Home Page


Chapter 9 of the TRUTH!



In our legal system it is all or nothing. You are either a sovereign or a slave. There is no middle ground.

In previous versions of this book, I went into detail on the statutes concerning liens and levies, and assessments, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, etc., and documented how they were not being upheld by the courts. But even with these arguments, coupled with the inalienable rights arguments, patriots were still losing in the courts. WHY? When I learned about the federal bankruptcy and the change to martial law, then everything fell into place. We have learned, that as U.S. citizens we have no inalienable rights protected by a constitution. But we were still losing in the courts on statutory issues even though there is no statute that makes you liable for an income tax. I proved this, with the statutes and court decisions, in previous versions. But the courts would not uphold the statutes either. They would not actually disregard the statutes, they would just find any excuse and any loophole they could come up with, or fabricate, to dismiss your case. And the Department of Justice attorneys know this so they can make a half hearted attempt at defense and still win the case. I wanted to know why the courts would not uphold the plain words of the law. Then, recently, I found out.

What first dawned on me, is that American Citizen's have no standing in court. Therefore any time an American Citizen went to court and claimed not to be liable for income tax, because the constitution says direct taxes have to be apportioned, they were ruled against. It IS a frivolous argument, because only a U.S. citizen has standing in today's courts, and since you WERE in court making a claim, the presumption was made that it was a U.S. citizen making the claim (a correct presumption), and since the U.S. citizen does not have inalienable rights secured by the constitution, it was a frivolous argument and against public policy. Only sovereign American's can claim inalienable rights, secured by the constitution, and sovereign's will not be found in court. U.S. citizens can only claim privileges and immunities secured by the statutes, so anytime you enter the court's jurisdiction, your are correctly presumed to be a U.S. citizen, there on a statutory issue.

An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice stated it in a nutshell when he described the first level state courts in Oklahoma as "statutory non-constitutional" courts. The same is true in all states and in the federal court system. When you file a federal case you must submit a cover sheet showing the nature of the suit. Nowhere on the sheet is there a space for "inalienable rights". The only section that is close is labeled "civil rights".

The courts today are private corporate courts run by the BAR (British Accreditation Regency) Association. Think about this a minute. Attorneys are considered by statute and by court decisions to be "officers of the court". Their first duty is to the court, not to you! Judges, Prosecutors and private practice attorneys are all attorneys and therefore are all officers of the court. Since all these officers are dealing in the same commodity, statutes, they would be statute "merchants", as "merchants" is defined by the Uniform Commercial Code at (UCC) 2-104(1). All the statutes are written by attorneys. Most business legal decisions are made by attorneys. Prosecutions are made by attorneys. Defenses are made by attorneys. Judgments are made by attorneys. Officers of the court are in fact just government agents. These agents are also U.S. citizens and they main job is to collect revenue to pay the federal debt. Therefore the whole court system and all attorneys have just modified the legal system into a business entity, designed to run as many people through as fast as they can, and collect the most revenue. And what is the one product of this business? Statutes. There are over 3 million law and statute BOOKS, and over 60 million statutes! Do you know them ALL? Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Again, all definitions quoted in this chapter are from Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, unless otherwise noted.

Up until 1933, we operated under Public Law. After 1933 we operated under Public Policy. What is the difference?

Public law. That branch or department of law which is concerned with the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including constitutional and administrative law, and with the definition, regulation, and enforcement of rights where the state is regarded as the subject of the right or object of the duty, . . . That portion of law which is concerned with political conditions; that is to say, with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordinate.

Before 1933 we had public law, based on rights, constitutions, statutes, etc., and the state was the subject of the rights and the object of the duty to protect those rights. If you went to court, you went as a sovereign with inalienable rights, and the courts upheld them.

After 1933, when everybody's status changed, we then went under public policy.

Public policy doctrine. Doctrine whereby a court may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy.

Public policy.
Community common sense and common conscience, extended and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health, safety, welfare, and the like; it is that general and well-settled public opinion relating to man's plain, palpable duty to his fellow men, having due regard to all circumstances of each particular relation and situation.

So, what's the difference?

Under public law, the courts upheld the constitution, the statutes, and enforced your inalienable rights, even to the detriment of the public. This is still applicable to all cases where there is a dispute as to the terms of a contract that does NOT affect the general public or the government. If you have a contract to provide a service for someone, then the courts will enforce that contract. But if you are a corporation and you sign a contract with a supplier that says you will not sell any products to women, then the court will rule that your contract is against public policy and will refuse to enforce the contract.

