De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2025)

DE FACTO GOVERNMENT SCAM

“The Beast” (Political Rulers of the World, Rev. 19:19)

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

1 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

DEDICATION “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He [God] who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one [Satan] will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one [Satan] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved [don’t be one of them!]. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion [from their own government], that they should believe a lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” [2 Thess. 2:3-17, Bible, NKJV] "And I heard another voice from heaven [God] saying, 'Come out of her [Babylon the Great Harlot, a democratic state full of socialist, government-worshipping idolaters, non-believers, and luke-warm Christians], my people [devoted Christians], lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double [Exodus 22:7] according to her [Satan’s WHORE] works [of THEFT, DECEPTION, and IDOLATRY]; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double [Exodus 22:7] for her. In the measure that she [Satan’s WHORE] glorified herself and lived luxuriously [using a government “benefit” check paid for with STOLEN loot that injures your neighbor rather than loves him/her], in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her [and ALL who obey, associate with, or subsidize her]." [Revelation 18:4-8, Bible, NKJV] "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [“citizen”, “resident”, “taxpayer”, “inhabitant”, or "subject" under a king or political ruler] of the world [or any man-made kingdom other than God's Kingdom] makes himself an enemy of God. " [James 4:4, Bible, NKJV] “You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.” [Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV] "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world [the obligations and concerns of the world]. " [James 1:27, Bible, NKJV] "You shall have no other gods [including political rulers, governments, or Earthly laws] before Me [or My commandments]." [Exodus 20:3, Bible, NKJV] "All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people." [Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.) [Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160; 92 L.Ed. 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948)] "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're [a corrupted government] after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

2 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." [Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand] ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Watch the following movie clip of Satan describing his WICKED agenda:

Devil’s Advocate: Lawyers. What We Are Up Against http://sedm.org/what-we-are-up-against/

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

3 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................. 6 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 38 2 Why the De Facto Government was created: Reason for the Treason ................................... 39 3 Method of Discrediting the Very Damaging Information Found Herein: Government Deception and Propaganda .......................................................................................................... 40 4 The Two Types of Governments .................................................................................................. 40 5 The first “terrorist” was a GOVERNMENT! ............................................................................ 43 6 History of corruption and corporatization of the government ................................................. 46 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

6.5

7

De Jure or De Facto Government? .............................................................................................. 95 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

8 9 10 11

Main purpose of law is to LIMIT government power to ensure freedom and sovereignty of the people ........... 46 How our system of government became corrupted: Downes v. Bidwell ........................................................... 48 Thomas Jefferson’s Warnings and Predictions Concerning the Corruption of the Government ........................ 54 How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government: With franchises........................................ 60 6.4.1 Original Design of our Republic ...................................................................................................... 60 6.4.2 Main Technique of Corruption: Introduce Franchises to replace UNALIENABLE PRIVATE Rights with REVOCABLE PUBLIC Statutory PRIVILEGES ....................................................... 67 6.4.3 Graphical Depiction of the Corruption ............................................................................................ 73 6.4.4 God's Remedy for the Corruption .................................................................................................... 80 6.4.5 De Jure v. De Facto Government..................................................................................................... 83 How De Jure Governments are Transformed into Corrupt De Facto Governments ........................................... 86 De Jure Government generally ........................................................................................................................... 96 Legal definition of a de jure “government” ...................................................................................................... 101 De Facto Government ....................................................................................................................................... 103 What makes a “Corporation” into a De Jure “Government”?........................................................................... 109 Signs that a “government” is actually a private de facto corporation ............................................................... 112

De Facto government is “The Beast” spoken of in the Holy Bible ......................................... 117 De Facto Officer Doctrine .......................................................................................................... 122 How you are DUPED into illegally joining the de facto government as a public officer ...... 124 General Symptoms that you are living under a de facto government .................................... 133 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5

You have equitable rather than legal title to your property .............................................................................. 133 Fiat currency not backed by substance ............................................................................................................. 135 A perpetual state of emergency is instituted in any aspect of the way government functions .......................... 136 Government employees able to deceive with anonymity and impunity ........................................................... 137 Your Identity is Routinely and Illegally Kidnapped and connected to domicile in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction: federal territory ............................................................................................................................. 138 11.5.1 Domicile on government forms ..................................................................................................... 139 11.5.2 How the tax code compels choice of domicile .............................................................................. 145 11.5.3 How the Legal Encyclopedia compels choice of domicile ............................................................ 147 11.5.4 How governments compel choice of domicile: Government ID .................................................. 148 11.5.5 Private employers and financial institutions compelling FALSE choice of domicile ................... 155 11.6 Widespread ignorance of the law by populace manufactured in the public/government school system .......... 157 11.7 Legal Profession Fascism ................................................................................................................................. 161

12 Illegal abuse of Franchises by the Government: The Engine of Abuse and Conversion to a De Facto Government ................................................................................................................. 164 12.1 Legal mechanism by which commerce is abused to create inequality and servitude ....................................... 165 12.2 Most government franchises are offered as “unconscionable contracts” with unjust and usurious terms ........ 176 12.3 Why all the government’s franchises are administered UNJUSTLY and FRAUDULENTLY ........................ 178 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

4 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

12.4 Compelled participation in franchises against those civilly domiciled outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the government offering the franchise is an act of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ......................................... 181 12.5 Franchises are abused to UNLAWFULLY create statutory government “employees” or “officers” ............... 184 12.5.1 “Public Office” v. “Public Officer” ............................................................................................... 195 12.5.2 Deliberately confusing who the “taxpayer” is to facilitate MISREPRESENTING the nature of the tax .................................................................................................................................................. 199 12.5.3 Legal Requirements for Occupying a “Public Office” .................................................................. 201 12.5.4 De Facto Public Officers ............................................................................................................... 213 12.6 The Government Protection Racket: Privilege Induced Slavery ..................................................................... 219 12.6.1 The Social Compact or “protection contract” ................................................................................ 221 12.6.2 God forbids participation in the government “protection racket”/franchise .................................. 224 12.6.3 How corrupt governments abuse privileges and franchises to destroy rights that they were created to protect ........................................................................................................................................ 225 12.6.4 Example: IRS privilege induced slavery....................................................................................... 226 12.6.5 Example: Privilege induced slavery using licenses to practice law .............................................. 227 12.7 Inequities between government and private franchises which lead to abuse and oppression ........................... 228 12.8 Biblical Explanation of How Judges and Prosecutors and Government Use Franchises to Plunder and Enslave You 230 12.9 Franchises implemented as trusts are the vehicle used to compel you to become the “straw man” ................. 239 12.10 Compelled participation in franchises and licensed activities .......................................................................... 243 12.10.1 Consent to participate is mandatory............................................................................................... 244 12.10.2 Effect of compelled participation in franchises ............................................................................. 249 12.10.3 How government hides the requirement for consent ..................................................................... 254 12.11 The Government “Benefits” Scam ................................................................................................................... 256 12.11.1 It is unlawful to use the government’s taxing power to transfer wealth or subsidize “benefits” to private persons ............................................................................................................................... 257 12.11.2 Why the only persons who can legitimately participate in government “benefits” are government officers and employees .................................................................................................................. 262 12.11.3 All government “benefits” amount to private business activity that is beyond the core purposes of government .................................................................................................................................... 271 12.11.4 “Benefits” defined ......................................................................................................................... 273 12.12 How franchises are used to destroy equal protection that is the foundation of the Constitution and all free government ....................................................................................................................................................... 277 12.13 Hiding Methods to Terminate Participation in the Franchise ........................................................................... 282 12.14 How the Courts attempt to illegally compel “nontaxpayers” into “franchise courts” and deprive them of due process .............................................................................................................................................................. 284 12.14.1 Congress Cannot Pass a law to Compel those who are not Franchisees to Litigate in a Franchise Court .............................................................................................................................................. 284 12.14.2 How Courts Unlawfully Compel Nontaxpayers into Franchise Courts ......................................... 286

13 Evidence of a de facto legislature ............................................................................................... 287 13.1 Undefined or ambiguous legal “terms” in acts of Congress delegate undue discretion to government employees and judges ......................................................................................................................................................... 287 13.2 Manipulation and Oppression of the Judicial Branch ....................................................................................... 289 13.3 No Constitutional courts and only franchise courts for settling disputes .......................................................... 290 13.4 Statutory Presumptions that Injure Rights ........................................................................................................ 294

14 Evidence of de facto courts ......................................................................................................... 297 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5

De Facto Judges ................................................................................................................................................ 297 Judges giving themselves discretion to substitute their will for what the law says .......................................... 300 Interference by Corrupt Franchise Judges with use of common law and equity by litigants ............................ 302 Judges being franchisees or having a conflict of interest .................................................................................. 309 Abusing Sovereign Immunity to Protect and Expand Private Business Interests and Unlawfully Expand Federal Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................................................................... 312 14.6 Condoning unlawful federal enforcement actions by ignoring the requirement for implementing enforcement regulations ........................................................................................................................................................ 321

15 Evidence of de facto tax system.................................................................................................. 323 15.1 How the tax system is being abused in violation of law to STEAL from people the government is supposed to be protecting ..................................................................................................................................................... 323 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

5 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

15.2 Financial institutions and private businesses acting as public office recruiters ................................................ 333 15.3 The “Tax Code” is the Bible of this state-sponsored Religion that only obligates those who consent ............. 336

16 Evidence of de facto executive branch ...................................................................................... 352 16.1 Selective enforcement used to protect de factos and persecute those opposing it ............................................ 352 16.2 County recorders refusing to file private contracts or anything other than statutory ........................................ 355 16.3 Refusal to or omission in recognizing or protecting private rights ................................................................... 356

17 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 361 18 Resources for Further Study and Rebuttal .............................................................................. 364 19 Questions that Readers, Grand Jurors, and Petit Jurors should be asking the Government ................................................................................................................................. 364

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Effect of turning government service into a franchise............................................................................................. 94 Table 2: "De jure government" and "De Facto Private corporation" compared .................................................................. 116 Table 3: Example forms that determine domicile................................................................................................................ 143 Table 4: Two methods for taxation ..................................................................................................................................... 187 Table 5: Statutory remedies for those compelled to act as public officers and straw man .................................................. 215 Table 6: Rules for converting private property to a public use or a public office ............................................................... 251 Table 7: Two methods for taxation ..................................................................................................................................... 261 Table 8: Comparison of Franchise Court to Constitutional Court ....................................................................................... 291 Table 9: Comparison of Republic State v. Corporate State ................................................................................................. 305 Table 10: Rules for converting private property to a public use or a public office ............................................................. 329 Table 11: Comparison of Political Religion v. Christianity ................................................................................................ 343

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5:

De Jure Hierarchy of Sovereignty .......................................................................................................................... 65 Graphical depiction of the process of corruption ................................................................................................... 74 Our present SOCIALIST Oligarchy ...................................................................................................................... 78 Internal Revenue License ..................................................................................................................................... 247 Back of Social Security card ................................................................................................................................ 334

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Constitutional Provisions Art. 1, Sec. 8 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 199 Art. 4, 4 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 387 Art. 80, Sect. 14 .................................................................................................................................................................. 215 Art. III, Sec. 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 311 Art. III, Sect, 4(D) (governor) ............................................................................................................................................ 215 Art. V, Sect. 10 ................................................................................................................................................................... 215 Article 1, Section 10 ........................................................................................................................... 139, 244, 246, 357, 367 Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 135 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 ............................................................................................................................. 187, 261, 363 Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3 .................................................................................................................................. 328 Article 1, Section 8. Clause 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 95 Article 1, Section 8. Clause 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 95 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

6 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 ..................................................................................................................... 108, 351, 357, 367 Article 1, Section. 10 .......................................................................................................................................................... 358 Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 ............................................................................................................................. 115, 128, 129 Article 4, Section 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 54, 60, 165, 182 Article 5, Section 10 ........................................................................................................................................................... 215 Article 7, Section 7 ............................................................................................................................................................. 215 Article I ................................................................................................................................................................ 88, 287, 291 Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 .............................................................................................................................................. 357 Article III ........... 54, 90, 94, 115, 129, 165, 215, 216, 217, 218, 276, 285, 286, 287, 289, 291, 297, 300, 307, 308, 362, 379 Article III, Section 25 ......................................................................................................................................................... 215 Article IV ..........................................................................................................54, 88, 90, 165, 179, 291, 307, 308, 319, 362 Article IV, Sect. 22 ............................................................................................................................................................. 215 Article IV, Section 4........................................................................................................................................................... 282 Article VI, Section 12......................................................................................................................................................... 215 Article VII, Section 9 (judges) ........................................................................................................................................... 217 Articles I and IV ................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Articles of Confederation, Article VI ................................................................................................................................. 357 Bill of Rights ................................................................................... 41, 70, 165, 178, 180, 188, 262, 278, 279, 296, 305, 320 Const. Art. 1, Sect. 2, Clause 3....................................................................................................................................... 75, 76 Const. Art. 1, Sect. 9, Clause 4....................................................................................................................................... 75, 76 Const. art. 6, cl. 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 320 Const. Art. 94-95 ................................................................................................................................................................ 217 Const. Article 1, Section 11................................................................................................................................................ 215 Const. Article 1, Section 19................................................................................................................................................ 215 Const. Article 1, Section 8.................................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Article 2, Section 04 (legislature) ........................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article 2, Section 1.................................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Article 2, Section 9.................................................................................................................................................. 216 Const. Article 3, Section 10................................................................................................................................................ 215 Const. Article 3, Section 13 (judges).................................................................................................................................. 216 Const. Article 3, Section 3.................................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Article 4, Part 2, Section 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 215 Const. Article 4, Section 06, Para. (B) ............................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article 4, Section 30 (legislative) ............................................................................................................................ 216 Const. Article 4, Section 6.................................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Article 4, Section 9.................................................................................................................................................. 217 Const. Article 5, Section 14................................................................................................................................................ 215 Const. Article 5, Section 2.................................................................................................................................................. 215 Const. Article 5, Section 7.................................................................................................................................................. 215 Const. Article 6, Section 16 (senators) ............................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article 6, Section 28................................................................................................................................................ 215 Const. Article 7, Section 4 (executive) ............................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article 8, Section 7 (judges).................................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article I, Section II, Para. III................................................................................................................................... 215 Const. Article II, Section 10 ............................................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article II, Section 12 ............................................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article II, Section 14 (legislature) ........................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article II, Section 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 216, 218 Const. Article II, Section 26 ............................................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article II, Section 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 215 Const. Article III, Section 1................................................................................................................................................ 217 Const. Article III, Section 2................................................................................................................................................ 216 Const. Article III, Section 22 (legislature) ......................................................................................................................... 216 Const. Article III, Section 6................................................................................................................................................ 218 Const. Article III, Section 7 (legislature) ........................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article III, Section 8................................................................................................................................................ 215 Const. Article III, Section II, Para. IV(b) ........................................................................................................................... 215 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

7 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Const. Article III-9 ............................................................................................................................................................. 217 Const. Article IV, Section 13 ............................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Article IV, Section 14 (governor) ........................................................................................................................... 216 Const. Article IV, Section 15 (judges) ............................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article IV, Section 2 (executive)............................................................................................................................. 216 Const. Article IV, Section 2(e) (legislative) ....................................................................................................................... 216 Const. Article IV, Section 3 (senators) ............................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article IV, Section 4 (legislature) ........................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article IV, Section 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 216 Const. Article IV, Section 8 ............................................................................................................................................... 216 Const. Article IV, Section V, Sections 3-4 ......................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article V, Section 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Article V, Section 17 (judges) ................................................................................................................................. 217 Const. Article V, Section 18 (legislature)........................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article V, Section 4 (governor) ............................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article V, Section 7 (judges) ................................................................................................................................... 215 Const. Article V, Section 8 ................................................................................................................................................. 215 Const. Article V, Section 9 (office) .................................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article V, Section I, Section 3 ................................................................................................................................ 217 Const. Article VI, Section 19 (judge) ................................................................................................................................. 217 Const. Article VI, Section 20(b)(1) .................................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article VI, Section 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Article VI, Section 9 ............................................................................................................................................... 217 Const. Article VII, Section 9 .............................................................................................................................................. 216 Const. Article VIII, Section 10 (judges) ............................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Chapter II, Section 54 ............................................................................................................................................. 218 Const. Chapter VI, Article 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 216 Const. Const. Declaration of Rights, Article 35 (officers) ................................................................................................. 216 Const. Declaration of Rights, Article 33 (judges) .............................................................................................................. 216 Const. of D.C., Article IV, Sect. 4(B) (judges) .................................................................................................................. 215 Const. Section 97-3-008 ..................................................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Section 97-5-027 ..................................................................................................................................................... 218 Const. Sections 2.5, 3.6, 4.8 ............................................................................................................................................... 215 Constitution Article III ......................................................................................................................................................... 88 Declaration of Independence38, 41, 46, 54, 64, 73, 96, 101, 110, 140, 148, 159, 173, 225, 226, 267, 338, 356, 365, 371, 387 Declaration of Independence, 1776 .................................................................................................................................... 326 Federalist Paper # 78 .......................................................................................................................................................... 296 Federalist Paper #15 ............................................................................................................................................................. 95 Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton .................................................................................................................... 287 Federalist Paper No. 79 .............................................................................................................................................. 193, 269 Fifth Amendment ............................................................................................................................................... 328, 330, 361 First Amendment ............................................................. 42, 97, 104, 113, 139, 144, 145, 146, 156, 233, 275, 339, 349, 363 First, Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments ............................................................................................................................ 312 Fourteenth Amendment ...................................................................................................................... 185, 222, 262, 328, 343 Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 259 Fourth Amendment ............................................................................................................................................................ 226 Liberty Amendment ........................................................................................................................................................... 319 Second Amendment ............................................................................................................................................................. 63 Seventh Amendment .......................................................................................................................................................... 287 Sixteenth Amendment .................................................................................................................... 53, 54, 135, 136, 311, 346 Tenth Article of Amendment ............................................................................................................................................... 49 The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) .................................................................................................. 62 Thirteenth Amendment.... 42, 75, 162, 180, 182, 188, 194, 214, 244, 246, 249, 263, 269, 277, 282, 286, 330, 374, 380, 382 U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 311 U.S. Constitution .......................................................................................................................................................... 63, 174 U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 ............................................................................................................................. 245 U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 ............................................................................................................... 135 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

8 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 ................................................................................................................. 62 United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment ................................................................................................................... 328

Statutes 1 Stat. 23-24 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 203 1 U.S.C. §204 ..................................................................................................................................................... 301, 336, 348 10 U.S.C. §333 ................................................................................................................................................................... 205 12 Stat. 472, Section 86 ...................................................................................................................................................... 310 13 V.S.A. §3002 ................................................................................................................................................................. 218 15 U.S.C. Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 273 17 Stat. 401......................................................................................................................................................................... 248 18 Pa.C.A. §4120 ............................................................................................................................................................... 218 18 U.S.C. §§1581, 1593 ..................................................................................................................................................... 374 18 U.S.C. §§201 and 208 ..................................................................................................................................................... 80 18 U.S.C. §§201, 208 ................................................................................................................................................. 292, 293 18 U.S.C. §1001 ................................................................................................................................................................. 220 18 U.S.C. §1346 ................................................................................................................................................................. 205 18 U.S.C. §1503 ................................................................................................................................................................. 182 18 U.S.C. §1512 ......................................................................................................................................... 162, 182, 220, 354 18 U.S.C. §1581 ........................................................................................................................................... 75, 186, 260, 330 18 U.S.C. §1583 ................................................................................................................................. 186, 249, 260, 277, 282 18 U.S.C. §1589 ................................................................................................................................................. 186, 246, 260 18 U.S.C. §1589(3) ...................................................................................................................................................... 76, 286 18 U.S.C. §1593 ................................................................................................................................................................. 286 18 U.S.C. §1865(b)(1) ........................................................................................................................................................ 293 18 U.S.C. §1918 ................................................................................................................................................................. 205 18 U.S.C. §1951 ......................................................................................................................................................... 194, 269 18 U.S.C. §1956 ......................................................................................................................................................... 194, 269 18 U.S.C. §1957 ................................................................................................................................................................... 76 18 U.S.C. §201 ..................................................................................................................... 75, 108, 116, 182, 274, 294, 347 18 U.S.C. §201 and 208 ..................................................................................................................................................... 293 18 U.S.C. §201, 208 ........................................................................................................................................................... 294 18 U.S.C. §208 ...................................................................... 77, 101, 110, 115, 165, 180, 220, 256, 274, 277, 309, 349, 355 18 U.S.C. §210 ................................................................................................................................................................... 108 18 U.S.C. §210 ................................................................................................................................................................... 171 18 U.S.C. §211 ........................................................................................................................................................... 171, 182 18 U.S.C. §2111 ................................................................................................................................................................... 76 18 U.S.C. §219 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75 18 U.S.C. §2381 ..................................................................................................................................................... 75, 82, 179 18 U.S.C. §241 ..................................................................................................................................... 75, 186, 259, 294, 303 18 U.S.C. §242 ........................................................................................................................................................... 186, 259 18 U.S.C. §247 ........................................................................................................................................................... 186, 259 18 U.S.C. §297 ................................................................................................................................................................... 294 18 U.S.C. §3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 353 18 U.S.C. §4 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 353 18 U.S.C. §597 ............................................................................................................................................................. 76, 348 18 U.S.C. §654 ........................................................................................................................................................... 328, 366 18 U.S.C. §872 ............................................................................................................................................... 76, 77, 186, 259 18 U.S.C. §873 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 77 18 U.S.C. §876 ..................................................................................................................................................... 77, 186, 259 18 U.S.C. §880 ..................................................................................................................................................... 76, 186, 259 18 U.S.C. §911 ........................................................................................................................................................... 130, 131 18 U.S.C. §912 ............................................................................ 108, 172, 218, 220, 248, 267, 330, 354, 360, 363, 374, 381 18 U.S.C. §912, 210, and 211 ............................................................................................................................................ 220 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

