Soaring Spirit


"In Simplicity Is All Truth" "Experience Is My Teacher" "Wisdom Is My Proof"

Nicolette Germano© LS

Notice of fraud and embezzlement


US Attorney John Huber
SALT LAKE OFFICE
111 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2176
Phone: (801) 524-5682


ST. GEORGE OFFICE
20 North Main Street, Suite 208
St. George, Utah 84770
Phone: (435) 634-4270


[see attached]


Mr. Huber, I have been trying sense 2/2014 to expose the crimes of Kamala Harris and all those involved with her embezzlement of 19 billion from the 26 billion bank settlement that belongs to us Californian homeowners that had our lands and property stolen by fraud of the banks and lending institutions.
Please see my link above where Federal Postal Judge David Wynn Miller tells me why we never received that settlement.
Unfortunately, Mr Miller passed away in July 2018 thereby no longer able to testify but you can still investigate this matter. It sickens me to hear that Harris is planning to run for the 2020 Presidential election knowing not enough Californians or Americans are aware of what she has done to us.
I am asking please add her to your list to investigate and add her and all those involved in this crime to the growing 55,000 sealed indictments. You are indicting other financial crimes against us, i.e. money laundering, securities frauds and other embezzlement crimes, please add her to this as well. She and her cohorts must not be allowed to get away with this and I’m quite sure many other crimes she and her cohorts have committed against ALL of us.
Thank you for your time. I’m praying vindication will be ours.


By: ______________________________________________________© Seal LS 10/5/2018
POA: Nicolette 
For: Nicolette 
As: Nicolette 
For: NICOLETTE
c/o: PO Box 978, Rio Linda, California, [95673-9999]
Non Negotiable Signature, all Unalienable Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice to any of those Rights



Federal Postal Judge David Wynn Miller

california wrongfull foreclosure homeowners did not see the lawful payments from the 26 Billion deal because attorney general kamala harris embezzled 19 billion and claimed to have paid off a california bankruptcy and was given an award from Obama for doing it california is not bankrupt its not possible when california CAFR fund has trillions sitting in it Impeach harris and send her to jail for fraud, extortion, racketeering, embezzlement and inland piracy- audit the books all the books of california goverment and courts Below is my communications with Federal Postal Judge David Wynn Miller and an attorney Robert Bernhoft: Hello Robert, below is a list of California CAFR fund links, i.e.: State of California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, these reports prove california is not bankrupt, yet in my email communications with the Federal Judge David Wynn Miller, who is the judge that brokered the deal with the banks on behalf of all the states where homeowners were wrongfully foreclosed on were to receive the money from that deal, we in california did not receive our money because as the judge states below in our email communication', the california attorney general Kamala Harris embezzled that money and claimed to pay off a 19 billion dollar california bankruptcy and according to this judge she got an award from BO to boot for cheating us. I would like to file a class action [joinder] with and on behalf of all California homeowners that were wrongfully foreclosed on as I was. Is this something you can do? please review the info below so you can see for yourself. thanks, many blessings https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr09web.pdf year: 2009 https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr11web.pdf year: 2011 https://www.examiner.com/article/ca-cafr-600-billion-pension-investment-fund-nets-just-1-billion year: 2011 review https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr12web.pdf year: 2012 all home owners didnt get paid! Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:27 PM From: "Nicolette" To: DWMLAWPRO@AOL.COM Cc: nicolette i just saw your video #13 & #14 on youtube you claimed all the homeowners got paid no i didnt GMAC committed fraud and so much more having the sheriffs come to my home with guns to take me off my land any way they thought they needed to telling me they were only doing there job via court order that wasnt even signed by a judge from your little deal you made with the banks GMAC stole nearly 1.5 M by taking my home, land, building material, 30ft trailer and much more putting my paralyzed daughter her infant and me and my husband on the street and what did we get for all this? $1,000 from your little deal with the banks what did they get not even a slap on the hand and never returning of the trillions of dollars stolen from us that they embezzled and have sitting in offshore banks. im so angry with what they did to us and am even more insulted by your smart deal you made with them. there better be something we can do to get back what was fraudulently stolen from us. your a federal judge, you made the deal with the banks but what have you done for all of us that have lost everything due to these criminals? what can we do to get back all they strong armed away from us? every action they did was fraud and so much worse why have you allowed this to happen? and don't tell me you didn't have anything to do with this because you flat out said so on your youtube videos. every action GMAC did to us is wrong and invalid and we deserve our property and all they stole from us plus all that it cost us trying to fight to keep our property plus compensation for all the trauma it cost us as a family but what is even worse is what it cost my paralyzed daughter and her infant daughter. my rage is beyond measure. i spent two years fighting these F###### bastards only to have the courts turn all our property over to them being told by the judge "well if you cant tell me why i shouldn't give it to them I'm handing it over" this is after i filed over 400 documents showing everything i could find and do to prove they were racketeering thugs committing fraud. I WANT JUSTIFICATION AND RESTITUTION - NO LETTING THEM WALK SCOTT FREE - I CANT BELIEVE YOU GAVE THEM A WAY OUT TO WALK WITH OUT GIVING TRUE RESTITUTION FOR WHAT DAMAGE THEY COMMITTED AGAINST INNOCENT MOTHERS AND CHILDREN AND ALL OF US! Alternative to drugs https://soaringspirit.webstarts.com ************************************************************************ Re: all home owners didnt get paid! Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:16 PM Mark as Unread Flag this message From: "Davidwynn Miller" To: nicolette i brokered a deal to get the people the money and the banks settled in california in 10-days-$26-billion dollars. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Kamala Harris took the money and paid off the $19-billion-dollar bankruptcy of the CALIFORNIA AND WELCHED ON THE BANKS AS WELL AND GOT AN AWARD FROM OBAMA FOR CREATING THE HOMEOWNERS. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH T HE A-G IN WASHINGTON, ERIK HOLDER AND HIS DEAL WITH THE BANKS FOREGIVNESS AS THE BANKS HAVE PAID THE DOJ AND SEC 800-BILLION TO DOJ AND SEC TO DATE. SEE SENATE OVERSIGHT LETTER. DOC: OVERSIGHT-COMMITTEE-15-FEB-2013.doc 36KB FOR THE COMMITTEE ON THE OVERSITE AND: GOVERNMENT-FORM. ~2157-~RAYBURN-HOUSE-OFFICE-BUILDING, ~WASHINGTON~D.-C.~20515 FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER-PLENIPOTENTIARY, POSTMASTER, UNITED NATION-SOVEREIGN: FEDERAL-POSTAL-JUDGE: David-Wynn: Miller.[~5166~North~63rd-STREET,-~MILWAUKEE,-~WISCONSIN-~53218]OR[~2020-~MAIN-STREET,-~SUITE-~1002,-~WAILUKU,-~MAUI,-~HAWAI’I-~96793]. ~1 FOR THE (THREE-HUNDRED-PLUS) QUO-WARRANTO-COMPLAINTS OF THE FILING ARE WITH THE FEDERAL-TORT-CLAIM-ACT OF THE PENALTY-DAMAGE-CLAIM WITH THE $25-MILLION-DOLLARS-FINE(EACH) WITH THE FRAUDULENT-MORTGAGE-FORECLOSURE’S-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR: TITLE-~15: DOCUMENT-CONTRACT-CLAIM-SECTION-~1692-E &: FRAUDULENT-LANGUAGE: TITLE~18: DOCUMENT-CONTRACT-CLAIM-SECTION-~1001, AGAINST THE SERVICING-BANK &: AS THE AILING-VOID-HOLDER OF THE NOTE, TITLE, GRANT-DEED, DEED OF TRUST, OR: MORTGAGE WITHOUT THE LODIAL-LAND-TITLE-AUTOGRAPHED OR: DEED-AUTOGRAPHED WITH THE CORRECT-CONTRACT OF THE FORECLOSURE-PROPERTY.(25-MILLION-FORECLOSURES, HOMELESS-PEOPLE-COLLAPS-USA)(100-MILLION-PEOPLE) ~2 FOR THE BANK AS THE MOVING-PERSON IS WITHOUT THE TWO-PERSON-AUTOGRAPHING-CONTRACT OF THE OWNERSHIP-FILING WITH THE FORECLOSURE: FORE(NO)CLOS(JOIN)URE(CONTRACT-FACT). ~3 FOR THE FOREIGN-VESSEL-COURTHOUSE: FEDERAL-RULES OF CIVIL-PROCEDURE, RULE~44.1, ARE WITH THE FICTION-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-LANGUAGE-DAMAGE-CLAIM OF THE WRONG-SYNTAX-WORD-MEANING WITH THE NUMBER-CODES BY THE SYNTAXING-WORD-EVIDENCE: (1)=ADVERB-MODIFIER, (2)VERB-MOTION-ACTION, (3)=ADJECTIVE-COLORING, OPINION, PERJURY-CHANGE-MODIFIER, (4)=PRONOUN=NO-NO-NO, PRO=NO, NO=NO, UN=NO, (5)=POSITION=ALPHABET-SPELLING-LETTERS, WORD-TERM-MEANING, (6)=LODIAL=OWNERSHIP-POSSESSIVE, [ARTICLE], (7)=FACT, [NOUN=NO-NO], FOR THE PEN, FOR MY PEN, FOR YOUR PEN, FOR A PEN, OF THE PEN, OF MY PEM, OF YOUR PEN, BY THE PEN, BY MY PEN. ~5 FOR THE BONDED: QUO-WARRANTO-COMPLAINT OF THE SYNTAX-WORDING-EVIDENCE ARE WITH THE BORROWING-FRAUD-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-DEED-LANGUAGE WITH THE BANK-CUSTOMER’S-VICTIMIZED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-FRAUD-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-MONEY-CONTRACT. ~6 FOR THE QUANTUM-MATH-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR-COPYCLAIM OF THE DATE-~6-~APRIL-~1988-CLOSURE BY THE David-Wynn: Miller IS WITH THE CORRECTION-CLAIM OF THE PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR WITH THE TWENTY-NINE-GRADE-CORRECT-WRITING-LEVEL AS THE MATH-PROBLEM CAN BE WRITTEN-FOREWARD AND: CHECKED-BACKWARDS:(1+2=3,3-2=1, 2X3=6,6/3=2) WITH THE ADD, SUBTRACT, MULTIPLY, DIVIDE, SIGN, CO-SIGN, TANGENT(TRIG). ~7 FOR ALL MATH-PROBLEMS OF ALL COUNTRIES ARE WITH THE SAME-VALUE-NUMBERS(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,) OF THE PEOPLES’-TRADING WITH THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD AND WITH THE NEVER-WARRING OVER THE MATH-PROBLEMS. ~8 FOR THE PROOF OF THE WRITING ARE WITH THE CORRECT-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR OF THE CORRECTION-CLAIM WITH THE TITLE-~42: D.-C.-C.-S.-~1986: KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONG-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR AND WITH THE CORRECTION OF THE FRAUDULENT-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR WITH THE FEDERAL-POSTAL-JUDGE: David-Wynn: Miller’s-KNOWLEDGE and: CLAIMANTS. ~9 FOR THE JUDGES, ATTORNEYS, LAWYERS, BANKSTERS, TEACHERS &: POLITITIONS OF THE LYING-TOGETHER ARE WITH THE FRAUD-SYNTAX-PRACTICE-CRAFT OF THEIR FICTION-WORD-CRAFT WITH THE SLAVERY OF THE PEOPLE & WITH THE TAKING(STEALING) BY THE FRAUDULENT-PARSE-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR WITH THE SCHOOLS-TEACHING-FRAUD-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR FOR THE BAR-COURT-HARVEST OF THE “ENGLAND, CANADA, NEW-ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA, &: SOUTH-AFRICA”. “THE(ADVERB) UNITED(ADJECTIVE) STATES(PRONUON) OF(ADVERB) AMERICA(VERB-FICTION)”, AND WITH THE LOOKING AT THE MONEY-WORDING OF “THE U.S. of A”. ~10 FOR THE CHINEES-GOVERNMENT AND: 150-TRADING-PARTNERS ARE WITH THE TEACHING- CORRECT-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR OF THE SEPTEMBER-~2012-SCHOOL-YEAR AND: SOUTH-KOREA-~2007.(200-HOURS-SEMINAR-VIDEOS-FREE, TV, RADIO, WEB, DAVIDWYNNMILLERVIDEOS….SEARCH) ~11 WWW.DWMLC.COM-WEBSITE IS: WRITTEN &: READ BY THE FIVE-BILLION-STUDENTS IN THE 150-WORLD-LANGUAGES. -----Original Message----- From: Nicolette To: DWMLAWPRO Cc: nicolette Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 7:27 pm Subject: all home owners didnt get paid! **************************************************************************** Re: all home owners didnt get paid! Friday, February 21, 2014 3:02 PM From: "Nicolette" To: "Davidwynn Miller" Cc: nicolette I appreciate your quick response. Now that you have informed me as to what exactly happened to the money from your brokered deal with the banks do we as victims of Kamala Harris actions and this back door award from BO for cheating the homeowners, have any recourse to file against them, is this not an act of Malfeasance or an under handed unlawful act that we the people accosted by their actions can pursue and expose? if your answer is yes, can you point me in a right direction in order to pursue this recourse? my sincere gratitude is offered for any and all information that can be provided here that will help the over 4,000,000 of us here in california. thank you as of today: April 11, 2014 Federal Judge David Wynn Miller has not responded to my April-29-2015 request. 12/14/17: Note: we now know how the banks got away with this fraud due to the fraud by the corporation calling its self THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. they have raped our country of everything including our lawful rights to our lands and property through the original land title and titles on property. the banks place us as tenants and not owners on our lands and property, claiming the banks own all titles and lands. FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD and fraud vitiates all!!!! we have been collateralize from the time we are born by them placing a bond on our names fraudulently calling these bonds BIRTH CERTIFICATES. thats where it starts and finishes. this treasonous body of the feds stole all the gold of this country then created a bond on all of us then proceeded to steal all our wealth and use our labor as collateral. do your research you too will find the truth as to what they have done to us all including all STATE OF agencies, all are corporations you can find them on Dun & Bradstreet. as far as Harris' embezzlement i must include Jerry Brown in this as well as she could not have done this on his watch without he himself approving it thereby making them accomplices in treasonous crimes. as well as all the crimes they have and are committing against all Californians.




