License v. Right

Contact us, we can formulate actions that may make you tens of thousands by forcing the any city, county, or state, in the United States, to admit they are depriving you of a right.

Posted in License v. Right | Leave a comment

IRS, 1.1.10, Statutory Authority not Present

Congress has never authorized the operation of the IRS as a matter of law, some state that it is as a matter of necessity, and not specific law.

Click on the image to enlarge.

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-001-001#idm139964655721888

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Definitions, Possessions, Commonwealth, Territory, Militia

10 U.S. Code § 101 – Definitions

(a)In General.—The following definitions apply in this title:

(1)

The term “United States”, in a geographic sense, means the States and the District of Columbia.
(3)

The term “possessions” includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Guano Islands, so long as they remain possessions, but does not include any Commonwealth.
>>

(5)

The term “full-time National Guard duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States in the member’s status as a member of the National Guard of a State or territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32 for which the member is entitled to pay from the United States or for which the member has waived pay from the United States.

(2)The term “Army National Guard” means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive, that—

Posted in Commonwealth, Militia, Possessions, Territory, United States | Leave a comment

How I file 42USC1983 without Cost in US Federal Cases, ‘Forma Pauperis’, save 450$.

6.2 Forma Paprus (1)

Fill the form out like the above with the proper affidavit and the court is unable to charge you for your remedy for there damage done you.

Contact Hansen for the proper arguments and averments.

pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com  Cell 251.362.8231 CDTime.

I have used it personally to save me over tens of thousand of dollars over the years. One case saved me more than five thousand dollars alone.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Administrators v. Judges

Administrator v. Judge, code

“There are no judicial courts in America and there have not been any since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes.   FRC v. GE 282 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

Posted in Administrators v. Judges | Leave a comment

Judges Disqualification, Fraud on the Court

Fraud Upon The Court

–Judges Disqualification–

 

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”

 

http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/fotc.htm

 

  1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
    2. What is “fraud on the court”?
    3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
    4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
  2. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

  1. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court“. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

  1. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

  1. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Posted in Judges Disqualification | Leave a comment

Traffic, show me the law.

Traffic, show me the law.

One of my associates (Bob) lived in a military camp and the neighboring small town cops were constantly using the new recruits as easy picking for the smallest traffic issues.

The officer claimed Bob was driving recklessly when the truth is his car was running poorly and he had to pump the accelerator just to limp it home which caused the tires to act jerky.

He gets the ticket then notices that no violation statute number was on the citation, it just said ‘reckless driving’.

Bob, age 18, went to his arraignment and told the judge before he pleas that he wishes to see the written law he is charged under.

The judge pretended to act like he was seeing a written law in the book before him.

Bod asked to personally see it.

Then after a long search the judge admitted he could not find a specific ‘reckless driving’ statute and the case was dismissed.

Comment – Go to the original ‘Floor Bill‘ debate records where the specific statute you are charged with, it is likely that your activity does not exist in the texts.

Example – failure to use a turn-signal in my jurisdiction 300 feet before you turn does not apply on roads with a speed limit under 55 MPH, yet they use it to write tickets daily in city traffic where the speed limit is under 45MPH.

Always challenge all elements of the crime, personal, subject matter, and territorial, jurisdiction.   Lawyer Hansen – pauljjhansenLAW@gmail.com

Posted in Citations | Leave a comment

Court of Record, Defined

Court of Record:

Here is a site put together by Mr. M.R. Hamilton and this link below takes you right to his explanation of a Court of Record:
http://afreecountry.com/?q=court
See text below.
Hamilton also strongly endorses Bill Thornton’s case study of a Court of Record being established by the Plaintiff before the judge, with the judge having no idea what is about to hit him (see below link to Thornton’s website). You will note a dramatic change in the attitude of the judge after the Plaintiff’s filing of Judicial Notice, and then again after the Plaintiff’s filing of Contempt against the judge/magistrate.  This presented a real learning experience for both me and my wife.  I think you’ll find it most informative too.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/example/index.html

I think you’ll find both sites worth the time to walk through as there’s a plethora of information (newer for me than for you, I’m sure) to digest.