9 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

18 U.S.C.A. §687 ............................................................................................................................................................... 285 22 U.S.C. §212 ................................................................................................................................................................... 223 22 U.S.C., Foreign Relations and Intercourse, Section §611 ............................................................................................. 205 26 U.S.C. §§7206, 7207 ..................................................................................................................................................... 374 26 U.S.C. §1313 ................................................................................................................................................................. 380 26 U.S.C. §162 ........................................................................................................................................................... 189, 264 26 U.S.C. §2105 ................................................................................................................................................................. 204 26 U.S.C. §3401(c) ..................................................................................................................................... 303, 373, 374, 375 26 U.S.C. §6020(b) ............................................................................................................................................................ 113 26 U.S.C. §6041 ........................................................................................................................................................... 89, 335 26 U.S.C. §6041(a) ............................................................................................................................. 213, 254, 255, 333, 335 26 U.S.C. §6065 ................................................................................................................................................. 220, 364, 388 26 U.S.C. §6091 ................................................................................................................................................................. 145 26 U.S.C. §6109 ......................................................................................................................................................... 170, 333 26 U.S.C. §6671 ......................................................................................................................................................... 208, 242 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) ...................................................................................................................................................... 89, 242 26 U.S.C. §7203 ................................................................................................................................................................. 208 26 U.S.C. §7343 ................................................................................................................................................... 89, 197, 208 26 U.S.C. §7408(c) ............................................................................................................................................................. 341 26 U.S.C. §7408(d) ............................................................................................................................ 134, 141, 193, 207, 303 26 U.S.C. §7421 ......................................................................................................................................................... 114, 226 26 U.S.C. §7426 ........................................................................................................................................................... 90, 380 26 U.S.C. §7441 ................................................................................................................................................... 90, 309, 379 26 U.S.C. §7448(j)(1)(B)(vi) .............................................................................................................................................. 145 26 U.S.C. §7491 ................................................................................................................................................................. 321 26 U.S.C. §7601 ................................................................................................................................................................. 384 26 U.S.C. §7623 ................................................................................................................................................................... 54 26 U.S.C. §7701 ......................................................................................................................................................... 152, 377 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) ............................................... 114, 179, 182, 197, 199, 213, 255, 303, 331, 357, 360, 377, 380, 382 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16) ...................................................................................................................................... 157, 329, 333 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) ......... 89, 115, 170, 190, 197, 198, 201, 205, 248, 255, 265, 314, 323, 335, 352, 366, 372, 373, 376 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) .............................................................................................................................. 140, 141, 241, 294 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) ...................................................................................................... 134, 141, 193, 207, 268, 303, 341 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) ............................................................................................................. 140, 198, 322, 323 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4) ........................................................................................................................................................ 294 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B)........................................................................................................................................... 128, 140 26 U.S.C. §7701(c) ..................................................................................................................................................... 288, 294 26 U.S.C. §871 ........................................................................................................................................................... 198, 363 26 U.S.C. §871(a) ............................................................................................................................................................... 279 26 U.S.C. §911 ................................................................................................................................................................... 198 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3) .......................................................................................................................................................... 146 28 U.S.C. §§144 and 455 ................................................................................................................................................... 293 28 U.S.C. §§144, 455 ......................................................................................................................................................... 294 28 U.S.C. §§144, and 455 .................................................................................................................................................. 101 28 U.S.C. §§754 and 959(a) ............................................................................................................................... 142, 153, 233 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(3) ........................................................................................................................................................ 128 28 U.S.C. §134(a) ................................................................................................................................................................. 81 28 U.S.C. §144 ..................................................................................................................... 76, 110, 115, 165, 180, 277, 287 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3) ........................................................................................................................................................ 139 28 U.S.C. §1605(a) ............................................................................................................................................................. 279 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(2) ........................................................................................................................................................ 139 28 U.S.C. §1653 ................................................................................................................................................................. 128 28 U.S.C. §1746(2) ............................................................................................................................................................ 247 28 U.S.C. §1865 ................................................................................................................................................................. 293 28 U.S.C. §1865(b) ............................................................................................................................................................ 293 28 U.S.C. §2111 ................................................................................................................................................................. 300 28 U.S.C. §2201 ......................................................................................................................................................... 360, 382 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

10 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

28 U.S.C. §2201(a) ............................................................................................................................................................. 347 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) ..........................................................................................89, 94, 141, 191, 197, 224, 266, 320, 352 28 U.S.C. §44(b) .................................................................................................................................................................. 81 28 U.S.C. §455 ............................................................................................................. 76, 110, 115, 165, 180, 277, 287, 309 31 U.S.C. §321 ................................................................................................................................................................... 329 31 U.S.C. §321(d) .............................................................................................................................................................. 173 4 U.S.C. §105-113 .............................................................................................................................................................. 242 4 U.S.C. §106 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 116 4 U.S.C. §110(d) .................................................................................................................................................. 53, 140, 305 4 U.S.C. §72 ........................................................ 189, 197, 198, 203, 206, 213, 264, 267, 290, 294, 297, 330, 335, 374, 377 40 Stat. 1065, Section 213(a) ............................................................................................................................................... 54 42 U.S.C. §1301 ................................................................................................................................................................. 383 42 U.S.C. §1983 ......................................................................................................................................................... 286, 309 42 U.S.C. §1994 ............................................................................................75, 194, 246, 249, 269, 277, 282, 286, 330, 382 42 U.S.C.A. §1983 ............................................................................................................................................................. 286 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1) .......................................................................................................................................... 89, 286, 321 48 U.S.C. §1612 ................................................................................................................................................................. 206 5 U.S.C. §2105 ................................................................................................................................................................... 374 5 U.S.C. §2105(a) ....................................................................................................................................................... 210, 303 5 U.S.C. §5517 ................................................................................................................................................................... 116 5 U.S.C. §552 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 322 5 U.S.C. §552a ................................................................................................................................................... 189, 264, 271 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2) .......................................................................................................................................................... 274 5 U.S.C. §553(a) ................................................................................................................................................................... 89 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) .................................................................................................................................................... 286, 321 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) .................................................................................................................................................... 286, 321 5 U.S.C. §556(d) ........................................................................................................................................................ 145, 321 50 U.S.C. §841 ........................................................................................................................................... 108, 351, 361, 384 53 Stat. 489........................................................................................................................................................................... 91 720 I.L.C.S. 5/17-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 216 8 U.S.C. §1101 ................................................................................................................................................................... 223 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) .................................................................................................................................. 94, 128, 130, 305 8 U.S.C. §1401 ............................ 114, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 134, 140, 141, 262, 290, 292, 293, 294, 303, 305, 343, 356 8 U.S.C. §1448 ................................................................................................................................................................... 222 8 U.S.C. §1481 ................................................................................................................................................................... 205 A.R.S. §13-2006 ................................................................................................................................................................. 215 A.R.S. §13-2406 ................................................................................................................................................................. 215 A.S. §11.46.160 .................................................................................................................................................................. 215 A.S. §11.56.830 .................................................................................................................................................................. 215 A.S.C. §5-37-208 ............................................................................................................................................................... 215 Anti-Injunction Act ............................................................................................................................................................ 320 Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421 .................................................................................................................. 89, 180, 320 Assimilated Crimes Act...................................................................................................................................................... 305 Buck Act of 1940 ....................................................................................................................................................... 116, 242 Buck Act, 4 U.S.C. §110(d) ............................................................................................................................................... 305 C.O.A. §13A-10-10 ............................................................................................................................................................ 215 C.O.A. Title 13A, Article 10 .............................................................................................................................................. 215 C.O.V. §18.2-186.3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 218 California Civil Code (1903), §2260 .................................................................................................................................. 240 California Civil Code, §1589 ............................................................................................................................................. 254 California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 17017 ..................................................................................................... 152 California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 17018 ..................................................................................................... 152 California Vehicle Code ..................................................................................................................................................... 151 California Vehicle Code, Section 12502 ............................................................................................................................ 153 California Vehicle Code, Section 12505 .................................................................................................................... 151, 154 California Vehicle Code, Section 12511 ............................................................................................................................ 152 California Vehicle Code, Section 12805 ............................................................................................................................ 152 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

11 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

California Vehicle Code, Section 14607 ............................................................................................................................ 149 California Vehicle Code, Section 14607.6 ......................................................................................................................... 151 California Vehicle Code, Section 516 ................................................................................................................................ 151 Certiorari Act of 1925 .......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Civ. Code Cal. (1903), §2282............................................................................................................................................. 239 Code of Conduct for United States Judges ......................................................................................................................... 287 D.C. Code §22-1404........................................................................................................................................................... 215 D.C. Title 11, Section 854 .................................................................................................................................................. 215 D.C. Title 11, Section 907(3) ............................................................................................................................................. 215 Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201 .................................................................................................................... 381 Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) ......................................................................................... 90, 252, 286, 331 Emergency Bank Relief Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 1 ................................................................................................................ 136 Emergency Bank Relief Act, 48 Stat. 1 .............................................................................................................................. 135 Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. §1505(a) .......................................................................................................................... 321 Federal Reserve Act ............................................................................................................................................. 54, 135, 136 Federal Tort Claims Act ............................................................................................................................................. 313, 314 Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §1346(b), 2674 ...................................................................................................... 313 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2) ............................................................................... 320 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97 .......................................................................... 97, 131 G.L.M. Chapter 268, Section 33......................................................................................................................................... 216 G.L.R.I. §11-14-1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 218 General Business Law 380-S ............................................................................................................................................. 217 H.R.S. §710-1016 ............................................................................................................................................................... 215 House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 99, 1867 .................................................................................................................... 211 I.C. §25-30-1-18 ................................................................................................................................................................. 216 I.C. Title XVI, Section 718.2 ............................................................................................................................................. 216 I.R.C. §§1, 32, and 162....................................................................................................................................................... 187 I.R.C. Section 162 .............................................................................................................................................................. 147 I.S. §18-3001 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 216 Internal [INFERNAL] Revenue Code ................................................................................................................................ 351 Internal Revenue Code 116, 130, 132, 136, 138, 145, 162, 186, 188, 189, 190, 220, 251, 260, 263, 264, 287, 296, 312, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 330, 335, 337, 338, 339, 341, 344, 346, 347, 360, 375, 376, 388 Internal Revenue Code of 1939 .......................................................................................................................................... 242 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Section 7428 ................................................................................... 252, 287, 331, 360, 382 Internal Revenue Code, Sections 1, 32, and 162 ................................................................................................................ 262 Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 207, 254, 262, 264, 267, 268, 270, 314, 319, 320, 324, 372, 376, 381 Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A of the U.S.C. ............................................................................................................... 200 Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A and C ................................................................................. 113, 133, 199, 284, 360, 384 Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 ................................................................................................................................. 145, 336 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, Pub.Law 105-206, Title III, Section 3706, 112 Stat. 778 .................................... 91, 137 Judicial Code of 1911 ..................................................................................................................................................... 90, 94 Judicial Code of 1940, Section 1, pp. 2453-2454, Exhibit 3 ...................................................................................... 293, 298 Judicial Code of 2000, Title 28 U.S.C................................................................................................................................ 298 Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20 ............................................................................................................................................... 317 Judiciary Code of 1948....................................................................................................................................................... 299 K.R.S. §21-3825 ................................................................................................................................................................. 216 K.R.S. §434.570 ................................................................................................................................................................. 216 K.R.S. §514.60 ................................................................................................................................................................... 216 K.R.S. §532.034 ................................................................................................................................................................. 216 K.R.S. §61.080 ................................................................................................................................................................... 216 Law of 22 Prairial ................................................................................................................................................................. 44 M.C. §97-7-43 .................................................................................................................................................................... 216 M.C.A. §45-7-209 .............................................................................................................................................................. 217 M.R.S. §570.223 ................................................................................................................................................................ 216 M.S. §609.475 .................................................................................................................................................................... 216 Mass. Rev. Laws (1902). ch. 147, 12 ................................................................................................................................. 239 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

12 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Mich. Penal Code, Chapter XXXV, Section 750.217c....................................................................................................... 216 N.C.G.S. §14-277 ............................................................................................................................................................... 217 N.D.C.C. §12.1-13-04 ........................................................................................................................................................ 217 N.H.R.S.§359-I:2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 217 N.J.S.A. §2C:28-8 .............................................................................................................................................................. 217 N.M.S.A. §30-16-21.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 217 N.R.S. §197.120 ................................................................................................................................................................. 217 N.R.S. §28-636 ................................................................................................................................................................... 217 N.R.S. §28-639 ................................................................................................................................................................... 217 O.C.G.A. §16-10-23 ........................................................................................................................................................... 215 O.R.S. §162.365 ................................................................................................................................................................. 217 O.R.S. §165.803 ................................................................................................................................................................. 217 O.S. Title 21, Section 1533 ................................................................................................................................................ 217 O.S. Title 21, Section 1533.1 ............................................................................................................................................. 217 Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS), section 316.012 .............................................................................................................. 339 Pen. Code. Ci 836, subd. 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 277 Penal Code §484.1.............................................................................................................................................................. 215 Penal Law §190.23 ............................................................................................................................................................. 217 Penal Law §190.78 ............................................................................................................................................................. 217 Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13) ........................................................................................................................... 187, 262 Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 ............................................................................................................................. 53, 116, 242 R.C.W. §18.71.190 ............................................................................................................................................................. 218 R.S. §14:112 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 216 Rev. Civ. Code So. Dak. (1903), §1638 ............................................................................................................................. 240 Rev. Civ. Code So. Dak. (1903), §1651 ............................................................................................................................. 239 Rev. Code N. Dak (1895), 4298 ......................................................................................................................................... 239 Revenue Act of 1862 .......................................................................................................................................................... 247 Revenue Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 432 ..................................................................................................................................... 136 Revenue Act of 1918, c. 18,40 Stat. 1057 .......................................................................................................................... 311 Revenue Act of 1918, Section 213 ..................................................................................................................................... 311 Revenue Act of 1932 .......................................................................................................................................................... 311 Revenue Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 489 ....................................................................................................................................... 91 S.D.C.L. §22-40-16 ............................................................................................................................................................ 218 S.D.C.L. §22-40-8 .............................................................................................................................................................. 218 section 505 or 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ..................................................................................... 382 Sherman Anti-Trust Act ..................................................................................................................................................... 273 Social Security Act ............................................................................................................................. 192, 193, 267, 268, 384 Social Security Act as of 2005, Section 1101 .................................................................................................................... 383 Social Security Act, Section 1101(a)(2) ............................................................................................................................. 383 Statutes §8-301 ................................................................................................................................................................... 216 Statutes At Large ........................................................................................................................................................ 285, 348 Statutes At Large, 53 Stat 1, Section 4 ............................................................................................................................... 338 T.C. §39-16-301 ................................................................................................................................................................. 218 T.S. §32.51 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 218 Tariff Act of 1930 ...................................................................................................................................................... 290, 382 Tariff Act of 1930, Section 516A(f)(10) ............................................................................................................................ 287 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 18.01, .02 (West 1989).................................................................................................. 123 Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § § 601.007, .008(b), (c) (West 1994 & Supp. 2004) .................................................................... 123 Title 1: General Provisions ................................................................................................................................................ 301 Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 95 ................................................................................................................................ 221 Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 301 Title 26 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 198, 337 Title 26 (I.R.C.) of the U.S. Code ...................................................................................................................................... 262 Title 26 of the U.S. Code .................................................................................................................................................... 386 Title 26: Internal Revenue ................................................................................................................................................. 301 Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 301 Title 42 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 268 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

13 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Title 42 of the U.S. Code ............................................................................................................................................ 193, 200 Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare ........................................................................................................................... 301 Title 5 of the U.S. Code.............................................................................................................................. 188, 262, 264, 334 Title 5: Government Organization and Employees ........................................................................................................... 301 Title 50: War and National Defense .................................................................................................................................. 301 Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C., Chapter 2A ......................................................................................................... 242 Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §1346(a)(2), 1491 ...................................................................................................................... 313 U.C. §76-8-512 ................................................................................................................................................................... 218 U.C.C. §1-308 .................................................................................................................................................................... 247 U.S. Code ........................................................................................................................................................................... 171 Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) ................................................................................................................................... 68 United States of America Money Act, 1 Stat. 246, April 2, 1792 ...................................................................................... 135 United States of America Money Act, 1 Stat. 246-251, Section 19 ................................................................................... 137 W.S. §6-3-901 .................................................................................................................................................................... 219 W.S. §6-5-307 .................................................................................................................................................................... 219 W.S. §943.201 .................................................................................................................................................................... 218 W.V.C. §61-5-27a(e) .......................................................................................................................................................... 218

Regulations 20 C.F.R. §422.103 .................................................................................................................................................... 334, 379 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) ................................................................................................................................................ 170, 248 20 C.F.R. §422.104 ............................................................................................................................................ 141, 241, 333 22 C.F.R. §51.7 .................................................................................................................................................................. 170 22 C.F.R., Foreign Relations, Sections §§92.12 - 92.30 .................................................................................................... 205 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) .................................................................................................................................................. 198 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 143 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 170 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 141 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3............................................................................................................................................... 91, 331 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3..................................................................................................................................................... 252 26 C.F.R. §31.3402(p)-1 ............................................................................................................................................ 252, 331 26 C.F.R. §310.6109 .......................................................................................................................................................... 333 26 C.F.R. §601.702 ............................................................................................................................................................ 322 5 C.F.R. §2635.101 .................................................................................................................................................... 198, 209 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(a) ........................................................................................................................................................ 209 5 C.F.R. §2635.101(b) ........................................................................................................................................................ 203 Federal Register.......................................................................................................................................................... 286, 321 Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400-499 ...................................................................................... 188, 263 Treasury Regulations.......................................................................................................................................................... 388

Rules Brandeis Rules.................................................................................................................................................................... 173 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) .. 89, 126, 141, 142, 153, 193, 195, 197, 207, 233, 234, 268, 290, 303, 323, 335, 355 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(d) ............................................................................................................................... 195 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) ............................................................................................................................... 128 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 .................................................................................................................................... 128 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) ..................................................................................................................... 322, 364 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 .............................................................................................................................. 293 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) ......................................................................................................................... 300 Federal Rule of Evidence 610 .................................................................................................................................... 301, 337 Federal Rule of Evidence 802 .................................................................................................................................... 254, 333 Hearsay Rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 802 ............................................................................................................. 301, 337 Tax Court Rule 13 .............................................................................................................................................. 380, 381, 382 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

