over the past 20-25 years. Even “good drivers” who have never filed a claim or been involved in an at-fault accident are compelled to hand over hundreds, if not thousands, to the insurance mafiosi each and every year.That money could have been set aside in a “rainy day” fund – and used to pay out expenses resulting from an accident. Assuming one actually happens, which statistically speaking, it probably won’t. And if it doesn’t, you’d still have your money — instead of the insurance cartel.As far as the risk to others — the main argument used to defend forced coverage — it really comes down to whether you believe in liberty: Which is more important? Your ability (via the coercive apparatus of government) to force others to buy insurance against a small, theoretical risk to you that may and probably never will be needed? Or allowing individuals to decide for themselves what’s best – and leaving them free to act?
Sadly, too many of us no longer believe in liberty. The Fourth of July has become an absurdity — a holiday about “freedom” most of us aren’t even allowed to celebrate with fireworks we light off ourselves anymore. That would be risky, unsafe. Someone might get hurt. So naturally, it’s illegal in most parts of the country.Just like not buying insurance.
This is a list of objections in American law:
Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked of a witness include:
Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer
Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct, but not always.
Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process.)
Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.
Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Generally, a non-expert witness is not allowed to describe what is in a document without the document itself being introduced into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Also, some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
Compound question: multiple questions asked together.Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.
Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.
Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts.
Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.
Misstates evidence / misquotes witness / improper characterization of evidence: this objection often overruled, but can be used to signal a problem to witness, judge and jury.
Counsel is testifying: this objection some time used when counsel is “leading” or “argumentative” or “assumes facts not in evidence.
”Proper reasons for objecting to material evidence include:
Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source.
Fruit of the poisonous tree: the evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal.
Incomplete: opposing party only introducing part of the writing (conversation/act/declaration), taken out of context. Under the evidence rule providing for completeness, other party can move to introduce additional parts.
 If any documents presented for the review, the judge and other party entitled to a complete copy, not a partial copy, of the document. When a witness is presented with a surprise document, he should be able to take time to study it, before he can answer any questions.
Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available. However, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, ( acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.
Proper reasons for objecting to a witness’s answer include:
Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question that does not call for one.
Non-responsive: the witness’s response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all
Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question.
Example: “Did your mother call?” “Yeah. She called at 3:00.” Opposing counsel can object to the latter part of this statement, since it answers a question that was not asked. With some concern for annoying the court, counsel will selectively use this to prevent a witness from getting into self-serving answers.
The Supreme Court held in Grannis v. Ordean (1914) 234 US 385 at 395, that “even in names, due process of law does not require ideal accuracy. In the spelling and pronunciation of proper names there are no generally accepted standards, and the well-established doctrine of idem sonans…is recognition of this.” In that case, a person with the unusual name of Albert Gilfuss ignored the delivery of a summons and court pleadings against “Albert Gilfuss” (presumably typed in all-caps) and the default judgment against him was binding. A similar ruling on a misspelling on an indictment in Faust v. US (1896) 163 US 452.
[Idem Sonans is when a name sounds the same, but spelled differently. And thus why, if you answer to a name that sounds the same as yours, yet is spelled in all caps, you give the court jurisdiction. So don’t answer! Also, notice that Albert had these papers “delivered” to him, insinuating he had an address, which gave the court jurisdiction.]
In a Missouri arraignment in 1996, “one of the ‘freemen’ stood up to announce that…he refused to recognize anything but his ‘full Christian name’ (evidently not printed in all caps and with some punctuation). This resulted in an unusual scene. An arrest warrant was issued and executed for the defendant’s failure to appear at his arraignment even though he was physically present in the court room.” J.W. Nixon & E.R. Ardini, Combating Common Law Courts, Criminal Justice, spring 1998, p.14.
[This is why it is so important not to appear before their courts.
Take note of these:
Maxims of Law: The presence of the body cures the error in the name; the truth of the name cures an error in the description.
An error in the name is immaterial if the body is certain. An error in the name is nothing when there is certainty as to the person. The truth of the demonstration removes the error of the name.
A general appearance cures antecedent irregularity of process, a defective service, etc.Certain legal consequences are attached to the voluntary act of a person.]
In one instance, a federal judge, confronted with a tax protester whose argument consisted of the fact that all the tax and legal documents spelled his name out in capitals in a normal way while he insisted his name was spelled out with capitals and lower case letters and with punctuation in the middle (i.e. Edgar Francis., Bradley), ordered him to undergo psychiatric examination (which subsequently found him to be competent to stand trial). B.L. Kaufman, Judge Orders Defendant Tested, Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/17/98.
[Can you blame the judge? Here is a guy admitting the name on these documents is his name! Then turns around and says it’s not his name (because it’s not spelled that way). This guy is obviously confused (or deceived)]
So remember, if a court yells out a name that “sounds” like your name, and you know that the name called out is not your name (because the court has spelled it in all capital letters), then do not answer to that fictitious name!
State v. R.E. Wilson (Mont.Supm unpub 12/3/98). Appellant argued that his convictions, for driving without a license or insurance or registration, was invalid solely because the court papers identified him as “Richard E. Wilson,” whereas he claimed his actual name is “Richard Earl., of Wilson” (period after Earl and no capital for Wilson), consisting of his “nomen, pronomen and cognomentation” in that order. The court rejected this argument by ruling, “The caption more than adequately identifies [the] appellant as the party in interest…and appellant’s efforts to distinguish his name from that shown on the caption by means of punctuation and terminology are wholly unpersuasive.”
[The appellant basically argued that he can drive without a license solely because the court misspelled his name.
This is not true.
#1: The way a court spells a name is not an excuse for driving without a license. The reason for exercising your duty of movement on the common way is solely because Christ commanded us to do so without permission from men.
#2. The fact that he admitted to “driving” gave them jurisdiction because it’s a commercial term.
#3: He admitted to being, or did not refute the accusation that he was, an “appellant” and a “party” to the action, which gave the court jurisdiction.]
And approximately at the same time, The Cincinnati Enquirer (12/16/98) reported that an Ohio court rejected that a defendant who had taken to identifying himself as “Jack Edward; Taylor” was not the jack Edward Taylor” named in the court documents, especially since there were plenty of old letters and other papers he had signed in the usual way and sometimes without his middle name. The verdict was rebutted on use of semicolon.
[This defendant, by his own act, showed himself to be a false witness by signing his name on other pieces of paper the same way that he himself said it was not spelled. By signing his name to the “fictitious name” in all caps, he stood as surety in the flesh for the “person” the State created. He became “one flesh” and merged with a lie. The State used his own evidence against him. This is God’s rod of correction for having a double mind.]
US v. Weatherley (ED Penn 1998) 12 F.Supp.2d 469. Threatened to sue the court clerk and others if they didn’t address all their mail and paperwork to a very strange and long description of him with his name interrupted by a colon and his street address without a zip code.
[Followers of Christ are forbidden to sue others (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) and it is not the character of a bondman of Christ to use threats against others. The words we speak will be used to judge us as to whether we are truely of God, or of the world.]
US v. Klimek (ED Penn 1997) 952 F.Supp 1100. Tried to refuse all pleadings and court papers that spelled his name in all caps and without intervening punctuation.
Swartzendruber v. US (WD Mo unpub 4/17/97). Threatened to refuse any court papers that printed her name in the normal way or which were addressed in the normal way, didn’t help because her case was immediately dismissed.
In re Busby (MD Fla unpub 10/2/98) 82 AFTR2d 6924. Used colon in midst of name in pleadings, but case option had normal name.
When they try to call you an “operator”… I am sure that we have all heard the phrase: “Owned and OPERATED by…” which clearly would be in reference to a commercial venture.
The foregoing court citation clearly shows that the “operator’s license” permits engagement in commercial activity.
“Section 1. (b) The word “operator” shall include all persons, firms, associations and corporations who operate motor vehicles upon any public highway in this state and thereby engage in the transportation of persons or property for hire or compensation, but shall not include any person, firm, association or corporation who solely transports by motor vehicle persons to and from or to and from attendance upon any public school or who solely transports his or its own property, or employees, or both, and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation…Section 2. Each operator of a motor vehicle within this state who transports or desires to transport for compensation or hire persons or property upon or over any public highway within this state shall apply to and secure from the board of equalization of the State of California a license to operate each and all of the motor vehicles which such operator desires to operate or which such operator from time to time may operate.”~ Stats. 1925, ch 412, p. 833. Approved by the Governor May 23, 1925.
