Rebuttal to Injunction against C. Hansen
This article rebuts the following lies about SEDM and/or C. Hansen:
A Word of Warning to Patriots
https://iamhassentmetoyou.substack.com/p/a-word-of-warning-to-patriots
Below is our rebuttal vetted by Hansen. Do not contact us for further elaboration. We are not authorized to speak on his behalf.
REBUTTAL
1. Misstatement about purpose of SEDM
The stated mission of SEDM is to learn and enforce the law and to correctly represent one’s status on government forms to lawfully avoid government jurisdiction and taxation. The article states the OPPOSITE. Why doesn’t the author read and examine all the materials on our site and quote exactly what on our site gave him the idea that our purpose is to evade anything or to do anything unlawful. It doesn’t exist! He’s a LIAR.
2. Article misrepresents implications of what allegiance and being a national represent
The article misrepresents the kind of allegiance necessary to create CIVIL STATUTORY jurisdiction by presuming that mere NATIONALITY and being a NATIONAL somehow creates CIVIL STATUTORY jurisdiction. In fact, CIVIL jurisdiction is a product of domicile, not nationality, so the article equivocates on the TWO types of allegiance. Here are the two types of allegiance:
- Allegiance from birth or naturalization called nationality or being a “national”. This is confers POLITICAL jurisdiction. It is usually INVOLUNTARY and permanent, but confers not CIVIL court jurisdiction for anything we are aware of EXCEPT possibly TREASON, which is a POLITICAL crime. See:
Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf - Temporary local allegiance through voluntary domicile as a national or presence as an alien. This confers CIVIL jurisdiction. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. See:
Why Domicile and Becoming a Taxpayer Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
Only a simpleton such as the author of the referenced article would equivocate or confuse the two or worse yet, try to get people to believe that income tax obligations arise from nationality. Further, even someone with nationality can have allegiance but QUALIFY the circumstances under which they have it. This is because government is a business that only provides protection. Income taxes pay for that protection. Since you have a right to not be a “customer” of government CIVIL STATUTORY protection called a domiciled statutory “citizen” or “resident”, you have a right to lawfully avoid income tax and thereby become a transient foreigner, stateless, and a nonresident, REGARDLESS of your nationality.
3. Article misrepresents Hansen or SEDM as a Guru
The SEDM Disclaimer and Member Agreements say the ONLY thing members can rely on is their own reading of the law and that they should not trust ANYONE or SEDM. Thus, there is NO SUCH THING as a “guru” on SEDM or Famguardian for that matter. If people are reading and relying ONLY on the law for their choices and actions, then whose fault is that?
4. SEDM or Hansen never involved in the subject of the suit
Sedm was never involved in the subject of the suit. The suit was about Revocations of Election that Steadman Jackson was offering and never SEDM. If Steadman Jackson’s customers were audited, that’s no surprise because what he offered was a scam and we told him from the beginning it was a scam and refused to be involved in it. Even to this day, we still warn our members NOT to pursue Revocations of Election. See:
Galileo Paradigm, Form #11.303, Cover Page
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GalileoParadigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf
Hansen told Steadman Jackson from the VERY BEGINNING of SEDM in 2002 that his Revocation of Election (ROE) was a BAD idea and SEDM has never accepted any money from it. And they never traced any of the alleged ROE monies to Hansen or SEDM for that matter. Quite frankly, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to trace those Revocation of Elections to either SEDM or Hansen because they had neither of them identified as the source. So they could only be guessing anyway. See the following link on our opening page as item 36 about this subject:
- Frivolous Subject: Revocation of Election SCAM-SEDM STRONGLY discourages members from pursuing anything called a “revocation of election”. The ONLY method endorsed by this website to correct your civil status is our Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, section 2 process. That process requires filing the CORRECT tax return, the 1040NR, as a way to change your civil status from “U.S. person” (Form #05.053) to “nonresident alien” (Form #12.045).
If the guy who wrote that article had any decency, he would have at least linked to this article and the following article. He only wanted to portray one side and therefore must be a government mole. The fact that it is published anonymously reinforces this.
Case History of C. Hansen, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/CHansen/CHansen.htm
Throughout the entire proceeding, the IRS interviewed three witnesses and NONE complained of any injuries. There was therefore no injured party and no quantifiable injury. The fact that people don’t VOLUNTEER to donate to the government is furthermore NOT an injury that might produce standing to sue anyway. See:
- How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf - Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
5. Neither Hansen nor SEDM “Sold Out”
As far as “Hansen Sold out”, the list of alleged “customers” the government got was THEIR OWN records and never anything from either Hansen or SEDM. Those records were received from directly from the U.S. Attorney during 12/2005 as part of a Request for Production sent to the government. They consisted of Paypal payment records. Further, there was NOTHING in those records about the alleged payments for ROEs that were the subject of the suit! Thus, they had to standing to sue to begin with. Government presented NOTHING linking Hansen or SEDM to the payments of $2000 – $2700 for the ROEs because as we said, neither Hansen nor SEDM were ever involved and vehemently criticized the ROE process from the beginning of SEDM.
At the ONLY hearing in the case, the court was asked to define “customers” and specifically asked whether they included “nontaxpayers”. SEDM does not allow STATUTORY “taxpayers” to read or use our materials. The judge responded that he had jurisdiction over “taxpayers” and “nontaxpayers”. He was asked:
“Your honor: How the HELL did you get jurisdiction of that which legally defined as that which you DO NOT have jurisdiction over?”
The judge was speechless. The whole case was a SHAM. 26 USC 6700 is for abusive “tax shelters”, which is legally defined as a device used by a statutory “taxpayer” to REDUCE an existing lawfully assessed liability. But SEDM doesn’t even permit statutory “taxpayers” to use their materials!
The SEDM Member Agreement, Section 1.1, Item 9.9 clearly identifies GOD as our only customer. He is also identified on the opening page as the only “customer”. So there is no need for legal discovery of the “customer list”. Calling our members “customers” falsely presumes we are a purely commercial enterprise. People are not allowed to even join if their motives are purely commercial or anything but spiritual. So once again, there realistically cannot be anyone other than GOD as a customer.
6. Injunction was ILLEGALLY Issued
The government never proved ANYTHING stated in the order on the record. It was just fictitious grandstanding. It was a summary judgment with no proof. The IRS Agent Gordon declaration the order was based on was based on wasn’t even signed under penalty of perjury so it wasn’t even evidence. Just an opinion and opinions aren’t admissible as evidence and therefore can’t be part of the court record. There was also no testimony or sworn oath ever given that could have made it admissible evidence. Therefore the entire case was a FARCE from the beginning.
The injunction was also illegally issued because the ROE behavior complained of wasn’t even happening from the time the Answer was filed up to the issue of the illegal injunction. Injunction orders cannot be issued lawfully without behavior that is ONGOING and which the defendant refuses to stop and it was already stopped, even though they launched the case against the WRONG defendant. Steadman Jackson was the only proper defendant and they didn’t sue him. Hansen was simply his innocent fall guy.
To make things worse, the court issued an order that dealt with subjects that weren’t even in the original complaint and there was not amended complaint. It is illegal for the court to enjoin issues that aren’t even in the original complaint and for which there were not injured parties provided. The order was therefore coram non judice or void.
7. More information on the BOGUS injunction
- Federal District Court Rules on Hansen Injunction, 6/13/2006
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/News/Historical/CHRuling-060615.htm - Case details and filings:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/CHansen/CHansen.htm - Rebutted Order:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/CHansen/Litigation/DOJInjunction20050502/Orders/20071213-105-AmendedOrder-Rebutted.pdf - Original order:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/CaseStudies/CHansen/Litigation/DOJInjunction20050502/Orders/20061213-105-AmendedOrder.PDF - Weiss+Paris-website created by Steadman Jackson
https://www.weissparis.com
8. The injunction was against the IRS Agent Gordon and U.S. Attorney Martin Shoemaker, not Hansen or SEDM
As our readers must know from reading our Disclaimer and Member Agreement:
- Nothing on this website if factual, actionable, or admissible as evidence. So the court had NOT evidence to rule on.
- Anyone who tries to MAKE it factual or actionable becomes the owner of the speech, because the definition of the speech intended by the owner was superceded.
- Anyone who uses our materials to prosecute any ministry member or officer consents to become the substitute defendant.
- The Disclaimer and Member Agreement are enforceable because they ONLY protect free speech that is nonfactual, nonactionable, and not admissible as evidence.
As such, the only proper defendant in the suite was the U.S. Attorney and IRS agent. Hansen even got the U.S. Attorney Shoemaker to admit it and abruptly terminate the only deposition during the proceeding. Listen for yourself:
Deposition of C. Hansen, 11/30/2005:
- First session (MP3, 18.1 Mbytes)
- Second session (MP3, 18.4 Mbytes)
- Third session (MP3, 27 Mbytes)
Read the pleadings filed by Respondent Hansen and you will see that he identified himself as the “Alleged Defendant acting as a compelled temporary agent of the U.S. attorney” using the Member agreement as power of attorney.
Further, the suit was originally against Hansen and not SEDM or Famguardian.
9. About Steadman Jackson
Steadman Jackson, now deceased, is the author of the following book on our website:
Galileo Paradigm, Form #11.303
http://famguardian.org/Publications/GalileoParadigm/TheGalileoParadigm.pdf
Early on at SEDM, Mr. Jackson was a contributor to SEDM, but only contributed response letters and that above. He is no longer involved with SEDM. It was very frustrating for Hansen, he reports, to end up being the fall guy for his bad choices in the form of the ROE process he invented. Back during the lawsuit, that process was called the “Citizenship Administrative Repudiation Process” the court mentions and it hasn’t changed much since then. You can see what he was filing at:
Revocation of Election-Weiss and Associates, SEDM Exhibit #12.001
https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX12.001.pdf
10. Response (but not rebuttal of) this article
On 4/30/24, the Substack Slanderer posted the following response to this article.
Since he never rebutted our rebuttal of errors in his original article, and since he didn’t even include a link to this article it’s clear to us that:
- He only wants to slander by telling one side of the story. Our rebuttal linked to his, but his didn’t link to ours. So he’s the one trying to manufacture the very useful idiots he accuses us of being.
- He is a lazy irresponsible bastard who won’t even defend his own credibility. His conclusions about nationality are clearly FALSE.
- He agrees with our rebuttal to his misdeeds. A failure to deny constitutes an admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).
He didn’t link to or read our materials because the Disclaimer says that if he had, he would be subject to the Member Agreement and liable for using our materials to slander us without at least pointing out the errors he criticizes and giving us a chance to fix them before publishing his article.
He states that we still cling to the “state national position”. Its not even a position. Its simply a way to describe the ONLY audience we target and allow to use our materials. That status has nothing to do with whether people owe tax or even can lawfully avoid taxation. See:
How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
But we suppose shooting the messenger is always easier than actually addressing the accuracy of the message itself. Our materials are voluminous because we teach people law and how to litigate. We are NOT and never have been a solution provider of any kind. That should be crystal clear from reading our Disclaimer and Member Agreement, which he obviously hasn’t read or he wouldn’t have said the things he said.
He doesn’t like our materials because like most people, he doesn’t really want to learn the law or theology, but is only narcissistically interested in his own convenience and revenue. There is nothing “convenient” or revenue producing about studying the law and becoming a better participant in the community you live in. Thus, he’s really just criticizing everything but his own anarchy, covetousness, greed, and selfishness.
He says we didn’t sell out and admitted he was wrong, but didn’t address the bigger issue. The DOJ mafia got back their own records of what THEY thought customers were. Ironically, if no money changes hands, there is no such thing as a “customer”, and everything on Famguardian and most of what is on SEDM is FREE and therefore INCAPABLE of having “customers”.
The refused to define how nontaxpayers could be customers, how those using free materials could be “customers”, how they got jurisdiction over nontaxpayers, and how they could even determine when our SEDM or Famguardian materials were even willfully. SEDM and Famguardian only help nontaxpayers. Anyone can download SEDM or Famguardian materials, including nonmembers and those who are not customers because they got something for free. We aren’t an UNCOMPENSATED insurance company for “useful idiots” (like the Substack Slanderer himself) who REFUSE to responsibility for themselves and do nothing but blame others for their own misuse of our materials or services. The reason there wasn’t anything filed after the contempt hearing is because the government probably knew all this and tried to cut further losses by going dark.