14 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Cases 4 Wheat. 404, 4 L.Ed. 601 .................................................................................................................................................. 110 A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d. 1020, 1037 (Fed.Cir.1992) .................................................. 386 Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 49 (1967) ........................................................................................................... 60 Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 544 , 43 S.Ct. 394, 24 A.L.R. 1238 ............................................................ 320 Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d. 240, 243. (Ct. App. Ariz. 1968) ............................................................................................. 281 Amanda Sykes, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, NO. 03-02-00783-CR, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN ........................................................................................................................................ 123 American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U.S. 372 (1893) .............................................................. 299 Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark. 774, 4 S.W.2d. 15, 58 A.L.R. 534 ............................................... 52, 124 Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 3 Sup.Ct. 184, 27 L.Ed. 920 ........................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936) ........................ 199, 206 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936) .................................................................... 227, 242, 280, 282 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936) .......................................................... 68, 173 Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S. 442, 450, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 1266, n. 7, 51 L.Ed.2d. 464 (1977) .................................................................................................................................. 284, 308, 381 Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 430 U.S., at 455, n. 13, 97 S.Ct., at 1269, n. 13284, 308, 381 Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 262 ..................................................................................................... 321 Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 225 .................................................................................... 321 Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77 .......................................................................................................................... 321 Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 223 ..................................................................................................... 321 Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 ....................................................................................................................................... 296 Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)............................................................................................................................ 162 Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911) .............................................................................................................. 386 Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont. 465, 44 P.2d. 735 .................................................................................... 52, 124 Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118, [539 U.S. 78] 128-129 (1891)................................................................................... 299 Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Chambers, 73 Ohio.St. 16, 76 N.E. 91, 11 L.R.A., N.S., 1012 (1905) ........................ 109 Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) ........................................................................................................................ 307 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)........................................................................ 63, 181 Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254-255 (1988)............................................................................... 300 Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558, 25 L.Ed. 212 ................................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44 Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d. 763, 765 ............................. 112, 368 Beck v. Buena Park Hotel Corp., 30 Ill.2d. 343, 196 N.E.2d. 686 (1964) ......................................................................... 280 Beck v. Missouri Valley Drainage District of Holt County, 46 F.2d. 632, 84 A.L.R. 1089 (8th Cir. 1931) ...................... 281 Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83 (1955) .................................................................................................................... 275 Berends v. Butz, 357 F.Supp. 143 (1973) .......................................................................................................................... 100 Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed. 801, 26 S.Ct. 427 ........................................................................................ 52, 124 Blanc v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 481 (E.D.N.Y.1956) ................................................................................................. 281 Board of County Com'rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362 ................... 271, 325, 367 Board of Education, etc. v. County Board of School Trustees, 28 Ill.2d. 15, 191 N.E.2d. 65 (1963) ................................ 281 Bogle v. Bogle, 3 Allen, 158 .............................................................................................................................................. 240 Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d. 1093 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................................................... 158 Boon v. Clark, 214 S.S.W. 607 .......................................................................................................................................... 227 Boone v. Merchants' & Farmers' Bank, D.C.N.C.. 285 F. 183. 191 ................................................................................... 277 Bowditch v. Banuelos, 1 Gray, 220 .................................................................................................................................... 240 Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926) ............................................................................................. 184 Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) ....................................................................................................... 154, 156 Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 (1970) ................................................................................................................... 246, 320, 338 Bridgeport v. New York & N.H.R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 4 Am.Rep. 63 ...................................................................... 278, 325 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).............................................................. 88, 193, 234, 269, 272, 290 Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d. 314 (1966) ..................................................................... 320, 338 Brooks v. Sessoms, 47 Ga.App. 554, 171 S.E. 222, 224 .................................................................................................... 277 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) ............................................................................................. 245 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683.................................................................................................... 88, 381 Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).............................................................. 192, 250, 251, 266, 329 Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d. 321, 325 ...................................................................................... 288, 375, 385 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

15 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Butler v. Phillips, 38 Colo 378, 88 P 480 ........................................................................................................................... 298 C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d. 18 (1939) ............................................................................................ 253, 332 Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894) ............................................................................................................................. 127, 171 Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) ............................................................................................................................... 186, 260 Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398 ......................................................................................... 108, 112, 184, 253, 258, 316, 332 Card v. State (Fla) 497 So.2d. 1169, 11 FLW 521, cert den 481 U.S. 1059, 95 L.Ed.2d. 858, 107 S.Ct. 2203 ................. 297 Cargill v. Thompson, 57, Minn. 534, 59 N.W. 638 ............................................................................................................ 372 Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906) ................................................................................................................................ 202 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936) ................................................................................................................. 320 Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936) ........................................................................................... 206 Catlett v. Hawthorne, 157 Va. 372, 161 S.E. 47, 48........................................................................................................... 209 Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d. 694, 697 ......................... 134, 327 Chambers v. Adair, 110 Ky. 942, 62 S.W. 1128 ................................................................................................................ 297 Cheltenham Tp. v. Cheltenham Tp. Police Dept., 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 348, 312 A.2d. 835, 838 .............................................. 274 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 ........................................................................................................... 132, 357 Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452 ........ 87, 101, 191, 197, 203, 265, 324, 353 Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N.E. 880 .................................................................................... 52, 124 Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22 ................................................................................................................. 227 Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181 . 87, 101, 191, 196, 202, 265, 324, 353 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794) .............................................................................................. 63 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793) ............................................................................ 107, 314, 356 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 419, 447, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793) ............................................................................ 111, 367 Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 454, 457, 471, 472 (1794)........................................................... 154 Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871, 63 A.L.R. 1337 ....................................................... 52, 124 City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) ............................................................. 263, 365 City of Terre Haute v. Burns, 69 Ind.App. 7, 116 N.E. 604, 608 ....................................................................................... 122 Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973) ............................................ 88, 193, 234, 269, 272, 290 Clapp v. Sandidge, 230 Ky. 594, 20 S.W.2d. 449 .............................................................................................................. 297 Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877) ........................................................................................................................ 247 Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) ................................................................. 98, 113, 272, 281 Cleveland Bed. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974) 414 U.S. 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215..................................................... 386 Clyatt v. U.S., 197 U.S. 207 (1905) ................................................................................................................... 249, 283, 382 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) ........................................................................................................................... 254 Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979) .......................................................................................................................... 375 Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979) ......................................................................................... 162, 375 Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ........................................................................................ 162, 288, 372, 385 College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense, 527 U.S. 666 (1999) ................................... 98 Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634, 638, 34 S.Ct. 924 ....................................................................................................... 275 Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L.Ed. 108.................................................................................. 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Commonwealth v. Di Stasio, 297 Mass 347, 8 N.E.2d. 923, 113 A.L.R. 1133.................................................................. 297 Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Fister, 376 S.W.2d. 543 (Ky. 1964) ..................................................................... 281 Compare Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201, 202, 48 S.Ct. 480, 72 L.Ed. 845............................................ 89 Connally vs. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ........................................................................................... 275 Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983) ............................................................................... 88, 193, 234, 269, 272, 290 Cook v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., 32 P.2d. 430, 431. 138 Cal.App. 418 ......................................................................... 277 Cook v. Tait ........................................................................................................................................................................ 131 Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) ....................................................................................................................... 127, 129, 130 Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875)......................................................................................... 99, 113, 272, 282 Cotton v. United States, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 229, 231, 13 L.Ed. 675 (1851) .............................................................. 111, 367 Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932) ................................................................. 284, 308, 381 Crowell v. Benson, supra, 285 U.S., at 50-51, 52 S.Ct., at 292. ......................................................................... 284, 308, 381 Cruger v. Halliday, 11 Paige, 314 ...................................................................................................................................... 240 Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 4 Dist., 185 C.A.3d. 438, 229 Cal.Rptr. 828, 833 .......................................................................... 240 Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035 ......................................................................... 170, 196, 202, 334, 378 Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102 ................................................................................................................ 132, 357 Davis v. Davis. TexCiv-App., 495 S.W.2d. 607. 611 ................................................................................................ 133, 327 De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L.Ed. 700 ......................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

16 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

DeCarlo v. Geryco, Inc. 46 N.C.App. 15, 264 S.E.2d. 370, 375 ........................................................................................ 274 Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U.S. 280, 286, 56 S.Ct. 190, 193, 80 L.Ed. 229 (1935) ........................................................ 386 Delamora v. State, 128 S.W.3d 344, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059, No. 03-02-00557-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059, at *25-33 (Tex. App.--Austin Feb. 5, 2004, no pet. h.) ...................................................................................................... 123 Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d. 129, 130 ................................................................................................. 112, 368 Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358 ......................................................................................... 132, 357 Deming v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 190, 191 (1865) ............................................................................................................ 273 Dismuke v. United States, 297 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 400, 80 L.Ed. 561 (1936) .................................................................... 281 Division of Aid for the Aged, etc., v. Hogan, 143 Ohio.St. 186, 54 N.E.2d. 781 (1944) ................................................... 280 Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227 .................................................................................................. 139, 321 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ............................................................................... 47, 61, 100, 104, 110, 296, 388 Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting ........................................................................... 51, 52 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 508-509 (1856) ............................................................................................... 250, 328 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856) ............................................................................................... 128, 171 Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F.2d. 585 (1972) ........................................................................... 253, 332, 360 Edler v. Frazier, 174 Iowa 46, 156 N.W. 182, 187............................................................................................................. 177 Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633 ................................................................................................................... 184 Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088......................................................................................... 68 Elliott v. City of Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358, 360 ............................................................................................. 278, 325 Ellis v. Boston, H. & E. Railroad, 107 Mass. 1 .................................................................................................................. 240 Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907) .................................................................................................. 314 Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 412-413, and n. 14 (1983)............................ 272 Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 .............................................................................................................................................. 287 Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920)..................................................................................................................... 54, 310, 311 Everson v. Bd. of Ed., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) ..................................................................................................................... 350 Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L.Ed. 696....................................................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Ex parte Grundy, 110 Tex. Crim. 367, 8 S.W.2d. 677, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928)......................................................... 123 Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 100 So. 312, 313, 211 Ala. 1 .............................................................................. 277 Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196 .............................. 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641 ........................................................................................................ 139, 320 First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762 (1938) ................................................................... 107, 136 Fischer v. United States, 529 U.S. 667 (2000) ................................................................................................................... 275 Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) ......................................................................................................... 166, 239, 241 Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S.Ct. 1367 (1960).................................................................................................. 281 Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d. 1435 (1960) ...................................................................... 280 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) ................................................................................................................... 326 Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) ..................................................................................................................................... 329 Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 80 S.Ct. 630, 647 (1960) ......................................................................................... 286 Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949) ................................................................................................. 127, 171 Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) ....................................................................................................... 222 Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) .............................................................. 162, 288, 372, 375, 385 Franklin County v. Public Utilities Com., 107 Ohio.St. 442, 140 N.E. 87, 30 A.L.R. 429 .......................................... 52, 124 Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind.App. 289, 58 N.E.2d. 947, 949, 950 ..................................................................... 177 Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126 ......................................................................................................................................... 60 Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583 .......................................................... 114, 365 Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 46 S.Ct. 605 (1926) ............................................................................. 93, 225 Fullilove v. Klotznick, 448 U.S. 448, at 474 (1990) .......................................................................................................... 172 Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536........................................................... 133, 326 Gaitan v. State, 905 S.W.2d. 703, 707 [*9] (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) ...................................... 123 Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968) ................................................................. 88, 193, 233, 269, 272, 290 Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524 ......... 87, 101, 191, 196, 202, 265, 324, 353 Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Atlanta, 154 Ga. 731, 115 S.E. 263 ................................................................................ 243, 245 Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6 .................................................................................................................. 97, 125 Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6 ............................................................................................................................ 64 Glasser v. United States, 314 U.S. 60, 70-71, 86 L.Ed. 680, 699, 62 S.Ct. 457 ......................................................... 320, 338 Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 535 (1962) ............................................................................................................. 299 Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 8 L.Ed.2d. 671, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 50 BNA LRRM 2693, 45 CCH LC ¶ 17685 ....... 297 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

17 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S., at 548-549, and n. 21, 82 S.Ct., at 1471-1472, and n. 21 ............................. 284, 308, 381 Glidden, 370 U.S. at 536 ............................................................................................................................................ 299, 300 Godesky v. Provo City Corp., Utah, 690 P.2d. 541, 547 ............................................................................................ 301, 336 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345................................................................................................................. 114, 178 Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535 ........................................................................................................................... 183 Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35 ...................................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct. 303............................................. 52, 124 Graphic Arts Finishers, Inc. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 357 Mass. 49, 255 N.E.2d. 793, 795 .......................... 274 Graves v. People of State of New York, 306 U.S. 466 (1939) ........................................................................................... 199 Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581 ........................................................................... 242, 280 Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527 ......................................... 173 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527........................................................... 68 Green v. Dept. of Public Welfare of the State of Delaware, 270 F.Supp. 173 (Del.1967) ................................................. 281 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) ................................................................................................................... 62 Gulf Refining Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 166 Miss. 759, 108 So. 158, 160 .................................................................... 326 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) ........................................................................ 106, 107, 110, 272, 278 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906) ..................................................................................................................... 188, 262 Hall v. Wingate, 159 Ga. 630, 126 S.E. 796, 813............................................................................................................... 177 Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d. 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ............................................................................................ 107, 136 Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275, 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724 ........................................... 206 Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47 .............................................................................................................................................. 253 Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47 ...................................................................................................................... 112, 184, 258, 316 Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47 .............................................................................................................................................. 332 Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965) .......................................................... 114, 178, 365 Harrell v. Tobriner, 279 F.Supp. 22 (D.C.1967) ................................................................................................................ 281 Hatch v. Carpenter, 9 Gray (Mass.) 274 ............................................................................................................................. 277 Hatter v. U.S, 532 U.S. 557 (2001) .................................................................................................................................... 102 Hatter v. U.S., 532 U.S. 557 at 567 (2001) ........................................................................................................................ 312 Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) ........................................................................... 263, 365 Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175, 188, 36 S.Ct. 78, 82, 60 L.Ed. 206 (1915) ............................................................... 111, 367 Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., 389 S.W.2d. 745, 752............................................................................................................. 133 Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) ........................................................................................... 108 Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413, 88 A.L.R. 1481 (1934) ............ 107, 136 Housing Authority of Cherokee National of Oklahoma v. Langley, Okl., 555 P.2d. 1025, 1028 .............................. 250, 328 Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d. 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) ..................................................... 182, 252, 331, 360, 382 Hume v. U. S., 10 S.Ct. 134, 132 U.S. 406, 33 L.Ed. 393.................................................................................................. 177 In re Application of Eng, 113 Wash 2d 178, 776 P.2d. 1336 ............................................................................................. 297 In re Bergeron, 220 Mass. 472, 107 N.E. 1007, 1008, Ann.Cas.1917A, 549 ..................................................................... 209 In re Durant Community School District, 252 Iowa 237, 106 N.W.2d. 670 (1960)........................................................... 281 In re McCowan , 177 Cal. 93, 170 P. 1100 (1917) ............................................................................................................. 158 In re Mytinger, D.C.Tex. 31 F.Supp. 977,978,979 ..................................................................................................... 185, 259 In re O’Donnell’s Estate, 253 Iowa 607, 113 N.W.2d. 246 (1962) .................................................................................... 280 In re Olmstead, 24 App.Div. (N. Y.) 190 ........................................................................................................................... 240 In re Pardee's Estate, 259 App Div 101, 18 N.Y.S.2d. 413 ................................................................................................ 298 In re Riggle's Will, 11 A.D.2d. 51 205 N.Y.S.2d. 19, 21, 22 ............................................................................................. 285 In re Santillanes, 47 N.M. 140, 138 P.2d. 503.................................................................................................................... 297 In re Turner, 94 Kan. 115, 145 P. 871, 872, Ann.Cas.1916E, 1022 ........................................................................... 281, 376 In re Wingler, 231 N.C. 560, 58 S.E.2d. 372 ..................................................................................................................... 297 Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172 ........................ 87, 101, 191, 197, 203, 265, 324, 353 Inland Navigation Co. v. Chambers, 202 Or. 339, 274 P.2d. 104 (1954)........................................................................... 281 Insurance Co. of North America v. Kunin, 175 Neb. 260, 121 N.W.2d. 372, 375, 376 ..................................................... 293 International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 221 , 34 S.Ct. 853 ...................................................................... 275 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ............................................................................................... 97 Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167 ...................................................................................................................................... 184 Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.E.2d. 453, Tenn. ................................................................................................. 93, 228 James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903) ............................................................................................................ 263, 365 Jaremillo v. Romero, 1 N.Mex. 190, 194 ................................................................................................................... 249, 282 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

18 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3d. 1413, 1415 (Fed.Cir.1994) ....................................................................................................... 386 Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8............................................................ 87, 101, 190, 196, 202, 265, 324, 353 Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co., 61 F.2d. 934, 938 (CA2 1932) (L. Hand, J.) ...................................................................... 300 Johnson v. State, 27 Ga. App. 679,109 S.E. 526,527 ......................................................................................................... 122 Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 146 A.L.R. 357 ........................................... 320 Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85...................................................................................................................................................... 99, 282 Julliard v. Greenman: 110 U.S. 421, (1884) ................................................................................................................. 60, 112 Kaehn v. St. Paul Co-op. Ass'n, 156 Minn. 113, 194 N.W. 112......................................................................................... 209 Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 245 A.2d. 579, 586 ....................................................................................... 185, 259, 327 Keller v. State, 102 Ga. 506, 31 S.E. 92 ............................................................................................................................. 277 Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976) ............................................................................... 87, 193, 233, 268, 271, 290 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) .................................................................................................................................. 226 Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d. 180, 332 P.2d. 250, 252, 254............................................ 133, 326 Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710 .............................................................................. 170, 196, 202, 334, 378 Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W.2d. 74, 79, 81 ........................................................................................................ 371 Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S.Ct. 196............................................................................. 52, 124 Latrobe v. J. H. Cross Co., D.C.Pa., 29 F.2d. 210, 212 ...................................................................................................... 277 Lechmere Tire and Sales Co. v. Burwick, 360 Mass. 718, 720, 721, 277 N.E.2d. 503 ...................................................... 240 Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108 .......................................................... 68 License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866) .............. 114, 199, 207, 248, 314, 383 Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934 .......................................................................................................................................... 227 Linehan v. Travelers Ins. Co., 370 Ill. 157, 18 N.E.2d. 178 ............................................................................................... 298 Lippencott v. Allander, 27 Iowa 460 .......................................................................................................................... 243, 245 Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874) ....................................................................................... 107, 365 Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) ..............................................108, 112, 184, 253, 258, 261, 316, 332, 370 Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) ...................................................................................................................... 253, 332 Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238 (1922) ...................................................................................................................... 380 Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 81 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 420 ...................................................... 325 Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky. 234, 148 S.W. 13 ............................................................................ 52, 124 Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) .................................................................................................................................... 102 Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890, 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948) .................................................................. 60 Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 92 L.Ed. 1881, 1890, 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948) ................................................................... 2 MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955, 57 L.Ed. 1260 ............................................................. 103, 333, 378 Macy v. Heverin, 44 Md.App. 358, 408 A.2d. 1067, 1069 ................................................................................................ 203 Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697 ....... 87, 191, 196, 202, 265, 324, 353 Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697 .................................................... 101 Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408 .................................................................................................... 234 Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584 ............................................... 68 Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 49 S.Ct. 215, 73 L.Ed. ..................................................................................................... 295 Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 118 174 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176 ....................................................................................................................... 49, 52 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) .......................................................................... 285, 300 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331 ............................................................................................................................ 49 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 327 .................................................................................................................................... 48 Maryland Port Admin. V. I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore, 40 Md.App. 697, 395 A.2d. 145, 149 ............................................ 313 Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77 ............................................................................. 108, 112, 184, 253, 258, 316, 332 Matter of Miller, 15 Abb. Pr. 277 ....................................................................................................................................... 240 McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431 ............................................................................................................... 108, 184, 258, 316 McDowell, 159 U.S. at 601 ................................................................................................................................................ 300 McIntosh v. Dill, 86 Okl. 1, 205 P. 917, 925 ............................................................................................................. 281, 376 McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374, 33 Sup.Ct. 122, 57 L.Ed. 260 ............................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 295 McNatt v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 91 S.W.2d. 1068, 1069 .............................................................................................. 122 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 24, 13 S.Ct. 3, 6, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892) ............................................................... 111, 367 Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198, 19 Sup.Ct. 503, 43 L.Ed. 779.............................................. 88, 115, 174, 236 Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987) ................................................................................................................ 162, 375 Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ........................................................................................ 162, 288, 372, 385 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