PROCLAMATION

NOTICE AND DEMAND
CEASE AND DESIST: IMPROPER VENUE, NO CONTRACT, INLAND PIRACY, EXTORTION OF REAL, PRIVATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTIES, THEFT OF TITLES, RICO, CRIMINAL FRAUD, SECURITIES FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT/FRAUD, NON-DISCLOSURE, INTENT TO DECEIVE, WE DO NOT GIVE OUR CONSENT!
All Originals held for Litigation
Held Under Private Registered Indemnity Bond
Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents, Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals


INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 
1111 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, MS F180 
Washington, District of Puerto Rico, DC, 20224 

COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
1111 Constitution Avenue, Northwest,
Washington, DC, 20224


COMMISSIONER OF THE IRS TREASURY 
1111 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, 
Washington, DC, 20224


JOINT STAFF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon, Room 2D932 
Washington DC, 20318-9999 


Edmund Gerald Brown 
c/o 1315 10th Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

SECRETARY Munchin 
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220


STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

PO BOX 942867

SACRAMENTO, CA 94267-0011


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FILING ENFORCEMENT SECTION

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

PO BOX 942840

SACRAMENTO CA 94240-0040



PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump

c/o THE WHITE HOUSE

1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500


General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr.

American Armed Forces

c/o The Joint Chiefs of Staff

9999 Joint Staff, Pentagon

Washington, DC 20318-9999




PROCLAMATION
NOTICE AND DEMAND
CEASE AND DESIST: IMPROPER VENUE, NO CONTRACT, INLAND PIRACY, EXTORTION OF REAL, PRIVATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTIES, THEFT OF TITLES, RICO, CRIMINAL FRAUD, SECURITIES FRAUD, IDENTITY THEFT/FRAUD, NON-DISCLOSURE, INTENT TO DECEIVE, WE DO NOT GIVE OUR CONSENT!
All Originals held for Litigation
Held Under Private Registered Indemnity Bond


Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents, Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals


Two Maxims of Law
• A piratis et latronibus capta dominium non mutant.
Things captured by pirates or robbers do not change their ownership.
• A piratis aut latronibus capti liberi permanent.
Those captured by pirates or robbers remain free.


“BY DECREE YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL FRAUDS, INLAND PIRACY AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST US! TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL ACTIONS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO OUR SOVEREIGN LIVES, LIBERTIES, FREEDOMS, RIGHTS, MOVEMENTS AND OWNERSHIP'S.
TO RETURN EXPEDIENTLY ALL THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS AGENCIES, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ITS AGENCIES AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS AGENCIES, THAT WHICH THEY HAVE EXTORTED FROM OUR WAGES, OUR LANDS, OUR TITLES, OUR REAL, PRIVATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THIS LATEST EXTORTION OF OUR WAGES OF $6,070.66, WHICH IS ALL AN EXCHANGE OF OUR LABOR, AND IS OVER AND ABOVE THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WHICH ARE EXTORTED FROM OUR PAY CHECKS EVERY YEAR BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
TO RESTORE US WHOLE FROM ALL THE FRAUDULENT MORTGAGES AND THE FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE OF OUR REAL PROPERTY AT STREET, CALIFORNIA BY GMAC AND THE BANKS, ON ALL TRUSTS, BONDS AND SO FORTH THAT THESE CORPORATIONS AND THEIR AGENCIES AND AGENTS HAVE CREATED WITHOUT OUR CONCENT. I.E. BIRTH REGESTRY, SOCIAL SECURITY, INSURANCE BONDS, LICENSES, TRUSTS, BONDS AND ALL OTHER CREATIONS USING OUR IDENTITIES AS FICTIOUS NAMES AGAINST OUR WILL AND KNOWLEDGE.
TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL TOXINS AND POISONOUS SUBTENANTS BEING ADDED TO VACCINES, OUR WATER, AIR, FOOD, ETC.
TO REMOVE ALL BLOCKS WHICH IMPEED OUR LAWFUL RIGHT TO REDEEM AND EXCHANGE CURRENCY WITH ALL OTHER COUNTRIES, FOR OUR CURRENCY.
ALL OTHER SYMBOLISM, GRAMMER, LANGUAGE, REQUIREMENTS, DEMANDS, STATUTES, CODES, CLAIMS OF ENFORCEMENTS, ETC., TO DECEIVE, OR FORCE PERFORMANCE UPON US BY ALL AGENCIES AND AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE IRRELEVANT TOWARD WE THE PEOPLE. THERE IS NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OF THESE CORPORATIONS, AGENCIES AND AGENTS, TO CREATE OR ENFORCE ANY ACTIONS AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE. THE POWER AND AUTHORITY IS IN THE POSSESSION OF WE THE PEOPLE. WE ARE LIVING SOULS, ALIVE ON THE LAND AND SOIL OF AMERICA, NOT VESSELS, NOT DEAD AT SEA.
YOU WILL HONOR THIS NOTICE AND DEMAND, OUR NOTICE OF PARAMOUNT CLAIM, OUR POA, OUR FEE SCHEDULE, OUR REVOCATIONS OF ELECTION AND OUR MANDATORY NOTICES. WE ARE OWED THE LAW OF PEACE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET 27-161-1, FROM ALL TERRITORIAL AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO OTHER WISE HAVE NO PERMISSION TO APPROACH OR ADDRESS US.
YOU ARE ALL PART OF THE SAME WEB OF CORRUPTION, YOUR CONTINUED ACTIONS ESTABLISHES PROOF. YOU ARE TO DISCONTINUE YOUR DISHONOR WITH UNCLEAN HANDS UPON US.”
RE: California Franchise Tax Board: Notice Number: 01-3146071-083018, Improper Venue, fictious name:
RE: California Franchise Tax Board: Order Number 625269059114214533, Improper Venue, fictious name:
RE: Notice Number: 01-3146071-083018; To respond to, line 3: PROOF
By this Edict: PROOF has been established, there is no jurisdiction or requirement to file a tax return to STATE or FEDERAL corporations, de facto assumed governments or their agencies or agents. There are no laws, jurisdiction or requirements to force performance upon We The People. This is but a drop in the bucket of the mounting evidence piling up exposing the truth of the atrocities committed not just against America and her people, but the entire World.


Citizenship cannot be forced upon anyone without their consent. Since the living souls in America are not citizens of your foreign corporations and have no voice through the voting franchise in the adoption of the 14th amendment of your private corporate constitution, no consent has been given. Thus, there is no evidence that citizenship was accepted or even wanted by all Americans in this country to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA corporations. Non-citizens of your foreign corporations are not subject to your domestic laws known as statutes, codes, procedures, etc., civil or criminal, of this country, thus all non-citizens of the foreign corporations calling themselves “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and “STATE OF CALIFORNIA”, being in and of themselves de-facto forms of assumed government services and all of its franchises, subsidiaries, agents, including but not limited to: “STATE OF”, departments, courts, etc., no power has been given them by the people for the people that are born on the land and soil of this country known as AMERICA. i.e. no staff of a corporation or subsidiaries’ has any power given to them by We the People to create or enforce laws or any codes, statues procedures, etc., and have not been given to them by the fully informed We the People, and We the People are not subject to the domestic laws known as statutes, codes, etc., thereby we enjoy immunity from all corporations fraudulently calling themselves a government and their agents, and are afforded the same immunity as those of visiting foreign diplomats and their families.
As American Nationals born on the land and soil of America we are not 14th amendment citizen slaves of the foreign for profit private corporations calling themselves “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and “STATE OF CALIFORNIA”. Case in point all corporations and franchises, courts etc. use all upper-case letters in their titles. i.e. All assumed government office’s, courts, departments, agents, actors, principals and departments of their franchises, use an all upper-case word, name and/or title which are dead things, i.e. an all upper-case block work on a piece of paper, etc., such as a birth registration, a bond, a negotiable instrument, licenses, fictitious names, and so on are a fraud and fraud vitiates all.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/fraud


https://www.youarelaw.org/why-capital-letter-names-matter/
It is the locus of the offense which determines jurisdiction, not the offense committed. People v. Godfrey (Cir.1880), 17 Johns, 225, 223 (N.Y. 1819)
Definition: lo·cus (l½“k…s) n., 1. A locality; a place.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 8thed., pg. 2287 – “The omission of the Christian name by either plaintiff or defendant in a legal process prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction, …”
Gregg’s Manual of English: “A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre.”
“Complaint must identify at least one plaintiff by true name; otherwise no action has been commenced.” Roe v New York (1970, SD NY) 49 FRD 279, 14 FR Serv 2d 437, 8 ALR Fed 670.
(The reasoning behind a true name is that neither a State, nor the United States, can pick up a pencil or sneeze, being nothing more than a “piece of paper”. They cannot, therefore, assume the liability of actions nor write a complaint. All activities carried on by governmental agencies are carried out by its agents and actors.)
The Supreme Court case, Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 147 U.S. 47 (1893) says: Defendant was impleaded by the name of A. W. Becker. Initials are no legal part of a name, the authorities holding the full Christian name to be essential. Wilson v. Shannon, 6 Ark. 196; Norris v. Graves, 4 Strob. 32; Seely v. Boon, 1 N. J. Law, 138; Chappell v. Proctor, Harp. 49; Kinnersley v. Knott, 7 C. B. 980; Turner v. Fitt, 3 C. B. 701; Oakley v. Pegler, (Neb .) 46 N. W. Rep. 920; Knox v. Starks, 4 Minn. 20, (Gil. 7 Kenyon v. Semon, (Minn.) 45 N. W. Rep. 10; Beggs v. Wellman, 82 Ala. 391, 2 South. Rep. 877; Nash v. Collier, 5 Dowl. & L. 341; Fewlass v. Abbott, 28 Mich. 270.
The United States Government Printing Office Style Manual clearly defines the rules of grammar for recording of a proper noun in Chapter 3.2, Capitalization. “Proper nouns are capitalized [examples given] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam, Macadam family, Italy, and Anglo-Saxon.” It further defines, in Chapter 11.7, that “Names of vessels are quoted in matter printed in other than lower case roman…[examples given are] LUSITANIA [or] Lusitania.”
Black’s Law Dictionary “Fictitious Name“: “A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead.”


Oxford Dictionary:
“nom“: Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name.
“Nom de guerre“: War name. A name assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.
“Guerre“: War, and as a verb, to wage war.
The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2008/content-detail.html
Fictitious names exist for a purpose. Fictions are invented to give court’s jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354.
See also: http://omnithought.org/why-your-legal-name-written-all-capital-letters/1849
This nation was not set up as a democracy and was never intended to become one. It was established as a constitutional republic, a constitution is created to limit a governing body, not to enslave the people of a country and the intent was clear that it would remain a limited republic form of governance. All of the Republican form of governments and the offices thereof are still enforceable, but are not being utilized due to the deliberate intent to deceive by “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and “THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA”, by not disclosing the truth of what the federal and state corporations have done to this country and her people. “Fraud vitiates ALL”
When someone has something for which they’ve worked and which they’ve earned, they have an inherent Right to keep it and dispose of it as they may choose. When someone else comes along and just takes it by any means what so ever, that is called theft! When someone else comes along and obtains it by threats, fraud, intimidation, etc., that’s called extortion. And when someone else claiming to be an agent of a government, well the labels don’t change. Here we will add a few more labels such as inland piracy, treason, terrorism, fraud, RICO, securities fraud, etc.
Government is a fiction, it is an artificial mechanism or device created and employed by living souls to facilitate social, commercial intercourse. Government, being a fictional entity, has nothing of its own. That reality must be supplied by real people. When government gives something to someone, it must first take that something from someone else.
color of law https://law.academic.ru/629/color_of_law
The conduct of a police officer, judge, or another person clothed with governmental authority that, although it superficially appears to be within the individual's lawful power, is actually in contravention of the law. For example, a police officer who makes a false arrest while on duty, or while off duty but when they are wearing a uniform or badge, is acting under color of law. In some circumstances, the phrase also applies to the conduct of private individuals that is specifically authorized or approved by a statute. Depriving a person of his or her federal civil rights under color of law is, in and of itself, a federal crime and a ground for a cause of action. Also called under color of law.
If the conduct violates a federal civil right or criminal law, it is also called state action.
See also color of title.
Color of Law and Legal Definition https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/color-of-law/
Color of law refers to an act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed. It applies when a person is acting under real or apparent government authority. The term is used in the federal Civil Rights Act, which gives citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents who use their authority to violate rights guaranteed by federal law.


The following is from the Civil Rights Act:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Acting under color of [state] law is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77654 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007)


McCain minority staff director Henry Kerner to IRS official Lois Lerner and other IRS officials: “the solution is to audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous”


https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-irs-documents-revealing-mccains-subcommittee-staff-director-urged-irs-to-engage-in-financially-ruinous-targeting/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY.


We are NOT U.S. CITIZENS


STATUTES ARE NOT LAW – TO BE CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE YOU MUST HAVE MY CONSENT.
We do NOT GIVE OUR CONSENT EVER. We are NOT U.S. CITIZENS, i.e. We are living Souls and not a dead entity written in all upper-case letters on a piece of paper or bond paper being claimed as a vessel owned by another living or dead entity.


A “STATUTE” is NOT a law! Flournoy v. First National Bank of Shreveport, 197 LA 1057. 3 So.2d 244, 248.
A “CODE” is NOT a law! In Re Self v. Rhay, Wn 2d 261, in point of fact in law.
A concurrent or “joint resolution of legislature is NOT “Law”. Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 OKL. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash. 2d 43, 110, P.2d 162, 165).
STATUTE. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”. Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261.
U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – ALL codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities ONLY, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s Laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d, 1344, 1348 (1985).


Supreme Court 1796- This decision has never been overturned:
United States Supreme Court Decision from 1796- [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.] "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent."
“There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789. “Judges” do NOT enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178”
“There have NOT been any “Judges” in America since 1789. There have only been Administrators. FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178”
“The Supreme Court has warned, “Because of what appears to be Lawful commands [Statutory Rules, Regulations and -codes–ordinances- and Restrictions] on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance… [deceptive practices, constructive fraud, barratry, legal plunder, conversion, and malicious prosecution in inferior administrative State courts].” (United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187, 76 S.Ct. 281, 100 L.Ed. 185 (1956);”
“The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land. The codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), They are the law of government for internal regulation, not the law of man, in his separate but equal station and natural state, a sovereign foreign with respect to government generally.
“A concurrent or ‘joint resolution’ of legislature is not “Law,” (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E. 705, 707; Ward v State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rel. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165).
All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accord with God’s Laws. “All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process of Law..”(Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); …lacking due process of law, in that they are ‘void for ambiguity’ in their failure to specify the statutes’ applicability to ‘natural persons,’ otherwise depriving the same of fair notice, as their construction by definition of terms aptly identifies the applicability of such statutes to “artificial or fictional corporate entities or ‘persons’, creatures of statute, or those by contract employed as agents or representatives, departmental subdivisions, offices, officers, and property of the government, but not the ‘Natural Person’ or American citizen Immune from such jurisdiction of legalism.”
“A “Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),
A “Code’ or Statute’ is not a Law,” (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248),”
“A “Code’ is not a Law,” (In Re Self v Rhay Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law).”
The added and revised California constitution use by THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and its agents, are using codes to force extortion levies on all Californians see this link:
http://www.lawnotes.in/California_Revenue_and_Taxation_Code
As stated above all statutes, codes, procedures etc., by any corporations are not the laws of the land and are not enforceable upon the people of this nation. Only We the People have the power to create and enforce law and We the People have not given over our rights or power to foreign agents or entities.
There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, "Taxation", Sec. 316, "Strict or Liberal Construction", supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:
'Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *'
In the 1040 IRS instruction booklet of 1992/1993, page 3, Margaret Richardson wrote a disclaimer stating income taxes are voluntary. We do not nor ever have volunteered to give our wealth away.
WHERE IS YOUR MANDATORY FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT OF 1938? https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara


“THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA” is a franchise of the foreign corporation calling its self: “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” both thereby being liable to the international laws. You are all in violation of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1976/03/19760323%2006-17%20AM/Ch_IV_04.pdf
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination, "By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its Jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
Article 5
1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.
2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 8
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
3. (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.


Proclamation to the people of California. Year: 1849,
https://archive.org/stream/constitutionofst1849cali#page/n7
We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
Article 1,
sec. 1. All men [living souls] are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protection of property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people, government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people: and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
Sec. 9. Every citizen, [living soul] may freely speak, write and publish his [their] sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain of abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, in any civil action on mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud: and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.
Sec. 16. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.
What is a contract?
A contract is an agreement between two or more persons (e.g., individuals, corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies or government agencies) to do, or to refrain from doing, a particular thing in exchange for something of equal value. No enforceable contract would come into existence if obtained by force, fraud or deception/non-disclosure. The consent or assent of a party to an agreement must be genuine, clearly defined and voluntary. This assent will not be genuine or voluntary in certain cases of duress, mistake, deception or undue pressure. In these cases, any contract real or assumed are null and void, i.e. fraud vitiates all.
You must produce the contract that you are claiming to have made with these living souls, whereby both parties are mutually benefited. No such contract exists. Therefore, your Demand for a Tax Return where you claim “We believe you need to file a 2016 California Income tax return.”, and other statements made by you on your Notice Number: 01-3146071-083018, and Order Number: 625269059114214533, which are computer-generated pieces of paper sent to a dead entity without a living soul acknowledging their creation, are irrelevant and of no effect.
Sec 17. Foreigners who are, or who may hereafter become bona fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property, as native-born citizens. [i.e. wages, income and all other forms of property, are the real, personal and private property of living souls and are not subjected to your claims of ownership under your criminal frauds against WE THE PEOPLE. Re-read the two maxims of law]
Sec 18. Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be tolerated in this State.
Sec 19. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized.


THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These facts remove all controversy from the matter at hand, thus meaning there is no longer any recourse to a court of law since this NOTICE CEASE AND DESIST, is a PRIMA FACIE CASE. This Notice to Cease and Desist addresses the crimes and violation of OATHS of all subordinate public servants acting under your supervision and includes specifically, all identified in This Notice to Cease and Desist by their ignoring their moral and fiduciary duty. The following stare decisis apply; Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 (1991): “US Supreme Court held that state officials acting by ”color of law” may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign immunity may not be asserted.”; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974), “When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”; Warnock v Pecos County, Texas, 116 F. 3d 776 – No.96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997.
In the Western world and many Eastern countries, each of us was born into the world with a bounty on our heads. This is due to the fact that our federal government considers us as enemies of the state. According to Judge Dale, author of The Great American Adventure: The Secrets of America, if you live in the United States, the act that makes you an enemy of the U.S. federal government is “The Trading with the Enemy Act.” This act was amended by Franklin D. Roosevelt in March 1933.
Even though you are considered an enemy of the corporate government, it actually has no jurisdiction over you as a living man or woman. However, if you agree to be a citizen of your corporate government, then it has jurisdiction over you. For example, to be a United States citizen means that you are an “employee” of the United States which is a corporation. If you want evidence of this, look at subsection 14 & 15 in Title 28 U.S. Code § 3002 and you should see this phrase “”(14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States””
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002


In regards to the living man or woman including identities, titles, real, personal and private property, flesh, body, blood, fluids and dna, cannot be patented transferred or sold nor be collateral for any sureties. Re-read the two maxims of law.
These criminal corporations are under new management, controlled by the military and are being completely restructured, removing all the criminals that have committed extreme atrocities against We The People. There are currently over 51,000 sealed indictments, some of which have already begun tribunals. Out of that 51,000 sealed indictments, over 8,000 nearing 9,000, are for California alone. The second largest being held in Texas.


51,000 Indictments:
https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/22005-stunning-new-briefings-spy-satellites-down-deep-state-arrests-finally-imminent?utm_source=ONTRAPORT-email-broadcast&utm_medium=ONTRAPORT-email-broadcast&utm_term=&utm_content=Stunning+New+Briefings%3A+Spy+Satellites+Down%2C+Deep+State+Arrests+Finally+Imminent%3F&utm_campaign=09082018
Sealed,Indictments: http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix9/Sealed_Indictments_August_2018_Update_rev_2.png
Tony Gambino confirms the JFK kill shot and more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZc0ZA85oRI
https://prepareforchange.net/2017/07/13/tony-gambino-gambino-crime-family-vatican-runs-mafia/
JFK to 9/11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXeiBHz-v-Q&feature=youtu.be
Keys to the Kingdom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zWWJ1BzKgI
As promised by the current administration, the swamp is being drained and it is only a short mater of time, all the crimes and evil that has been done for decades to the people of this country will be exposed and the criminals brought to true justice.


ITNJ Testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9dTMyuEHTQ&feature=youtu.be
The Conspiracy Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sDSv5WQ1m0&app=desktop
War Games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=159&v=3noExmsCRyg
Vaccines are designed to kill us: https://i-uv.com/whistleblower-dr-judy-mikovits-11-minutes-that-blew-me-away/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IUv+%28I+UV%29
Outlaw vaccines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir8k18GP_3Y&feature=youtu.be
Nun exposes damage by nano tech and more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boBdrbODm3s
Truth TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEpoYqQO4DE&feature=youtu.be
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAFR ACCOUNT: https://www.sco.ca.gov/Files-ARD/CAFR/cafr17web.pdf


“BY DECREE YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL FRAUDS, INLAND PIRACY AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST US! TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL ACTIONS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO OUR SOVEREIGN LIVES, LIBERTIES, FREEDOMS, RIGHTS, MOVEMENTS AND OWNERSHIPS.
TO RETURN EXPEDIENTLY ALL THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS AGENCIES, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ITS AGENCIES AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS AGENCIES, THAT WHICH THEY HAVE EXTORTED FROM OUR WAGES, OUR LANDS, OUR TITLES, OUR REAL, PRIVATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THIS LATEST EXTORTION OF OUR WAGES OF $6,070.66, WHICH IS ALL AN EXCHANGE OF OUR LABOR, AND IS OVER AND ABOVE THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WHICH ARE EXTORTED FROM OUR PAY CHECKS EVERY YEAR BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
TO RESTORE US WHOLE FROM ALL THE FRAUDULENT MORTGAGES AND THE FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE OF OUR REAL PROPERTY AT STREET, CALIFORNIA BY GMAC AND THE BANKS, ON ALL TRUSTS, BONDS AND SO FORTH THAT THESE CORPORATIONS AND THEIR AGENCIES AND AGENTS HAVE CREATED WITHOUT OUR CONCENT. I.E. BIRTH REGESTRY, SOCIAL SECURITY, INSURANCE BONDS, LICENSES, TRUSTS, BONDS AND ALL OTHER CREATIONS USING OUR IDENTITIES AS FICTIOUS NAMES AGAINST OUR WILL AND KNOWLEDGE.
TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL TOXINS AND POISONOUS SUBTENANTS BEING ADDED TO VACCINES, OUR WATER, AIR, FOOD, ETC.
TO REMOVE ALL BLOCKS WHICH IMPEED OUR LAWFUL RIGHT TO REDEEM AND EXCHANGE CURRENCY WITH ALL OTHER COUNTRIES, FOR OUR CURRENCY.
ALL OTHER SYMBOLISM, GRAMMER, LANGUAGE, REQUIREMENTS, DEMANDS, STATUTES, CODES, CLAIMS OF ENFORCEMENTS, ETC., TO DECEIVE, OR FORCE PERFORMANCE UPON US BY ALL AGENCIES AND AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE IRRELEVANT TOWARD WE THE PEOPLE. THERE IS NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OF THESE CORPORATIONS, AGENCIES AND AGENTS, TO CREATE OR ENFORCE ANY ACTIONS AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE. THE POWER AND AUTHORITY IS IN THE POSSESSION OF WE THE PEOPLE. WE ARE LIVING SOULS, ALIVE ON THE LAND AND SOIL OF AMERICA, NOT VESSELS, NOT DEAD AT SEA.
YOU WILL HONOR THIS NOTICE AND DEMAND, OUR NOTICE OF PARAMOUNT CLAIM, OUR POA, OUR FEE SCHEDULE, OUR REVOCATIONS OF ELECTION AND OUR MANDATORY NOTICES. WE ARE OWED THE LAW OF PEACE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET 27-161-1, FROM ALL TERRITORIAL AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO OTHER WISE HAVE NO PERMISSION TO APPROACH OR ADDRESS US.
YOU ARE ALL PART OF THE SAME WEB OF CORRUPTION, YOUR CONTINUED ACTIONS ESTABLISHES PROOF. YOU ARE TO DISCONTINUE YOUR DISHONOR WITH UNCLEAN HANDS UPON US.”


Credit where Credit is Due
Let’s give credit where credit is due. Hundreds of thousands of souls that live only by reality, truth, honor and integrity, suffering great hardships to the extreme of losing their lives have gone before us to ensure we have stored in posterity the truth of what has and continues to occur in our world.
It has become my great honor through my own great suffering and loss, to pass on a small portion of what they brought forward for us to find. We will never know who they are but they have left their foot print in the sand for us to follow.
It is my hope that all who find my voice speaking out, will pick up the torch and assist in this fight to save lives, our world and the next generations to follow our lead.
Facing the truth should not be a hard thing and yet it is the only thing that stops so many of us from living a life of honor and integrity. A shallow life lived is an empty life indeed.
May we all wake up and expose the terrors and corruption that has and continues to destroy the beauty this life should’ve been, in the hopes we can destroy the evil and bring into reality that which this planet and all her inhabitants truly have to offer.


It is stipulated that all exhibits attached are to be understood as being incorporated herein as if written within this Notice and Demand, verbatim.


So said, so signed, so it is done and sealed by my living hand this _17th _ day of ___September_____, 2018:



EXHIBITS


https://i-uv.com/congressman-mcfadden-on-the-federal-reserve-corporation-remarks-in-congress-1934-an-astounding-exposure/
http://www.paulstramer.net/2018/06/fifty-shades-of-black-and-white-crime.html
http://www.paulstramer.net/search?q=Follow+up+on+Marshals+Services+and+Piracy
http://www.paulstramer.net/2018/03/letter-to-president-trump-march-15-2018.html
http://www.paulstramer.net/2018/05/an-explanation-of-may-3-letter-and.html
http://www.paulstramer.net/2018/04/the-courts-arent-courts.html
http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/05/timeline-of-great-fraud-by-judge-anna.html
http://www.paulstramer.net/2018/03/trump-prepares-to-declare-california-in.html
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm   


31 Questions and Answers about
the Internal Revenue Service

Revision 3.9

certified by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Citizen of Washington State, Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author and
Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library

Internet URL of home page:
http://www.supremelaw.org

Internet URL of this file:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Common Law Copyright
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301 315 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee,Clause in,the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.


2. If not an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, then what exactly is the IRS?

Answer: The IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating out of Puerto Rico under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition had already been repealed.


In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit identified a second “Secretary of the Treasury” as a man by the name of Manual Díaz-Saldaña. See the definitions of “Secretary” and “Secretary or his delegate” at 27 CFR 26.11 (formerly 27 CFR 250.11), and the published decision in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Díaz-Saldaña, court docket number 97 2348, September 11, 1998. Both definitions mention Puerto Rico.

When all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). Think of Puerto RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); in other words, it is an organized crime syndicate operating under false and fraudulent pretenses. See also the Sherman Act and the Lanham Act.


3. By what legal authority, if any, has the IRS established offices inside the 50 States of the Union?

Answer: After much diligent research, several investigators have concluded that there is no known Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union.

Their presence within the 50 States appears to stem from certain Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (“ACTA”), which officials in those States have consummated with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. A template for ACTA agreements can be found at the IRS Internet website and in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet.

However, those ACTA agreements are demonstrably fraudulent, for example, by expressly defining “IRS” as a lawful bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. (See Answer to Question 1 above.) Moreover, those ACTA agreements also appear to violate State laws requiring competitive bidding before such a service contract can be awarded by a State government to any subcontractor. There is no evidence to indicate that ACTA agreements were reached after competitive bidding processes; on the contrary, the IRS is adamant about maintaining a monopoly syndicate.


4. Can IRS legally show “Department of the Treasury” on their outgoing mail?

Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with “Department of the Treasury” in the return address, is one count of mail fraud. See also 31 U.S.C. 333.


5. Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?

Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal “agency” by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).

Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ. The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees. Again, see the Answer to Question 1 above. As far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.


6. Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?

Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.

That so called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).

The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVITs that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.

Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.


Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.

The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.

Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” (See Answer to Question 19 below.)

For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.


7. Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?

Answer: Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for “employment” taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.

After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W 4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker’s paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the United States”).

If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.


8. Can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?

Answer: No. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article I, Section 1. The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever. This means that agencies of the Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.

If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that tax. Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.

“[A]n administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee.” See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition) [bold emphasis added]. However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopedia.