>>

Court of Record or Common Law Court M. R. Hamilton’s picture Submitted by M. R. Hamilton on Mon, 08/18/2014 – 09:42 The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact by deciding it. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)] Our court system is based on a centuries old system. There are some misconceptions about what is a court. There are actually several jurisdictions over which a court can preside. There is admiralty or commercial court. There is equity court or fair play court and there is common law court or a court of record. There is also a nisi prius court. A nisi prius court is a court that exist because you failed to object. The vast majority of the time that one is pulled into court, he is pulled into admiralty court. If you hire an attorney, you are typically ceding jurisdiction to this court. That means you are consenting to the court jurisdiction, a voluntary act you must not do. The consent occurs even if done so inadvertently. Equity courts are presided over by chancellors. The chancellor was appointed by the king to oversee simple complaints. (Remember, common law is based on old English law.) The chancellor was permitted to make law as he saw fit to settle a claim fairly. An example of an equity court is the one in which Irwin Schiff was convicted on October 24th, 2005. He was convicted for filing “false tax returns” for the years 1997 through 2002. According to transcripts, during the trial, Schiff’s defense attorney made numerous attempts at quoting United States Code and previous cases regarding income tax that would have resulted in an acquittal had the jury heard the testimony. However, the trial judge, Kent Dawson, actually stated, “In my court I am the law.” He has been criticized for this statement, but he was correct. Of course, since American people are not required to pay income tax or file income tax returns, why would he file a return to begin with? Some people think there are no longer common law courts in the united states of America, because they think that the court is the building that court is held in. That is just a building. The papers filed to start an action is what determines the type of court. People are the sovereigns in the united states of America or any other republic for that matter. As such, no law passed by any legislative branch of government has any lawful force of authority over the sovereign. The appropriate course of action when pulled into any court is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. When you do this, you must make yourself a plaintiff by filing a counterclaim in a court of record. A court of record is a common law court wherein the court is “the person and suit of the plaintiff”. In a court of record, the judge is merely a magistrate and does not have the authority to make decisions, offer opinions or issue orders. So, although Irwin Schiff had this information since Bill Thornton had provided it to him, he could have done so and the judge would not have been able to claim that he is the law, because in that court, the decisions would have been made by Irwin Schiff, because it was his court. As a matter of fact, the sovereign decrees the law, so the law would have been whatever Irwin Schiff decreed it to be which would have been in his papers when he filed suit for his damages for being imprisoned. So let’s take a look at the definitions of a court. According to  Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 INTERNATIONAL LAW The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. …. CLASSIFICATION Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual: COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD.  The former being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt.  Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal.  Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded.  3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231. A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial.  Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J.  See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. Since, the common law is based on international laws that have been in place for centuries, this definition would apply. It is recognized in the Constitution for the United States of America. All mentions of law in the Constitution refer to the common law, which was the predominate practice at the time. Common law is rarely used now , because it is harder for judges to take advantage of people in favor of government. After all, they are government employees. They know that they are merely magistrates in a common law court and do not have the authority to make decisions or orders. So let’s see what a judge actually is according to  Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103. MAGISTRATE Person clothed with power as a public civil officer.  State ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630. A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either judicial, legislative, or executive.  But the term is commonly used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of the peace and police justices.  Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W. 32, 34. …. The word “magistrate” does not necessarily imply an officer exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds.  Schultz v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336. As we can see, this would not allow the judge to perform the duties of a tribunal. The best way to get a firm grasp on common law is to listen to the four hour seminar given by Bill Thornton. It is a four hour seminar broken into three segments. It will give you a very good comprehension of common law. It is a must if you are to take responsibility for your lawful wellbeing.

>>>

CASE LOG [music] 10-07-98 Action for Trespass filed in a California superior court. 02-18-99 Demurrer by defendant.. At the hearing the magistrate was quite authoritative, tense, and quite unwilling to grant anything anyone wanted. Defendant’s demurrer was denied. Transcript #1 tells the story. One thing to note: although the magistrate also carries a state-assigned title of nobility, namely that of “judge,” his capacity in this court of record is that of a magistrate. In other words, he has a ministerial capacity, not a judicial capacity. Every time he attempts to “judge” something, or to exercise any discretion, his attempt is met with some sort of oppositon from the sovereign of the court, usually in the form of an objection or a corrective court order such as a writ of error coram nobus. 05-06-99 Plaintiff filed Judicial Notice, Findings of fact acknowledging plaintiff’s status., and a Writ of Error reversing the magistrate and granting the demurrer in part. Defined 05-07-99 a hearing was held. The magistrate was a real gentleman. He was polite, relaxed, and asked the plaintiff “What are we doing at this point?” The plaintiff simply said, “The only business before the Court, at this point today, is making sure the defendant got the paperwork that was served yesterday. As far as — barring that, there’s no business before the Court today.” The hearing was terminated. When the plaintiff left the room, the defendant’s attorney was heard to ask, “Okay. Am I correct in that the Court’s made no ruling on this apparent request to amend the complaint today?” The magistrate replied, “I’ve made no rulings. I’ve made — what I’ve done — the record speaks for itself.” Actually, the hearing lasted a little longer than that, but that was the essence of it. Transcript #2 reports the day’s proceeding. 06-07-99, Plaintiff filed First Amended Action Initially, the clerk refused to file the First Amended Action because, she said, it was not a “First Amended Complaint.” Then the clerk’s supervisor refused to file it because there was no court order signed by a magistrate. Plaintiff guided her to the filed writ of error that encouraged the filing of a first amended action. She again refused to accept the paper, so the plaintiff reminded the clerk that she could “file on demand.” She accepted the paper and marked it “FILED ON DEMAND”. 06-09-99, the supervising clerk filed a “CERTIFICATE AND ORDER VACATING DOCUMENTS.” The form lays out a simple procedure: The clerk first supplies the facts, then the court decides upon the facts. Here the clerk certifies that she was directed to reject the documents; then, based upon her certification, the court orders her to reject the documents. An interesting procedural anomaly. 08-16-99, a hearing was held in which the magistrate makes certain admissions. Transcript #3 is referenced in the plaintiff’s affidavit used in the contempt proceeding. 09-27-99 plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt against the clerk and the magistrate. The motion was accompanied by an Order classifying the motion as a court personnel matter and sealing the papers to protect the privacy of the accused. The way it was packaged was as follows: Order: Sealing of Papers and a copy of the top sheet from each of the following 4 papers: Notice: Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter) Motion for Contempt (Confidential Personnel Matter) Affidavit of Witness in support of motion Affidavit of Plaintiff and exhibits in support of motion An envelope with a notice on its face stating that it may only be opened by the accused, the plaintiff, or the court. The envelope contained the Motion, Notice of Motion, and the two supporting affidavits with exhibits. Generally all proceedings are held in open court. Under California law public officials are prohibited from holding secret meetings except in certain special situations such as when an employee’s performance is being reviewed. Emulating that state privacy policy, this court treated the contempt accusation as if it were a private personnel matter, namely concerning the job performance of the clerk and the magistrate, thus sealing that portion of the record from public view. However, the court empowered the accused themselves to make the matter public any time they wished. 10-14-99 Contempt hearing held. See Transcript #4. 02-02-00 Ruling in re contempt of court. This ruling brings together the complete picture of the relationship between the people and the government. The preceding papers only touched upon some aspects of personal sovereignty, whereas this paper is complete. 04-05-00 A case management conference was held. Judge, defendant’s attorney, and plaintiff were all present. Overall, the conference was very quiet with minimal contention. Judge seemed to understand that he was acting in a ministerial capacity and not as a judge. Transcript #5 Note: the papers are not exact reproductions of the papers filed. For example, line numbers have been removed, and double spacing has been changed to single spacing. Also, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. The papers included here are to show how one litigant is handling challenges to his personal sovereignty. Much of the information is transferable to other cases. However, if you decide to copy the information, be certain you understand every word, and be certain that you personally check every cite–don’t trust anybody or anything; not even what you find at this web site.