Under public policy, you have no rights to uphold, or contracts to enforce. It is really just a democracy. If the majority of the public has the same opinion, then that becomes public policy, law. If your rights or contract interferes with what the government thinks is best for the welfare of the general public, or is contrary to public opinion, they may refuse to uphold your rights, or enforce your contract. That is why most contracts have to be on government approved forms before the courts will uphold them. The whole court system, at all levels, is just a private business set up to collect revenue for the government. They mostly handle their own business, collecting revenue for violations of their corporate statutes, but occasionally they will listen to a dispute between two private citizens.

As applied to court cases, if you have a property line dispute with your neighbor, the court will enforce the laws as written. If you have a dispute with the IRS because they assessed a tax after the statute of limitations was expired, the court may uphold the statute. If you are claiming that the IRS cannot tax your property income directly, due to the inalienable rights of property, the courts will not uphold your rights, because the public needs the tax money. If you are claiming your inalienable rights against the government, what are your chances? You are fighting Goliath in Goliath's court! If you make constitutional arguments in court, the judge will tell you that if you persist in making these arguments, he will find you in contempt of court! WHY? Because a U.S. citizen does not have any Constitutional protections. They are property of the corporate government and property does not have rights.

BUT, if you do like I did in my court cases (and older editions of my book), the courts will rule against you, under public policy. In my court cases I provided documented proof that the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7805 says that the Secretary of the Treasury must prescribe regulations for the 'enforcement' of the tax code. And that without these regulations being promulgated, that the collection and penalty statutes were not enforceable. I even quoted IRC 6202, which says: "The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary." There are NO regulations prescribed for, assessments, liens, levies, frivolous penalties, or ANY other type of collection action, THAT APPLY TO INCOME TAX. All these collection regulations only apply to the BATF. If there are no rules or regulations prescribed for assessments, how can the IRS make a valid assessment for income tax when you don't file a return? They can't! Did this argument make any difference when I presented it? NO! I had documented proof! I even provided Supreme Court decisions to back up the argument, along with other statutes that said the same thing. I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were no regulations for ANY collection actions, for income tax, in the Code of Federal Regulations. (26 CFR Part 1 Income Tax.) I provided MANY authorities. But the court ruled against me. They would not address my argument and would only state that my argument was frivolous and without merit. WITHOUT MERIT! I had tons of documentation from their own laws to prove my case! But I lost because I was ignorant! Ignorant of the doctrine of Public Policy. The law and the statutes are NOT valid! Public opinion is the determining factor. And who determines public opinion? The legal system!

If my arguments WERE addressed by the court, then they would have to uphold the law as it was plainly written. But, my win would have exposed the fraud of the income tax collection actions applied against us, and would have had a major impact on the way the government collects taxes. It would result in a great loss of revenue. And a loss of revenue, would be against public policy, because we have to take care of the welfare of the people, and pay off the bankruptcy, and that would put a damper on it. Therefore, due to the doctrine of public policy, my arguments were without merit. What, REALLY, is this doctrine based on? It is based on another doctrine, the Doctrine of Necessity!

You have probably heard of patriots who have gone to court with a claim against the government, and the courts dismissed the case for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted", or was dismissed because the argument was "without merit". These patriots thought they had a great case, and they did! That was the problem! They could not be allowed to win, because it would cause a revolution! What does necessity mean?

Necessity. Controlling force; irresistible compulsion; a power or impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct. That which makes the contrary of a thing impossible. The quality or state of being necessary, in its primary sense signifying that which makes an act or event unavoidable.

When the government takes your property to build a road or make a park, (eminent domain) that is done under the doctrine of necessity. It is in the best interest of the public, therefore you must give up your property right! Suppose you killed someone in self defense. That is under the doctrine of necessity. You HAD to do it to save your life! The government says the same thing for your court arguments. They had to rule against you, because THEIR life was at stake! When it comes down to your life or their life, which way do you think they will rule? What do you think Goliath would have done if David filed a court case against him, in Goliath's court? If it came down to David's life or Goliath's life, how would Goliath rule? He would rule out of the doctrine of necessity. STAY OUT OF GOLIATH'S COURT! Throw your stones instead! You cannot beat them in their own courts!

Many patriot arguments were based on constitutional claims, as were mine. As we learned in previous chapters, only a U.S. citizen has any standing in any court, and the U.S. citizen does not have any inalienable rights secured by the Constitution or Bill of Rights! He has only privileges granted by his master, the government. That's why 14th Amendment citizens had to be given privileges and immunities that corresponded to all the same rights that sovereigns claimed in the Bill of Rights. Privileges and immunities are pseudo rights that can be granted and taken away at will by the government. So when a U.S. citizen makes a constitutional rights claim, the court cannot grant relief, because he has not made a claim upon which relief can be granted. He has no 'constitutional' rights. He only has privileges and immunities, under the 14th Amendment, as a citizen of the United States.

Since all law is based on contract, the courts and the government agencies automatically 'presume' that you are a U.S. citizen making a statutory claim against the corporate government, Goliath. And you waived ALL your rights when you signed the contract for U.S. citizen, so what's your beef? You have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted!

The Laws of War, International and Municipal Law, and Emergency powers, are not real law. The Supreme Court has ruled in the landmark case of Erie Railroad v. Thompkins 1938, that stare decisis, which means case law, in statutory construction, is a useful rule, not an exorable command. This means that former court cases may or may not be used to set any precedent for the law, because the standard of law previous to 1933 was based on the constitution. After 1933, the constitution no longer applied, so any cases decided before 1933 no longer were required to be upheld. The same is true today. If you are in court, the judge will only acknowledge case cites before 1933 if they are not against current public policy, because they are not valid today under military law. He won't tell you that though! WHY? Because necessity knows no law! And necessity is the basis of the emergency powers and martial law.

Before 1933 you still had full constitutional rights and you could argue those rights in a court of law in your real name spelled in upper and lower case letters. Before 1933 you were still under emergency rule, but were not the declared enemy of the United States. After 1933, all enemies of the United States only had standing in the military court as legal fictions, U.S. citizens. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were instituted on September 16, 1938.

But the biggest rotten apple in the barrel was another doctrine, called stare decisis.

Stare decisis. To abide by, or adhere, to decide cases. Policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. Doctrine that, when court has once lain down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same.
Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary
to its determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent cases where the very point is again in controversy.

The key word here is 'necessary.' The previous case must be followed, except under the doctrine of necessity. These 2 doctrines have lost us more freedoms that any other. How? Let's take an example. Let's say I go to court and make a claim that the IRS has levied my property without following proper procedure. In order to make a levy, they first had to make an assessment. And since I didn't file a return, before they could make the assessment, they had to send a notice of deficiency. They goofed. They didn't send a notice of deficiency, made an assessment anyway, without any regulations, and then levied my property as they pleased. By the way, this is MY true story.

I, not being versed in legal procedure, and not being able to afford an attorney, decided to educate myself in the nuances of law. Boy did I learn a lot! A lot of what is in this book. I already knew that if I hired an attorney, that the attorney works for the courts, not for you. I knew that every attorney and every judge was a member of the American BAR Association, and that the ABA was a private corporation. I knew that an attorney is obligated, by his membership in the bar, to uphold the principle of the court, to the detriment of his client, if need be. Also that he was not going to be made fun of by the judge, by presenting a tax case that they considered frivolous (of which they considered ALL of them frivolous). So I became pro per, or pro se, because that's what all the patriot books said to do. What I did NOT know then was that the terms 'pro per' and 'pro se', both are designations of artificial persons! I had just announced to the court my status!

Any way, I learned all the rules of civil procedure, and learned how to write briefs, and learned, I thought, all I needed to know. Wrong! What I didn't know was that there were NO RULES! Everything is done by necessity.

I filed my arguments with federal District Court, that proper procedure was not followed, and that no regulations were prescribed for collection actions for income tax. I also filed my 45 pg Memorandum showing the difference between direct and indirect income taxes. I claimed that;
(1) the IRS was collecting income taxes by liens and levies without following proper procedure,
(2) no regulations were prescribed for assessment or collection actions for income tax, and
(3) that they had no authority to collect direct taxes on property income without apportionment.
Three pretty good arguments, huh? And I had all three arguments highly documented. It was an air tight case. Or so I thought.