19 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1873) ................................................................................................................................. 315 Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 219 .................................................................................................. 183 Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493 ............................................................................................................... 139, 321 Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) .............................................................................................................. 158 Michigan Employment Sec. Commission v. Patt, 4 Mich.App. 228, 144 N.W.2d. 663, 665............................................. 185 Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925) ........................................................................................................................ 54, 311 Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252-253............................................................................................................. 184 Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)...................................................................... 129, 145, 147, 207, 222 Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940) ...................................................................................................................... 97 Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935) ................................................................................................................. 139, 321 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 166-168 (1874)........................................................................................... 232 Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417......................................................................................... 132, 357 Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115, 13 How. 115, 14 L.Ed. 75 (1851) ...................................................................... 107, 136 Montana Power Co. v. Bokma, Mont., 457 P.2d. 769, 772, 773 ........................................................................ 185, 258, 327 Morehead v. State Dept. of Roads, 195 Neb. 31, 236 N.W.2d. 623, 627 ........................................................................... 274 Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 96 -97 ....................................................................................................................... 296 Morton v. State, 761 S.W.2d. 876, 878 (Tex. App.--Austin 1988, pet. ref'd) .................................................................... 123 Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519 ................................................................................................... 132, 357 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 139-140 (1876) .................................................................................................................. 169 Murray v. City of Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 (1877) ....................................................................................................... 99, 273 Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856) .......................................... 284, 308, 381 New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885) .......................................................................... 170, 245 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Gamer, 303 U.S. 161, 171, 58 S.Ct. 500, 503, 82 L.Ed. 726 (1938) ....................................... 386 New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ........................................................................................................... 386 Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d. 1097, 1100 .................................................................................. 288, 375, 385 Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) ................................................................................................. 128 Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003) .................................................................................................................... 300 Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663100, 339, 346, 347 Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 .................................................... 108, 111, 184, 253, 258, 316, 332 Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983) ........................ 284, 308, 381 Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. at 83-84, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983) ................................. 88 Norton v. Shelby Co State of Tennessee, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 30 L.Ed. 178 (1886) ............................................. 213 Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L.Ed. 78 .................................................................................. 122 O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) ........................................................................... 88, 193, 233, 268, 271, 290 O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933) .................................................................................... 379 O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933) .................................................................................................. 309 O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) ............................................................................................ 54, 287, 310, 312 O’Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) ................................................................................................ 272, 282 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) ................................................................................................ 188, 263 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) ........................................................................................................ 323 O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) .......................................................................................................... 102, 311 O'Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) ................................................................................................... 99, 113 Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824) .............................................................................. 124, 211, 316, 317, 318, 319 Pack v. Southwestern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.2d. 789, 794 ........................................... 184, 258, 327 Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) ............................................................................................................................. 242 Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124, 29 Sup.Ct. 556, 53 L.Ed. 936 ...................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L.Ed. 357 ....................................................................................................................... 234 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa 183, 16 A 836........................................................................................................ 53 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa. 183, 16 A. 836.................................................................................................... 124 People v. Brautigan, 310 Ill. 472, 142 N.E. 208, 211 ......................................................................................................... 122 People v. Larry C. (3rd Dist) 234 Cal.App.3d. 405, 286 Cal.Rptr. 52, 91 CDOS 7715, 91 Daily Journal DAR 11736 .... 297 People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. (N.Y.) 387, 8 Am.Dec. 243 ................................................................................ 278, 325 Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) ...................................................................................................................... 272 Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) .................................................................................................. 98, 113, 272, 281 Pickens v. Johnson, 42 Cal.2d. 399, 267 P.2d. 801 (Cal. 03/01/1954) ............................................................................... 300 Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H. 484..................................................................................................................................... 278, 325 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

20 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316 ................................................................................ 68 Pioneer Mining Co. v. Ty berg, C.C.A.Alaska, 215 F. 501, 506, L.R.A.l915B, 442 ......................................................... 209 Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 542 (1896) ........................................................................................................... 249, 382 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 288, 5 S.Ct. 903, 29 L.Ed. 185 (1885) ........................................................ 111, 367 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) ............................................................................................... 313 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1895) ...................................................................... 72 Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)................................................................ 72, 112 Pope v. Pope, 213 Ark. 321, 210 S.W.2d. 319 ................................................................................................................... 297 Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69 ............................................................................ 108, 111, 184, 253, 258, 316, 332 Price v. United States, 269 U.S. 492 , 46 S.Ct. 180.................................................................................................... 139, 321 Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837) ............................... 153, 191, 266 Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514 (1830) .............................................................................................................. 340 Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947) .................................................................. 88, 193, 234, 269, 272, 290 Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262 ............................................................................................................... 132, 357 Rapa v. Haines, Ohio Comm.Pl., 101 N.E.2d. 733, 735 .................................................................................................... 373 Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 N.J. 192, 142 A.2d. 85 .................................................................................................... 52, 124 Real Estate Commission v. McLemore, 202 Tenn. 540, 306 S.W.2d. 683 (1957) ............................................................. 281 Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817 ..................................................................................................................... 93, 228 Reetz v. People of State of Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563 (1903) .................................................. 281 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5 -10 ....................................................................................................................................... 295 Reinecke v. Smith, Ill., 289 U.S. 172, 53 S.Ct. 570, 77 L.Ed. 1109 .................................................................................. 209 Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co., 141 Va. 69, 126 S.E. 353 ............................................................................ 53, 124 Ringe Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186......................................... 185, 258, 327 Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878) ............................................................................................................. 128 Roboz v. Kennedy, 219 F.Supp. 892 (D.D.C. 1963), p. 24 ................................................................................................ 145 Rodgers v. Meredith, 274 Ala. 179, 146 So.2d. 308, 310 .................................................................................................. 315 Rodgers v. Rodgers (Ind App) 503 N.E.2d. 1255 .............................................................................................................. 297 Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 104 L.Ed.2d. 526, 109 S.Ct. 1917 (1989) 311 Roer v. Superior Court, 4 Ariz.App. 46, 417 P.2d. 559 (1966) .......................................................................................... 280 Routen v. West, 142 F.3d. 1434 C.A.Fed.,1998 ................................................................................................................. 386 Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005).............................................................................................. 360, 382 Ruckenbrod v. Mullins, 102 Utah 548, 133 P.2d. 325, 144 A.L.R. 839............................................................................. 246 Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) ........................................................... 88, 193, 234, 269, 272, 290 Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 A. 635 ................................................. 52, 124 Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 30 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d. 607, 621........................................................................................... 196 Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180 (1995) ............................................................................................................. 299 Sandham v. Nye, 9 Misc.Rep. 541, 30 N.Y.S. 552 ............................................................................................................ 325 Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 549, 550 S., 55 S.Ct. 837, 97 A.L.R. 947.................................. 320 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d. 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 98 Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 803 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984)) .................................................. 98 Senior Citizens League v. Dept. of Social Security, 38 Wash.2d. 142, 228 P.2d. 478 (1951) ........................................... 280 Sheldon v. Green, 182 Okla 208, 77 P.2d. 114 .................................................................................................................. 297 Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878 ......................................................... 170, 196, 202, 334, 378 Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878) ................................................................................................................... 254, 333 Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall, 36 .................................................................................................................................. 249 Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 644 ............................................................................................................... 114, 178, 365 Smith v. City of Jefferson, 75 Or. 179, 146 P. 809. 812 .................................................................................................... 122 Smith v. King, 277 F.Supp. 31 (M.D.Ala.1967) ................................................................................................................ 280 Smith v. Reynolds, 277 F.Supp. 65 (E.D.Pa.1967) ............................................................................................................ 281 Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d. 94 .............................................................................................................. 231 Snow v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. 263, 114 S.W.2d. 898 ......................................................................................................... 298 South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984) ............................................................................................ 90, 244, 286, 380 Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 .............................................................................................................. 183 Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939, 943......................................................................................................................... 60, 112 Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563, 362 A.2d. 871, 875 ............................................................................................... 202 Spring Val. Water Works v. Barber, 99 Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735, 21 L.R.A. 416...................................................................... 93 St. Louis Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469 ............................................................... 227, 242, 280 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

21 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351 ................... 68 St. Louis, etc., Co., v. George C. Prendergast Const. Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351. .............................. 173 Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. Perkins, C.A.Or., 347 F.2d. 379, 383 ................................................................................... 240 State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d. 539, 542 ....................................................................... 112, 368 State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486 ................ 170, 196, 202, 334, 378 State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537 ..................................................................... 52, 124 State ex rel. Herbert v. Whims, 68 Ohio.App. 39, 28 N.E.2d. 596, 599, 22 O.O. 110 ....................................................... 386 State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d. 921, 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) ......................................................................... 123 State ex rel. Hutton v. Baton Rouge, 217 La. 857, 47 So.2d. 665 .............................................................................. 243, 245 State ex rel. Jugler v. Grover, 102 Utah 459, 132 P.2d. 125 .............................................................................................. 297 State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 41 S.W. 955 ......................................................... 52, 124 State ex rel. Lee v. Sartorius, 344 Mo. 912, 130 S.W.2d. 547, 549, 550............................................................................ 209 State ex rel. Madden v. Crawford, 207 Or. 76, 295 P.2d. 174............................................................................................ 297 State ex rel. McGaughey v. Grayston, 349 Mo. 700, 163 S.W.2d. 335.............................................................................. 297 State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321 ................ 87, 101, 190, 196, 202, 265, 324, 353 State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 139 L.Ed.2d. 199, 118 S.Ct. 275 (1997)................................................................ 311 State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300 ....................................................................................................... 132, 357 State v. Black Diamond Co., 97 Ohio.St. 24, 119 N.E. 195, 199, L.R.A.1918E, 352 ................................................ 278, 325 State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593 ................................................................................... 171, 196, 202, 334, 378 State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449, 9 Am.Rep. 409 .................................................................................................................. 122 State v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 639, 86 A.L.R. 240................................................................... 278, 279, 325 State v. Haremza, 213 Kan. 201, 515 P.2d. 1217, 1222 ............................................................................................. 301, 336 State v. Topeka Water Co., 61 Kan. 547, 60 P. 337 ........................................................................................................... 325 Stearns v. Fraleigh, 39 Fla. 603 .......................................................................................................................................... 240 Stein v. Foster (Fla) 557 So.2d. 861, 15 FLW S 31 ........................................................................................................... 297 Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) .......................................................................................... 162, 288, 372, 375, 385 Stevens v. State, 2 Ark. 291, 35 Am.Dec. 72 ....................................................................................................................... 93 Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 310 U.S. 548, 606 (1937) .................................................................................................. 70 Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542 ........................................................................................................... 139, 321 Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806) ..................................................................................................................... 128 Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499 ........................................................................................... 132, 357 Thomas v. Higham, 1 Bail.Eq. 222 .................................................................................................................................... 240 Thompson v. Shapiro, 270 F.Supp. 331 (Conn.1967) ........................................................................................................ 281 Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 ..................................................................................................................................... 295 Tower v. Tower & S. Street R. Co. 68 Minn 500, 71 N.W. 691 ................................................................................ 243, 245 Town of Arlington v. Bds. of Conciliation and Arbitration, Mass., 352 N.E.2d. 914 ........................................................ 203 U. S. v. Royer, 45 S.Ct. 519, 520, 268 U.S. 394, 69 L.Ed. 1011........................................................................................ 122 U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919) ........................................................................... 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 U.S. v. Bartrug, E.D.Va.1991, 777 F.Supp. 1290 .............................................................................................................. 321 U.S. v. Bink, 74 F.Supp. 603, D.C.Or. (1947) ................................................................................................................... 285 U.S. v. Brown, D.C.App., 309 A.2d. 256, 257 ................................................................................................................... 294 U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) ....................................................................................................... 108, 112, 184, 258, 370 U.S. v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S.Ct. 1782, (2001) .......................................................................................................... 54 U.S. v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475 (1967) ..................................................................................................................................... 226 U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) ..................................................................................................................................... 62 U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021 (5th Cir. 1970) ................................................................................................................ 201 U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222. ........................................................................................................................... 127, 171 U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297, 299 (5th Cir. 1977) ............................................................................................................. 201 U.S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 98 U.S. 569 (1878) .................................................................................................................. 281 U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) ...................................................................................................................................... 254 U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) ........................................................................................................ 60, 99, 110 Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905) .................................................................. 132, 357 United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 9 Sup.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354 ................................. 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 15 -19................................................................................................. 295 United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) ........................................................... 166, 238, 241 United States Trust Co. of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 26 (1977).............................................................................. 272 United States v. American-Foreign S.S. Corp., 363 U.S. 685, 690-691 (1960) ................................................................. 300 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

22 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464, 63 L.Ed. 1011 (1919)................................................................... 281 United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971)................................................................................................................ 275 United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) ........................................................................................ 98, 113, 272, 281 United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass), 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223 .. 87, 101, 191, 196, 203, 265, 324, 353 United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155 ......................................................................................... 139, 321 United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d. 619 (10th Cir. 11/27/1990) ......................................................................................... 227 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) ................................................................................... 61, 99, 110, 232, 361 United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) .............................................................................................................. 263, 365 United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883) ..................................................................................................... 263, 365 United States v. Hatter, 121 S.Ct. 1782 (2001) .................................................................................................................. 311 United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 ......................................................... 87, 101, 191, 196, 202, 265, 324, 353 United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208 .................................................................................... 112, 368 United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U.S. 440, 39 Sup.Ct. 340, 63 L.Ed. 696 ............................. 88, 115, 174, 236, 280 United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U.S. 440, 39 Sup.Ct. 340, 63 L.Ed. 696 (1919) .................................................. 88 United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367 ...................................................................................................... 87, 101 United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109, 26 F.Cas. 1211 (CC Va.1823) .............................................................. 111, 367 United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926) ............................................ 98, 113, 272 United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056 ............................................................................................................... 101 United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa), 864 F.2d. 1056 ........................................................................................................ 87, 353 United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169 ........................................................................................................................ 183 United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876)........................................................................................................ 263, 365 United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194 ................................................................................................... 184 United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996) ........................................................................................... 99, 113, 273 United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240 (1882).................................................................................................... 160 Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754 .......................................... 271, 325, 367 Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 154, 6 S.Ct. 670, 672, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) ............................................ 111, 367 Veix v. Sixth Ward Building & Loan Ass’n of Newark, 310 U.S. 32, 60 S.Ct. 792, 84 L.Ed. 1061 (1940).............. 107, 136 Virginia Canon Toll Road Co. v. People, 22 Colo. 429, 45 P. 398 37 L.R.A. 711 ............................................................ 326 Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 469, 99 S.E. 723, 9 A.L.R. 1148 ....................................... 53, 124 Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2235 ...................................................................................... 386 Walcott v. Wells, 21 Nev. 47, 24 P. 367 ............................................................................................................................ 297 Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58 ................................................................................ 170, 196, 202, 334, 378 Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407............................................................................................. 227, 242, 280 Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229 .............................................................. 173 Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229 ................................................ 68 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 69 (1985) .............................................................................................................................. 350 Weatherford v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. 530, 21 S.W. 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1893) ............................................................... 123 Webster v. Vandeventer, 6 Gray. 428 ................................................................................................................................ 239 Weiner v. State Dept. of Roads, 179 Neb. 297, 137 N.W.2d. 852 (1965) .......................................................................... 281 Wendt v. Berry, 154 Ky. 586, 157 S.W. 1115, 1118, 45 L.R.A,N.S., 1101, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 493................................... 122 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945) ................................................ 162, 288, 372, 375, 385 Whitbeck v. Funk, 140 Or. 70, 12 P.2d. 1019, 1020 .................................................................................................. 278, 325 Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) ...................................................................................................................... 158 Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942) ....................................................................................................... 172 Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 88, 115 Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 118 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 236, 280 Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304 (U.S.Mich.,1989) ........................................... 111, 368 William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International Curtiss Marine Turbine Co., 228 U.S. 645 (1913) 299 William Cramp & Sons, 228 U.S. at 650 ........................................................................................................................... 300 Williams v. Shapiro, 4 Conn.Cir. 449, 234 A.2d. 376 (1967) ............................................................................................ 280 Williams v. State, 588 S.W.2d. 593, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) ..................................................................................... 123 Williams v. U.S., 289 U.S. 553, 53 S.Ct. 751 (1933) ........................................................................................................... 89 Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 348, 37 S.Ct. 298, 302, L.R.A. 1917E, 938, Ann.Cas. 1918A, 1024 ................................ 108 Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct. 1370 ........................................................... 139, 320 Woolum v. Sizemore, 267 Ky. 384, 102 S.W.2d. 323, 324 ............................................................................................... 274 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

23 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d. 1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006) ........................... 98 Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239 .............................................................. 170, 196, 202, 334, 378 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) ........................................................................................................................ 385 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S.Sup.Ct. 1064, 1071 ..................................................................... 106, 272, 278 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064 (U.S. 1886) .......................................................................................... 275 Youngstown Sheet &Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153, 47 Ohio.Op. 430, 47 Ohio.Op. 460, 62 Ohio.L.Abs. 417, 62 Ohio.L.Abs. 473, 26 A.L.R.2d. 1378 (1952) ................................................................... 107, 136

Other Authorities "Public" v. "Private" Employment: You Will Be Illegally Treated as a Public Officer If You Apply For or Receive Government "Benefits", Family Guardian Fellowship ................................................................................................... 376 “Big Brother” ....................................................................................................................................................................... 80 “De jure U.S. Government” ................................................................................................................................................. 65 “In God We Trust” ............................................................................................................................................................... 64 “Parens Patriae”.................................................................................................................................................................... 80 “Taxpayer” v. “Nontaxpayer”: Which One are You?, Family Guardian Fellowship ................................................ 244, 355 1 Hamilton's Works, ed. 1885, 270 ...................................................................................................................................... 71 10 Pet. 161, 175 .................................................................................................................................................................... 61 15 Bin. Ab. 327 .................................................................................................................................................................... 61 16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional Law, §52 (1999) ............................................................................... 107, 136 16 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Constitutional Law, §245 (2003) .............................................................................. 280 16A Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S), Constitutional Law, §599 (2003) ............................................................................ 281 19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003) ........................................................................ 134, 153, 197 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433 .......................................................................................................................................................... 169 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327 ................................................................................................................................ 124, 244, 291 2 Inst. 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 265 2 Ves. 125........................................................................................................................................................................... 177 25 American Jurisprudence (1st), Highways Sect.163 ....................................................................................................... 227 28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §20 (2003) ................................................................................................ 376 28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §4 Domicile and Resident Distinguished (2003) ..................................... 146 28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §5 Necessity and Number (2003)............................................................. 146 28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §9 Domicile by Operation of Law (2003) ................................................ 146 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992)162, 288, 372, 375, 385 3 bl. Comm. 57, 59 ............................................................................................................................................................. 292 3 Bl.Comm. 184, 185 ......................................................................................................................................................... 292 3 Bl.Comm. 57 ................................................................................................................................................................... 292 3 Com. 262 [4th Am. Ed.] 322 ........................................................................................................................................... 325 36 American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §6: As a Contract (1999) ........................................................................ 53, 124 37 American Jurisprudence 2d., Fraud and Deceit, §144 (1999) ....................................................................................... 338 39 American Jurisprudence 2d, Habeas Corpus, § 34 (1999) ............................................................................................ 297 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848 .......................................................................................................................................................... 177 4 Co. 24 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 61 44 Cong.Rec. 4420 ....................................................................................................................................................... 41, 346 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584 ...................................................................................................................................... 234 63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999) ..87, 101, 191, 197, 203, 265, 278, 324, 353 7 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Attorney and Client, §4 (2003) ........................................................................... 163, 209 75 Bible Questions Your Instructions Pray You Won’t Ask, Gary North, copyright 1984, 1988, ISBN 0-930462-03-3, p. 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 339 86 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Territories, §1 (2003) ................................................................................................ 127 91 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), United States, §4 (2003) ........................................................................................... 314 A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31 .............................................................................................................. 68, 234 A Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and Officers, Floyd Russell Mechem, 1890, p. 609, §909 ......................... 201, 209 A Trustees Handbook, Third Edition, August Peabody Loring, 1907, Little, Brown, and Company, pp. 19-22 ....... 240, 243 A U.S. Citizen is 58 Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer Than a Terrorist, Blacklisted News .................. 45 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

24 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

ABC’s of Government Theft, Form #11.408 ..................................................................................................................... 364 About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202................................................................................................................. 157, 161 Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. 1985. Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.). Harper & Row: San Francisco................................................................................................................................ 350 ACTA Agreement .............................................................................................................................................................. 305 Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, book V, pp. 468-473, (1776); Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, 1991 ............. 359 Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 ................................................................... 131, 161, 307 Affidavit of Duress: Illegal Tax Enforcement by De Facto Officers, Form #02.005 .......................................................... 46 Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (ACTA) ............................................................................................. 53 Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78 .................................................................................................................... 301 Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 79 ............................................................................................................ 290, 309 Am.Jur.2d Legal Encyclopedia .......................................................................................................................................... 278 American Bar Association (ABA)...................................................................................................................... 178, 352, 385 American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §4: Generally (1999) .................................................................................. 243, 245 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith .................................................... 184 Anderson's Manual for Notaries Public, Ninth Edition, 2001, ISBN 1-58360-357-3 ........................................................ 156 Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand ................................................................................................................................................. 257 Ayn Rand ........................................................................................................................................................................... 257 Babylon the Great Harlot ................................................................................................................... 119, 194, 195, 270, 352 Bivens Action ..................................................................................................................................................................... 309 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095 ......................................................................................................... 134, 327 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 470 ........................................................................................................... 250, 328 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235 .............................................................................. 171, 196, 202, 334, 378 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1593 .............................................................................................................. 242 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1639 .............................................................................................................. 372 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 164 ................................................................................................................ 209 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1684 .............................................................................................................. 210 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693 ................................................................................................ 41, 110, 387 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1694 .............................................................................................................. 177 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 197 ................................................................................................................ 277 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 397 ................................................................................................................ 177 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 1235-1236 ................................................................................................... 122 Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 786-787 ....................................................................................... 278, 279, 326 Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p. 668 .............................................................................................................. 380 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1005................................................................................................................. 371 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1162................................................................................................................. 386 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1189................................................................................................................. 386 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1190......................................................................................................... 301, 336 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1196......................................................................................................... 271, 325 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1230................................................................................. 190, 202, 203, 265, 324 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1231................................................................................................. 185, 258, 327 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1232................................................................................................. 185, 259, 327 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1269......................................................................................................... 281, 376 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292................................................................................................. 339, 346, 347 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1365................................................................................................................... 61 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396................................................................................................................. 313 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1457......................................................................................................... 185, 259 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1498................................................................................................................. 232 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 158................................................................................................................... 274 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269................................................................................... 120, 175, 195, 270, 342 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281............................................................................................................... 65, 97 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 297................................................................................................................... 294 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 305..................................................................................................................... 42 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 40..................................................................................................................... 240 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 416................................................................................................... 103, 333, 378 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 423................................................................................................................... 372 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 425..................................................................................................................... 96 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