>>>>

Posted in Court of Record, Defined | Leave a comment

Federal Tax Associated With Land Jurisdiction

Federal Tax Associated With Land Jurisdiction:

Wording of the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct tax on all incomes earned within the States of the United States of America or the federal states of the United States. The word “All” is the first word used in the Constitution of September 17, 1787, so the proponents of the Sixteenth Amendment were aware that that amendment could not by law refer to all incomes. The Amendment does refer to the “power (of the Congress) to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source (of the power to tax incomes is) derived,” which means the Congress has other sources of indirect income taxing powers that require no apportionment, census or enumeration and it can use the source of that power to tax some incomes, but not all incomes. The Congress has two sources of taxing power. It has the direct and indirect taxation power within the territory it owns or that has been ceded to it. Article IV of the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, confirmed the power of the Congress to impose indirect taxes in the Northwest Territory, as long as it owned the land where the subject of indirect taxation occurred. However, since the United States of America initially own all the real property in the Northwest Territory, this changed as some is sold off.  No attempt could ever be made to impose direct taxes on the real property there as a whole. History reveals that some federal land including much of the Northwest Territory would be sold to the general public subject to the alleged Article IV, Section 4, power of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” That general public would be subject to federal income taxation. The second source of taxing power of Congress was claimed for the Congress in Article I, Section 10, Clauses 1&2 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, it was the taxing power over foreign imports that was conceded to it by the States when the Constitution was ratified. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, identifies by name the four different “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” the Congress may lay and collect within federal territory and upon foreign imports. No matter the name of the tax the Congress is limited in its taxation to federal territory which it calls “the United States.” The first bill enacted into law by the First Congress establishes a legislative oath to “support this Constitution.” The second bill lays out imports duties on specified articles of commerce sought to be entered into the “United States.” The first internal revenue statute of the United States government was enacted on March 3, 1791. The statute raised revenue by laying a duty on distilled spirits and the stills that produced them. George Washington himself led the government’s forces against the uprising that arose in opposition to the act. The Federal government’s 1794 success in the Whiskey Rebellion secured its power to impose excise taxes on nearly everything produced for sale. By various lawless means the federal government extended its lawful power to tax within federal territory to beyond (without) those borders to nonfederal America. The federal government chose to create the US individual income tax–a tax on the net incomes of some citizens and residents of the United States which specifically included most federal officers and employees of the federal government. The income of federal officers and employees can be taxed because being employed by the federal government is a privilege when exercised within federal territory. Working for another for pay, off federal territory, is not a privilege– it is an unalienable right not subject to taxation. Learning the written law in law schools like Harvard and Yale has not occurred since the ratification of the Constitution of September 17, 1787, so you would be wrong to attend any other law school that holds those two schools in high esteem.

 

Posted in IRS | Leave a comment

Banking, History Timeline (MS 10097)

To See Chart Click > HERE.

 

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/LegHistory/LegHistoryMoney.htm

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment