SPIRITUAL, LEGAL, AND POLITICAL REFORMS WE SEEK
All governments need watchdogs and whisleblowers like us who create conflict around the abuses they institute in order to expedite needed change. The following video explains why:
Dare to Disagree, Margaret Heffernan, TED Talks.
We thoroughly document all the government corruption we seek to explose and eliminate in the following page:
We aren't in this to make money. Far from it. The only reason we have chosen to answer God's call to establish and maintain this ministry and stewardship for Him is because:
1.1 Creating a criminal de facto government that is a bad example to everyone because it disrespects the law:
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means...would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”
[Justice Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485. (1928)]
1.2 Committing a conspiracy to cover up their wrongdoing. Click here for one very important example of this.
1.4 Hiding the truth about the very limited nature of federal taxation powers.
God commands us to love and protect our neighbor, which means we have to help people defend themselves against such abuse or suffer God's wrath as his stewards and fiduciaries. Love and concern for our God and our neighbors/fellow Americans is the essence of morality and the Christian faith, as a matter of fact.
If the government satisfies the following requirements, we will gladly and happily shut down this website. The requirements are sorted in descending order of importance, where lower number items are most important. They also happen to be in approximately the same order that the corruption occurred to the de jure Constitutional Republic:
We want accountability to return to government by permitting CHOICE in government.
1.1 We want major government services subject to competition and privatization.
1.2 We want people to be able to setup their own local self-governments within their own private groups, change their domicile to the group, and divorce the existing government if they so choose. This is the same approach that Thomas Jefferson proposed, and he called this concept "wards". See the link below for one tool that facilitates this and builds upon rather than replaces the existing system:
All of the mechanisms currently being employed to destroy the separation
of powers documented below are eliminated and the government is restored
to the de jure state mandated by the Constitution.
Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
The tax collection function is put back in the legislative branch with the House of Representatives, where it began at the founding of this country. That is the only way for taxation WITH representation to exist. The sovereign People must always be in control of the purse of government, or else government gets out of control, as it is now. The IRS has been in the Legislative Branch since 1862 and was put there as an emergency measure to fund the Civil War. The taxation function has been separated from the representation function since then, and Congress then makes lame excuses (about the unconstitutional problem THEY created!) to complaining constituents that they don't have any power to control the actions of another branch of government.
"This Court has repeatedly emphasized that "`the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty.'" Morrison, supra, at 694 (quoting Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). See also Morrison, supra, at 697 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) ("The Framers of the Federal Constitution . . . viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government"). Recognizing this, the Court has repeatedly adjudicated separation-of-powers claims brought by people acting in their individual capacities. See, e. g., Mistretta, supra (adjudicating claim that United States Sentencing Commission violates separation of powers on direct appeal by an individual defendant who had been sentenced pursuant to guidelines created by the Commission).
"What the Court has said of the allocation of powers among branches is no less true of such allocations within the Legislative Branch. See, e. g., Chadha, supra, at 948-951 (bicameral National Legislature essential to protect liberty); The Federalist No. 63 (defending bicameral Congress on ground that each House will keep the other in check). The Constitution allocates different powers and responsibilities to the House and Senate. Compare, e. g., U.S. Const., Art. II, [495 U.S. 385, 395] 2, cl. 2 (giving Senate "Advice and Consent" power over treaties and appointment of ambassadors, judges, and other officers of the United States), with Art. I, 7, cl. 1 (stating that "[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives"[which is where the taxes to pay them must ALSO be assessed and collected in order to preserve "TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION"]). The authors of the Constitution divided such functions between the two Houses based in part on their perceptions of the differing characteristics of the entities. See The Federalist No. 58 (defending the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue); The Federalist No. 64 (justifying advice and consent function of the Senate on the ground that representatives with longer terms would better serve complex national goals). At base, though, the Framers' purpose was to protect individual rights. As James Madison said in defense of that Clause: "This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." The Federalist No. 58, p. 359 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Provisions for the separation of powers within the Legislative Branch are thus not different in kind from provisions concerning relations between the branches; both sets of provisions safeguard liberty."