25 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485........................................................................................................... 129, 231 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 501................................................................................................................... 346 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 563................................................................................................................... 373 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581................................................................................................... 288, 375, 386 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 623................................................................................................................... 196 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 841................................................................................................................... 340 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 97..................................................................................................................... 293 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 120-121 ......................................................................................................... 292 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1304-1306 ..................................................................................................... 285 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398 ..................................................................................... 271, 325, 367 Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 460-461 ......................................................................................................... 315 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2131 ........................................................................................... 110 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2147 ........................................................................................... 111 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2159 ........................................................................................... 111 Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856 ............... 52, 61, 99, 124, 125, 127, 159, 169, 180, 181, 222, 243, 244, 246, 291, 347, 387 Bureau of Internal Revenue (B.I.R.) .................................................................................................................. 211, 247, 248 Caesar ................................................................................................................................................. 172, 183, 230, 231, 232 California DMV-14 form ................................................................................................................................................... 144 Charles de Montesquieu ............................................................................................................................................... 55, 124 Charles Dumouriez ............................................................................................................................................................... 43 Chief Justice Marshal, Virginia State Convention of 1829-1830 (pp. 616, 619) ............................................................... 309 Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status Options, Form #10.003 ......................................................................................... 307 Co. Litt. 126 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 244 Co. Litt. 258 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Committee of Public Safety ................................................................................................................................................. 44 Communism, Socialism, Collectivism Page, Section 10: Welfare State, Family Guardian Fellowship .............................. 70 Comyn's Digest (Title 'Dett,' A, 9) ..................................................................................................................................... 321 Conflicts in a Nutshell, David D. Siegel and Patrick J. Borchers, West Publishing, p. 24................................................. 145 Confucius ................................................................................................................................................................... 219, 235 Confucius, 500 B.C. ........................................................................................................................................................... 287 Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 661-662 (1871) (Sen. Vickers)................................................................................... 111 Congressman James Traficant ............................................................................................................................................ 178 Congressman Ron Paul ...................................................................................................................................................... 319 Congressman Traficant....................................................................................................................................................... 384 Constitutional Tort Action.................................................................................................................................................. 286 Cooley, Const. Lim., 479 ................................................................................................................... 108, 111, 184, 258, 332 Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024 ............................................................................... 303 Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001 ........................................................................ 255, 336, 354, 366 Court of International Trade ............................................................................................................................................... 129 Criminal Justice and Terrorism Page, Section 8.1: Government Terrorism, Family Guardian Fellowship ......................... 46 De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 .......................................................................................................... 61, 86, 214 Defending Your Right to Travel, Form #06.010 ................................................................................................................ 155 Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007 ....................................................................... 73, 230 Department of Justice Admits under Penalty of Perjury that the IRS is Not an Agency of the Federal Government, Family Guardian Fellowship ........................................................................................................................................................ 91 Department of Motor Vehicles ........................................................................................................................................... 241 Department of State Form DS-11 ............................................................................................................................... 144, 148 Devil’s Advocate Movie Clip, SEDM................................................................................................................................ 122 Devil's Advocate: What We are Up Against, SEDM ........................................................................................................... 70 Dig. 50, 17, 145 .................................................................................................................................................................. 244 Dig. 50, 17, 54 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Dig. 50, 17, 69 .................................................................................................................................................................... 244 Disclaimer, Section 4: Meaning of Words: "Private" ........................................................................................................... 82 District of Criminals ............................................................................................................................................................. 38 Divine Right of Kings .......................................................................................................................................................... 73 Easton, M.G.: Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897 ...................... 159 Edward 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 380 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

26 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Edward I ............................................................................................................................................................................. 380 Elysa Gardner (2008-12-25). "Harold Pinter: Theater's singular voice falls silent". USA Today ...................................... 183 Epicetus, Discourses........................................................................................................................................................... 158 Executive Order 12731....................................................................................................................................... 197, 203, 209 Family Guardian Sovereignty and Freedom Page, Section 7: Self Government ................................................................ 306 Family Guardian Website, Law and Government Page ..................................................................................................... 364 Family Guardian Website, Law and Government Page, Section 15: Investigating Government Corruption ................... 364 Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001 ............................................ 53, 177, 336 Federal circuit court ........................................................................................................................................................... 309 Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, Rutter Group, paragraph 8:4993, page 8K-34............................................................. 386 Federal Court Rules on Hansen Injunction, Family Guardian Fellowship ......................................................................... 320 Federal Courts and the IRS’ Own IRM Say the IRS is NOT RESPONSIBLE for Its Actions or Its Words or For Following Its Own Written Procedures!, Family Guardian Fellowship .................................................................. 138, 179, 255, 355 Federal district court........................................................................................................................................................... 309 Federal Enforcement Authority Within States of the Union, Form #05.032 .............................................................. 286, 323 Federal Pleading/Motion/Petition Attachment, Litigation Tool #01.002 ................................................................... 130, 307 Federal Protective Service (FPS)........................................................................................................................................ 299 Federal Reserve53, 54, 67, 95, 96, 108, 133, 135, 136, 158, 173, 178, 180, 225, 256, 274, 276, 277, 278, 309, 325, 352, 363, 369, 371, 384 First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, p. 432 .................................................. 144 Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Form #08.004 ............................................................................................................... 364 Form #02.005 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Form #04.001 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 352 Form #05.001 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Form #05.003 ............................................................................................................................................................... 82, 102 Form #05.006 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Form #05.007 ..................................................................................................................................................... 101, 109, 352 Form #05.014 ..................................................................................................................................................... 101, 108, 351 Form #05.017 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Form #05.018 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Form #05.020 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Form #05.030 ........................................................................................................................... 67, 73, 82, 101, 102, 109, 352 Form #05.030, Section 22 .................................................................................................................................................. 177 Form #05.032 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Form #05.033 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Form #05.043 ................................................................................................................................................. 68, 69, 101, 102 Form #05.046 ..................................................................................................................................................... 102, 109, 352 Form #05.048 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Form #05.050, Section 13 .................................................................................................................................................... 73 Form #08.020 ............................................................................................................................................................. 109, 352 Form #09.073 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Form #10.002 ............................................................................................................................................................. 108, 351 Form #11.302 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Form #12.012 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69 Form #12.023 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Form #12.024 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Form #12.025 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Form #12.038 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 82 Form #13.007 ............................................................................................................................................................... 69, 102 Former State Supreme Court Justice of Alabama Roy Moore ........................................................................................... 289 Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil ............................................................................................................................. 347 Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda ........................ 40, 138 Founding Fathers ................................................................................................................................................................ 236 Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment ............................................................................................................................. 219 Frank Kowalik .................................................................................................................................................................... 352 Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States ......................................................................................................... 86 Franklin Delano Roosevelt ................................................................................................................................. 238, 241, 256 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

27 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Frederic Bastiat .................................................................................................................................................................. 103 Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946) ........................................................................................... 41 G. Edward Griffin .............................................................................................................................................................. 133 General Order 228C, Federal District Court in San Diego ......................................................................................... 302, 349 Geoffrey Nunberg (October 28, 2001). "Head Games / It All Started with Robespierre / "Terrorism": The history of a very frightening word". San Francisco Chronicle .................................................................................................................. 183 George Washington, (letter to Patrick Henry, 9 October 1775) ................................................................................. 167, 236 Getting a USA Passport as a “State National”, Form #10.013 ........................................................................................... 148 Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023 .......................................................... 326, 364 Government Corruption, Form #11.401 ......................................................................................................................... 38, 86 Government Corruption: Causes and Remedies Course, Form #12.026 ........................................................................ 38, 86 Government Has Become Idolatry and a False Religion, Family Guardian Fellowship ............................................ 340, 342 Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046 .............................................................................................. 46, 54, 73, 138, 269 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 ................................................ 95, 243, 267, 306, 324, 367 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 11 ................................................................... 178 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 14 ..................................................................... 86 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 18 ................................................................... 279 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 23 ................................................................... 164 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 24 ........................................................... 115, 309 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 27.2 .................................................................. 90 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 27.2: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine .. 166 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 29.3 ................................................................ 283 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 5 ..................................................................... 249 Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Sections 23.15 and 29 ................................................. 255 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 .......................................................................43, 92, 136, 137, 220, 340, 343, 346, 352, 364 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Chapter 6: History of Government Income Tax Fraud, Racketeering, and Extortion in the USA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.1 .......................................................................................................... 60, 65, 221 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.3.1 ........................................................................................................... 109, 342 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.3.12 ................................................................................................................. 219 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.3.6 ..................................................................................................................... 64 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.5 ........................................................................................................................ 60 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.1.1 ..................................................................................................................... 65 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.2.4 ................................................................................................................... 130 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.2.5 ................................................................................................................... 184 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.6.15 ................................................................................................................. 330 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.6.17 ................................................................................................................. 336 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6.5.20 ................................................................................................................. 248 Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6.6.1 ..................................................................................................................... 53 Handbook of Common Law Pleading, Benjamin Shipman ................................................................................................ 306 Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship ................................. 267 History of Federal Government Income Tax Fraud, Racketeering, and Extortion in the USA, Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................................................... 364 Hoffman, Bruce "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. p. 32 .................................. 183 House of Representatives ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 99, 1867, pp. 1-2 ....................................................................................................... 212 Hoverdale Letter, SEDM Exhibit #09.023 ......................................................................................................................... 326 How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government, Family Guardian Fellowship ...................................... 60 How the World Works, John Perkins ................................................................................................................................... 40 Idaho Observer, July 2004.................................................................................................................................................. 289 If the IRS Were Selling Used Cars, Family Guardian Fellowship ....................................................................................... 92 Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.) ..................................................................................................................................... 137 Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 1.1.1.1 (02-26-1999) .................................................................................... 359 Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 1.2.4 ........................................................................................................ 91, 137 Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 25.2.2 .............................................................................................................. 54 Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.8 ........................................................................................................ 92 Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 5.14.10.2 (09-30-2004) ................................................................................ 375 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

28 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Internal Revenue Service...................................................................................................................................... 91, 283, 322 IRS Enrolled Agent Program ............................................................................................................................................... 92 IRS Form 1040 ........................................................................................................................................... 143, 330, 341, 352 IRS Form 1040NR ..................................................................................................................................................... 141, 143 IRS Form 1042-S ....................................................................................................................................................... 192, 268 IRS Form 1042-S Instructions, p. 14 .................................................................................................................. 192, 248, 268 IRS Form 2555 ................................................................................................................................................................... 143 IRS Form 4852 ................................................................................................................................................................... 255 IRS Form W-2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 329 IRS Form W-4 ...............................................................................................90, 193, 201, 251, 329, 330, 331, 352, 373, 374 IRS Form W-8BEN ............................................................................................................................................................ 179 IRS Forms W-2 and W-3.................................................................................................................................................... 283 IRS Forms W-2 and W-4.................................................................................................................................................... 329 IRS Forms W-2, 1042-S, 1098, and 1099 ............................................................................ 89, 175, 254, 294, 333, 335, 374 IRS Humbug, Frank Kowalik, ISBN 0-9626552-0-1, 1991 ............................................................................................... 312 IRS Mission Statement ....................................................................................................................................................... 359 IRS Publication 519, Year 2000, p. 15, Year 2000 ............................................................................................................ 373 IRS Published Products Catalog (2003), p. F-15................................................................................................................ 141 It’s an Illusion, John Harris ................................................................................................................................................ 307 J. Bouvier, 1 A Law Dictionary 185 (11th ed. 1866) ......................................................................................................... 111 Jailhouse Lawyer’s Handbook, Litigation Tool #10.002 ................................................................................................... 286 James Madison ............................................................................................................................................................. 70, 158 James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties ....................... 70 Jean Jacque Rousseau......................................................................................................................................................... 124 Jeffrey Dickstein ................................................................................................................................................................ 227 John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787 ............................................................................................................. 135 John Adams, 2nd President .......................................................................................................................................... 64, 158 John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814 ................................................................................................................................... 370 Judicial Code of 2000, Title 28, Evidence Book, Vol. 2, Exhibit 6, p. 26.......................................................................... 298 Jury Summons Response Attachment, Form #06.015 ........................................................................................................ 116 Justice Harlan ....................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Justice Jackson in International Harvester v. Wisconsin Dept of Taxation, 322 U.S. 450 ................................................. 323 Justice William O. Douglas ................................................................................................................................................ 356 Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv.L.Rev. 894, 917-918 (1930) ............................................................ 284, 308, 381 King Congress .................................................................................................................................................................... 173 Law and Government Page, Section 15 ............................................................................................................................... 38 Law of Suspects ................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Law of the Maximum ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 Laws of the Bible, Form #13.001 ....................................................................................................................................... 307 Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 .................................40, 54, 92, 116, 138, 175, 181, 288, 289, 355 Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 5 ................................................................................... 46 Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 6 ................................................................................... 48 Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship and Divorce from the "United States", Form #10.001.......................... 155 Letter of Disqualification, Department of Motor Vehicles................................................................................................. 151 Lysander Spooner ............................................................................................................................................................... 228 Mark Twain .................................................................................................................................................................. 38, 287 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible; Henry, M., 1996, c1991, under Prov. 11:1 ............................. 194, 270 Maximilien Robespierre ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 Meaning of the Word “Frivolous”, Form #05.027 ............................................................................................................. 355 Meigs's Growth of the Constitution, 284, 287 ...................................................................................................................... 50 Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation .................................................... 350 Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation .................................................................................... 181 Ministry Introduction Course, Form #12.014 ..................................................................................................................... 363 Mr. Justice Matthews ......................................................................................................................................................... 278 Mr. Madison ......................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Neo ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 176

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

29 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

New Bible Dictionary. Third Edition. Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. 1996, c1982, c1962; InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove .................................................................................................................................... 175, 183, 238 Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020 ........................................................................................................... 363 Notice of Pseudonym Use and Unreliable Tax Records, Form #04.206 ...................................................................... 92, 283 Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005 ......................................................................... 53, 91 Origins of the term “terrorism”, Crime Museum ................................................................................................................. 45 Oscar Stilley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 227 Path to Freedom, Form #09.015 ........................................................................................................................................... 72 Patmos ................................................................................................................................................................................ 121 People of the Lie: The United States, Family Guardian Fellowship .................................................................................. 319 Petition for Admission to Practice, Family Guardian Fellowship ...................................................................................... 116 Philosophical Implications of the Temptation of Jesus, Stefan Molyneux ........................................................................... 70 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ................................................................................................................................. 137 President Nixon .................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 .. 175, 181, 253, 255, 289, 291, 307, 332, 355 Professor Kent Greeawalt ................................................................................................................................................... 144 Rahm Emanuel ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 543 ....................... 169 Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007................................................................... 53, 138, 175, 364 Rebutted Version of the IRS “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments”, Form #08.005............................................. 364 Reign of Terror ..................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003 ............................................................................................. 43, 148, 255, 319, 337 Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033 ................................................... 101, 243, 277, 357 Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033, Section 5.5 ....................................................... 165 Requirement for Reasonable Notice, Form #05.022 .................................................................................................. 165, 288 Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002.............................................................. 90, 135, 297, 333 Restatement, Second, Torts §10A ........................................................................................................................................ 42 Roscoe Pound ..................................................................................................................................................................... 169 Rule for Changing a Republic into a Democracy and then into a Monarchy, Philip Freneau .............................................. 95 Rules of Presumption and Statutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006 .................................................... 130, 289, 307 Schmid, Alex, and Jongman, Albert. Political Terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories and literature. Amsterdam ; New York : North-Holland ; New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988 ................................ 183 Secretary of State Philander Knox ....................................................................................................................................... 53 SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4: Meaning of Words ............................................................................................................ 101 SEDM Disclaimer, Sections 8 and 9 .................................................................................................................................... 46 SEDM Form #05.030 ......................................................................................................................................................... 305 SEDM Jurisdictions Database Online, Litigation Tool #09.004 .................................................................................. 97, 219 SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #09.003 .............................................................................................. 97, 219 SEDM Liberty University .................................................................................................................................................. 364 SEDM Liberty University, Section 4: Avoiding Government Franchises and Licenses ............................................ 192, 267 SEDM Litigation Tools Page ............................................................................................................................................. 219 SEDM Sermons, Section 4.1: Statism ................................................................................................................................ 118 SEDM Website Opening Page ............................................................................................................................................. 73 Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002 ........................................................................... 103 Senate Document #43, Senate Resolution No. 62, p. 9, paragraph 2, 1933 ....................................................................... 366 Senator Sam Ervin .............................................................................................................................................................. 287 Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 ........................................................... 61, 101, 110, 114, 267 Separation of Powers ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 Silence as a Weapon and a Defense in Legal Discovery, Form #05.021 ........................................................... 286, 288, 322 Sir Matthew Hale ............................................................................................................................................................... 169 Social Security Administration (S.S.A.)............................................................................................................................. 283 Social Security Program Operations Manual System (P.O.M.S.) ...................................................................................... 283 Social Security Program Operations Manual System (P.O.M.S.), Section RS 02640.040 ......................................... 232, 233 Social Security SS-5 form .................................................................................................................................................... 90 Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407 ................................................................................... 222, 340, 349, 361 Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407 .............................................................................................................. 70 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

30 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016...................................................... 70, 82, 103, 180, 323, 352 Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil, Thomas Paine .......................................................................................... 122 Sovereign Christian Marriage, Form #06.009 .................................................................................................................... 221 Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites By Topic: Terrorism” ................................................... 46 Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004: History (on the left menu) .................................................... 46 SSA Form 521 .................................................................................................................................................................... 244 SSA Form SS-5 .......................................................................................................................................... 200, 271, 333, 334 SSA Form SSA-521 ........................................................................................................................................................... 283 State family court ............................................................................................................................................................... 309 State Income Taxes, Form #05.031 .................................................................................................................................... 116 State traffic court ................................................................................................................................................................ 309 Steven Miller ...................................................................................................................................................................... 222 Supreme Court.................................................................................................................................................................... 388 Supreme Court of California .............................................................................................................................................. 300 Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201 ................................................................................................ 161, 172, 247, 276, 277 The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001 ............................................................................ 43, 155, 192, 267, 284, 366 The Beast .............................................................................................................................................................................. 38 The Citizenship Contract, George Mercier........................................................................................................................ 223 The Coming Crisis: How Government Dependency Threatens America's Freedom, Jim Demint, Heritage Foundation . 370 The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Adhesion Contract; Downloaded 10/9/2019 ...................................................................... 69 The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 ....................................................................... 43, 113, 166, 175, 239, 257 The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rousas John Rushdoony, Copyright 1973, pp. 4-5 ........................................................... 341 The Law of Nations, Book 1, Section 223, Vattel .............................................................................................................. 222 The Law of Nations, p. 87, E. De Vattel, Volume Three, 1758, Carnegie Institution of Washington ............................... 155 The Law that Never Was, William Benson .................................................................................................................. 53, 135 The Law, by Frederic Bastiat ............................................................................................................................................... 80 The Money Scam, Form #05.041 ....................................................................................................... 137, 180, 239, 256, 274 The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10 .................................................. 68 The REAL Matrix, Stefan Molyneux ................................................................................................................................. 176 The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762, Book IV, Chapter 2 ......................... 125 The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu ....................................................................................................... 55, 106, 124 The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, Book XI, Section 6...................................................................................... 48 The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, 1758 ........................................................................................................... 257 The Truth About Trusts (Anti Shyster News Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 1) ............................................................................. 243 There’s No Statute Making Anyone Liable to Pay IRC Subtitle A Income Taxes, Family Guardian Fellowship ............. 208 Thomas Jefferson ........................................................................................................................................................... 54, 64 Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government .............................................................................................................. 55, 62 Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Section 29 ............................................................................................... 100 Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486 ................................................................................................................ 59 Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283 .................................................................................. 64 Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307 ............................................................................................ 59, 62 Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331................................................................................................. 58 Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332........................................................................................... 59, 62 Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Bell, 1797. ME 9:386 ............................................................................................................ 55 Thomas Jefferson to Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234 .................................................................................................... 56 Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113 .......................................................................................... 58, 59 Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114 ................................................................................................ 59 Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1793. FE 6:298 .................................................................................................... 56 Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. FE 9:59 ................................................................................................................ 55 Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:213 ........................................................................................................... 56 Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168 ............................................................................................... 59, 62 Thomas Jefferson to James Barbour, 1812. ME 13:129 ....................................................................................................... 56 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:9 ............................................................................................................ 55 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1791. ME 8:250 ........................................................................................................ 56 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1797. ME 9:368 ........................................................................................................ 55 Thomas Jefferson to James Pleasants, 1821. FE 10:198 ...................................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807. ME 11:382 ...................................................................................................... 56 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