I wonder what might happen if everyone who has a driver license rescinded the contract with the DMV based on fraud. If you or your car are not engaged in the PROFESSION being regulated then you’ve been DEFRAUDED because DUMB ADULTS MISLEAD YOU.
“The modern definition of “traffic” is commerce; trade; the subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, canal, etc.” Webster’s 1931 Dictionary; Withey v. Fowler Co., 164 Iowa 377, 145 N.W. 923, 927; Maner v. State, 181 Ga. 254, 181 S.E. 856, 858; Allen v. City of Bellingham, 95 Wash. 12, 163 P. 18, 27; Stewart v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co., 223 Mass. 525, 112 N.E. 218, 219.US v Golden Gate Bridge
Have you ever had someone use you to get what they want? Well, the police are trained professionals at using you to get you to do what they want. Anything that you say or do will always be used against you, never to defend you. Keep this in mind, and know that when you do things the “easy way” with the police, you are likely not only acting in fraud, but defeating yourself at the same time.
Coming to you from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Office of Staff Attorneys; it is none other than the Section 1983 Outline. Very interesting reading especially in these days where most of the “good stuff” is either scrubbed or not searchable. Share freely! Here is the link to download.
I am constantly getting the question: “I got arrested and now I have court in a week… what do I do???” Right away I want to say that the following strategy will NOT WORK for you if you have an actual victim or contractual obligation that require specific performance with government (like a driver’s licensing agreement or tax filings where you admit to being a “taxpayer”). With that being said…
The first step to avoiding Kangaroo Court is to challenge jurisdiction pre-arraignment, before any plea is entered (DO NOT ENTER PLEAS). You challenge jurisdiction by filing a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, WRITTEN SUBMISSION not oral arguments. You can file a Motion to Dismiss 30 seconds after you receive your ticket or release. You don’t need an arraignment date, or even a Judge’s name to proceed.
If you file a Motion to Dismiss PRE-ARRAIGNMENT, the Judge is estopped from entering a plea on your behalf. (Estopped = prevented, precluded)
She/He MUST ANSWER your Motion, yea or nay before any further court business may proceed. If the Motion is denied, you simply file a 2nd, then a 3rd. Eventually they will screw up and break the law. Usually they will do this by ignoring your Motion and attempting to reset, schedule another arraignment, which is what you want.
A judge has 10 days (generally) to rule on your Motion. The DA also has that same 10 day window to file a Motion to Strike YOUR Motion.
Silence is not an option.
They MUST respond or be in default.
Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike = Demurrer where not allowed.
In criminal cases, such as felonies…unlike traffic tickets there WILL be an Affidavit, and a sworn complaint. The key to beating criminal cases is to prove official or juducial misconduct. A LEO lying on an Criminal Affidavit is a get out of jail free card for you, and a possible criminal indictment for him.
The biggest problem and missing link for anarchists, sovereigns, and people who wish to be free is ENFORCEMENT. Everybody knows somebody who did something once or twice, and everybody has a strategy or theory.
The key is enforcing the laws, disciplinary actions that are already on the books. The Constitution and every state Constitution has procedures in place RIGHT NOW to end the trickery.
Anarchists don’t believe it and sovereigns are hit and miss.
In your past case or even a new one, any case:
It all starts with the arraignment. If you file a Demurrer (California)/Motion to Dismiss (other states) based on lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, they CANNOT PROCEED.
They cannot enter a plea on your behalf.
They cannot schedule a trial date.
They cannot RE-SCHEDULE an arraignment.
The Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss cannot be ignored.
The Judge MUST rule on the Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss before any other business proceeds. The district attorney (prosecutor) has the OPTION to challenge your Demurrer but doesn’t have to. The deadline is 10 days in most jurisdictions.
If the Judge doesn’t respond he is in default. If the prosecuor responds AFTER 10 days HE is in default.
You can then file a Writ with the Chief Clerk of that court or a higher court to dismiss the case entirely on procedural grounds violations.
You then file criminal affidavits with the State Attorney General. Find the affidavits associated with the arrests and find the provable lies in them. Affidavits are sworn under penalty of perjury. You lie, you go to prison. At a bare minimum, the case based on the false testimony will be thrown out and overturned. Think about death row inmates, life sentences are overturned everyday due to false testimony.
Once you open a criminal perjury case against the law enforcement officers, district attorney, judges, etc. the investigation becomes a matter of public record. The state attorney general IS NOT going to risk prison, destroying his life family political ambitions to protect a few dumb cops. And if he does, even better.
Whether the investigation leads to arrests and indictments is irrelevant. You have used the state attorney general as your own private investigator, for free. File a Freedom of Information Act request, Open Records Act request for ALL documentation. Then take that documentation to a lawyer for your civil suit.
That’s how you sue. Get the State AG to do your work for free, first.
JUDGES DO NOT discipline LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Only the Executive Branch can DIRECTLY discipline, investigate the Executive Branch. Supervisors investigate and discipline their subordinates, yes? That is the State Attorney general’s role. So always remember to be making a record of everything and build your own case. You need to take pictures of ALL paperwork, letters given to you. The small details make a big difference.
If you have been a victim of official misconduct you have an open and shut case in your favor. You also have a personal civil claim against the “citizen arrestor”. You can also drop common law liens on him as well. Each State has it’s own rules, but since it will always be someone acting under the Color of Law it can go directly to the federal courts. In an abuse of power claim, you won’t win by saying they violated your Rights, but if you make the claim they overstepped their authority and that in effect denied your Rights and caused you damages they allow it. The Civil Rights claim should never be the main claim but the effect of their unlawful actions causing you harm in that it violated Rights.
File a criminal affidavit alleging perjury with the State Attorney general and State police as soon as you can. If a cop offers false testimony in an affidavit or trial there is a process for that too. And, if you don’t know or don’t follow the process, that’s on you. It could be the Mayor or Chief of Police… it really doesn’t matter who it is.
The three branches of government are duplicated at every level.
I would advise people to avoid ALL civil rights claims. Why? Because the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. So is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Can you use their own unconstitutional laws against them? Sure! States Rights. The Supremacy Clause. But you are arguing against the Constitution when you argue civil rights violation. You don’t need the feds. Your state Constitution, legislature, Supreme Court, and State Attorney General is enough.
Use your state branches of government AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Use the State Attorney General and State Police against local law enforcement, district attorneys, Mayors, City Council and County Commissioners, and County Sheriffs. If the Governor and State Attorney General disobey? Use the State Legislature to investigate, and then IMPEACH them. You can also use the State Supreme Court and District Courts to seek injunctions (restraining orders) and Writs of Mandamus. You can always THREATEN them with THEIR laws and policies, but those policies are not there to protect US, obviously. I have determined that I will never seek protection under any code or policy, not even the Constitution.
Those are THEIR restraints, their rules, not mine.
Show me evidence of YOUR authority, I make no claims.
Stay out of court, do not make physical appearances. You want EVERYTHING IN WRITING.
Submit your interrogatories in writing. Do not get stuck in a physical cross-examination. They will lie. The Judge will sustain their objections and overrule yours. There may or may not be a record.
When you file your Motions (Objections), Interrogatories (Examinations), Requests for Discovery, Subpoenas Duces Tecum,
all IN WRITING, they can’t bully you or run game. They MUST RESPOND in writing, under penalty of perjury automatically. And they won’t ever want to do that. They will remain silent and risk losing the case by default rather than risk going to prison by making false statements. Get their response in writing, under penalty of perjury. If you don’t direct your objections, complaints, allegations PROPERLY, you will just get the runaround and become one of those who swear “nothing works, nothing matters”.
You do not pay traffic tickets at the Post Office, correct?
Do you get heart surgery at the dentist’s office?
It doesn’t matter what the initial charge is, honestly (unless you ARE guilty of a common law crime…murder, assault,
theft). ALWAYS file a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice the entire claim and a Motion to Strike any paperwork filed by others. Like the district attorney, or Plaintiff/Defendant in Civil suit.
EVERY AFFIDAVIT THEY WRITE IS A LIE! If there is no victim YOU ARE LYING!
No victim + No contract to perform = LIE
There’s only one answer/solution to the entire problem.
From now on, all correspondence and Motions are to be submitted in WRITING. This FORCES them to respond in writing, on the record, with PROOF of their trickery. We have all been bamboozled by movies and television. You can fight an entire case and never have to set foot in court. Men on Death Row in Federal prison do it every day.
Every word uttered in a court room is entered IN WRITING FIRST. The only problem is, you never see those documents because your lawyer doesn’t show you or give you his filings. We absolutely have to learn how to file ALL our own paperwork and ALL disciplinary paperwork — Writs of Mandamus, Writs of Praecipe (order to dismiss sent to Court Clerk…yes CLERKS have the power to dismiss cases).
Let’s talk about handling your upcoming case.
It is quite easy to challenge jurisdiction without “challenging jurisdiction” by making them prove it with declarations because a “challenge” is equal to dishonor. When I use the term “challenge”, it is just because that is the legal term, and what people are familiar with. Properly done, you are asserting/declaring facts for them to rebut. Nothing more.
You can possibly use demurrers or motions as well but they need to specifically challenge the presumption of jurisdiction and NOT argue statutory law or some other nonsense.
No victim + No contract to perform = No jurisdiction. Three things to remember.
If there is a victim, that gives Personal jurisdiction.
If there is a contract to perform, that gives Subject-matter jurisdiction
It’s really just that simple.
Folks try to spin it 1,000 different ways, throw in legal mumbo jumbo, Latin phrases, the Constitution… and they are just walking into the spider web.
If you don’t have a victim or a contract, you don’t have a case. Leave all the extra crap out of it with these criminals and STAY ON MESSAGE. They are only playing with you because you are playing with them. So stop playing, start prosecuting non-performance.
When you file a motion to dismiss with prejudice they are stuck. There is literally nothing they can do except keep screwing up and digging a bigger hole for any appeal to a higher court.
They will keep resetting “arraignments” and ignoring your paperwork. I once went to arraignments 4 times in Clatsop county before they were able to get a good transcript, and the only reason why they were successful is because I was strapped to a chair in a little room in the jail “appearing” by video in the courtroom. Yes, I failed but at the time I didn’t knew to never argue, never go to court, and never make oral motions or arguments or enter pleas. And when an involuntary plea is entered send a Declaration of Non-Consent to the court clerk.
The hardest part of all this is to KEEP IT SIMPLE and to the point. Leave out the extra stuff, emotional outbursts, disputable claims like; “I am Sovereign”, “my birth certificate is money”. You do not even need to cite points and authorities.
Again, let’s all make sure we understand what “Personal” and “Subject-Matter” Jurisdiction is.
Personal Jurisdiction means that they have a claim on your PERSON, because you harmed or injured another PERSON.
That’s what extradition treaties are for. To bring your PERSON BACK to the scene of the crime.
Examples of courts with Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:
These are all subject-matter jurisdiction venues because there is presumed to be a contract in place. They are specific issues, usually related to some sort of contract or business (commercial, UCC) dispute.
So, victims or contracts… that’s 99.99999999999% of it.
Two simple things. Not 30,000.
The governments try to say, “well we have PERSONAL jurisdiction over our citizens…you live here, you play by our rules” which is pure lies. So next time ASK “if you believe that to be true Mr. district attorney, prove it. Show me proof of “citizenship” and the laws that govern citizens.”
CODE is not LAW.
That’s why they are called a Transportation CODE, or a Municipal CODE, or a Tax CODE, or a Uniform CODE for Military Justice. Where is the contract where I agreed to your Code and citizenship and knowingly waived my Natural Rights? Show me the evidence and I will be happy to obey. Get the ideas of right and wrong out of your head and think objectively. How many people can afford to take off work, school and go to court even once a week? The answer is no one can afford that.
Going to court plays right into their hands and impoverishes YOU. Eventually you lose your job, run out of time, money, and energy. In addition to the possibility of saying or doing the wrong thing, being goaded into losing your temper and there you go… a free place to stay for a while for contempt. Not to mention possible getting your butt kicked, tazed, or even possibly murdered. Never put your physical person, body, or being in jeopardy unless you are CERTAIN of what you are doing and the
There are people out there that are skilled and fearless in making physical court appearances. They are secure in their knowledge and won’t screw it up and say the wrong thing. This is NOT the average person. I do recommend going to court to watch how they operate though. Know your enemy. Some administrators (usually called judges) are looking for reasons to help folks and some are looking for reasons to roast folks. If you go in there guns hot and popping off to one that intended to get you out of there and off their books, then you’re done. Conversely, if you go in without putting them on notice from the get go, you are not going to have a good time. The only common denominators with folks winning, despite whatever strategy they use, is having no fear and the right psychology. Think of it as a game of poker, you have the winning hand and the river has already been turned. The most important thing is to comprehend YOUR OWN STATUS AND AUTHORITY. You’ve already won unless you concede (and if you do it right).
All will continue to lose and miss money until you learn to handle these people ADMINISTRATIVELY.
What does that mean?
Paperwork. Drafted properly, submitted to the correct venue and ENFORCED with THEIR own rules, and skip the Points and Authorities… when you are challenging the presumption of jurisdiction BEFORE arraignment or trial you don’t need them.
Information and Belief
“Language used in legal proceedings to qualify a statement and prevent a claim of perjury. A person…”
Information and Belief is similar to an affidavit but not subject to perjury charges if you are proven
wrong. Here is an example:
a) To the best of my knowledge I am not and have never been contracted with the State of California or the city of
Anaheim. The absence of documentary evidence proving a contractual relationship would indicate a lack of both personal
and subject-matter jurisdiction.
b) On the day/night in question I did not commit a common law crime, or damage any person or property. The absence of a
sworn affidavit, verifiable complaint, or forensic evidence proving I did commit a common law crime or am responsible
for damages, would indicate lack of both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.
a) equals no contracts
b) equals no victims
You are challenging the presumption of both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. Criminal and Civil and anything
else they are claiming. And now the ball is in their court to refute, rebut your information/affidavit.
If they don’t and try to ignore you, they have lost by default. Now you just have to ENFORCE their default. To Enforce the default. You can perhaps use a notice of default, or summary judgement, but more importantly, EVERY government employee has supervisors, including judges. Climb the ladder.
That’s what I mean by enforcement and I’m not talking about a court of appeals.
1. Use the judicial misconduct procedures.
2. File a Writ of Mandamus in a higher court — district or circuit or Supreme to get the guy at the bottom to do
If you went to a burger joint and ordered a Big Mac and the drive thru gives you a fish combo, what do you do? Do you circle the drive thru 100 more times, complaining with each new fish sandwich or empty bag? Or do you get management involved?
What do you do if YOU are the OWNER?
There’s a multitude of bad things that can happen to a Judge who doesn’t do her/his job and we were not taught to make these bad things come to life. So how exactly do you climb that ladder? So how exactly would you climb the chain of command in court? These are excellent questions, and one of the biggest pieces to this puzzle. People get frustrated or lose because they don’t know the chain of command. ALMOST every court should have a Chief Justice and several clerks of which one is the Chief Clerk, and all lower courts are modeled after the national court structure — the Supreme Court and District courts.
YOU don’t get to decide some arbitrary response date. The Judicial Branch is governed by municipal code, “local rules” for counties and cities and California Rules of Procedure for all others. Most of which defer to the Federal Rules of Procedure
ALL of which outline the disciplinary actions that may be taken against wayward gov officials, and/or jurists.
Go after their employee fidelity bonds (more about that to come).
And in case you were wondering, a judge can’t “quash” an affidavit or other filing unless you ALLOW him to. If they attempt to, a Notice of Default in Dishonor should be in order. Nobody can “quash” an affidavit. They either rebut or acquiesce. Period.