9. The federal regulations create an income tax liability for what specific classes of people?

Answer: The regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all “citizens of the United States” and all “residents of the United States”. However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A.

Therefore, these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from the beginning, in Latin). The Acker case cited above held that federal regulations can not exceed the underlying statutory authority. (See Answer to Question 8 above.)


10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?

Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.

The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.

The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.

Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)

Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.

Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).

Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.


11. Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?

Answer: Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the “state” government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as “the federal zone.” (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.

Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our “Right of Election” or “freedom of choice,” namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.

Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.

But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).


12. Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?

Answer: Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.

Brushaber’s attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.


Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.

The most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court’s opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a “domestic corporation”. This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.

T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.

Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.


13. What is a “Withholding agent”?

Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.

One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W 4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.” In plain English, by signing a W 4 workers designate themselves as “employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.

If workers do not execute a valid W 4 form, a company’s payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes, until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding by signing Form W 4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.


Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of this form. A properly executed Form W 4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees” of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.


14. What is a “Withholding Exemption Certificate”?

Answer: A “Withholding Exemption Certificate” is an alternative to Form W 4, authorized by IRC section 3402(n) and executed in lieu of Form W 4. Although section 3402(n) does authorize this Certificate, the IRS has never added a corresponding form to its forms catalog (see the IRS “Printed Products Catalog”).

In the absence of an official IRS form, workers can use the language of section 3402(n) to create their own Certificates. In simple language, the worker certifies that s/he had no federal income tax liability last year, and anticipates no federal income tax liability during the current calendar year. Because there are no liability statutes for workers in the private sector, this certification is easy to justify.

Many public and private institutions have created their own form for the Withholding Exemption Certificate, e.g. California Franchise Tax Board, and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. This fact can be confirmed by using any search engine, e.g. google.com, to locate occurrences of the term “withholding exemption certificate” on the Internet. This term occurs several times in IRC section 3402.


15. What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?

Answer: “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal government “employee.” This is typically done by executing a valid Form W 4.

However, as discussed above, Form W 4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.


Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only “domestic” corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer’s essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and “domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.

If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine case supra.

For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.


16. Why does IRS Form 1040 not require a Notary Public to notarize a taxpayer’s signature?

Answer: This question is one of the fastest ways to unravel the fraudulent nature of federal income taxes. At 28 U.S.C. section 1746, Congress authorized written verifications to be executed under penalty of perjury without the need for a Notary Public, i.e. to witness one’s signature.

This statute identifies two different formats for such written verifications: (1) those executed outside the “United States” and (2) those executed inside the “United States”. These two formats correspond to sections 1746(1) and 1746(2), respectively.

What is extremely revealing in this statute is the format for verifications executed “outside the United States”. In this latter format, the statute adds the qualifying phrase “under the laws of the United States of America”.

Clearly, the terms “United States” and “United States of America” are both used in this same statute. They are not one and the same. The former refers to the federal government -- in the U.S. Constitution and throughout most federal statutes. The latter refers to the 50 States that are united by, and under, the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. 1746 is the only federal statute in all of Title 28 of the United States Code that utilizes the term “United States of America”, as such.

It is painfully if not immediately obvious, then, that verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the “United States” (read “the federal zone”) if and when they are executed inside the 50 States of the Union (read “the State zone”).


Likewise, verifications made under penalty of perjury are outside the 50 States of the Union, if and when they are executed inside the “United States”.

The format for signatures on Form 1040 is the one for verifications made inside the United States (federal zone) and outside the United States of America (State zone).


17. Does the term “United States” have multiple legal meanings and, if so, what are they?

Answer: Yes. The term has several meanings. The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) [bold emphasis, brackets and numbers added for clarity].

This is the very same definition that is found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition. The second of these three meanings refers to the federal zone and to Congress only when it is legislating in its municipal capacity. For example, Congress is legislating in its municipal capacity whenever it creates a federal corporation, like the United States Postal Service.

It is terribly revealing of the manifold frauds discussed in these Answers, that the definition of “United States” has now been removed from the Seventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.


18. Is the term “income” defined in the IRC and, if not, where is it defined?

Answer: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that the term “income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC: “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).

Moreover, in Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the high Court told Congress it could not legislate any definition of “income” because that term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated on the ratification of the 16thamendment, which would have introduced the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been properly ratified).

In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court defined “income” to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities. In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.


19. What is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax provisions municipal law, or not?

Answer: Yes. The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.

A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the book “The Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law.

One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of “State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

In other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.


20. What does it mean if my State is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes?

The general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and enumerated. For example, the U.S. Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.

If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that State. This is also true of all 50 States.

Strictly speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or any thing from a federal statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional by Congress. In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all other things [that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in any edition of Black’s Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory construction.

The many different definitions of the term “State” that are found in federal laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50 States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret, or to construct, these statutes.

If a place is not mentioned, every American may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so, Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean the 50 States of the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).


21. In what other ways is the IRC deliberately vague, and what are the real implications for the average American?

There are numerous other ways in which the IRC is deliberately vague. The absence of any legal definition for the term “income” is a classic deception. The IRS enforces the Code as a tax on everything that “comes in,” but nothing could be further from the truth. “Income” is decidedly NOT everything that “comes in.”

More importantly, the fact that this vagueness is deliberate is sufficient grounds for concluding that the entire Code is null, void and unconstitutional, for violating our fundamental Right to know the nature and cause of any accusation, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Whether the vagueness is deliberate or not, any statute is unconstitutionally void if it is vague. If a statute is void for vagueness, the situation is the same as if it had never been enacted at all, and for this reason it can be ignored entirely.


22. Has Title 26 of the United States Code (“U.S.C.”) ever been enacted into positive law, and what are the legal implications if Title 26 has notbeen enacted into positive law?

Answer: No. Another, less obvious case of deliberate deception is the statute at IRC section 7851(a)(6)(A), where it states that the provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of “this title”. Because the term “this title” is not defined anywhere in 26 U.S.C., least of all in the section dedicated to definitions, one is forced to look elsewhere for its meaning, or to derive its meaning from context.

Throughout Title 28 of the United States Code -- the laws which govern all the federal courts -- the term “this title” clearly refers to Title 28. This fact would tend to support a conclusion that “this title”, as that term is used in the IRC, refers to Title 26 of the United States Code. However, Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, as such.

Even though all federal judges may know the secret meaning of “this title”, they are men and women of UNcommon intelligence. The U.S. Supreme Court’s test for vagueness is violated whenever men and women of common intelligence must necessarily guess at the meaning and differas to the application of a vague statute. See Connally et al. v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Thus, federal judges are applying the wrong test for vagueness.

Accordingly, the provisions of subtitle F have never taken effect. (“F” is for enForcement!) This subtitle contains all of the enforcement statutes of the IRC, e.g. filing requirements, penalties for failure to file and tax evasion, grants of court jurisdiction over liens, levies and seizures, summons enforcement and so on.

In other words, the IRC is a big pile of Code without any teeth; as such, it can impose no legal obligations upon anyone, not even people with dentures!


23. What federal courts are authorized to prosecute income tax crimes?

This question must be addressed in view of the Answer to Question 22 above. Although it may appear that certain statutes in the IRC grant original jurisdiction to federal district courts, to institute prosecutions of income tax crimes, none of the statutes found in subtitle Fhas ever taken effect. For this reason, those statutes do not authorize the federal courts to do anything at all. As always, appearances can be very deceiving. Remember the Wizard of Oz or the mad tea party of Alice in Wonderland?

On the other hand, the federal criminal Code at Title 18, U.S.C., does grant general authority to the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) to prosecute violations of the statutes found in that Code. See 18 U.S.C. 3231.

It is very important to appreciate the fact that these courts are not the same as the United States District Courts (“USDC”). The DCUS are constitutional courts that originate in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The USDC are territorial tribunals, or legislative courts, that originate in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Territory Clause.

This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Eighth Circuit on behalf of the Defendant in USA v. Gilbertson cites numerous court cases that have already clarified the all important distinction between these two classes of federal district courts. For example, in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312 (1922), the high Court held that the USDC belongs in the federal Territories. This author’s OPENING BRIEF to the Ninth Circuit in Mitchell v. AOL Time Warner, Inc. et al. develops this theme in even greater detail; begin reading at section “7(e)”.

The USDC, as such, appear to lack any lawful authorities to prosecute income tax crimes. The USDC are legislative tribunals where summary proceedings dominate.

For example, under the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 1292, the U.S. Courts of Appeal have no appellate jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders issued by the USDC. Further details on this point are available in the Press Release entitled “Private Attorney General Cracks Title 28 of the United States Code” and dated November 26, 2001 A.D.


24. Are federal judges required to pay income taxes on their pay, and what are the real implications if they do pay taxes on their pay?