31 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1787. ME 6:321 ............................................................................................................. 55 Thomas Jefferson to John Blair, 1787. ME 6:273, Papers 12:28 ......................................................................................... 55 Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:44 ............................................................................................................. 57 Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816 ..................................................................................................................... 173, 321 Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1807. FE 9:68..................................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson to Joseph B. Varnum, 1808. ME 12:196 ................................................................................................. 56 Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341 ............................................................................................. 59, 62 Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:34 ................................................................................................... 58 Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:326 ...................................................................................................... 58 Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297 ..................................................................................................... 58 Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146............................................................................................ 62 Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277................................................................................................... 56 Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278 .......................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421 ............................................................................................. 59, 62 Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:447 ................................................................................................... 58 Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450 ................................................................................................... 62 Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388 ................................................................................................... 62 Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389 ................................................................................................... 58 Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801 ....................................................................................... 167, 236 Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320..................................................................................................... 189, 263 Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121 ........................................................................................................... 58 Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122 ........................................................................................................... 59 Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:129 ............................................................................................ 55 Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:130 ............................................................................................ 59 Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:347.................................................................................... 56 Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. (*) ME 2:178...................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:162 ........................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:164 ........................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207 ......................................................................................... 109 Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Executive Appointments, 1790. ME 3:15 ........................................................................... 55 Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792. ME 1:318 .................................................................................................................... 57 Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance Bill, 1778 ............................................................................................................ 300 Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Petition, 1797. ME 17:359 ....................................................................................................... 57 Thomas Paine ..................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Thomas Paine, "Common Sense" Feb 1776 ....................................................................................................................... 365 Treasury Circular 230 ........................................................................................................................................................... 92 Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil.......................................................................................................................................... 264 Treatise on the Law of Public Offices and officers, p. 609, §909; Floyd Mechem, 1890 .................................................. 354 Trust Fever (Anti Shyster News Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 1) ................................................................................................ 243 Trust Fever II: Divide and Conquer (Anti Shyster News Magazine, Vol. 7, No. 4) .......................................................... 243 Trusts: Invisible Snares (Anti Shyster News Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 1) ........................................................................... 243 U.S. Constitution, Articles I-III ............................................................................................................................................ 61 U.S. District Court in San Diego ........................................................................................................................................ 302 U.S. Government ................................................................................................................................................................ 172 U.S. Supreme Court106, 112, 126, 172, 173, 178, 181, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 195, 206, 210, 213, 220, 223, 225, 226, 233, 234, 244, 245, 248, 250, 253, 257, 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 274, 278, 282, 286, 287, 311, 365 U.S. Tax Court ........................................................................................................................... 179, 287, 379, 380, 381, 382 Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038 .......................................................................................................................... 82 Undermining the Constitution: A History of Lawless Government, Form #11.409.......................................................... 364 University of Chicago .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Vladimir Lenin ................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Voltaire ....................................................................................................................................................................... 219, 323 W. Shumaker & G. Longsdorf, Cyclopedic Dictionary of Law 104 (1901)............................................................... 111, 367 W.J.V. Windeyer, Lectures on Legal History 56-57 (2d ed. 1949) .................................................................................... 380 W-8 Attachment: Citizenship, Form #04.219 .................................................................................................................... 161 War on Terror ....................................................................................................................................................................... 45 We The People Are The American Government, Nancy Levant ....................................................................................... 154 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

32 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 ................................... 90, 100, 115, 129, 165, 176, 256, 287, 307, 309, 312, 319 What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012, Evidence Book, Vol. 1, Exhibit 3 ................................................................. 298 What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012, Evidence Book, Vol. 2, Exhibit 6 ................................................................. 298 Who Owns the World ......................................................................................................................................................... 114 Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 ....................................... 43, 90, 97, 129 Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 13 ...................................... 138 Why It is Illegal for Me to Request or Use a “Taxpayer Identification Number”, Form #04.205 ............. 220, 277, 333, 360 Why Statutory Civil Law is Law for Government and Not Private Persons, Form #05.037...................................... 302, 306 Why the Government Can’t Lawfully Assess Human Beings With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011 ........................................................................................................................................... 113, 251, 253, 330, 332 Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006 126, 130, 262, 356 Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001 .............................................................................. 53, 277, 333 Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 . 166, 195, 213, 271, 294, 354, 357, 377 Wikipedia topic: Definitions of Terrorism, 5/29/2011 ...................................................................................................... 183 Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008............................................................... 157

Scriptures 1 Cor. 11:7-9 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 221 1 Kings 18:20-40 ................................................................................................................................................................ 350 1 Peter 2.............................................................................................................................................................................. 230 1 Peter 2:1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 224 1 Peter 2:13-17 ................................................................................................................................................................... 231 1 Sam. 12:12....................................................................................................................................................................... 118 1 Sam. 14:24....................................................................................................................................................................... 238 1 Sam. 8:4-20 ....................................................................................................................................................... 41, 121, 238 1 Sam. 8:4-8 ................................................................................................................................................................. 39, 118 1 Tim. 6:10 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 39 1 Tim. 6:17 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 237 1 Tim. 6:9-10 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 235 1 Timothy 6:5-12 ........................................................................................................................................................ 120, 164 1 Timothy 6:9-10 ................................................................................................................................................................ 104 2 Cor. 3:17 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 64 2 Cor. 6:14 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 224 2 Kings 17:37 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 161 2 Thess. 2:3-17 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Tim. 1:8-9 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 144 2 Tim. 4:2-5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 336 Adam and Eve .................................................................................................................................................................... 226 Apostle John ....................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Apostle Paul ....................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Babylon .............................................................................................................................................................................. 118 Babylon the Great Harlot ........................................................................................................................................... 270, 352 Beast ................................................................................................................................................................................... 119 Book of Judges found in the Bible ....................................................................................................................................... 80 Book of Nehemiah ............................................................................................................................................................. 166 Book of Revelation............................................................................................................................................................. 175 Colossians 2:10 .................................................................................................................................................................. 230 Daniel 4:35 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 276 Deut. 1:17 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 236 Deut. 10:12-13.................................................................................................................................................................... 161 Deut. 10:12-22.................................................................................................................................................................... 358 Deut. 10:17 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Deut. 10:20 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 231 Deut. 15:6 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Deut. 16:19 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 237 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

33 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Deut. 24:20-21.................................................................................................................................................................... 358 Deut. 27:19 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 358 Deut. 28:12 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Deut. 28:43-51...................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Deut. 6:13, 24 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 231 Deuteronomy 10:14 ............................................................................................................................................................ 230 Deuteronomy 16:19 ............................................................................................................................................................ 165 Deuteronomy 27:25 ............................................................................................................................................................ 165 Ecclesiastes 7:7 .......................................................................................................................................................... 105, 369 Eph. 2:10 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 145 Eph. 2:4-6 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 144 Eph. 5:11 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 142 Eph. 5:22-24 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 221 Esau .................................................................................................................................................................................... 175 Exodus 18:20 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 158 Exodus 19:5 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 114 Exodus 20:12-17 .................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Exodus 20:15 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 80 Exodus 20:2-11 .................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Exodus 20:3 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Exodus 20:3-11 .................................................................................................................................................................. 159 Exodus 21:22-25 .................................................................................................................................................................. 96 Exodus 22:2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 358 Exodus 22:7 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Exodus 23:32-33 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2, 71, 86 Exodus 30:15 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Exodus 34:10-16 ................................................................................................................................................................ 236 Exodus 34:12 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 168 Ezekiah 11:19-20................................................................................................................................................................ 161 Ezekial 28:16-17 .................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Ezekiel 28:13-19 ........................................................................................................................................................ 168, 169 Family of Adam ................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Gal 5:14 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 80 Gal. 3:24-25........................................................................................................................................................................ 159 Gal. 3:28 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 237 Gen. 10:8-12 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 118 Gen. 3:2-4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 109 Gen. 3:2-5 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Gen. 47:13-26 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 167 Genesis 3:17-19 .................................................................................................................................................................. 342 Genesis 47 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 68 Gn. 14 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 175 God’s/Natural law .............................................................................................................................................................. 221 Golden Rule ......................................................................................................................................................................... 96 Hebrews 11:13.................................................................................................................................................................... 224 Hos. 12:7, 8 ................................................................................................................................................................ 194, 269 Hosea 4:6 .................................................................................................................................................................... 120, 158 Isaiah 1:1-26 ................................................................................................................................................... 80, 81, 105, 362 Isaiah 1:17 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 358 Isaiah 1:23 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 165 Isaiah 14 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 119 Isaiah 14:13-14 ........................................................................................................................................................... 109, 346 Isaiah 14:18-21 ................................................................................................................................................................... 119 Isaiah 14:9-11 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 119 Isaiah 3:12 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 81 Isaiah 3:5 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 81 Isaiah 30:1-3, 8-14.............................................................................................................................................................. 236 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

34 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Isaiah 33:22 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 232 Isaiah 40:15 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 275 Isaiah 40:17 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 276 Isaiah 40:23 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 276 Isaiah 41:29 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 276 Isaiah 42:21-25 ................................................................................................................................................................... 235 Isaiah 45:12 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 230 Isaiah 52:3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 239, 241 Isaiah 54:4-8 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 223 Isaiah 54:5-6 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 342 Isaiah 59:9-15 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 106 Jacob................................................................................................................................................................................... 175 James 1:27 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 James 2:8 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 159 James 4:4 .......................................................................................................................................................... 2, 72, 223, 224 Jer. 22:3 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 358 Jer. 7:5-7 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 358 Jeremiah 1:5 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 144 Jeremiah 5:14-17 ................................................................................................................................................................ 174 Jeremiah 5:24-31 ................................................................................................................................................................ 167 Jesus ................................................................................................................................................................................... 117 Job 13:10 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 237 Job. 34:18-19 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 237 John 14:21 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 347 John 14:30-31 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 346 John 2:15 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 168 John 7:49 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 158 John 8:34-35 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Judges 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 168 Judges 2:1-4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 71 King of Babylon ................................................................................................................................................................. 119 Lev. 25:35-43 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69 Leviticus 18:4 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 161 Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874) ................................................................................................. 82 Lucifer ................................................................................................................................................................ 109, 119, 341 Luke 12:10 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 348 Luke 12:45-47 .................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Luke 16:13 ................................................................................................................................................. 155, 193, 232, 268 Mark 10:42–45 ................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Mark 11:15 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 168 Mark 3:29 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 348 Matt 13:24-30 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Matt. 10:42-45 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Matt. 12:32 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 348 Matt. 19:24 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Matt. 20:25-28 ...................................................................................................................................................... 73, 103, 237 Matt. 21:12-13 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Matt. 22:36-40 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Matt. 22:39 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Matt. 23:8-12 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Matt. 4:8-11 ................................................................................................................................................................ 117, 346 Matt. 5:33-37 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 223 Matt. 6:24 ........................................................................................................................................................... 168, 172, 224 Matt. 7:12 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 97, 358 Matthew 20:25-28 .............................................................................................................................................................. 118 Matthew 22:36-40 .............................................................................................................................................................. 159 Matthew 23:13-36 .............................................................................................................................................................. 359 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

35 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Matthew 4:1-11 .................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Matthew 7:12...................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Nehemiah 5:1-13 ................................................................................................................................................................ 166 Nehemiah 8-9 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 230 Nimrod ............................................................................................................................................................................... 118 Numbers 31 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 168 Pharaoh ....................................................................................................................................................................... 166, 235 Prophet Samuel .................................................................................................................................................................. 118 Prov. 1:20-33 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 235 Prov. 11:1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 105, 194, 269 Prov. 11:6 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 225 Prov. 11:9 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 348 Prov. 12:24 ................................................................................................................................................................. 120, 234 Prov. 14:20-21 .................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Prov. 15:27 ................................................................................................................................................................. 105, 369 Prov. 18:17 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 348 Prov. 2:21-22 .................................................................................................................................................. 42, 87, 230, 234 Prov. 22:2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Prov. 22:7 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67, 165, 170 Prov. 28:4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 159 Prov. 28:9 ................................................................................................................................................................... 158, 348 Prov. 29:4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 60, 81, 105, 369 Prov. 3:30 ..................................................................................................................................................... 43, 159, 189, 263 Prov. 3:9 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 349 Prov. 8:13 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 231 Proverbs 1:10-19 ........................................................................................................................................ 192, 235, 241, 266 Proverbs 17:23.................................................................................................................................................................... 165 Proverbs 21:6...................................................................................................................................................................... 322 Proverbs 29:4...................................................................................................................................................................... 165 Proverbs 8:13...................................................................................................................................................................... 166 Psalm 119:155 .................................................................................................................................................................... 158 Psalm 119:69-72................................................................................................................................................................. 161 Psalm 139:14-17................................................................................................................................................................. 145 Psalm 146:9 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 358 Psalm 19:7-14..................................................................................................................................................................... 157 Psalm 47:7 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 232 Psalm 50:18 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Psalm 68:5-6....................................................................................................................................................................... 358 Psalm 89:11-13................................................................................................................................................................... 230 Psalm 94:20-23................................................................................................................................................................... 220 Rev. 16:2 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 351 Rev. 17:1-2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 120, 194, 270 Rev. 17:15 .......................................................................................................................................................... 120, 194, 270 Rev. 17:3-6 ......................................................................................................................................................... 120, 194, 270 Rev. 18:4-8 ................................................................................................................................................................. 195, 270 Rev. 19:19 ............................................................................................................................ 40, 119, 122, 195, 231, 270, 361 Revelation ............................................................................................................................................ 38, 119, 121, 342, 352 Revelation 16:1-2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 340 Revelation 18:4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 352 Revelation 18:4-8 ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Revelation 19:19 ................................................................................................................................................................ 340 Revelation chapters 17 and 18............................................................................................................................................ 340 Rom. 10:12 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 237 Rom. 14:23 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 224 Romans 13 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 230 Romans 13:1....................................................................................................................................................................... 230 Romans 13:9-10 ........................................................................................................................................... 43, 159, 189, 263 De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

36 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Romans 9:20-21 ................................................................................................................................................................. 221 Satan ................................................................................................................................................................................... 117 Ten Commandments .......................................................................................................................................................... 340 The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville ......................................................................... 172 Zech. 7:10 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 359 Zechariah 14:21 (NIV) ....................................................................................................................................................... 168

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

37 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

1

Introduction

6

Many Americans instinctively sense that there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the federal and state governments that we have here in America but can’t quite explain or put their finger on it. We share their sentiments and have spent ten long years discovering not only how to explain and “put our finger on it”, but in generating evidence useful in court for exposing and criminally prosecuting it. This document will explain EXACTLY what went wrong, who implemented it, how it was implemented, and point at remedies to undo the crimes, injuries, and frauds that constitute it.

7

In this document, we will prove that:

8

1.

2 3 4 5

9 10 11

2.

12 13

3.

14 15 16

4.

17 18 19 20

5.

21 22

6.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

What most people call “government” in fact and in deed is NOT a de jure government in a classical or legal sense, but a de facto PRIVATE, for profit corporation PRETENDING to be a de jure “government” and which has neither earned not deserves our allegiance, support, or obedience. Nearly everything the de facto government does is based not on the “consent of the governed”, as the Declaration of Independence requires, but on ignorance and the acquiescence it produces manufactured in government/public schools. That what most people think of as “rights” are actually statutory privileges available only to public officers or statutory “employees” working for the municipal government of the District of Columbia, which Mark Twain calls “The District of Criminals”. That what people think of as “money” is, in fact not money at all, but corporate script not unlike the company tokens handed out to sharecroppers on the agricultural plantation described in the book “Grapes of Wrath”. The “plantation”, in turn, is just a mega-corporation that everyone works for and has a license to work for called a “Social Security Number”, and which we call a Slave Surveillance Number. All the corruption documented in this memorandum was predicted by the Founding Fathers, and that these predictions have been suppressed and ignored by those who benefit from it in order to expand and perpetuate it. What you think of as your “property” is NOT in fact your property at all. Instead: 6.1. The property is in trust. The trust indenture is the United States Constitution, which is a trust that creates a corporation called the “United States”. 6.2. The government, a “public trust”, owns the property and has legal title. 6.3. The trustees are the public officers who run the government. 6.4. You are the beneficiary with equitable rather than legal title to the property. 6.5. The property was donated to a public use, a public purpose, and a public office by connecting it with OTHER government property, namely a government identifying number.

30

If you are a Christian, you will also find out that the de facto government we have:

31

1. 2. 3.

32 33 34 35

36 37 38

Is, in fact, The Beast described in the Book of Revelation. Has implemented itself as a state-sponsored religion that worships man and “the state”/ government. Satisfies all the legal requirements for a “religion” as defined by the courts and which violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In that sense, it is a counterfeit or cheap imitation of God’s design for government and the church, like everything else that Satan does.

If the content of this document were widely disseminated and understood by the average American and used in court, we predict that there would be a REVOLUTION. This is the most important document on our website and everyone should read it.

40

This document discusses one of many forms of corruption within the present government. For further information about government corruption beyond that discussed here, please see:

41

1.

39

42 43 44

2.

45 46 47 48

3.

Government Corruption: Causes and Remedies Course, Form #12.026 FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/GovCorruption/GovCorruption.pdf Government Corruption, Form #11.401 FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/GovCorruption/GovCorruption.htm Law and Government Page, Section 15- Family Guardian Website http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LawAndGovt.htm

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

38 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

2

2

The de facto government was created to perpetuate and facilitate all the following nefarious goals and sins:

3

1.

5 6

2.

8 9 10 11 12 13

15

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die [not suffer the consequences or liability promised]. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, [Gen. 3:2-5, Bible, NKJV]

16 17 18

20 21

22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46

47

The desire to escape accountability or responsibility to the Sovereign People by their elected representatives. This is facilitated by turning “citizens” into government statutory “employees” and thereby flipping the proper constitutional relationship completely upside down. This desire to escape accountability began in the Garden of Eden with Eve, because the two things offered to her by the serpent both essentially amounted to limited or no liability to anyone else for her actions or choices. See Gen. 2-3, in which the serpent promised TWO things to Eve as a temptation to sin by eating the fruit, and BOTH of them involved limited liability. He promised no death for eating and that she would be like a God. The chief characteristic of being like God is no liability or responsibility to ANYONE. And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

14

19

The love and lust for money. The fiat currency system is the ultimate way to supply infinite amounts of it. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." [1 Tim. 6:10, Bible, NKJV]

4

7

Why the De Facto Government was created: Reason for the Treason

3.

The desire to have superior or supernatural powers above the average NATURAL human and thus, to become a pagan deity that is worshipped and obeyed as part of a state-sponsored civil religion. Every major corrupted ruler at one point or another regarded themselves as a patriarch and God. Hitler, Stalin, Caesar, Nero, etc. “Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, ‘Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]’. “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also [government becoming idolatry].” [1 Sam. 8:4-8, Bible, NKJV]

The abuse of civil franchises and usurious and UNEQUAL commerce they facilitate is how all the above is accomplished. InIQUITY and InEQUITY are synonymous. Recall that this sin was Satan’s original sin that got him kicked out of heaven as well: “By the abundance of your trading [corrupt and injurious commerce] You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I [God] cast you [Satan] as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. “Your heart was lifted up [ABOVE all others to become SUPERIOR] because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you.” [Ezekial 28:16-17, Bible, NKJV]

The injurious commerce described above is documented by the following video on our website:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

39 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

How the World Works, John Perkins http://famguardian1.org/Mirror/SEDM/LibertyU/How_the_world_works.mp4 1

3

2

Method of Discrediting the Very Damaging Information Found Herein: Government Deception and Propaganda

5

Throughout this document, the information we expose is hazardous to the people working in government and who benefit from the criminal activities described. Hence, they have protected and will continue to protect this information by abusing deception and propaganda described in the following:

6

1.

3 4

7 8 9

2.

10 11

Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm DIRECT LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvnTL_Z5asc Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 -memorandum of law that goes into detail on the subjects in the above video. http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

13

We provide the above to prevent others from discrediting the information provided here or from discouraging you from studying this information.

14

4

12

The Two Types of Governments

16

The requirement for consent is the foundation of all the authority of government in America. Why is this subject important? Because we assert that there are only two types of governments:

17

1.

15

18 19

But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [Matt. 10:42-45, Bible, NKJV]

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Government by consent: In this document, we refer to this type of government as “de jure”. This type of government serves the people from below and only operates by their continuing consent. It doesn’t FORCE people to accept its services and allows them to FIRE the government and govern themselves privately if they want.