If they claim to have “quashed” your filing, that is just a way to them telling you that they have ignored it. Don’t allow them to skate. This is also why I don’t recommend going into courtrooms, because they are skilled professionals and are very good at deceiving people. You might say: “So you are refusing to address my affidavit? My affidavit stands as fact unless you wish to rebut. Your willfull non-response will be administrative default… Do you understand that I never gave you power of attorney so you don’t have the authority to do anything but dismiss now?”
Another really good question is: “Are you a member of the BAR?”
They will tell you that “If your not going to enter a plea, then I will enter one for you.” Which in reality is practicing law
from the bench and is both a felony and a crime that they do not have immunity from prosecution of, and you have to be the one to hold them accountable. They will usually just put it off for another hearing to try again.
If this happens, you enter in a notice of fault, in dishonor with opportunity to cure. Get it notarized, and give them one week before the next hearing to respond or dismiss/discharge, and also send copies to your state attorney general and state commissioner. You could give them 100 days and they still couldn’t respond to what you send them send under their full commercial liability. Any affidavit that goes unrebutted stands as fact. I can say I’m a pink elephant… And if they don’t respond then I am lawfully a pink elephant. If you are looking for the response time for Judges, DAs, prosecutors to respond/answer to Motions to Dismiss or Demurrers, typically the Plaintiff (prosecutor) has 10 days to respond to ANYTHING you file…with the Judge having “discretion” as to his response, or ruling.
In a physical appearance the Judge can answer immediately, possibly ignore you, adjourn the hearing proceeding until he
has had time to research the issue raised and THEN answer. That’s what is not happening in most cases of sovereigns, freemen, and Constitutionalists cases. That’s where the abuse of judicial discretion charge comes in. Go to the top – State Attorney General, State Commissioner. File a Notice of Default in dishonor with an opportunity to cure, notarized and sent to the prosecutor. And if they don’t respond, you file a civil suit.
“Some people view the abuse of discretion standard as a judicial rubber stamp. (Cf. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America (4th Cir. 1977) 561 F.2d 494, 505-506.) It has often been said that a court acts within its discretion whenever there is an “absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.” (People v. Preyer (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 568, 573.) As long as the court acts within the “bounds of reason” (ibid.), the court does not abuse its discretion.
The abuse of discretion standard, however, is not an abstract test based on whether the trial court judge was totally irrational. Instead, the court discretion is grounded in the policy and purpose of the statutes or laws being applied. “[T]rial court discretion is not unlimited. ‛The discretion of a trial judge is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power, but a legal discretion, which is subject to the limitations of legal principles governing the subject of it’s action, and to reversal on appeal where no reasonable basis for the action is shown. [Citation.]’ (6 Witkin (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 244, p. 4235 . . .)” (Westside Community for Independent Living v. Obledo (1983) 33 Cal.3d 348, 355.) “[J]udicial discretion must be measured against the general rules of law and, in the case of a statutory grant of discretion, against the specific law that grants the discretion. [Citations.]” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 393-394.)” ~ http://www.sdap.org/news-10-10-08.html
Learn about the “Abuse of Discretion Standard”, and how to Argue it. Virtually every argument in an opening brief is deficient without setting forth the standard of review and explaining how there was error under the standard. It can be a little trickier if you have a potential criminal conviction and not just a traffic or municipal case, but the same basics apply. I know some of you are thinking, “why don’t they just give me the paperwork and shut up already?” You absolutely have to understand what has gone wrong to this point and what NOT TO DO going forward. The paperwork is secondary to know knowledge base. “Paperwork” without proper understanding is a one way ticket to jail or the poorhouse. When you really wrap your head around this basic concept, you won’t need the paperwork. You will be able to walk into any courtroom in America and successfully defend anyone sitting in there. Even felony criminal cases.
No matter what you have been led to believe, there is no such thing as magic bullets. It’s a dogfight, not a 15 round boxing match that ends in a decision. You go for the throat and don’t let go until they bleed out. I’m protective over my docs because of I give them to anyone and everyone, and they lose, guess who’s “fault” it is… Oh he’s a witchdoctor. He doesn’t know what he is talking about… he got me thrown in jail. No. YOU did. YOU either screwed it up or didn’t follow through or didn’t enforce it. I take pride in the years worth of the fruits of my blood sweat and tears.
I’m willing to go in a cage because I’m free regardless… And that scares the pants off of these fraudulent peon servants. They see it. They feel it. I speak with authority whether it’s with my filings or speak it with a smile into their beady little eyes. This information will not “free” you. “Being” free is up to YOU.
File a a “false imprisonment” criminal affidavit and a civil suit if you have been wronged, the precedent for the going rate is $1.8m per day, in case you didn’t know. And alays keep it simple. Did they have a warrant? Did they contact the Department of State who then contacted you? For any felony complaint, they also have to testify to the US District court you’re a corporation also known as a “person” before hand too. If they restricted your movement AT ALL, then you have a winner. Leave out all the nonsense.
First things first, you need to challenge jurisdiction with a Demurrer, or Motion to Dismiss before anything else. This CAN be done electronically or certified mail, or hand delivered. So as you’ve seen here and a zillion other places, it doesn’t matter WHAT you file if the Judge ignores or denies your paperwork and you don’t have the proper response.
If you are physically present in the courtroom, they can ignore your paperwork, jam you up and just railroad you. So, deny all verbal motions, all questions, all oral arguments. If you appear ON PAPER ONLY, with your response (Demurrer), obviously the court, district attorney can’t respond verbally. This means they have to do so in writing. Which puts their careers in jeopardy if they lie, ignore, or violate your right to due process (which includes all the proper procedures).
So you file your demure challenge on time and properly. Then just sit back and wait for a reply? When there is no reply and the next scheduled court date arrives. What then? You file it again, this time with the additional due process and judicial discretion violations. You can also file to recuse, Writ of Mandamus to compel the judge to obey the law, Writ of Praecipe to
compel the court clerk to dismiss on procedural grounds.
File your paperwork on the day of court. It is not wise to give your adversary advance warning of your plans. This is the entire point of the “stay out of court”. Some will say, “what if he issues a warrant?” A judge who issues a warrant on a defendant who PROPERLY responded and “appeared” in court to challenge jurisdiction has perjured himself and committed a felony.
It’s just that simple.
You should be ecstatic for a judge to issue a warrant if you file a Demurrer. That’s an instant cause for dismissal and multi-million dollar lawsuit. You have absolutely nothing to lose by making a Special Appearance on paper ONLY. Whether speeding, red light, seat belt or even DUI, the blueprint is the same. The Demurrer (Cali, Texas other common law states) or Motion to dismiss is an OBJECTION. You are NOT arguing case law, historical precedents, the constitutionality of statutes. You are simply stating, “This does not apply to me or the circumstances of this alleged claim. That’s it. Can you include all that other crap? Absolutely, but don’t be like most and lose focus. The focus is YOU and YOUR status
So what would be the basis of your Demurrer/Motion to Dismiss with prejudice? The basis is your Affidavit or Information and Belief. We should all be familiar with an affidavit. An Information and Belief is EXACTLY THE SAME (minus the jurat aka penalty of perjury).
There are only 2 things to deny in your affidavit or Info & Belief
(a) I am NOT contracted with the State of California or any political subdivision therein
(b) I did NOT commit any common law crime, harm any person, or commit property damage on the day/night/time in
A and B are both denials of personal AND subject-matter jurisdiction.
Once submitted, they can’t be ignored and MUST BE REBUTTED with physical victims, documentary evidence (contracts,
surveillance footage, etc.) or a WRITTEN REBUTTAL from the Plaintiff (State) itself. No district attorney is going to testify that you committed a crime under penalty of perjury. They are ALWAYS under oath anyway….simply not going to risk it.
This is a sample, rough, not to be used in any other case or jurisdiction. But it will give you a feel for what your
affidavit or Info & Belief should look like. See sample here.
- Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. U.S. v. Dickerson, 413 F2d 1111
- A person cannot be forced to submit records for inspection. U.S.A. & Fred J. Rosauer v. Johanna; Van Poperin, U.S. District Court of Minn., 4th Div. 4-71 Civil 635
- The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486,489
- IRS summons was not entitled to enforcement if the purpose of the investigation was to obtain evidence for a pending criminal case. Donaldson v. U.S., 400 U.S. 517 (1971)
- One does not derive income be rendering services and charging for them. Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed Rep 110
- The citizen is immune, has a right to be free from such taxation and regulating, duties, obligations, sanctions as a matter of law. U.S. v. Texas, 384 U.S. 155; Wilson v. U.S., 221 U.S. 361
- Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights….Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. U.S. v. Dickerson, 413 F2d 1111
- The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to the pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform through the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, US Constitution
- Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the constitution. Regal Drug Co. v. Wardell, 260 U.S. 386
- Pennsylvania declares income tax, graduated style, as illegal, and outlaws it in the state of Pennsylvania. Amidon v. Kane, Pa.279 A.2d 53
- Internal Revenue Service could not seize private records even with a seizure warrant. Vincent R. Hill v. Jay G. Philpott, Dist. Dir. Of IRS, et al, No. 18487, Jan. 1971, 7th Cir. Ct. Of Appeals
- Jeopardy Assessment of IRS now prohibited by Supreme Court in January 13, 1976. Laing v. U.S., 493 F2d 1211
- IRS must obtain a court order to compel a taxpayer to surrender his books, papers and records for audit. Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945 (9 C.A., 1973); 26 U.S.C., Section 7402(b)
Reasonable compensation for labor on service rendered is not profit. Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 PA. 239
- There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. Oliver v. Halstead, 196 V.A. 992
- The right to labour and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry. Bogni v. Perotti, 112 N.E. 643
- The right to acquire property includes the right to acquire property by labour. State v. Julow, 31 S.W. 781; 48 Am Jur 2d, Sections 1-3
- The right of the citizen to choose and follow an innocent occupation is both a personal and property right. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall 321
- Federal reserve notes are valueless. IRC, Section 1.1001-1 (4657) C.C.H.
- A check is not money. School Dist. v. U.S. Nat’l. Bank, 211 P2d 723
- The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. (Private citizen/individual is not a person) 26 U.S.C., Section 7343
- No excise tax may be imposed upon a right secured by the Constitution. Grosican v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
- An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax. Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720 The individual right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise (tax) cannot be imposed. Redfield v. Fisher, 135 Ore 180
- An excise tax involves the exercise of a privilege. Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107
- Realizing and receiving income is not a privilege that can be taxed. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455
- Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453, 456
- It cannot be denied that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax it by means other than an income tax, but the Legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege. Jack Cole Co. v. Alfred T. McFarland, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)
- Taxpayer who alleged unlawful seizure and subsequent use of his tax information could pursue remedy through Bivens action, or through other applicable tort action. Stokwitz v. U.S., 831 F2d 893 (9th Cir. 1987)
- Excise tax is one not directly imposed upon persons or property. New Neighborhoods v. WVA. Workers Comp. Fund, 886 F2d 714 (7th Cir. 1986)
- Wages are income for purpose of internal revenue. U.S. v. Connor, 898 F2d 942 (3 rd Cir. 1990); Coleman v. CIR, 791 F2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
- Properly executed levy does not automatically entitle government to taxpayer property. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gill, 960 F2d 336 (3rd Cir. 1992)
- Notice of deficiency is “ticket” to the court that allows taxpayer to challenge tax assessment before paying it. Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992)
- To prove violation of tax evasion statute, government must demonstrate the existence of a tax deficiency, that the defendant acted willfully, and that the defendant took an affirmative step to elude or defeat the payment of tax. U.S. v. Robinson, 974 F2d 575 (5th Cir. 1992); U.S. v. Beall, 970 F2d 343 (7th Cir. 1992)
- When there is reasonable doubt about meaning of revenue statute, doubt is resolved in favor of those taxed. Security Bank Minnesota v. CIR, 994 F2d 432 (8th Cir. 1993)
- Objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness. To show willfulness in criminal tax cases, government must show awareness of legal duty. U.S. v. Cheek, 882 F2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1989)
- U.S. v. Hilgeford, 7 F3d 1340 (7th Cir. 1993)
- Offense of failure to file tax return consists of three elements: 1) defendant was required to file tax return; 2) he failed to file return; and 3) he acted willfully. U.S. v. Nichols, 9 F3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1993)
- Unlike treasury regulations, IRS rulings do not have the force of law and are merely persuasive authority. Constantino v. TRW. Inc., 13 F3d 969 (6th Cir. 1994)
- Once proper assessment has been made, taxpayer’s recourse is to pay the tax and bring suit for refund. Hempel v. U.S., 14 F3d 572 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Tax court decision on questions of statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review. Wolpaw v. CIR, 47 F3d 787 (6th Cir. 1995)
- Federal tax liens do not automatically prime all other liens; rather, priority is government by federal common law principle that first in time is first in right. Monica Fuel, Inc. v. IRS, 56 F3d 508 (3rd Cir. 1995)
- The state can only tax and regulate something it created. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wallace 418
- The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a
state. NY RE: Merriam, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1973)
- When section 6020(b) is lifted out of the Code and read literally, as petitioner has done, its scope is broad and its meaning and purpose hazy. But the Internal Revenue Code cannot be so read, for each section is not a self-contained whole, but rather a building block of a complex, interrelated statute. Based on its location in chapter 61 and the lack of any cross-references (other than the word “return”), section 6020(b) is not to be read as a prerequisite to the Commissioner’s proceeding under section 6201(a)(1)(ch.63). Hartman v. C.I.R., 65 T.C. 542 (1975)
- The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world. T.D.O. No. 150-01, 51 Fed Reg 9571, 2-27-86
- The term “employee” specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, territory, or political subdivision thereof or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. Fed. Reg., Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1943, Sec 404.104, pg 12267
- Absent notice, such as where regulation is not sufficiently clear as to warn party of what is expected of it, agency may not deprive party of property by imposing civil or criminal liability. General Electric Co. v. E. P. A., 53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
- Federal Courts must first determine what property or rights to property an individual has under state law in applying a federal revenue act for purpose of determining whether property may be sold for unpaid taxes. Herndon v. U.S., 501 F.2d 1219 (1974)
- A failure substantially to comply with the statutory requirements as to the mode and manner or making the levy invalidates the tax; and there must be strict compliance with mandatory procedures…no tax can be sustained as valid unless it is levied in accordance to the letter of the statute. Hough v. North Adams, 82 N.E. 46
- Anything that is a right cannot be subject to conditions or licensing. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275
- The general term “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Ballard v. United States, 535 Fed.Rep.2d 400, 404 (1967)
- With the IRS’s broad power must come a concomitant responsibility to exercise it within the confines of the law. The Court has emphasized that no official is above the law, and that broad powers present broad opportunities for abuse. Mark v. Groff, 521 F.2d 1380
- The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed upon them and their property seized. Botta v. Scanlon, 228 F.2d 304 (1961)
- A lien is security for a debt, duty or obligation. Hurley v. Boston, 54 N.E.2d 183
- A lien is a charge on property for payment of a debt or duty. Harpeth Motors, 135 F.Supp. 863
- Lien is a charge on property to secure payment or performance of duty, debt, or other obligation. U.S. v. Phillips, 267 F.2d 374
- Secretary of Treasury cannot, by regulations, alter revenue laws. Morril v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466 (1883)
$1,000,000 in damages. Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Section 801(a)
- Congress does not have the authority and jurisdiction to regulate commerce within the 50 states of the Union. United States v. Scarborough, 431 U.S. 563
- Stops levies against personal bank accounts. U.S. v. Nat’l. Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713; 105 S.Ct. 2919
- Treasury regulations require that the Form 23-C contain the taxpayer’s name, social security number and address, the name of the corporation, the character of the liability assessed, the amount of the tax, the taxable period involved, and the signature of a responsible officer (26 CFR, Section 301.6203-1). Robinson v. U.S., 920 F.2d 1157; Brewer v. U.S., 764 F.Supp. 309; Curley v. U.S., 791 F.Supp. 52; Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128
- If the income tax liability has been established by assessment, there is no authority for summons. Rasquin v. Muccini, 72 F.2d 688
- Tips are gifts and therefore not taxable. Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, NV, Judge Thomas W. Clary
- We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities. United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977)
- Government official has power to abate an income tax assessment even after the levy has been made. (26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) Section 6861(g)) Homan Mfg. Co. v. Long, 242 F.2d 645 (1957)
- Employee. – For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation. 26 U.S.C., Section 3401(c)
- Employer. – For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person… 26 U.S.C., Section 3401 (d)
- Wages. – For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer…. 26 U.S.C., Section 3401 (a)
- A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax. Tyler v. U.S., 281 U.S. 497, 502
- The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means within which the law permits, cannot be doubted. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
- An individual who is engaged in lawful, innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation is not subject to any income or revenue tax. All Americans by nature are free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property. Included in the right of personal liberty and right of private property is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14
- The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws. Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238; Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585, 589
- The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg 2580
- 26 CFR 301.6020-1 Returns prepared or executed by district directors or other internal revenue officers.