The Department of Justice filed an answer to my complaint. They said that my arguments were frivolous and without merit, and asked for dismissal of the action. They did NOT present any arguments to counter my arguments. They just said 'frivolous' and 'without merit'. How could they say that? It was easy. They said that MY supposed arguments were, (1) that the IRS had no authority to collect taxes; (2) that regulations were needed for ALL statutes; and (3) that the income tax was an illegal unconstitutional tax; were frivolous and without merit. They were 100% right about those arguments! Why? Because they were NOT MY arguments! They were made up by the Dept. of Just-us attorneys.

The judge ruled that my arguments, as stated by the Dept. of Just-us, were frivolous and without merit. Were they? As phrased by the Dept. of Just-us, they were! They did not address MY arguments. They changed my arguments and then ruled against me. Outraged I appealed to the federal Appellate Court.

I showed how they had twisted my arguments, and how they refused to address my arguments. And I restated my arguments, and made clear what my arguments were NOT! The appellate court rubber stamped the district court decision as frivolous and without merit. To add insult to injury, they also fined me $3000, called sanctions, for wasting the court's and the government's time. Then they ruled that the case was not to be published! It was not published, but it has been used against me in subsequent cases, and someone HAS published it on the internet!

Again outraged. I appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied my appeal and would not hear my case. Again, I did not know that the Supreme Court has not heard a case since 1900, that was presented without a lawyer. I had appealed pro per. You no longer have the 'right' to appeal to the Supreme Court. And if you DO, it can only be done through a lawyer!

This was just one of many cases that I filed. They all resulted in the same decision. Dismissed as frivolous and without merit! They were all against public policy I guess. To add insult to injury, in the 6 cases I filed in federal court against the IRS, I not only lost, I was fined (sanctioned) by the court for over $13,000, for filing frivolous claims! And I have been forbidden to file any more claims, until all the sanctions have been paid. And they never once addressed mMY arguments! We now have only kangaroo courts, at all levels. And their only interest is in collecting as much revenue and attorney fees as possible.

Because the federal District courts are now under martial law, they will only hear cases of a statutory nature. They will not hear constitutional claims, because they are not operating under the Constitution, and a U.S. citizen has no rights secured by the constitution. The cases they DO hear, that involve supposed constitutional rights, are really about the privileges and immunities granted to 14th Amendment U.S. citizens. These privileges and immunities are the same as the Bill of Rights, but are really the Bill of Privileges. But rather than admit that, and cause a revolt, they just look for any technicality they can find to dismiss your case, or rule against you, without addressing the constitutional issues.

If you look at the statutes for your state, you will find that the Constitution, state or federal, and the Bill of Rights, are not included in the statutes. The statutes start AFTER these documents with Title I.


In order for the federal government to tax your income directly, without apportionment, and without an excise tax, they have to first create a contract allowing them to do so. If you agreed to the contract, then it was legal. This contract, as we learned earlier, is called "Social Security". When the Social Security Act was passed in 1935, Congress also created 10 Social Security Districts. The districts covered the continental United States and made them federal territories, for the purposes of social security. In 1939, the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was passed. This allowed the taxing of all federal and state employee's incomes, and the income of anyone who resided or worked in any 'federal area'. But what was a federal area? To solve that problem Congress passed the "Buck Act" in 1940. This act allowed any department of the federal government to create a "federal area" for the imposition of the Public Salary Tax Act. So them then created federal states, which occupy the same area as the state republics. To tell the two apart abbreviations were created to designate the difference. So the republic of Arizona became the federal STATE OF ARIZONA, and was abbreviated AZ, instead of Ariz. So, anytime you use the two letter abbreviation AZ, you are designating a federal area and not a sovereign state. What address do you use? Are you declaring yourself to be in a federal area? If you are then you are liable for income tax. This federal area would also extend to any contract you signed in which you used your social security number for identification.

The federal legal system has done the same thing. When you file a federal court case, it is not filed in any state, it is filed in a federal district. The heading on the court documents do not say IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. It says IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. The states are not sovereign states, for court jurisdiction, they are federal districts.

District courts. Each state is comprised of one or more federal judicial districts, and in each district there is a district court. 28 U.S.C.A. 81. The United States district courts are the trial courts with general Federal jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws of offenses and actions between citizens of different states. Each state has at least one district court, though many have several judicial districts (e.g. northern, southern, middle districts) or divisions. There is also a United States district court in the District of Columbia.

And all these federal court districts are all under the national emergency declared in 1933 and are now military courts.