2.

Terrorist government: In this document, we refer to this type of government as “de facto”. This type of government rules from above by force or fraud or both and always results in idolatry toward government. This type of government is described as “the Beast” in Rev. 19:19. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]”. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me [God], that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods [Kings, in this case]—so they are doing to you also [government becoming idolatry]. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.” So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take [STEAL] your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take [STEAL] your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take [STEAL] the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take [STEAL] your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work [as SLAVES]. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

40 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

1 2

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” [1 Sam. 8:4-20, Bible, NKJV]

3 4 5

6

Consistent with the above, Funk and Wagnalls defines “terrorism” as follows:

7

[Original (pre-Orwellian) Definition of the Word "Terrorism" Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946)]

8 9

10 11 12

In the American republican form of government, the requirement for consent in all human interactions is the essence and the foundation of all of our sovereignty as human beings. This requirement is also the foundation for our system of law, starting with the Declaration of Independence and going down from there: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [Declaration of Independence]

13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21

In a system of government where the Bill of Rights makes everyone into a sovereign, the only way your rights can be adversely affected is if you consent to lose them or contract them away in exchange for some “benefit”. Even then, the Declaration of Independence forbids you to contact them away to a real, de jure government and only allows you to contract them away to PRIVATE PARTIES. For a right to be “unalienable” as the Declaration of Independence indicates, it must be INCAPABLE of being sold, transferred, or bargained away through any commercial process, including through any government franchise. “Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

22 23

24 25

26 27 28

Therefore, anyone who tries to entice you to contract away rights protected by the Constitution is, in fact, operating NOT as a “government” in a classical or de jure sense, but rather: 1. 2. 3.

29 30

4.

31 32 33 34 35

5.

Is operating as a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, DE FACTO corporation. Seeks to enslave and plunder you. Is violating the very purpose, the ONLY purpose of its creation, which is to PROTECT private rights, not as THEY define them, but as YOU define them in your specific case. Seeks to violate its fiduciary duty to protect your PRIVATE rights by making a business out of taxing, regulating, and destroying the very rights it was instituted ONLY to protect. Is turning a charitable eleemosynary ministry ordained by God to protect you into an ecosystem for special interest money changers who want to plunder you. This is the very reason why the only thing Jesus ever got violent about in the Bible was the money changers who had turned the temple into a place of business. It is worth noting that former President Nixon referred to Washington D.C. as “the temple”.

36

Jesus Cleanses the Temple

37

Then Jesus went into the temple of God[f] and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer, ’but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’” [Matt. 21:12-13, Bible, NKJV] _________________________________________________________________________________

38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

“Now, Mr. Speaker, this Capitol is the civic temple of the people, and we are here by direction of the people to reduce the tariff tax and enact a law in the interest of all the people. This was the expressed will of the people at the polls, and you promised to carry out that will, but you have not kept faith with the American people.” [44 Cong.Rec. 4420, July 12, 1909; Congressman Heflin talking about the enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

41 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Below is how Black’s Law Dictionary defines “consent”:

8

consent. "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith. Agreement; approval; permission; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another. It supposes a physical power to act, a moral power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.

9

Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of an interest shall take place. Restatement, Second, Torts §10A.

2 3 4 5 6 7

As used in the law of rape "consent" means consent of the will, and submission under the influence of fear or terror cannot amount to real consent. There must be an exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent. And if a woman resists to the point where further resistance would be useless or until her resistance is overcome by force or violence, submission thereafter is not "consent".

10 11 12 13 14

See also Acquiescence; Age of consent; Assent; Connivance; Informed consent;" voluntary [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 305]

15 16

17

Consent, in fact, is what creates ALL law, whether public or private: “Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.” [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

18 19 20 21

22

To say that a government actor or officer is operating:

23

1. 2. 3. 4.

24 25 26

27 28 29 30

31 32

. . .really and simply means that they are enforcing civil laws against and therefore “governing” people who never expressly consented to be civilly governed. How do you consent to be governed? By voluntarily politically associating with a specific municipal group of people and calling yourself a “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant” under their laws. NO ONE can force you to do that and if they do, they are: 1. 2.

33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48

“without the authority of law” “under the color of law” “illegally” “unlawfully”

3. 4.

Clearly terrorists Interfering with your right to associate and your freedom to NOT associate protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Forcing you to contract for “protection” and becoming a “protection racket” and a criminal mafia. Illegally kidnapping your legal identity, transporting it to a “foreign” jurisdiction, and imposing unconstitutional involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment by enforcing the laws of that foreign jurisdiction upon non-consenting parties. The scripture below, in saying “uprooted from the land” really means that you abuse your right to contract for “protection” and sign up for a franchise that transports your legal identity to what Mark Twain calls “the District of Criminals”, where you have to bend over for the King daily. “For the upright will dwell in the land, And the blameless will remain in it; But the wicked will be cut off from the earth, And the unfaithful will be uprooted from it.” [Prov. 2:21-22, Bible, NKJV]

Those who do not consent to be governed by a specific jurisdiction or government and who are therefore not subject to its civil laws describe themselves simply as “nonresidents”, “transient foreigners”, “foreigners”, “in transitu”, “aliens”, etc. under the civil law. The Bible also describes such people simply as “foreigners” or “strangers”. This point is made abundantly clear in the following document:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

42 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 1 2 3 4

Only the criminal laws can impose a universal, INVOLUNTARY, NON-CONSENSUAL obligation or “duty” equally upon everyone, and that duty is to refrain from injuring the equal rights of our sovereign “neighbor”. This, in fact, is a fulfillment of the second of two great commandments found in Matt. 22:36-40, which requires us to love our neighbor, because you don’t hurt people you love: For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

5 6 7

Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [Romans 13:9-10, Bible, NKJV] _________________________________________________________________________________________

8 9 10

“Do not strive with [or try to regulate or control or enslave] a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” [Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]

11 12

16

The above concepts were explained more extensively in the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, section 3.3, where the only legitimate purpose of enforceable law was described as the prevention of harm. All remaining laws other than criminal law are civil in nature and require individual consent in some form to be enforceable. That constructive consent occurs through one of the following three means:

17

1.

13 14 15

18

19

2.

20

21

3.

22 23

24 25

Choosing a domicile within the territory of a government that is operating outside of natural law and natural right, and thereby becoming subject to injurious civil laws which undermine rather than protect your rights. See: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Engaging in a privileged or regulated franchise. Performing the activity implies constructive consent to the regulation of the activity. See: The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Signing a government form or application to contractually procure some privileged “benefit”, which makes us subject to the laws that implement the program and causes you to surrender some of your rights in return for a perceived benefit. See: The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

If you would like a MUCH more detailed treatment of the subject of consent covered in this section that is completely consistent with this document, please see: Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

26

27 28

5

The first “terrorist” was a GOVERNMENT!

On April 5, 1793, decorated French military commander Charles Dumouriez caused a sensational panic in Paris when he fled the country and defected to Austria.

30

It had been nearly four years since French peasants stormed the Bastille, the event that historians generally regard as the start of the French Revolution.

31

And hardly a week had gone by since without some major crisis, emergency, or tragedy in France.

32

There were regular violent riots across the country-- in Paris, other major cities, and even the rural countryside. Widespread massacres were commonplace.

29

33

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

43 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

2

And given that one of the key goals of France’s new revolutionary government was to eliminate Christianity from the nation, civil war between religious factions broke out as well.

3

To cap things off, France was under constant threat of foreign invasion.

4

Austria and Prussia were not only waging conventional war against France, but both nations had sent highly trained agents to infiltrate French borders to pursue violence and chaos from within.

1

5

6 7

8 9

It was exhausting. French people were living in perpetual fear, and the wanton death of innocents had become an unfortunately normal part of life. So when it was found that Dumouriez (a French citizen) had defected to the enemy, people hit their breaking points. Enough was enough. And they cried out to the government to save them.

10

The government listened.

11 12

The very next day, on April 6, 1793, the new French government established the Committee of Public Safety (though it was originally known as the Danton Committee).

13

The Committee was given broad, emergency powers since it was a time of such crisis.

14

And under the leadership Maximilien Robespierre, the French people got their protection.

15 16

17 18

Robespierre passed the ‘Law of Suspects’, allowing the government to essentially imprison anyone they wanted for any reason. It was impossible to tell friend from foe back then; you never knew if someone was a loyalist, or a Christian, or an Austrian spy, or any number of counter-revolutionaries.

20

So people were required to carry special certificates indicating that they were good and dutiful citizens. Those without would be imprisoned, and potentially executed.

21

The University of Chicago estimates that nearly 30,000 either died in prison or were executed as a result of this law.

22

Then there was the Law of the Maximum, which attempted to stabilize an ongoing financial crisis by fixing the prices of goods and services in the country. The law also imposed the death penalty on those who did not follow the rules.

19

23

25

They also passed the Law of 22 Prairial, which awarded the Committee even more power to arrest, try, and execute anyone deemed to be suspicious or disloyal.

26

The law also prevented anyone accused of a crime from being able to call witnesses or have defense counsel.

27 28

Plus it required that ALL citizens report potentially suspicious or disloyal neighbors to the Committee. If you see something, say something.

29

As you are likely well aware, this period in French history became known as the Reign of Terror, or often simply ‘the Terror’.

30

Coincidentally, this is where the first modern use of the word ‘terrorist’ is found.

31

Except that it wasn’t used to describe the counter-revolutionaries. Or the rebels. Or the foreign agents.

24

32 33

It turns out that “terrorist” was originally a term used to describe the government officials who created and executed these oppressive tactics under the guise of keeping people safe from their enemies.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

44 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Origins of the term “terrorism”, Crime Museum http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/origins-of-the-term-terrorism 1

Governments have a dangerous tendency to never let a serious crisis go to waste. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” [Rahm Emanuel; SOURCE: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rahmemanue409199.html]

2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9

The U.S. Government spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to fight a War on Terror that made the world less safe and Americans less free, all to protect them from a threat that has a statistical likelihood of 0.0%. You’re far more likely to be shot by a police officer than to ever even see a terrorist. As a matter of fact, it is scientifically proven that you are 58 times more likely to be killed by a policeman than a terrorist: A U.S. Citizen is 58 Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer Than a Terrorist, Blacklisted News http://www.blacklistednews.com/A_U.S._Citizen_is_58_Times_More_Likely_to_be_Killed_by_a_Police_Officer_than_ a_Terrorist/46928/0/38/38/Y/M.html

10

11 12 13

Yes, the desire for revenge runs deep. And that’s understandable. The greatest thing to fear is not men in caves. It is the consequent loss of freedom and the never-ending cycle of costly, destructive “bankers” wars originating from the covetous megalomaniacs that run most governments. Anyone who advocates bigger or more government is endorsing, subsidizing acts of international terrorism. Title 28: Judicial Administration PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE § 0.85 General functions.

14 15 16

(l) Exercise Lead Agency responsibility in investigating all crimes for which it has primary or concurrent jurisdiction and which involve terrorist activities or acts in preparation of terrorist activities within the statutory jurisdiction of the United States. Within the United States, this would include the collection, coordination, analysis, management and dissemination of intelligence and criminal information as appropriate. If another Federal agency identifies an individual who is engaged in terrorist activities or in acts in preparation of terrorist activities, that agency is requested to promptly notify the FBI. Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

6 U.S.C. §101(16): Terrorism

27

TITLE 6 > CHAPTER 1 > § 101 § 101. Definitions

28

(16)The term “terrorism” means any activity that— (A)involves an act that— (i)is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and (B) appears to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion [liens, levies, propaganda that slanders and destroys your credit, civil status, employability, and commercial viability]; or (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [wars], assassination, or kidnapping.

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

40

The main tools of all types of terrorism, according to the above, is kidnapping, coercion, and ransom. In the case of governments:

41

1.

39

42

The kidnapping is legal rather than physical. Legal kidnapping is done with government franchises and the ransom is done with income taxes.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

45 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

2. 3.

3

4 5 6 7 8 9

The “coercion” is done with financial sanctions, liens, and levies for those who refuse to participate. The “ransom” is accomplished with income taxation. If you don’t pay the ransom, then your commercial identity, employability, and credit will be destroyed with economic sanctions called liens, levies, and judgments.

All the above mechanisms are crimes that carry severe penalties and incarceration if instituted against non-resident nonpersons, which is what the average American is in relation to the national government. Since the perpetrators of these crimes are the very people charged with a monopoly in preventing such crimes, we end up with a mafia protection racket that protects only itself rather than the PRIVATE people that government was created to protect and serve. This “protection” of its own crimes and terrorism is done mainly through what we call “selective enforcement”, in which through “professional courtesy”, they prosecute only the victims and not the perpetrators. These crimes are documented in the following: Affidavit of Duress: Illegal Tax Enforcement by De Facto Officers, Form #02.005 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

10 11 12 13 14

Most governments, in fact, base their entire recruitment mechanism of “citizens” upon this criminal identity theft that effects the legal rather than physical kidnapping. If it weren’t for this type of criminal kidnapping, most governments would have a hard time finding anyone to civilly govern, keeping in mind that anything not consensual is “unjust”, according to the Declaration of Independence. The methods of this criminal identity theft and legal but not physical kidnapping are described in: Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

15

For more information on government terrorism, see:

16

1.

17 18

2.

19 20

3.

21 22

4.

23

24

6

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites By Topic: Terrorism” http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/terrorism.htm SEDM Disclaimer, Sections 8 and 9 http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm Criminal Justice and Terrorism Page, Section 8.1: Government Terrorism, Family Guardian Fellowship http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Crime/Crime.htm Terrorism Playlist, Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLin1scINPTOs6hqeXFY2A3wsPPc_OjOEb

History of corruption and corporatization of the government

26

The following subsections deal with the general history of the corruption of the United States government. If you want more detail, see:

27

1.

25

28 29

2.

30 31 32

3.

33

34

6.1

35

36 37

Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004: History (on the left menu) http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr.htm Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Chapter 6: History of Government Income Tax Fraud, Racketeering, and Extortion in the USA http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Highlights of American Legal and Political History CD, Form #11.202 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

Main purpose of law is to LIMIT government power to ensure freedom and sovereignty of the people1

The main purpose of law is to limit government power in order to protect and preserve, freedom, choice, and the sovereignty of the people.

1

Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 5; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

46 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power.” [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10

11 12 13 14

An important implication of the use of law to limit government power is the following inferences unavoidably arising from it: 1. 2. 3. 4.

15 16 17

5.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

6.

The purpose of law is to define and thereby limit government power. All law acts as a delegation of authority order upon those serving in the government. You cannot limit government power without definitions that are limiting. A definition that does not limit the thing or class of thing defined is no definition at all from a legal perspective and causes anything that depends on that definition to be political rather than legal in nature. By political, we mean a function exercised ONLY by the LEGISLATIVE or EXECUTIVE branch. Where the definitions in the law are clear, judges have no discretion to expand the meaning of words. Therefore the main method of expanding government power and creating what the supreme court calls “arbitrary power” is to use terms in the law that are vague, undefined, “general expressions”, or which don’t define the context implied. We define “general expressions” as those which: 6.1. The speaker is either not accountable or REFUSES to be accountable for the accuracy or truthfulness or definition of the word or expression. 6.2. Fail to recognize that there are multiple contexts in which the word could be used. 6.2.1. CONSTITUTIONAL (States of the Union). 6.2.2. STATUTORY (federal territory). 6.3. Are susceptible to two or more CONTEXTS or interpretations, one of which the government representative interpreting the context stands to benefit from handsomely. Thus, “equivocation” is undertaken, in which they TELL you they mean the CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation but after receiving your form or pleading, interpret it to mean the STATUTORY context.

30

equivocation

31 33

EQUIVOCA'TION, n. Ambiguity of speech; the use of words or expressions that are susceptible of a double signification. Hypocrites are often guilty of equivocation, and by this means lose the confidence of their fellow men. Equivocation is incompatible with the Christian character and profession.

34

[SOURCE: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,equivocation]

35

___________________________________________________________

36

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

32

37 38

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

39 40 41

It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.

42 43 44

[Wikipedia topic: Equivocation, Downloaded 9/15/2015; SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation]

45

46 47 48 49 50

6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7.

PRESUME that all contexts are equivalent, meaning that CONSTITUTIONAL and STATUTORY are equivalent. Fail to identify the specific context implied. Fail to provide an actionable definition for the term that is useful as evidence in court. Government representatives actively interfere with or even penalize efforts by the applicant to define the context of the terms so that they can protect their right to make injurious presumptions about their meaning.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

47 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7.

Any attempt to assert any authority by anyone in government to add anything they want to the definition of a thing in the law unavoidably creates a government of UNLIMITED power. 8. Anyone who can add anything to the definition of a word in the law that does not expressly appear SOMEWHERE in the law is exercising a LEGISLATIVE and POLITICAL function of the LEGISLATIVE branch and is NOT acting as a judge or a jurist. 9. The only people in government who can act in a LEGISLATIVE capacity are the LEGISLATIVE branch under our system of three branches of government: LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, and JUDICIAL. 10. Any attempt to combine or consolidate any of the powers of each of the three branches into the other branch results in tyranny. “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

10 11 12

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression [sound familiar?].

13 14 15 16

19

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.”

20

[. . .]

21

In what a situation must the poor subject be in those republics! The same body of magistrates are possessed, as executors of the laws, of the whole power they have given themselves in quality of legislators. They may plunder the state by their general determinations; and as they have likewise the judiciary power in their hands, every private citizen may be ruined by their particular decisions.” [The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, Book XI, Section 6; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org\Publications\SpiritOfLaws\sol_11.htm]

17 18

22 23 24 25 26

27

28 29 30

6.2

How our system of government became corrupted: Downes v. Bidwell2

The dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan in the monumentally important U.S. Supreme Court case of Downes v. Bidwell described how the word game mechanisms at the end of the previous section would be abused to corrupt our system of government with a stern warning to future generations: In view of the adjudications of this court, I cannot assent to the proposition, whether it be announced in express words or by implication, that the National Government is a government of or by the States in union, and that the prohibitions and limitations of the Constitution are addressed only to the States. That is but another form of saying that like the government created by the Articles of Confederation, the present government is a mere league of States, held together by compact between themselves; whereas, as this court has often declared, it is a government created by the People of the United States, with enumerated powers, and supreme over States and individuals, with respect to certain objects, throughout the entire territory over which its jurisdiction extends. If the National Government is, in any sense, a compact, it is a compact between the People of the United States among themselves as constituting in the aggregate the political community by whom the National Government was established. The Constitution speaks not simply to the States in their organized capacities, but to all peoples, whether of States or territories, who are subject to the authority of the United States. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 327.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

In the opinion to which I am referring it is also said that the "practical interpretation put by Congress upon the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect that the Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall so direct;" that while all power of government may be abused, the same may be said of the power of the Government "under the Constitution as well as outside of it;" that "if it once be conceded that we are at liberty to acquire foreign territory, a presumption arises that 379*379 our power with respect to such territories is the same power which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them;" that "the liberality of Congress in legislating the Constitution into all our contiguous territories has undoubtedly fostered the impression that it went there by its own force, but there is nothing in the Constitution itself, and little in the interpretation put upon it, to confirm that impression;" that as the States could only delegate to Congress such powers as they themselves possessed, and as they had no power to acquire new territory, and therefore none to delegate in that connection, the logical inference is that "if Congress had power to acquire

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 2

Source: Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014, Section 6; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

48 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

64 65

new territory, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional provisions;" that if "we assume that the territorial clause of the Constitution was not intended to be restricted to such territory as the United States then possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with them was intended to be restricted by any of the other provisions;" and that "the executive and legislative departments of the Government have for more than a century interpreted this silence as precluding the idea that the Constitution attached to these territories as soon as acquired." These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism. Although from the foundation of the Government this court has held steadily to the view that the Government of the United States was one of enumerated powers, and that no one of its branches, nor all of its branches combined, could constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or which were not necessarily implied from those expressly granted, Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 326, 331, we are now informed that Congress possesses powers outside of the Constitution, and may deal with new territory, 380*380 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner as other nations have been accustomed to act with respect to territories acquired by them. In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution. The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system 381*381 of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. "To what purpose," Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176,"are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." The wise men who framed the Constitution, and the patriotic people who adopted it, were unwilling to depend for their safety upon what, in the opinion referred to, is described as "certain principles of natural justice inherent in Anglo-Saxon character which need no expression in constitutions or statutes to give them effect or to secure dependencies against legislation manifestly hostile to their real interests." They proceeded upon the theory — the wisdom of which experience has vindicated — that the only safe guaranty against governmental oppression was to withhold or restrict the power to oppress. They well remembered that Anglo-Saxons across the ocean had attempted, in defiance of law and justice, to trample upon the rights of Anglo-Saxons on this continent and had sought, by military force, to establish a government that could at will destroy the privileges that inhere in liberty. They believed that the establishment here of a government that could administer public affairs according to its will unrestrained by any fundamental law and without regard to the inherent rights of freemen, would be ruinous to the liberties of the people by exposing them to the oppressions of arbitrary power. Hence, the Constitution enumerates the powers which Congress and the other Departments may exercise — leaving unimpaired, to the States or the People, the powers not delegated to the National Government nor prohibited to the States. That instrument so expressly declares in 382*382 the Tenth Article of Amendment. It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution. Again, it is said that Congress has assumed, in its past history, that the Constitution goes into territories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and as it shall so direct, and we are informed of the liberality of