Preparation of returns—(1) In general. If any person required by the Code or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return fails to make such return, it may be prepared by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee provided such person consents to disclose all information necessary for the preparation of such return.
Responsibility of person for whom return is prepared. A person for whom a return is prepared in accordance with subparagraph (1) of this paragraph shall for all legal purposes remain responsible for the correctness of the return to the same extent as if the return had been prepared by him.
(2) Status of returns. Any return made in accordance with subparagraph (1) of this paragraph and subscribed by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all legal purposes.
26 CFR, Section 301.6020-1
Chapter 5200, Internal Revenue Manual – Delinquent Return Procedures
- Refusal to file –
IRC 6020(b) Assessment Procedure
This procedure applies to employment, excise and partnership returns…the following returns will be involved:
Form 940 – Employer’s Annual Federal Unemployment Tax Return
Form 941 – Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return
Form 942 – Employer’s Quarterly Tax Return for Household Employees
Form 943 – Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural Employees
Form 11-B – Special Tax Return – Gaming Devices
Form 720 – Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return
Form 2290 – Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles
Form CT-1 – Employer’s Annual Railroad Retirement Tax Return
Form 1065 – U.S. Partnership Return of Income
- The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.
Title 15 U.S.C., Section 17
ARS 44, Section 1404
- The law reflects also a Congressional determination that the taxpayer (sic) should be afforded certain procedural rights, which IRS is bound to respect. Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161
- Congress has determined that violations of the procedural rights at issue here are exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. 26 U.S.C., Sections 6213(a), (b)(2); 7421(a)
- “Excise tax” is not one directly imposed upon persons or property. New Neighborhoods v. W. Va. Workers Comp. Fund, 886 F.2d 714 (4th Cir. 1989)
- Properly executed levy does not automatically entitle government to taxpayer property. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Gill, 960 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992)
- Notice of deficiency is “ticket” to the court that allows taxpayer to challenge tax assessment before paying it. Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992)
- When there is reasonable doubt about meaning of revenue statute, doubt is resolved in favor of those taxed. Security Bank Minnesota v. CIR, 994 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1993)
- The mission of district offices is to administer the internal revenue laws (except those relating to alcohol, tobacco and firearms) within a geographically defined internal revenue district and to provide services to, and contact, with taxpayers. 1112.41, Internal Revenue Manual –
- Administration Regional director (compliance). The ATF regional official principally responsible for administering regulations in this part concerning commodity taxes imposed by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau, and for collecting tax by levy (other than third-party levy). 47606 Federal Regulation
- A state is prohibited from levying an excise, occupation, or privilege tax on activities conducted beyond its borders or jurisdiction. Buckstaff Bath House Company v. McKinley, 308 U.S. 358
- Single violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) provision prohibiting debt collector from using any false, deceptive or misleading representations is sufficient to establish civil liability under FDCPA. Clomon v. Jackson, 998 F.2d 1314 (2nd Cir. 1993)
- Government official has power to abate an income tax assessment even after the levy has been made. Homan Mfg. Co. v. Long, 242 F.2d 620 (3rd Cir. 1952)
- Revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment collection and relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. Bartell v. Riddlell, 202 F.Supp. 70 (1962)
- Under 26 U.S.C., Section 6211, IRS cannot send a notice of deficiency for an employment tax. (Did they assess a liability for an employment tax?) 26 U.S.C., Section 6211
- The power to tax involves the power to destroy. Crandell v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46
- The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter power to the state, but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817
- If taxpayer has informed an IRS agent that he believes that there is an error in assessment and the agent continues levy action, without, first determining if the taxpayer’s argument has merit, such agent loses his immunity from suit. Bothke v. Flour Engineers, 713 F.2d 1405
- Offense of failure to file tax return consists of three elements: 1) defendant was required to file tax return; 2) he failed to file return; 3) he acted willfully. U.S. v Nichols, 9 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1993)
- To show willfulness in criminal tax cases, government must show awareness of legal duty. U.S. v. Cheek, 882 F.2d 1263
- Tax court decision on questions of statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review. Wolpaw v. CIR, 47 F.3d 787 (6th Cir. 1995)
- When tax returns were filed in plaintiff’s name by her fiduciary declaring income….and making her potentially liable for the tax due on that income, she became a “taxpayer” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876 (1974)
- Statute prohibiting suits to restrain assessment and collection of Federal taxes is directed at the person liable for taxes and is not intended to preclude courts from affording protection to one not liable to taxes whose property may be in danger of seizure and sale by taxing authorities. Shelton v. Gill, 202 F.2d 503 (1953)
- The general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Ballard v. United States, 535 Fed. Rep.2d 400, 404
- Our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145
- For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern. Dodd v. U.S., 223 F.Supp. 785
- This is where the structure differs. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules simply do not apply. Dwight E. Avis, Head ATF, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Senate Hearing Report, 83rd Congress, House of Representatives, House of Ways and Means 2/3/53 – 2/13/53
- Tax protester’s First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances was violated when she was charged with corruptly endeavoring to intimidate and impede IRS agents by filing factually accurate, nonfraudulent criminal trespass complaints against agents after they entered upon protester’s property in total disregard of “no trespassing” signs and protester’s previous letters requesting that her privacy rights be respected. United States v. Hylton, 710 F.2d 1106
- Judicial Code provisions, rather than Internal Revenue Code provisions, were applicable and would give Federal District Court jurisdiction regardless of compliance with Internal Revenue Code provisions if property owner was a nontaxpayer. Gerth v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 894 (1955)
- United States cannot take property from an innocent spouse to satisfy tax obligation of delinquent spouse. Raffaele v. Granger, 196 F.2d 620 (3rd. Cir. 1952)
- A tax penalty must be properly assessed and the taxpayer properly noticed before the penalty is enforceable. Stallard v. United States, 806 F.Supp. 152 (1992)
- The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment, it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Penn. Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. (1959), CCH at page 659
- The government has proven its case when it has established beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was required to file a return; that he knew that he was required to file a return; and that he willfully or purposefully, as distinguished from inadvertently, negligently, or mistakenly, failed to file such a return. U.S. v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 396; U.S. v. Matosky, 421 F.2d 410 (1970)
- Congress has taxed income, not compensation. Connor v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, 1191
- An excise tax on the business of a natural person, the business being lawful, not the subject of license nor exercised through a franchised, cannot be graduated in proportion to the net profits. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107
- The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of the court. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973); U.S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263
- Internal Revenue Service cannot prevail on a deficiency assessment and, thus injunctive relief may be appropriate when the asserted claim is entirely excessive, arbitrary, capricious, and without factual foundation. Shapiro v. Sec. Of State, 499 F.2d 527
- The term excise tax and privilege tax are synonymous. American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880
- Person voluntarily paying illegal tax has no claim for repayment. Austin Nat’l. Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 242 (1934)
- Revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment collection and relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. Bartell v. Riddell, 202 F.Supp. 70
- Notice is a condition precedent, its absence invalidates assessment, and waiver not accepted by Commissioner personally did not relieve taxing officials of their statutory obligation to give notice before assessment and collection, and in such situation the federal District Court could, and properly did, bring its equity powers into play, despite statute. Steiner v. Nelson, 259 F.2d 853 (1958)
- The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction having such jurisdiction (USTC Section 9375) as is conferred under the Internal Revenue Code (22 USCS Section 7442). 20 Federal Procedures, Tax Court Proceedings, Section 48:895
- Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid. Spreckels Sugar Refining Co., v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)