Answer: No. Federal judges who are appointed to preside on the District Courts of the United States –- the Article III constitutionalcourts –- are immune from any taxation of their pay, by constitutional mandate.

The fact that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their pay is proof of undue influence by the IRS, posing as a duly authorized agency of the Executive Branch. See Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).

Even if the IRS were a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (which they are NOT), the existence of undue influence by the Executive Branch would violate the fundamental principle of Separation of Powers. This principle, in theory, keeps the 3 branches of the federal government confined to their respective areas, and prevents any one branch from usurping the lawful powers that rightly belong to the other two branches.

The Separation of Powers principle is succinctly defined in Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933); however, in that decision the Supreme Court erred by defining “Party” to mean only Plaintiffs in Article III, contrary to the definition of “Party” that is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856).

The federal judiciary, contemplated by the organic U.S. Constitution, was intended to be independent and unbiased. These two qualities are the essence, or sine qua non of judicial power, i.e. without which there is nothing. Undue influence obviously violates these two qualities. See Evans v. Gore supra.

In Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167, 169 (1965), the federal judge in that case was honest enough to admit, in his published opinion, that federal judges routinely rule in favor of the IRS, because they fear the retaliation that might result from ruling against the IRS. There you have it, from the horse’s mouth!

In front of a class of law students at the University of Arizona in January of 1997, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist openly admitted that all federal judges are currently paying taxes on their judicial pay. This writer was an eyewitness to that statement by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -– the highest Court in the land.

Thus, all federal judges are now material witnesses to the practice of concealing the Withholding Exemption Certificate from them, when they were first hired as “employees” of the federal judiciary. As material witnesses, they are thereby disqualified from presiding on all federal income tax cases.


25. Can federal grand juries issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters?

Answer: No. Federal grand juries cannot issue valid indictments against illegal tax protesters. Protest has never been illegal in America, because the First Amendment guarantees our fundamental Right to express our objections to any government actions, in written and in spoken words.

Strictly speaking, the term “illegal” cannot modify the noun “protesters” because to do so would constitute a violation of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, one of the most magnificent constitutional provisions ever written.

Accordingly, for the term “illegal tax protester” to survive this obvious constitutional challenge, the term “illegal” must modify the noun “tax”. An illegal tax protester is, therefore, someone who is protesting an illegal tax. Such an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment, and cannot be a crime.

Protest is also recognized and honored by the Uniform Commercial Code; the phrases “under protest” and “without prejudice” are sufficient to reserve all of one’s fundamental Rights at law. See U.C.C. 1-308 (UCCA 1308 in California).

By the way, the federal U.C.C. is also municipal law. See the Answer to Question 19 above, and 77 Stat. 630, P.L. 88 243, December 30, 1963 (one month after President John F. Kennedy was murdered).


26. Do IRS agents ever tamper with federal grand juries, and how is this routinely done?

Answer: Yes. IRS agents routinely tamper with federal grand juries, most often by misrepresenting themselves, under oath, as lawful employees and “Special Agents” of the federal government, and by misrepresenting the provisions of subtitle F as having any legal force or effect. Such false representations of fact violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). (Title 15 of the United States Code has not been enacted into positive law either.)

They tamper with grand juries by acting as if “income” is everything that “comes in”, when there is no such definition anywhere in the IRC. Such false descriptions of fact also violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.

They tamper with grand juries by presenting documentary evidence which they had no authority to acquire, in the first instance, such as bank records. Bank signature cards do not constitute competent waivers of their customers’ fundamental Rights to privacy, as secured by the Fourth Amendment. The high standard for waivers of fundamental Rights was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).

IRS agents tamper with grand juries by creating and maintaining the false and fraudulent pretenses that the IRC is not vague, or that the income tax provisions have any legal force or effect inside the 50 States of the Union, when those provisions do not.

These are all forms of perjury, as well, and possibly also misprision of perjury by omission, i.e. serious federal offenses.

Finally, there is ample evidence that IRS agents bribe U.S. Attorneys, federal judges, and even the Office of the President with huge kickbacks, every time a criminal indictment is issued by a federal grand jury against an illegal tax protester. (See the Answer to Question 25 above.) These kick backs range from $25,000 to $35,000 in CASH! They also violate the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, which penalizes the payment of kickbacks from federal government subcontractors. See 41 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.

As a trust domiciled in Puerto Rico, the IRS is, without a doubt, a federal government subcontractor that is subject to this Act. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). The systematic and premeditated pattern of racketeering by IRS employees also establishes probable cause to dismantle the IRS permanently for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, first enacted in the year 1890 A.D. See 26 Stat. 209 (1890) (uncodified at 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)


27. What is “The Kickback Racket,” and where can I find evidence of its existence?

The evidence of this “kickback racket” was first discovered in a table of delegation orders, on a page within the Internal Revenue Manual (“IRM”) -- the internal policy and procedure manual for all IRS employees.


Subsequently, this writer submitted a lawful request, under the Freedom of Information Act, for a certified list of all payments that had ever been made under color of these delegation orders in the IRM. Mr. Mark L. Zolton, a tax law specialist within the Internal Revenue Service, responded on IRS letterhead, transmitted via U.S. Mail, that few records existed for these “awards” because most of them were paid in cash!

When this evidence was properly presented to a federal judge, who had been asked to enforce a federal grand jury subpoena against a small business in Arizona, he ended up obstructing all 28 pieces of U.S. Mail we had transmitted to that grand jury.

Obstruction of correspondence is a serious federal offense, and federal judges have no authority whatsoever to intercept U.S. Mail. See 18 U.S.C. 1702.

Obviously, the federal judge -- John M. Roll -- did NOT want the grand jury in that case to know anything about these kickbacks. They found out anyway, because of the manner in which this writer defended that small business, as its Vice President for Legal Affairs.


28. Can the IRS levy bank accounts without a valid court order?

Answer: No. The Fifth Amendment prohibits all deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due Process of Law is another honored and well developed feature of American constitutional practice. Put simply, it requires Notice and Hearing before anyproperty can be seized by any federal government employees, agents, departments or agencies.

A levy against a bank account is a forced seizure of property, i.e. the funds on deposit in that account. No such seizure can occur unless due process of law has first run its course. This means notice, hearing, and deliberate adjudication of all the pertinent issues of law and fact.

Only after this process has run its proper or “due” course, can a valid court order be issued. The holding in U.S. v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947), makes it very clear that the IRS can only levy a bank account after first obtaining a Warrant of Distraint, or court ORDER. And, of course, no court ORDER could ever be obtained unless all affected Parties had first enjoyed their “day in court.”


29. Do federal income tax revenues pay for any government services and, if so, which government services are funded by federal income taxes?

Answer: No. The money trail is very difficult to follow, in this instance, because the IRS is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62). As such, their records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not also violating the Sherman Antitrust Act.

They are technically not an “agency” of the federal government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act and in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of the federal territories are expressly excluded from the definition of “agency” in those Acts of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). (See also the Answer to Question 5 above.)

All evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq.

They appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican. See the national policy on money laundering at 31 U.S.C. 5341.

The final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans.


30. How can the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) help me to answer other key tax questions?

The availability of correct information about federal government operations is fundamental to maintaining the freedom of the American People. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), at 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., was intended to make government documents available with a minimal amount of effort by the People.

As long as a document is not protected by one of the reasonable exemptions itemized in the FOIA, a requester need only submit a brief letter to the agency having custody of the requested document(s). If the requested document is not produced within 20 working days (excluding weekends and federal holidays), the requester need only prepare a single appeal letter.

If the requested document is not produced within another 20 working days after the date of the appeal letter, the requester is automatically allowed to petition a District Court of the United States (Article III DCUS, not the Article IV USDC) -- to compel production of the requested document, and judicially to enjoin the improper withholding of same. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). The general rule is that statutes conferring original jurisdiction on federal district courts must be strictly construed.


This writer has pioneered the application of the FOIA to request certified copies of statutes and regulations which should exist, but do notexist. A typical request anyone can make, to which the U.S. Treasury has now fallen totally silent, is for a certified copy of all statutes which create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the IRC. For example, see the FOIA request that this writer prepared for author Lynne Meredith.

Of course, by now we already know the answer to this question, before asking it. (Good lawyers always know the answers to their questions, before asking them.)

It should also be clear that such a FOIA request should not be directed to the IRS, because they are not an “agency” as that term is defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). Address it instead to the Disclosure Officer, Disclosure Services, Room 1054-MT, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington 20220, District of Columbia, USA. This is the format for “foreign” addresses, as explained in USPS Publication #221.

As James Madison once wrote, “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."


31. Where can I find more information, and still protect my privacy?

There are many civic organizations throughout America who have dedicated their precious time and energy to acquire and disseminate widely these documented truths about the Internal Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue Code.