[United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990)]
“If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the people, they [WE THE PEOPLE, WHICH IS YOU] may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”
[Continental Congress, 1774; Am. Pol., 233; Journals of the Continental Congress, October 26, 1774]
"The people of the United States, by their Constitution, have affirmed a division of internal governmental powers between the federal government and the governments of the several states-committing to the first its powers by express grant and necessary implication; to the latter, or [301 U.S. 548, 611] to the people, by reservation, 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.' The Constitution thus affirms the complete supremacy and independence of the state within the field of its powers. Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 295 , 56 S.Ct. 855, 865. The federal government has no more authority to invade that field than the state has to invade the exclusive field of national governmental powers; for, in the oft-repeated words of this court in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 'the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.' The necessity of preserving each from every form of illegitimate intrusion or interference on the part of the other is so imperative as to require this court, when its judicial power is properly invoked, to view with a careful and discriminating eye any legislation challenged as constituting such an intrusion or interference. See South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 26 S.Ct. 110, 4 Ann.Cas. 737."
[Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)]
The only way there wouldn't be a Constitutional conflict with the current U.S. tax system is if it only applied to artificial "persons" and NOT human beings domiciled in the federal zone wherever located or to officers, employees, and instrumentalities of the United States government, which in fact are the main but not only proper subject of Subtitles A and C of the Internal Revenue Code at this time. Click here for proof of this. The fact that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional if enforced against persons domiciled outside of the federal zone or against anything other than federal public officers, employees, contractors, or benefit recipients is simply proof that it was never intended to apply to anyone but these groups from the very beginning. President Taft even admitted that the intent of the Sixteenth Amendment was only to tax the national government in his written address to congress on June 16, 1909 when he introduced the proposed amendment. If Congress wants to try to enforce the IRC against anyone else and especially against sovereigns in the states as it illegally attempts to do now, then the IRS must be put back under the direct supervision of the House of Representatives, and all revenue agents must be assigned to specific Congressmen in the House and should only collect in the district of that Congressman. This is a direct requirement imposed by the need for taxation WITH representation. There is a reason the House members are only elected for two years: Because if they get too greedy with tax collection, we can throw the bastards out IMMEDIATELY. See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, section 6.5.1 for further details. The power of taxation is delegated ONLY to Congress by Article 1, Section 8 of the federal constitution, and Congress cannot pass any law that shifts or delegates this function to any other branch of government without destroying the separation of powers. Click here for an article documenting a systematic plan by your public servants to destroy the separation of powers and your constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has said many times that no branch of government can delegate any of its powers to another branch, because this violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine. For instance, in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, the Supreme Court said:
"The legislature cannot by any contract [or legislation] divest itself of the power to provide for these objects. They belong emphatically to that class of objects which demand the application of the maxim, salus populi suprema lex, and they are to be attained and provided for by such appropriate means as the legislative discretion [and the Constitution] may devise. That discretion can no more be bargained away than the power itself.' " [. . .]
"No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less their servants. The supervision of both these subjects of governmental power is continuing in its nature, and they are to be dealt with as the special exigencies of the moment may require. Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and cannot divest itself of the power to provide for them. For this purpose the legislative discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any more than the power itself.'"
[Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)]
Congress and those in government quit lying to the people by calling what we pay to the IRS "taxes", but instead properly labels them as either a "gift" or a "federal employee kickback" in relation to nonresident aliens not engaged in a "trade or business", which is most Americans. 31 U.S.C. §321(d) in fact defines "taxes" as "gifts", and hence, federal "benefits" are being abused as a bribe to entice people to criminally impersonate public officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§912, 201, and 210. According to the Supreme Court, "taxes" can only support the government and cannot be used for wealth transfer as they are now. According to the Treasury Financial Management website's latest figures, over 56% of federal expenditures are used for Socialist programs and wealth transfer, and NOT to support the government. Therefore, the government has become a Robinhood, and the only masked man within the American society that can steal from one group and give it to another group without adverse consequences. Consequently, it has become a GOD, in stark violation of the requirement not to allow any kind of idolatry in the Ten Commandments. This is fraud and it is it government idolatry and it must be ended. The government cannot abuse its taxing powers to redistribute wealth, reward failure and punish success, and encourage irresponsibility and government dependency with the redistributed money without destroying society. the government is currently at war against society by trying to become a big totalitarian social insurance company whose only function is to insulate people from responsibility from themselves. See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 sections 1.4.1, 4.3.9 and 5.6.13 through 5.6.15 for further details on this scandal.