The Post Office has also jumped on the band wagon. As we know, the federal government, United States, is considered a foreign country, in relation to the several states of the union. So any mail sent within the jurisdiction of the United States proper, 10 miles square, would be domestic. Any mail sent to another jurisdiction, the 50 states or foreign countries, would be non-domestic. To show the difference, all domestic mail was given a zip code. There are no zip codes for non-domestic mail. So if you use a zip code in your address, you are identifying your location as a federal domestic area.

And the IRS. The federal tax statutes only apply within federal jurisdiction. They do not apply within the boundaries of a state republic, as we have learned. That's why the tax department of the corporate U.S. is called the Department of Internal Revenue. It only applies within corporate U.S. jurisdiction. That jurisdiction does not extend to the 50 republic states, UNLESS you claim to be a U.S. citizen. Then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate U.S. (14th amendment) and the taxes are for internal revenue purposes.



Before we leave this chapter, I would like to present one more proof of the martial rule in existence today. Whenever there is a military occupation, what is the first thing the occupying forces do? They put up their flag to show everyone who is in command of that territory! Who controls all the commercial disputes today? If you have a legal conflict with someone over some property, where do you go? To the courts! So if you want to know the real status of our political situation all you have to do is go into the nearest courtroom and look at the flag. But for that to mean anything to you, you must know a little about flags.

The true American flag is red white and blue. There is no gold fringe around the edge. What does this gold fringe indicate?

The opinion of U.S. Attorney General John G. Sargent:
34 Opinion Attorney General 483, 484, 485, 486 (1925).
From the correspondence attached to the letter of President Harding, above mentioned, it would seem that doubts have been expressed in some quarters as to the propriety of attaching a fringe of yellow silk to the colors and standards used by troops in the field. The use of such a fringe is prescribed in Army Regulations No. 260-10. In a circular dated March 28, 1924, The Adjutant General of the Army thus refers to the matter of the fringe:
"For a number of years there has been prescribed in Army Regulations a knotted fringe of yellow silk on the national standards of mounted regiments and on the national colors of unmounted regiments. The War Department, however, knows of no law which either requires or prohibits the placing of fringe on the flag of the United States. No Act of Congress or Executive order has been found bearing on the question. In flag manufacturing a fringe is not considered to be a part of the flag, and it is without heraldic significance . In common use of the word it is a fringe and not a border. Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors and standards, but here seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags."
The presence, therefore, of a fringe on military colors and standards does not violate any existing Act of Congress.
It's use or disuse is a matter of practical policy, to be determined, in the absence of statute, by the Commander in Chief. If the fringe is used, its color and size are matters of detail which may be determined by the same authority.

Well let's look at the regulations for flags that HAVE been issued. The only direct authority for the use of fringe on the American flag is in the Army regulations.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states:
b. National flags listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states:
c. Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for:
(1) each office, headquarters, and organization authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational color;
(2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States;
(3) each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom;
(5) each US Army element of joint commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity;
(6) each subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command;
(7) each ROTC unit, including those at satellited schools;
(8) each reception station.

Did you see anything there about use in a non-military court of law? So if there is a gold fringe around the flag in your courtroom, you are in a military courtroom! We are under martial law!

This is confirmed by 4 U.S.C. (United States Code) Chap.1, Secs. 1, 2 & 3.
". . . a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on 3 sides."


STAY OUT OF COURT, if at all possible! You are either a sovereign or a slave. Act the part you choose.

We are operating under Public Policy, not Public Law. There are no laws to uphold! And no Constitutional courts to hear them in!

We are operating under stare decisis. The latest court case is the new law, if they want to use it to their advantage. They will ignore it, if it is to your advantage!

We are operating under necessity. The needs of the government and public opinion take priority over your rights.

Any argument you present in court, that would embarrasses the government, or expose their fraud, will be dismissed as frivolous and without merit. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Which means they will refuse to give you relief, even if you are right! So, you lose, because relief will not be granted!

Federal areas were created to cover the same areas that the states occupy. Claiming to be in one of these federal areas brings you under the jurisdiction of the federal government as U.S. citizens.

All courts today are military courts, set up under martial law, under national emergency. Just look at the flag of the occupying force. We are sovereign American Indians on the reservation, claiming that our treaties are not being honored. And again, we are being told, SHUT UP!

When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins! Period.

Table of Contents    /     Chapter 10


Home Page