The Internet’s World Wide Web (“www”) is perhaps the best single source of information (and disinformation) about the IRS, and the major problems now confirmed in the IRC and in the mountains of related policies, procedures, practices, customs, rules, regulations, forms and schedules.

Learn to become a sophisticated consumer of information, and the knowledge you seek will be yours to keep and share -- with those you love and endeavor to free from this terrible plague that persists in America.


Good luck, and may God bless your earnest endeavors to ensure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence.


To order additional certified and embossed copies of this document, please send $30.00 in cash or blank U.S. Postal Money Order to:

Paul A. Mitchell
c/o Lake Union Mail
117 East Louisa Street
Seattle 98102-3203
WASHINGTON STATE, USA

A “blank” U.S. Postal Money Order leaves the “PAY TO” line blank, permitting us to negotiate it freely. You may, of course, complete the other half; this allows you to obtain a photocopy of the cancelled money order from the U.S. Postal Service without the need for a court order.

Also, be sure to request information about our MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION to freeze all IRS assets and to enjoin IRS from depositing any tax collections into any account(s) other than the Treasury of the United States. These MOTIONS were filed in two appeals at the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, using FRAP Rule 8 and the special procedures available to a Private Attorney General under the RICO laws.

Finally, don’t miss this opportunity to request more information about our historic APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, under a specific authority granted to the District Courts of the United States (“DCUS”) at 18 U.S.C. 1964(a). Refer to DCUS docket #SA CV 02-0382 GLT(ANx), Santa Ana, California.


VERIFICATION

As the Undersigned, I hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause for Constitutional authority.



Dated: ______________________________________________________



Signed: ______________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S
Citizen of Washington State, qualified Federal Witness,
Private Attorney General, Author of “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” (all editions), and Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library: http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm  [  this is the link but it is not working ]

Well thank you Mr. Trump for your thank you letter that did not address my proclamation in anyway what so ever. You are continuing the fraud and rederic of lies about the fraudulent tax systems of foreign corporations.


11/23/18

Something was just brought to my attention as to the signature on this white house letter. #1, Nowhere in this letter is Donald Trump named or mentioned. #2. In the last paragraph after the white house url it reads: "As President, I am committed to....". #3, the rubber stamped signature clearly is not by Donald Trump, CLEARLY NOT! #4. In this video claiming JFK jr. is alive, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSyCxSWwaUg&feature=youtu.be  at time stamp 1:52, is the same name stamp! Whats going on here? Did I get a thank you letter rubber stamped by JFK jr.? Is JFK jr. still alive? Is JFK jr. claiming to be the President? .......


Now the signature at the end of this video is identical to the one on my letter from the WH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H_oRv8ivUU see time stamp: 20:21  Note: I've just check this link only to find it has been removed. If I find it another way I will repost it.

Follow  Letter, Letter Q, Q, Initials, Font Here

There Is Beauty In Freedom You Have the Right To Protect Your Health and Home Whether it is unsafe trespassing technology or other unwanted interventions, InPower can help you reclaim your authority with the use of our commercial administrative process that anyone can use.

                            Click here to learn more

Anna's response to a comment made to her above article:
Paul Stramer August 13, 2019 at 8:13 AM Reply for atticus finch from Anna Von Reitz:
"I didn't write that part of the article. I wrote the introduction and spoke to the two major flaws that jump off the page. As for the rest--- You are not looking at the case transcript only at a court process synopsis as is shown by your supposition that the remand was fruitless. In fact, Rodriguez established an important precedent in the treatment of Territorial Citizens by Municipal Courts which routinely short change any "appearance" of Due Proceed because left to themselves, they are not required to operate under any standard of Due Process.

You can say that this case should not be included in any information we study, but I differ, in that every case that exposes the underbelly of the beast in any venue is worthy of our attention.

And again, as should be obvious from the context of my comments about someone else's writings, I did not say that "a statute is not a law." I would have said that a statute is not a Law, as in Public Law meant for people to obey in the context of their private lives--- in that sense, no statute has ever been a law of any kind, nor intended to be used as such.

"Statutory law" is to be applied to entities created by legislation (that is, created by statute), corporate charter, incorporation, etc., and those officials involved in the administration of such legal fiction entities.

Statutory law does not pertain to average people who are not engaged in such activities and never has; but, given the deterioration of the legal profession and practice in this country, innocent people are being deliberately misidentified as legal "persons" and subjected to statutory law in gross error and breach of trust.

I hope that clarifies the actual issues for you."


My response and comments to Anna Von Reitz and another person in the comment section that questioned me are not being posted in the comment section of Paul Stramer's website so I'm posting it here:


Paul please post my thank you to Anna for her corrections and please allow me to respond to:
atticus finchAugust 12, 2019 at 3:45 PM here are the researchers where these cites were found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPkz6UOT8Lw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPkz6UOT8Lw
JOHN QUADE- COMMON LAW ABATEMENT
15,235 views
66518SHARESAVE

High Frequency Radio
Published on Dec 27, 2018
SUBSCRIBE 50K
John Quade on Randy Lee's Non -Statutory Abatement Plea in Abatement Handbook http://www.usa-the-republic.com/abate... Randy Lee's Web Site - Christ's Lawful Assembly https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/assemb... Matters concerning His Lawful assembly (Formerly known as The Christian Jural Society News) 35 issues http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/cjsn_1-... Non-Statutory Abatement Handbook 4th ed. : https://www.scribd.com/doc/310278887/... The Book of the Hundreds https://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/boh/bo...  "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985). "There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.] So think of that license that your forced to hand over, can the info on there be used against you? "The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 94 S. CT. 316, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)] "The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever this might tend to subject to criminal responsibility on him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is a party defendant." [McCarthy v. Arnstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.CT. 16, 17, 69 L.ED. 158 (1924)] High-Frequency Radio Network is an online podcasting station dedicated to creating awareness in the areas of law, commerce, and spirituality. SPC University: http://spcuniversity.privatesidesolut... EMAIL LIST: https://tinyurl.com/y7ye7dys

John Quade on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+quade


The Whole 9 Yards [Enjoying The Show] 5:5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk8Pr87Xp04



DEMONS BEWARE
Isaiah 54:17
No weapon that is formed against us shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against us in judgment shall be condemned. This is the heritage of the servants of YHWH, and their due reward from Me, says YHWH. [This includes all biowarfare]
1 Thessalonians 5:1-9
Now concerning the times and the seasons, my brothers, you do not need me to write to you; 2, for you truly know that the day of our Adon will so come like a thief in the night, 3, as they are saying, shalom and quiet, and then suddenly, destruction will come upon them, as birth pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4, But you, my brothers are not in darkness so that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5, For you are all sons of light and sons of the day, and you are not sons of the night or sons of darkness. 6, Therefore, let us not sleep as others, but let us be watchful and wise, 7, for those who are asleep sleep in the night, and those who are drunk are drunk in the night. 8, But we who are sons of the day, should be watchful in our mind and be clothed with the breastplate of faith and of love and put on the helmet of the hope of life, 9, because Eloah has not appointed us to wrath, but to the obtaining of life in our Adon Yeshaua the Messiah…


The Democrat Legacy of Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom, This is what California has been reduced to, Add Frisco, migrants, homeless, drugs, needles, perverts, demons and you have a movie of the worst horror's that could possibly exist!  Enjoy the show.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

Bank fraud - Mortgage fraud - Foreclosure Fraud - Anna Von Reitz: http://www.paulstramer.net/2019/08/sometimes-things-i-write-about-homework.html

Hear the TRUTH about the foreign corporation calling it's self "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" right from the horse's mouth! The MOB has the greatest inside information on the corruption and who's involved than anyone else. Learn for yourself the truth and keep on learning so you can learn how to protect yourself from the worst criminal's that exist!

Q map Sealed Indictments: https://www.qmap.pub/cases?pg=1

Did anyone catch Bob Lock’s statement on MarkZ’s post about a week or two ago: “We are hearing rumors that the IRS is selling their claims to debt collectors”?
Well its not rumors. That is exactly what they are doing because I got one for 30 thousand. Problem is they don’t know what I know and I followed through with my three lawful letters: 1, NOTICE OF OFFER OF PERFORMANCE, 2, Notice of Fault, 3, Notice of DeFault and Non-Response.
What these letters do is expose their fraud and put them in estoppel. They are committing mail fraud, extortion and so much more.
I’m impressed that they even sent me notice that they returned the a-ledge claim against me back to the IRS. Can you comprehend the importance of knowing your enemy and knowing exactly how to expose their crimes against you?
Know your enemy and know what to do about it.

Everything that has been done is being undone. So it is said, So it is!
Many blessings NikkiG


http://www.soaringspirit.us/contact.html