Congress removes federal judges from the roles of being "taxpayers", because it destroys the integrity of the federal judiciary and creates a massive conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455. This problem has existed since the Revenue Act of 1932 and was eventually made permanent in 1938 by the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1938 O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277. The conflict of interest this situation has made in federal courtrooms across the country has made a disgrace and a travesty out of justice in context of taxes. See "How Scoundrels Corrupted our Republican Form of Government" and our "Highlights of American Legal and Political History CD, Form #11.202" for further exhaustive details on this clear conflict of interest. See also Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, sections 6.5.15, 6.9.9, and 6.9.10 for further details.
The District and Circuit Courts are clearly identified within federal law as legislative "franchise" courts established pursuant to Article IV of the United States Constitution, not Article III. This condition has been so since the founding of the country with the first Judiciary Act of 1789. The District and Circuit Courts of the United States ( click here for more details):
6.1 Currently are functioning as Article IV territorial courts under complete control of the Legislative Branch.
The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.
[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312, 42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1921)]
6.2 This is a conflict of interest and a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and it is also the very same way that corruption was introduced into the judiciary by the King of England who we rebelled against as shown below in the Declaration of Independence:
"He [the Monarch, like our present President] has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
[Declaration of Independence]
For further details on this scam, see:
What Happened to Justice?, Litigation Tool #08.001
That the federal judiciary quits allowing unqualified people to serve as federal petit jurists and grand jurists. The only people who can serve as federal jurists under 28 U.S.C. §1865 are inhabitants of the federal zone, and not people domiciled within states of the Union. No person who serves on a Subtitle A tax trial as a jurist or a judge can be a "taxpayer" or collect government benefits of any kind that derive from Subtitle A income taxes or they have a conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208 and/or 18 U.S.C. §597.
"And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous."
[Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]
People who are from states of the Union and domiciled there DO NOT reside in or inhabit any United States Judicial district and therefore are unqualified to serve. They are also unqualified because they are not statutory "citizens" under 8 U.S.C. §1401. No act of Congress can prescribe the citizenship status of persons who are domiciled where the federal government has no legislative jurisdiction and where the Constitution does not prescribe subject matter jurisdiction. Neither can people born in states of the Union and outside of federal jurisdiction be "peers" to people who DO live in the federal areas as required by the Seventh Amendment. People born in states of the Union live under a Republic as mandated under Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, while people living in the federal zone live under a legislative pure democracy-two totally opposite and incompatible forms of government. Click here for further details on this scam.
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is repealed and the
is eliminated. The value of U.S. money is based on the assessed
value of federal property or on gold. U.S. money money is redeemable
in acres of federal land or is redeemable in gold. Basing U.S.
currency on a hard asset ensures that the government can't create more
out of thin air and thereby introduce an invisible tax called inflation
to rape and pillage the citizenry by devious means. See the following
legal treatise for details:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041
The corporate takeover of the U.S. Government must not only stop, but be completely reversed. The U.S. federal government was not created with the goal to make a profit or to be a private "business" or to use it's market power to create a monopoly in any market segment, including "social insurance". The extent to which it acts as a business is the extent to which public servants have a conflict of interest, because they are supposed to be serving the people and obeying God's laws, not serving Mammon:
"No [public] servant can serve two masters [The People and Money]; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV]
We disapprove of the abuse of sovereign immunity being asserted to
protect private business interests such as "social insurance".
Social insurance should be privatized and not abused as a mechanism
to compel people to become "taxpayers". The U.S. government's "corporate
charter", the U.S. Constitution, created it for the sole purpose of
protecting our God-given Constitutional rights, and it simply isn't
doing that job.
Because it is violating its corporate charter, it must either be eliminated
or reformed, but the status quo simply isn't good enough.
See the following for details on the scam to "corporatize" and corrupt
Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024
The federal government stops attempting to enforce
Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code as well as
Title 27 inside of states of the Union in areas where it has no
legislative jurisdiction. See:
Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
Businesses are openly prosecuted by the Department of Justice for criminal extortion if they do any of the following:
11.1 Force their workers who do not consent to participate in payroll withholding to submit a W-4 or a W-4 Exempt. This is a voluntary form that cannot and should not be submitted under duress. 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(p)-1 identified the form, in fact, as a "voluntary withholding agreement". An agreement is a contract. No one can or should be allowed to compel a person to contract in any manner, and to permit otherwise is to sanction racketeering and extortion.
11.2 Refuse to accept the W-8 for the purposes of payroll withholding. This is the only legitimate form that a person domiciled in a state of the Union can use who chooses not to contract with the federal government to procure "social insurance". Click here for an article on this scam.
11.3 File W-2 forms against workers who never explicitly consented to participate in payroll withholding. 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3(a) says that a person who does not have a voluntarily executed withholding agreement in place cannot earn "wages" and therefore has no reportable or taxable earnings.
11.4 Withhold on the earnings of their private employees in states of the Union who submit a W-8. Withholding can ONLY be done for sources within the District of Columbia connected to a "trade or business", and NOT within states of the Union in the case of those who are "nonresident aliens" and "nationals but not citizens" under federal law. See Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001, chapter 22 for proof.
Financial and investment companies within states of the Union are criminally prosecuted by state Attorneys general and the Department of Justice for extortion if they do any of the following:
12.1 Withhold earnings from biological people born in the states of the Union who are "nonresident aliens" and who do not consent to taxation or to being "effectively connected with a trade or business".
12.2 Force investors who are "nonresident aliens" to obtain W-9 forms. A W-9 form can only be submitted by an "alien", and "nonresident aliens" are not the same thing as "aliens". See 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c)(3) and 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(d)(3). Sovereign American Nationals living in the states of the Union should not be so compelled to surrender their sovereign status as "nonresident aliens" and elect under compulsion to be treated as "residents"/"aliens" under a code that isn't even a positive law. This puts them under duress to bribe the IRS to leave them alone and it amounts to compelled association in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
12.3 Force investors who are natural persons to either request or to provide federal identifying numbers even if they claim they are nonresident aliens with no income "effectively connected with a trade or business." Under 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(d)(3), an SSN is NOT a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and MAY NOT be used as a substitute for a TIN or for tax reporting without the consent of the person, which few people would give if the requirement for consent was respected and protected by the government. Without a "Taxpayer Identification Number", a person cannot be a "taxpayer" unless they volunteer, and that process ought to be entirely free of duress or government propaganda, and done with a fully informed awareness of all options that is agreed upon and disclosed by the government, as we do here. The government is not doing its job in this area and their inaction has made them into accomplices in financial terrorism.
Federal public dis-servants must STOP instituting a DIRECT DRAFT. The Constitution forbids this, just like it forbids an unapportioned DIRECT TAX. All drafts must meet the following criteria to be constitutional. Click here for an article on this scam.
13.1 War must be officially declared by Congress BEFORE men can be drafted or the Commander in Chief, the President, can send them in harm's way. See Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.
13.2 The men needed to fight and the money needed to pay for the war must be obtained indirectly by the states, and not directly by the federal government:
13.3 The men, like the money, must be requisitioned according to apportionment. This means that if California has 10% of the men, then it supplies 10% of the draftees.