- It has long been settled, by the solemn adjudication of the Supreme Court, that the United States do not possess any general right of priority or privilege over private creditors for the satisfaction of the debts due to them, founded upon any general prerogative belonging to the government in its sovereign capacity; but that all the priority or privilege which the government is at liberty to assert is or must be founded upon some statute, passed by Congress in virtue of its constitutional authority. S.H. Hawes & Co. et al. V. Wm. R. Trigg Co. et al., 65 S.E. 538 (1909)
- Our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145
- The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of the court. U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973)
- A lawful tender of the amount due on a tax judgment and a refusal of it, amounts to satisfaction of the judgment. Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 190
- Internal Revenue Service, with its expertise, is obliged to know its own government statutes and to apply them realistically. Bothke v. Fluor Engineers & Const., et al., 713 F.2d 1405 (1983)
- Anything that is a right cannot be subject to conditions or licensing. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275
- One accepts the advice of a revenue agent at his own peril. United Block Co. v. Helvering, 123 F.2d 704, cert. den. 315 U.S. 818
- Judgment liens will not be enforced in equity where they have ceased to be enforceable at law. McCarthy v. Ball, 82 Va. 872
- The taxes imposed by provisions 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau shall be collected by regional directors (compliance), the Chief, Tax Processing Center, and other ATF officials designated by the Director of the Bureau. 27 CFR, Section 70.51
- District court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to taxpayer who contests IRS levy on his wages where taxpayer alleges that IRS failed to comply with pre-levy notice requirements; if IRS fails to comply with pre-levy notice requirements District Court has jurisdiction to enter injunctive relief for taxpayer. Jensen v. IRS, 835 F.2d 196 (1987)
- Prohibition against restraint was invoked where taxpayer claimed withholding taxes were not collected from employees because withholding tax system is not constitutional. Orr v. Dietrich, 331 F.2d 52 (1964)
- A state may not charge for nor tax a common law right which existed at the time of the formation of the state. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
- If a taxpayer has informed an IRS agent that he or she believes that there is an error in an assessment and the agent continues collection action, without first determining if the taxpayer’’ argument has merit, such an agent loses his or her immunity from a suit, and becomes personally liable for any damages inflicted upon the citizen. Bothke v. Fluor Engineers, 713 F.2d 1405 (1983)
- One who voluntarily pays tax has no legal claim for its repayment, but one who pays more tax than law requires, under duress, has such a claim, and that duress could still be implied from institution of administrative or legal proceedings. Lincoln Nat’l. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 632 S.W.2d 227 (1982)
- Section 7421(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (I.R.C.) states: “No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed,” with certain exceptions, one of which is a civil action by a nontaxpayer who claims that his or her property has been the subject of a wrongful levy. Hollingshed v. United States, 85-2 USTC, 9772 (5th Cir. 1985)
- The taxing authorities cannot assess a taxpayer who has neglected to make a return for a particular after the expiration of that year. Schmuck v. Hartman, 222 Pa. 190; 70 A. 1091 (1908)
- It is a long recognized legal principle that a husband and wife are separate and distinct taxpayers even where they have filed a joint Federal income tax return. A determination for a particular year against a husband who filed a joint return with his wife is not res judicata against the wife for the same year…A wife who files a joint return with her husband is not a party privy to her husband in (income tax) litigation…. Henry M. Rodney, 53 T.C. 287, 307 (1969); Moore v. United States, 360 F.2d 353, 357-58 (4th Cir. 1966); Herrington v. United States, 416 F.2d 1029, 1034 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1001
- Warrantless automobile seizures, which occurred in public streets, parking lots, or other open areas, involved no invasion of privacy and were not unconstitutional. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co., 18 How. 272, 351-52
- The warrantless entry into the privacy of petitioner’s office by IRS agents violated the Fourth Amendment, since except in certain carefully defined classes of cases, a search of private property without proper consent is “unreasonable” unless it has been authorized by a valid search warrant. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528-29; G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 358
- The respondents (I.R.S.) offer no legislative history in support of their reading of Section 6331, and to give the statute that reading would call its constitutionality into serious question. We therefore decline to read it as giving carte blanche for warrantless invasions of privacy. Rather, we give it its natural reading, namely, as an authorization for all forms of seizure, but as silent on the subject of intrusions into privacy…We therefore conclude that the warrantless entry into petitioners office was in violation of the commands of the Fourth Amendment. G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 358, 359
- The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Title 15 U.S.C., Section 17;
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a citizen does not become a taxpayer until after he enters a civil contract with the I.R.S., by filing a tax return for the year involved. Morse v. U.S., 494 f.2D 876 (1974)
- Taxes are not “debts.” Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 318; McKeesport v. Fidler, 147 Pa. 532; 23 A. 799; City Council of Charleston v. Phosphate Co., 34 S.C. 541; 13 S.E. 845
- Liability to pay taxes arises from no contractual relation and cannot be enforced by common law proceedings, unless a statute so provides. Schmuck v. Hartman, 222 Pa. 190; 70 A. 1091
- No matter how equitable a tax may be, it is void unless legally assessed. Joyner v. School Dist. Number Three, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 567;
- The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, or to limit and distinguished between one kind of income tax and another; but its purpose is to relieve all income taxes when imposed form apportionment from consideration of the source whence the income is derived. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1
- For taxation purposes there are fundamental distinctions between individuals and corporations. Kentucky R.R. Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337, 339; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 142 U.S. 339
- In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 557
- Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 110
- The terms duties, imposts and excises are generally treated as embracing the indirect forms of taxation contemplated by the Constitution. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 151
- The requirement to pay an excise tax involves the exercise of privileges…..If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 @ 151, 152
- The Constitution contains only two limitations on the right of Congress to levy excise taxes; they must be levied for the public welfare and are required to be uniform throughout the United States. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 153
- Income tax return facially indicated that taxpayer’s self-assessment was incorrect and that his position was frivolous; thus, taxpayer, who had claimed that he was a natural individual and unenfranchised freeman who neither requested, obtained nor exercised any privilege from any agency of the government, could be assessed a penalty for filing a frivolous tax return. Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (1984)
- Although the Tax Court was upgraded from an executive agency to an Article I “legislative court” in 1969, that change did not extend the jurisdiction of the court to the full judicial power over “all cases, in law and equity,” that is vested in “constitutional courts” under Article III. 20 Federal Procedures, Tax Court Proceedings, Section 48 : 895
- Tax Court is a legislative court, and that a Legislative Court is a court created by Legislature not named or described by Constitution. Gorham v. Robinson, 186 A. 832
- The tax court’s jurisdiction is confined to determining the amount of deficiency or overpayment for the particular tax year for which the commissioner has sought a deficiency and the taxpayer has filed a petition for review; the tax court has no jurisdiction to order or to deny a refund, or to decide equitable questions; the taxpayer must resort to the district court or the court of claims for a resolution of such disputes or for an order granting a refund. Morse v. United States, 494 F.2d 876 (1974)
- The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction having such jurisdiction (USTC Section 9375) as is conferred under the Internal Revenue Code (22 USCS Section 7442). 20 Federal Procedures, Tax Court Proceedings, Section 48:895
“Colorable” means “That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth.” Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.
“Color” means “An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240.
“Colorable” means “That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit feigned, having the appearance of truth.” Windle v. Flinn, 196 Or. 654, 251 P.2d 136, 146.
“Color of Law” means “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state is action taken under ‘color of law.'” Atkins v. Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.
If something is “color of law” then it is NOT law, it only looks like law. If you go to the website for the Office of Law Revision Counsel, you will see that most of the titles of the United States Code are “prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States”.
“prima facia” means “At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.” State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio App. 39, 38 N.E.2d 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 1071.
Prima facia and color of law both go hand in hand, because if a law is prima facia evidence of the laws of the United States, that means it is color of law, by definition. In other words the bureaucrat presumes that the law applies to you until you defeat their presumption.