Thanks for being the same “useful idiot” you falsely accuse us of being, and for confirming we are right in that analysis. He’s therefore a sociopath who is ripe for government exploitation with franchises and privileges. The government wins with that game because most people only care about what is in it for them without regard to the greater good of the society they live in.
BEGIN ARTICLE
A Word of Warning to Patriots
A friend recently asked me what I thought about some American State National (ASN) Baby Deed paperwork she planned to fill out and send to the Secretary of State. This paperwork is promoted by the State National Assembly organization run by Anna Von Reitz.
The following paragraph was included in the instructions.
“The Parent will create a separate L.R.O. member record for the child, and upload a passport photo, and red right thumbprint of the child, and Pay the Credential Fee-$50 on the Fees tab.”
This is not the only ASN document that requests that your name, thumbprint and passport photo be filed in the ASN Land Recording Office.
Now let me share a little history that explains why I would NEVER do this.
In 2005, the United States sued C______ Hansen, accusing him of selling how-to guides filled with forms, instructions and tactics to help customers evade paying federal taxes.
Here’s the case caption, but you’ll need WestLaw to access it, United States v Hansen, 2005 WL 2203233 (2005).
But there are a couple of important takeaways from this case that might save you much money, time, and your freedom in the future.
You see, C______ Hansen runs the popular websites SEDM and FamGuardian. There’s a good chance you’ve come across PDFs from one of his sites. Hansen doesn’t have much of a charismatic personality and nothing like the organization of Anna to promote his information, but he credits himself with the invention of the “state national” status, claiming that Anna Von Reitz learned/stole it from him.
But that’s enough background. Let’s jump into two important aspects of the case.
1. A State National is Subject to the State’s Jurisdiction
In his Answer, Hansen claimed that he was a “non-citizen national of the California”.
A quick aside… If you didn’t know that by Answering a complaint, you have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, please let me know. These fundamentals are not being taught and are critical to know for those who want to stay out of the state’s grip. If I hear from enough of you, it will help me to prioritize this type of content.
Ok, back to the case.
Now here’s what the court stated in its opinion. “Hansen’s Answer effectively admits that he is a citizen of California. (Answer at 8, stating he is a “non-citizen national of California.”) Personal jurisdiction over Hansen is proper on that basis. See Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940).”
So, being diligent researchers, we need to read the case cited by the court. This is what we find.
“Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable” from the various incidences of state citizenship.” Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940).
The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset gives us a little better explanation of this concept.
“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 166 (1875).
So we see that the national receives protection from the state and in turn owes the state his allegiance. To clarify, this means that the state has jurisdiction over you if you are a national, just as it had asserted personal jurisdiction over Mr. Hansen.
Now in Hansen’s case, it gets worse, but not for him.
2. Hansen Sold Out, What Will the Next ‘Guru’ Do?
Hansen was ordered to turn over the identities of all his customers. At the time the court issued its opinion, it stated that “The IRS has completed audits for 72 of Defendant’s customers, resulting in additional tax assessments of $1,049,654, exclusive of interest and penalties.” US v Hansen, 2005 WL 2203233 (2005).
Now let’s put on our thinking caps…
Anna Von Reitz has people sending documents with their names, passport photo and thumbprints to her ASN “Land Recording Office” where she now has a database of personally identifying information. She is telling these people that State Nationals have no tax liability. Part of her “process” is to send a “Revocation of Election” document to the IRS (which is not binding on IRS by the way).
Anna is not the only unscrupulous paytriot telling people this by the way. David Strait, Joe Lustica, Brandon Joe Williams and likely others all recommend similar processes.
So here’s a question you must ask yourself.
What happens one day when the Department of Justice drags Anna Von Reitz and her organization into court and demands that they turn that database of all their members names, passport photos and fingerprints over to them?
We already know that they have personal jurisdiction over her because she’s a state national. And I’ll bet she’s not going to wipe it all like Hillary did.
Are you going to want your name, photo and thumbprint to be in that data dump?
Before you go ahead and sign up with any of these paytri-idiots, you would be wise to exercise discernment and think twice.
Until next time.
[…] Rebuttal to Injunction against C. Hansen […]