13.4 Only state governments can directly draft people. The federal government is not authorized to directly do so.
13.5 Below is an except from the Federalist Papers showing the clear intent of the Constitution in regards to the war making power of Congress and the President and how it is being misused today:
"The existing Confederation’s great and fundamental defect is the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES in their COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES rather than for the INDIVIDUALS living in the States. Although this principle does not apply to all the powers delegated to the Union, it pervades those on which the effectiveness of the rest depends. Except for the rule of apportionment, the United States has indefinite discretion to requisition men and money. But it has no authority to raise either directly from individual citizens of America." (Emph added).
[Federalist Paper #15, 15 FP § 6: ]
Deceives Americans in the states, who are "nationals" and not "citizens" under federal law, into believing that they are eligible for the draft and must register.
Encourages the President to conduct war without a formal declaration of war by Congress required by the Constitution. This makes him more like a Monarch than a fiduciary for the people. No such Title or effective title of nobility is authorized under the U.S. constitution, because ALL MEN are equal under the American system of jurisprudence.
Is not positive law (OFFSITE LINK) and therefore not "law". See the legislative notes under 1 U.S.C. §204. That which is not positive law, even if it is implemented with regulations published in the Federal Register as required by 44 U.S.C. §1505, cannot be enforced against Americans in states of the Union, who are not the proper subject of any code that is not positive law and to which there representatives therefore never consented. All just powers of government derive from the consent of the governed, according to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Any powers exercised that are not consensual are unjust, by implication.
Only applies to "citizens of the United States", which under federal law are only born ONLY in the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States and NOT in any state of the Union. Click here for evidence backing up this conclusion which we invite anyone to rebut.
That public servants in the legal or judicial profession quit trying to convert the American society of laws into a society of men and stretch its jurisdiction beyond its clear Constitutional limits using treacherous "words of art" and ambiguous definitions, starting with the abuse of the word "includes". Click here for more details. Among the reforms needed include the following changes to the U.S. Code:
14.1 Every use of the word "United States" in a federal statute must be tied in each use to a specific one of the three definitions given by the supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
14.2 The term "State" is clearly identified to NOT include states of the Union throughout the code and in the definitions section.
14.3 The term "employee" must be specifically identified for what it is in the internal revenue code: an elected or appointed officer of the United States government.
14.4 The term "foreign" must be defined.
14.5 The term "resident" is replaced with its proper meaning throughout the code, which is that of an "alien".
14.6 That the use of the word "liable" be made consistent with the rules of statutory construction to avoid deception. 26 C.F.R. §1.861-8(f)(1) is modified to clearly show that the only proper taxable "sources" of income are related to foreign commerce, as mandated by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
14.7 That the illegal regulation found at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) making persons "liable" be eliminated, because the statute that it implements in 26 U.S.C. §1 does not use the word "liability". This regulations is a deliberate LIE and DECEPTION that is totally illegal. See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, section 5.6.1 for further details on this scam.
The IRS is not allowed to do anything secretly as a KGB communist police force. The word "Service" and who they serve needs to be reemphasized. Instead of assigning "pseudo names" to its employees, it is forced to put their REAL names on their pocket commissions and to publish these names and contact information on their website just like every other government agency so that employees can be contacted and served with legal process when and if they violate the rights of individuals.
That the IRS openly admits that it needs implementing regulations to enforce the income tax against those who are not federal instrumentalities, officers, and "employees" and that there are no such implementing regulations for the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code found in 26 U.S.C. §7201 through 7217. Therefore, the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code can ONLY be enforced against federal employees as shown in 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1), 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2), 26 C.F.R. §601.702(a)(1), and 31 C.F.R. §1.3(a)(4), . Enforcing the Internal Revenue Code against people who were coerced into declaring themselves as federal "employees" by submitting a perjured W-4 form because of pressure from a fearful non-federal business does not constitute a voluntary admission or admissible evidence that a person is in deed and in fact a federal "employee" and the courts must STOP making such false presumptions about people.
That the IRS and the government be held just as liable and responsible for incorrect statements it makes in its publications as "taxpayers" and other Americans are for the false or incorrect statements they make on their tax returns. Click here for details on this scam.