If you read these prima facia, color of law statutes, you will find them using words like “person”. I will use the color of law Title 26 USC as a typical way that they do it.
26 USC 7701 (a) (1) Person. The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
In the Internal Revenue code they say that a “person” has to pay taxes and obey their filing requirement etc., and most people think that they are such a “person”, so they do it, but there is a maxim of law that says something else.
Ejusdem Generis (eh-youse-dem generous) v adj. Latin for “of the same kind,” used to interpret loosely written statutes. Where a law lists specific classes of persons or things and then refers to them in general, the general statements only apply to the same kind of persons or things specifically listed. Example: if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, “vehicles” would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation.
Pursuant to the Maxim of Law ejusdem generis the word “individual” is another type of fictitious entity because the rest of the entities are fictitious entities and in the rules of statutory construction, a definition must contain the same type of entities, or it is void for vagueness. Therefore, an “individual” and a “person” are different names for a corporation.
Title 15 USC Section 44 even provides for an “unincorporated corporation”.
When you do what a color of law statute says, you are deemed to have agreed to the terms of the contract, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
This is consistent with what the Courts are saying, a “Person” is:
a) “a variety of entities other than human beings.” Church of Scientology v U.S. Department of Justice, 612 F2d 417 (1979) at pg 418
b) ”…foreigners, not citizens….” United States v Otherson, 480 F. Supp. 1369 (1979) at pg 1373.
c) the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies…Title 1 U.S.C. Chapter 1 – Rules of Construction, Section 1
A sovereign is not a “person” in a legal sense and as far as a statute is concerned;
a) ” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are normally construed to exclude it.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304
b) “a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192
All of this is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment talks about a “person” being a US citizen, and both of them are corporations.
Other terminologies which mean the same thing are “pretend legislation” and then it would also follow that offenses under “pretend legislation” would also be “pretend offenses”. These terminologies are found in the Declaration of Independence(1776).
For any statute to be legimate, there are certain requirements. For example, it has to have a preamble, it has to be approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President, and there are other requirements as well. The lack of any of these would make it color of law. Remember, “color of law” means it does NOT have authority, therefore, you have to agree with it, – it is a contract. That is why it is “prima facia”, which means it is “at first look”. In other words, at first look the courts presume that the statute affects you but if you can show that you didn’t agree to it in some way, then you are free to go.
Because the US Congress perjurers did their Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, and also because state citizens are foreign to the United States, most people think that they have to go through a lot to prove that they did not agree to one of these so-called contracts, but the opposite is true.
Color of Law, and Prima Facia, and presumption are all associated with Admiralty Maritime Law courts.
Still don’t believe that the courts view these colorable codes, rules and regulations as a contract?
“The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.”
City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141
Pattern and Practice
Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141: makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This law is commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute. This law gives DOJ the authority to seek civil remedies in cases where it is determined that law enforcement agencies have policies or practices which foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a Pattern and Practice investigation include:
1. Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers’ actions.
2. Officers not providing justification or reporting incidents involving the use of force.
3. Lack of, or improper training of officers.
4. A department having a citizen complaint process which treats complainants as adversaries.
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
Types of misconduct covered include, among other things:
1. Excessive Force
2. Discriminatory Harassment
3. False Arrest
4. Coercive Sexual Conduct
5. Unlawful Stops, Searches, or Arrests
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal). Criminal acts under color of law include acts not only done by local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered under color of law, if the perpetrator asserted their official status in some manner. Color of law may include public officials who are not law enforcement officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as, in some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting state authority, such as private security guards. While the federal authority to investigate color of law type violations extends to any official acting under “color of law”, the vast majority of the allegations are against the law enforcement community. The average number of all federal civil rights cases initiated by the FBI from 1997 -2000 was 3513. Of those cases initiated, about 73% were allegations of color of law violations. Within the color of law allegations, about 82% were allegations of abuse of force with violence (59% of the total number of civil rights cases initiated).
Most of the FBI’s color of law investigations would fall into five broad areas:
1. excessive force;
2. sexual assaults;
3. false arrest/fabrication of evidence;
4. deprivation of property; and
5. failure to keep from harm.
In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to utilize whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breath and scope of the use of force is vast. The spectrum begins with the physical presence of the official through the utilization of deadly force. While some types of force used by law enforcement may be violent by their very nature, they may be considered “reasonable,” based upon the circumstances. However, violations of federal law occur where it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive” against individuals.
Sexual assaults by officials acting under “color of law” could happen in a variety of venues. They could occur in court scenarios, jails, and/or traffic stops to name just a few of the settings where an official might use their position of authority to coerce another individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the other if they do not comply.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using his authority provided under the “color of law” is allowed to stop individuals and even if necessary to search them and retain their property under certain circumstances. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power that a violation of a person’s civil rights might occur. An unlawful detention or an illegal confiscation of property would be examples of such an abuse of power.
An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the official would violate the color of law statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining the property of another. In that case, the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
The public entrusts its law enforcement officials with protecting the community. If it is shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.
The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.
Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.”
(16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County.” 118 U.S. 425
“If the State converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
“No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622
“The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
“State courts, like federal courts, have a “constitutional obligation” to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.” Stone v. Powell 428 US 465, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067.
“The obligation of state courts to give full effect to federal law is the same as that of federal courts.” New York v. Eno. 155 US 89, 15 S. Ct. 30, 39 L. Ed. 80.
“An administrative agency may not finally decide the limits of its statutory powers; this is a judicial function.” Social Security Board v. Nierotko. 327 US 358, 66 S. Ct. 637, 162 ALR 1445, 90 L. Ed. 719.
“State Police Power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, welfare, etc.,” Michigan v. Duke 266 US, 476 Led. At 449: which driving and speeding are not. California v. Farley Ced. Rpt. 89, 20 CA3d 1032 (1971):
“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this Constitutional right.” Sherer v. Cullen 481 F. 945:
“If any Tribunal (court) finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over a person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed.” Louisville v. Motley 2111 US 149, 29S. CT 42. “The Accuser Bears the Burden of Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.
Title 42 Penalties For Government Officers
The AUTHORITY FOR FINES (DAMAGES) CAUSED BY CRIMES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS.
These Damages were determined by GOVERNMENT itself for the violation listed.
Breach Penalty Authority
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DENIED PROPER WARRANT(S) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DENIED RIGHT OF REASONABLE
DEFENSE ARGUMENTS $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DEFENSE EVIDENCE (RECORDS) $250,000.00 18 USC 357I
DENIED RIGHT TO TRUTH
IN EVIDENCE $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
SLAVERY (Forced Compliance
to contracts not held) $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
DENIED PROVISIONS IN THE
CONSTITUTION $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
TREASON (combined above actions). $250,000.00 18 USC 3571
GENOCIDE $1,000,000.00 18 USC 1091
MISPRISION OF FELONY $500.00 18 USC 4
CONSPIRACY $10,000.00 18 USC 241
EXTORTION $5,000.00 18 USC 872
MAIL THREATS $5,000.00 18 USC 876
FRAUD $10,000.00 18 USC 1001
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS $10,000.00 18 USC 1001
PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1621
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY $2,000.00 18 USC 1622
GRAND THEFT (18 USC 2112) each $250,000.00
To determine multiply no. of counts by damage 18 USC 3571
RACKETEERING (Criminal) $25,000.00 18 USC 1963
Wages Taken $x3 = 5? 18 USC 1964
(Sustained Damages [total] x 3)
Thirty-seven (37) Constitutional violations from Count 1: = $9,250,000.00 Damages Dealing with claims of “immunity.”
Any claim of ” immunity” is a fraud because, if valid, it would prevent removal from office for crimes against the people, which removal is authorized or even mandated under U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section IV; as well as 18 USC 241, 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, and other state Constitutions.
Precedents of Law established by COURT cases, which are in violation of law, render violations of law legally unassailable. Such a situation violates several specifically stated intents and purposes of the Constitution set forth in the Preamble; to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the-blessings of liberty. This is for JUDGES, or anyone in any branch of government.