The IRS quits STEALING people's property without a court order and is compelled to play by the same rules as everyone else does. Equal protection of the laws DEMANDS this. Viz: that it MUST get a court order to take property in states of the Union in satisfaction of the Fifth Amendment. This would eliminate the possibility of administrative abuse, tax terrorism, and the Gestapo police state activity that makes this country such a fearful and evil place to live.
That the IRS ceases illegally enforcing
Subtitle A federal income taxes against people in states of the
Union, who are entirely outside its jurisdiction.
“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.“
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]
They could start this process by telling all applicants for either a TIN or 501(c)(3) status that if they are not "aliens"/"residents" (both equivalent) domiciled within the federal zone, as required under 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(d)(3) then they:
That the IRS provides forms and services to "nontaxpayers" useful ONLY in correcting FALSE information returns filed against nontaxpayers and which avoid the need to file tax returns. Failure to do so is a violation of the equal protection of the laws that is the foundation of the United States Constitution. Right now, the only remedy available is to file a return, which results in the crime of impersonating a public officer, because all forms they presently publish are only available to "taxpayers", and becaus Taxpayer Identification Numbers may only be used by those engaged in public offices in the U.S. government per 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1.
That the Social Security Act is repealed. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government, or ANY government, to get into the "social insurance" business. What is not authorized by the Constitution cannot be offered to anyone in any state of the Union, whether it be through private contracts or otherwise. "Social Insurance" is a private, commercial business activity, not a "public purpose".
“…when the United States enters into commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and is treated like any other corporation…”
[91 Corpus Juris Secundum, United States, §4]
The government's taxing powers can only implement a "public purpose" and charity CANNOT be a "public purpose". Charity takes from the rich and gives to the poor, and government cannot act in the capacity of a THIEF or use its taxing powers for wealth transfer. Therefore, Social Security, Medicare, FICA cannot lawfully or constitutionally be implemented through any kind of government taxing powers. The Social Security Act is a disease on the body politic whose main purpose is to break down the separation of powers, corrupt the American justice system, and encourage irresponsibility of the average American about his own healthcare, old age, and retirement. The Supreme Court said that no government has authority to compel a person to use his property for the benefit of another, which is exactly what happens when payments to Social Security are enforced through the taxing powers of government.
“Surely the matters in which the public has the most interest are the supplies of food and clothing; yet can it be that by reason of this interest the state may fix the price at which the butcher must sell his meat, or the vendor of boots and shoes his goods? Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [including earnings from labor, which is also property] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.
[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]
Consequently, grace, charity, and the "social order" are the exclusive province of churches and families, not government. The government's only function is "protection" from harm and evil and "social insurance" does not fit with this role. It does not protect the public health, safety or morals, but rather DESTROYS them. Government and God are competitors for the affection and worship of the people. See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, section 4.3.5. The church tithe was originally intended to implement the "social order" so that separation of church and state could be maintained. Please read the following for an exhaustive analysis of why the Social Security program is simply a fraud and a threat to liberty that must be destroyed, and for free instructions on how to lawfully exit this corrupt system.
A representative from the Department of Justice AND the IRS rebuts the evidence of government wrongdoing found in the Tax Deposition Questions, Form #03.016 on a signed affidavit, and provides a copy of the delegation of authority order authorizing him or her to do that.
23.1 The government endorses and signs their response that we post along with the original questions on the Family Guardian Website for all to read and judges everywhere consent to admit the answers into evidence in any trial involving federal taxes.
23.2 The IRS posts the responses on its own website prominently so that all readers can read the rebuttal in its entirety.
23.3 The federal judiciary agrees to hold the person who answers the questions personally liable if he commits fraud, just like it wrongfully and illegally does to any American who files a federal tax return that contain false information.
The entire Statutes At Large from the very beginning of this country to the present be made available online for free by the government for all Americans to read and study. This is the main work product that we send U.S. representatives and legislators to Washington to produce. It is a SCAM that we as the sovereigns in charge of servants in government cannot directly supervise what they are producing and have produced. 1 U.S.C. §204 also says it is the only real positive law and legal evidence in the context of taxation upon which to base a reasonable belief about tax liability. The Internal Revenue Code has become simply a state-sponsored bible and religion based on usually false presumption. 1 U.S.C. §204 says the I.R.C. is "prima facie" evidence, which means "presumed" to be law. All presumption is a violation of due process, which is simply a way of confirming that the I.R.C. can only apply to those who have no Constitution rights and therefore are not entitled to "due process". 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) also confirms that the I.R.C. can only apply to those without constitutional rights, because Congress is without authority to legislate a law that prevents courts from enforcing Constitutional rights.
“No legislative act [of the PUBLIC SERVANT/REPRESENTATIVE] contrary to the Constitution [delegation of authority from the MASTER] can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy [public SERVANT] is greater than his principal [the sovereign American People]; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the [SOVEREIGN] people [as individuals]; that men, acting by virtue of [delegated] powers may do not only what their [delegated] powers do not authorize, but what they forbid…[text omitted] It is not otherwise to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges, as fundamental law [a DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FROM THE MASTER TO THE SERVANT]. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”
[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper # 78]
It is a scam of monumental proportions that the average American cannot conveniently have at his disposal the only source of real positive tax law in existence because not having it available compels presumption and resort to unreasonable sources of information in determining tax liability.
"But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people [put in JAIL]."
[Numbers 15:30, Bible, NKJV]
"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season [by diligent study of man's law and God's Law/Word]; correct, rebuke and encourage [your public DIS-servants–with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men [in the legal profession or the judiciary] will not put up with sound [legal] doctrine [such as that found on this website]. Instead, to suit their own desires, they [covetous public dis-servants and especially judges] will gather around them a great number of teachers [court-appointed “experts”, “licensed” government whores called attorneys and CPA’s, and educators in government-run or subsidized public schools and liberal universities] to say what their itching [and presumptuous and covetous] ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to [government and legal-profession] myths[ and fables, such as the I.R.C., which is not law, but a PRESUMPTION]. But you [the chosen of God and His servants must], keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your [God’s] ministry."
[2 Tim. 4:2-5, Bible, NKJV]
Please examine our memorandum of law on this subject entitled Reasonable Belief About Federal Tax Liability, Form #05.007 for a thorough expose on this scam.
25.1 Court reporters in their courtroom to work for a neutral third party who is not a judge so that judges can't doctor transcripts.
25.2 Tape recording and video taping of tax trials be allowed by third parties, while at the same time not allowing the recordings to be released until AFTER the trial is completed.
These reforms will serve the interests of justice and allow fair trials and prevention of court proceedings from being used as political propaganda vehicles instead of doing justice. It will also allow terrorist judges to be held personally liable and publicized for the abuses and treason they are illegally undertaking when allowing anyone to be prosecuted for tax crimes who lives outside of the federal zone.
That the PACER and CM/ECF federal case management system be made free and available to everyone in the public so they can supervise what THEIR federal judges are doing and personally prevent and prosecute abuses by specific judges.
That the Affidavit of Appointment, the Oath of Office, the daily docket, and a full financial disclosure statement for the judge be posted prominently in front of every federal courtroom so as to emphasize impartiality and accountability of all those who serve as federal judges. These documents should also be made available from the Clerk of the Court in every United States District Court to any member of the public who asks in person.
The Department of State resumes issuing "national" endorsements on page 24 of passports for those from states of the Union born outside of federal jurisdiction who are applying for a passport, and modifies its DS-11 Passport Application to give TWO options for citizenship instead of ONLY "U.S. citizen" and then not explaining what a "U.S. citizen" is. The two options that must appear on the DS-11 passport application form are "National (states of the Union)" or "U.S. Citizen (D.C. and territories)".
The federal courts quit "presuming" or "assuming" the following things which are absolutely false in the vast majority of cases:
29.1 That Congress can lawfully enforce federal franchises
within states of the Union. The U.S. Supreme Court said they
CANNOT, and has never contradicted itself on this subject.
Nearly all federal law that is enforced in federal court at this
time relates to civil franchises available ONLY to those lawfully
occupying a public office in the U.S. government AND who are
domiciled on federal territory not within any constitutional state
of the Union. See:
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
29.2 That litigants before them are statutory "U.S. citizens" per 8 U.S.C. §1401. The only such persons are those domiciled on federal territory.
29.3 That people who don't file with CONSTITUTIONAL diversity of citizenship per Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution are "U.S. persons" under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) or "U.S. citizens" under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
29.4 That statutory "States" and Constitutional States are equivalent.
29.5 That franchises offered by the national government can or do create any new public offices within the government. It is FRAUD and BRIBERY for those NOT ALREADY lawfully occupying public offices in the U.S. government to sign up for any franchise. Tax forms or "benefit" forms CANNOT and DO NOT create new public offices in the government, but they are being abused for this purpose unlawfully in an organized crime ring of a national scope.
29.6 That they have Article III powers. In fact, all
U.S. District and Circuit courts are Article IV, Section 3, Clause
to "franchise courts" that may not officiate over any dispute
involving private rights. If they are confronted by a case involving
a person domiciled outside of federal territory and not lawfully
engaged in a public office in the government, their ONLY lawful
response should be to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and
remand it to a constitutional state court. See:
What Happened to Justice, Form #06.012
29.7 That they have the authority to add whatever they want to the definition of a legal term in the law. The rules of statutory construction and interpretation forbid it and the public is deprived of the constitutional requirement for "reasonable notice" when such presumptions are made. See:
These self-serving false presumptions unnecessarily expand federal jurisdiction where it does not exist, unlawfully break down the separation of powers between states and the federal government, amounts to treason, and grossly prejudice the Constitutional rights of private parties litigating against the government or its offending officers (Bivens).
"It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions." 219 U.S., at 239 .
Thus the Court held that presumptions, while often valid (and some of which, I think, like the presumption of death based on long unexplained absence, may perhaps be even salutary in effect), must not be allowed to stand where they abridge or deny a specific constitutional guarantee.
Because judges take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and the people protected by it, because separation of powers is the very heart and soul of the Constitution and the main purpose of its creation, and because such presumptions are a violation of due process, then this type of false presumption cannot be permitted to continue. The American system of jurisprudence is based on innocence until proven guilty. There is no more important area where this concept applies than in one's relationship to the government, which is defined by the voluntary choice of both "nationality" and "domicile". The Supreme Court said that law which accomplishes the power to destroy cannot be permitted, and this includes "judge-made law":
“The great principle is this: because the constitution will not permit a state to destroy, it will not permit a law [including "judge-made law"] involving the power to destroy. ”
[Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830)]
"Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate."
[Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121 ]
"We all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does."
[Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283 ]
If you would like a detailed explanation of why what the United States presently has at the national level is NOT, in fact, a "government" and instead is a de facto government and a criminal "protection racket" in which all "citizens", "residents", and "inhabitants" are in fact public officers and officers of a federal corporation and NOT private human beings, see:
We have crafted a plan to implement all the above reforms that can be used as a blueprint for members to start their own local county governments. That plan is described in the document below:
All of the above reforms will restore separation of powers, restore the sovereignty to the People, and put the government back inside the box. That legal "box" which the founders bequeathed to us consists of a combination of the U.S. federal Constitution and the ten mile square geographical area called the District of Columbia. When covetous public servants come clean and once again begin recognizing and respecting the sovereignty of the People and the truth about the lawful limits on their authority imposed by the U.S. Constitution as indicated above, then we'll happily find other, more productive things to do. We do not enjoy doing this often dirty and hazardous stewardship, but God told us SOMEONE has to do it, and no one was doing it, so we had to answer His call.
"Father, if it is Your will, take this cup [ministry calling] away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."
[Luke 22:42, Bible, NKJV]
|Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)|
|Home About Contact|