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

49 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Congress in legislating the Constitution into all our contiguous territories. This is a view of the Constitution that may well cause surprise, if not alarm. Congress, as I have observed, has no existence except by virtue of the Constitution. It is the creature of the Constitution. It has no powers which that instrument has not granted, expressly or by necessary implication. I confess that I cannot grasp the thought that Congress which lives and moves and has its being in the Constitution and is consequently the mere creature of that instrument, can, at its pleasure, legislate or exclude its creator from territories which were acquired only by authority of the Constitution. By the express words of the Constitution, every Senator and Representative is bound, by oath or affirmation, to regard it as the supreme law of the land. When the Constitutional Convention was in session there was much discussion as to the phraseology of the clause defining the supremacy of the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States. At one stage of the proceedings the Convention adopted the following clause: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the several States and of their citizens and inhabitants, and the judges of the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, anything in the constitutions or laws of the several States to the contrary notwithstanding." This clause was amended, on motion of Mr. Madison, by inserting after the words "all treaties made" the words "or which shall be made." If the clause, so amended, had been inserted in the Constitution as finally adopted, perhaps 383*383 there would have been some justification for saying that the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States constituted the supreme law only in the States, and that outside of the States the will of Congress was supreme. But the framers of the Constitution saw the danger of such a provision, and put into that instrument in place of the above clause the following: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Meigs's Growth of the Constitution, 284, 287. That the Convention struck out the words "the supreme law of the several States" and inserted "the supreme law of the land," is a fact of no little significance. The "land" referred to manifestly embraced all the peoples and all the territory, whether within or without the States, over which the United States could exercise jurisdiction or authority. Further, it is admitted that some of the provisions of the Constitution do apply to Porto Rico and may be invoked as limiting or restricting the authority of Congress, or for the protection of the people of that island. And it is said that there is a clear distinction between such prohibitions "as go to the very root of the power of Congress to act at all, irrespective of time or place, and such as are operative only `throughout the United States' or among the several States." In the enforcement of this suggestion it is said in one of the opinions just delivered: "Thus, when the Constitution declares that `no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed,' and that `no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,' it goes to the competency of Congress to pass a bill of that description." I cannot accept this reasoning as consistent with the Constitution or with sound rules of interpretation. The express prohibition upon the passage by Congress of bills of attainder, or of ex post facto laws, or the granting of titles of nobility, goes no more directly to the root of the power of Congress than does the express prohibition against the imposition by Congress of any 384*384 duty, impost or excise that is not uniform throughout the United States. The opposite theory, I take leave to say, is quite as extraordinary as that which assumes that Congress may exercise powers outside of the Constitution, and may, in its discretion, legislate that instrument into or out of a domestic territory of the United States. In the opinion to which I have referred it is suggested that conditions may arise when the annexation of distant possessions may be desirable. "If," says that opinion, "those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation and modes of thought, the administration of government and justice, according to Anglo-Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and the question at once arises whether large concessions ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and the blessings of a free government under the Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid such action." In my judgment, the Constitution does not sustain any such theory of our governmental system. Whether a particular race will or will not assimilate with our people, and whether they can or cannot with safety to our institutions be brought within the operation of the Constitution, is a matter to be thought of when it is proposed to acquire their territory by treaty. A mistake in the acquisition of territory, although such acquisition seemed at the time to be necessary, cannot be made the ground for violating the Constitution or refusing to give full effect to its provisions. The Constitution is not to be obeyed or disobeyed as the circumstances of a particular crisis in our history may suggest the one or the other course to be pursued. The People have decreed that it shall be the supreme law of the land at all times. When the acquisition of territory becomes complete, by cession, the Constitution necessarily becomes the supreme law of such new territory, and no power exists in any Department of the Government to make "concessions" that are inconsistent with its provisions. The authority to make such concessions implies the existence in Congress of power to declare that constitutional provisions may be ignored under special or 385*385 embarrassing circumstances. No such dispensing power exists in any branch of our Government. The Constitution is supreme over every foot of territory, wherever situated, under the jurisdiction of the United States, and its full operation cannot be stayed by any branch of the Government in order to meet what some may suppose to be extraordinary emergencies. If the Constitution is in force in any territory, it is in force there for every purpose embraced by the objects for which the Government was ordained. Its authority cannot be displaced by concessions, even if it be true, as asserted in argument in some of these cases, that if the tariff act took effect in the Philippines of its own force, the inhabitants of Mandanao, who live on imported rice, would starve, because the import duty is many fold more than the ordinary cost of the grain to them. The meaning of the Constitution cannot depend upon accidental circumstances arising out of the products of other countries or of this country.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

50 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45

46 47 48

49

We cannot violate the Constitution in order to serve particular interests in our own or in foreign lands. Even this court, with its tremendous power, must heed the mandate of the Constitution. No one in official station, to whatever department of the Government he belongs, can disobey its commands without violating the obligation of the oath he has taken. By whomsoever and wherever power is exercised in the name and under the authority of the United States, or of any branch of its Government, the validity or invalidity of that which is done must be determined by the Constitution. In DeLima v. Bidwell, just decided, we have held that upon the ratification of the treaty with Spain, Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign country and became a domestic territory of the United States. We have said in that case that from 1803 to the present time there was not a shred of authority, except a dictum in one case, "for holding that a district ceded to and in possession of the United States remains for any purpose a foreign territory;" that territory so acquired cannot be "domestic for one purpose and foreign for another;" and that any judgment to the contrary would be "pure judicial legislation," for which there was no warrant in the Constitution or in the powers conferred upon this court. Although, as we have just decided, 386*386 Porto Rico ceased, after the ratification of the treaty with Spain, to be a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff act, and became a domestic country — "a territory of the United States" — it is said that if Congress so wills it may be controlled and governed outside of the Constitution and by the exertion of the powers which other nations have been accustomed to exercise with respect to territories acquired by them; in other words, we may solve the question of the power of Congress under the Constitution, by referring to the powers that may be exercised by other nations. I cannot assent to this view. I reject altogether the theory that Congress, in its discretion, can exclude the Constitution from a domestic territory of the United States, acquired, and which could only have been acquired, in virtue of the Constitution. I cannot agree that it is a domestic territory of the United States for the purpose of preventing the application of the tariff act imposing duties upon imports from foreign countries, but not a part of the United States for the purpose of enforcing the constitutional requirement that all duties, imposts and excises imposed by Congress "shall be uniform throughout the United States." How Porto Rico can be a domestic territory of the United States, as distinctly held in DeLima v. Bidwell, and yet, as is now held, not embraced by the words "throughout the United States," is more than I can understand. We heard much in argument about the "expanding future of our country." It was said that the United States is to become what is called a "world power;" and that if this Government intends to keep abreast of the times and be equal to the great destiny that awaits the American people, it must be allowed to exert all the power that other nations are accustomed to exercise. My answer is, that the fathers never intended that the authority and influence of this nation should be exerted otherwise than in accordance with the Constitution. If our Government needs more power than is conferred upon it by the Constitution, that instrument provides the mode in which it may be amended and additional power thereby obtained. The People of the United States who ordained the Constitution never supposed that a change could be made in our system of government 387*387 by mere judicial interpretation. They never contemplated any such juggling with the words of the Constitution as would authorize the courts to hold that the words "throughout the United States," in the taxing clause of the Constitution, do not embrace a domestic "territory of the United States" having a civil government established by the authority of the United States. This is a distinction which I am unable to make, and which I do not think ought to be made when we are endeavoring to ascertain the meaning of a great instrument of government. [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

Could it possibly be doubted that if Congress has been handed by the U.S. Supreme Court ANY CIRCUMSTANCE in which it can exercise its discretion in a way that COMPLETELY disregards the entire constitution, that they would not succumb to the temptation to enact it, expand it, and make it apply through trickery to everyone, as they have done with the income tax and federal franchises in general? NOT! "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207]

THIS in fact, is what Justice Harlan was talking about in the following excerpt in the above:

55

I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.”

56

[. . .]

50 51 52 53 54

“These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

51 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our Government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this Government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the People of the United States.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces — the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them — is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius as well as with the words of the Constitution.”

9 10 11 12 13

“The idea prevails with some — indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar — that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.” It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system 381*381 of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions. "To what purpose," Chief Justice Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176,"are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

32

Justice Harlan is saying that we now have a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde government. They did in fact do what he predicted: Graft a monarchical colonial system for federal territory onto an egalitarian free republican system. Starting with the Downes case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared and recognized essentially that:

33

1.

30 31

34 35

2.

36 37

3.

38 39 40

NO PART of the Constitution limits what the national government can do in a territory, including the prohibition against Titles of Nobility and even ex post facto laws. As long as Congress is legislating for territories, it can do whatever it wants, including an income tax, just like every other nation of the earth. In fact, this is the source of all the authority for enacting the income tax to begin with. If Congress wants to invade the states commercially and tax them, all it has to do is: 3.1. Write such legislation ONLY for the territories and implement it as a franchise. Since all franchises are based on contract, then they can be enforced extraterritorially, including in a state. This is the basis for the Social Security Act of 1935, in fact.

41

Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.

42

45

Locus contractus regit actum. The place of the contract [franchise agreement, in this case] governs the act. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

46

_______________________________________________________________________________________

43 44

“It is generally conceded that a franchise is the subject of a contract between the grantor and the grantee, and that it does in fact constitute a contract when the requisite element of a consideration is present. 3 Conversely, a

47 48

3

Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S.Ct. 196; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct. 303; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed. 801, 26 S.Ct. 427; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark. 774, 4 S.W.2d. 15, 58 A.L.R. 534; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N.E. 880; Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky. 234, 148 S.W. 13; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 41 S.W. 955; Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont. 465, 44 P.2d. 735; Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 N.J. 192, 142 A.2d. 85; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871, 63 A.L.R. 1337; Franklin County v. Public Utilities Com., 107 Ohio.St. 442, 140 N.E. 87, 30 A.L.R. 429; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 A. 635; Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 469, 99 S.E. 723, 9 A.L.R. 1148, cert den 251 U.S. 557, 64 L.Ed. 413,

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

52 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

franchise granted without consideration is not a contract binding upon the state, franchisee, or pseudofranchisee.4 “ [36 American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §6: As a Contract (1999)]

1 2 3

For further details on the Social Security FRAUD, see: Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 3.2. Entice people in states of the Union with a bribe to sign up for the territorial franchise, and make it IMPOSSIBLE to quit the system. This uses capitalism to implement socialism. 3.3. Through legal deception and fraud, make the franchise legislation LOOK like: 3.3.1. It applies to CONSTITUTIONAL states rather than only STATUTORY “States” and territories. 3.3.2. It ISN’T a franchise or excise. These things are done through “equivocation”, in which TERRITORIAL STATUTORY “States” under 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and CONSTITUTIONAL States of the Union are made ot appear and act the same. This was also done in the Sixteenth Amendment, which granted no new powers to Congress, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916). See: Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 3.4. Establish an EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL revenue collection apparatus that is NOT part of the constitutional government. Namely the I.R.S. is not now and never has been part of the U.S. Government. Instead, it is a straw man for the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, in fact, is not more governmental than Federal Express. See: Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 3.5. Use propaganda and abusive regulation of the banking system and employers to turn banks and private companies in states of the Union into federal employment recruiters, in which you can’t open an account or pursue “employment” without becoming a privileged and enfranchised public officer representing an PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT office domiciled on federal territory and subject to the territorial law. See: Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 3.6. Bribe CONSTITUTIONAL states with “commercial incentives” or subsidies if they in essence agree by compact or agreement to act as federal territories and allow the income tax to be enforced within their borders. This is done through DEBT and the Federal Reserve as well as the Agreements on Coordination of Tax Administration (ACTA) between the national government and the states. Now obviously, they can only do that within ENCLAVES within their external borders using the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, but they will PRETEND for the sake of filthy lucre that it applies EVERYWHERE in the state by: 3.6.1. Not defining the term “State” within their revenue codes. 3.6.2. Calling those who insist on these limits “frivolous” in court. 3.7. Engage in an ongoing propaganda campaign to discredit and persecute all those who expose and try to remedy the above. This is done by making the government UNACCOUNTABLE for the truth or accuracy of ANYTHING it says or does administratively. We have been a target of that campaign. See: Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 3.8. Legislatively create a conflict of interest in the judges administering the territorial franchise so that they will be forced to apply it to the states of the Union. 3.9. Get the U.S. Supreme Court, through pressure on individual justices, to allow the financial and criminal conflict of interest with judges to stand and expand. 3.10. Use the U.S. Supreme Court as a method to embargo challenges to the above illegalities by denying appeals. This was done using the Certiorari Act of 1925 proposed by former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft. This was the same President who proposed the Sixteenth Amendment and FRAUDULENTLY got it passed by lame duck Secretary of State Philander Knox.5

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 S.Ct. 179, disapproved on other grounds Victoria v. Victoria Ice, Light & Power Co. 134 Va. 134, 114 S.E. 92, 28 A.L.R. 562, and disapproved on other grounds Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co., 141 Va. 69, 126 S.E. 353. 4

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa 183, 16 A 836.

5

See: The Law that Never Was, William Benson. It documents the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. See also Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6.6.1; http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

53 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

That last step: creating a conflict of interest in judges was accomplished starting in 1918, right after Downes v. Bidwell and just after the Sixteenth Amendment and Federal Reserve Act were passed in 1913. In particular, here is how it was accomplished:

4

1.

1 2

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2.

13 14 15

3.

16

17 18

Making judges into “taxpayers” started in 1918. This allowed them to become the target of political persecution by the Bureau of Internal Revenue if they properly enforce and protect the civil status of parties. 1.1. This began first with the Revenue Act of 1918, 40 Stat. 1065, Section 213(a) and was declared unconstitutional. 1.2. The second attempt to make judges taxpayers occurred the Revenue Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 169 and this time it stuck. 1.3. This conflict of interest is also documented in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) , Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925), O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939), and U.S. v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S.Ct. 1782, (2001). Judges have been allowed, illegally, to serve as BOTH franchise judges under Article IV of the Constitution and CONSTITUTIONAL judges under Article III. When given a choice of the two, they will always pick the Article IV franchise judge status, because it financially rewards them and unduly elevates their own importance and jurisdiction. The IRS is allowed to financially reward judges and prosecutors for convicting those who do not consent to the identity theft. See 26 U.S.C. §7623, Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 25.2.2.

The above process is EXACTLY what they have done. From the 10,000 foot or MACRO view, it essentially amounts to identity theft. That identity theft is exhaustively described in the following: Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

19 20 21

22 23 24

25 26

27 28 29

Our document Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 describes how that identity theft is accomplished by the abuse of conflict of interest, the rules of statutory interpretation, and equivocation from a general perspective. That language abuse is also particularized in the above document to specific other legal contexts, such as: 1. 2. 3.

Ultimately, however, all of the identity theft they employ is accomplished by misrepresenting their authority and enforcing laws outside their territory. It really boils down to: 1. 2. 3.

30 31 32

4. 5.

33 34 35

6. 7.

36 37 38

8.

39 40

41 42

43 44

Domicile identity theft. Citizenship identity theft. Franchise identity theft.

6.3

Replacing PRIVATE rights with PUBLIC privileges. Turning “citizens” and “residents” into the equivalent of government public officers or employees. Turning all civil law essentially into the employment agreement of virtually everyone who claims to be a STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident”. A commercial invasion of the states of the Union in violation of Article 4, Section 4. The abuse of franchises and privileges within the states of the Union to create a caste system that emulates the British Monarchy we tried to escape by fighting a revolution. Using the civil statutory law as a mechanism to limit and control PEOPLE rather than the GOVERNMENT. Creating a government of UNLIMITED powers. There are no limits on what an EMPLOYER can order his EMPLOYEES or OFFICERS to do, and THAT is what you are if you claim to be a STATUTORY “citizen” under any act of Congress. Using “selective enforcement” to discredit and destroy all those who attempt to QUIT their job as a government officer or employee called a STATUTORY “citizen” or “resident”. THIS is how the fraudulent identity theft scheme and government mafia protects and expands itself.

Thomas Jefferson’s Warnings and Predictions Concerning the Corruption of the Government

Thomas Jefferson, one of our most beloved founding fathers and author of our Declaration of Independence, wrote extensively about defects in the design of our system of government and his predictions for how it would eventually be corrupted. In this

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

54 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

document, corruption is a synonym for “de facto”. All of his predictions have come true. You can read his writings on this subject at: Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeffcont.htm

3

Jefferson’s writings on the subject of separation of powers within the above work may be found at: Separation of Powers http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1070.htm

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13

14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27

A system of government in which all power is concentrated in a single man, group of men or branch within the government is the epitome of de facto government, because its activities are completely unrestrained and have no limits. The founding fathers believed that absolute, uncontrolled, unchecked, consolidated power corrupted absolutely. The opposite of the centralization of power is what the founders called the “separation of powers”, which was a refinement in the implementation of governments engineered by Charles de Montesquieu in his book Spirit of Laws, upon which the founders based their writing of the United States Constitution: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.” [The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, http://famguardian.org/Publications/SpiritOfLaws/sol-02.htm]

Below is Thomas Jefferson’s description of the separation of powers: "To make us one nation as to foreign concerns, and keep us distinct in domestic ones, gives the outline of the proper division of powers between the general and particular governments. But, to enable the federal head to exercise the powers given it to best advantage, it should be organized as the particular ones are, into legislative, executive, and judiciary." [Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:9] "The first principle of a good government is certainly a distribution of its powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches." [Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1787. ME 6:321] "The constitution has divided the powers of government into three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, lodging each with a distinct magistracy. The Legislative it has given completely to the Senate and House of Representatives. It has declared that the Executive powers shall be vested in the President, submitting special articles of it to a negative by the Senate, and it has vested the Judiciary power in the courts of justice, with certain exceptions also in favor of the Senate." [Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Executive Appointments, 1790. ME 3:15]

30

"My idea is that... the Federal government should be organized into Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, as are the State governments, and some peaceable means of enforcement devised for the Federal head over the States." [Thomas Jefferson to John Blair, 1787. ME 6:273, Papers 12:28 ]

31

Each Branch is Independent

32

"The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary of each other." [Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. FE 9:59]

28 29

33 34

35 36

37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45

"There are many [in Congress] who think that not to support the Executive is to abandon Government." [Thomas Jefferson to Colonel Bell, 1797. ME 9:386 ] "[The] principle [of the Constitution] is that of a separation of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government." [Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1797. ME 9:368 ] "Our Constitution has wisely distributed the administration of the government into three distinct and independent departments. To each of these it belongs to administer law within its separate jurisdiction. The Judiciary in cases of meum and tuum, and of public crimes; the Executive, as to laws executive in their nature; the Legislature in various cases which belong to itself, and in the important function of amending and adding to the system." [Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:129 ]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

55 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33 34

35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48

49 50 51

52 53

54 55 56 57 58 59

"The three great departments having distinct functions to perform, must have distinct rules adapted to them. Each must act under its own rules, those of no one having any obligation on either of the others." [Thomas Jefferson to James Barbour, 1812. ME 13:129 ] "The Constitution intended that the three great branches of the government should be co-ordinate and independent of each other. As to acts, therefore, which are to be done by either, it has given no control to another branch... Where different branches have to act in their respective lines, finally and without appeal, under any law, they may give to it different and opposite constructions... From these different constructions of the same act by different branches, less mischief arises than from giving to any one of them a control over the others." [Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:213] "If the Legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the Judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in Congress, the Judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the Judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distring as [i.e., property seizures] to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfillment of their official duties any more that the President or Legislature may issue orders to the Judges or their officers. Betrayed by the English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties; but the Constitution, in keeping the three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the Judges to judiciary organs as it does the Executive and Legislative to executive and legislative organs." [Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277 ] "It may be objected that the Senate may by continual negatives on the person, do what amounts to a negative on the grade [of an appointee], and so, indirectly, defeat [the] right of the President [to determine the grade]. But this would be a breach of trust; an abuse of power confided to the Senate, of which that body cannot be supposed capable. So the President has a power to convoke the Legislature, and the Senate might defeat that power by refusing to come. This equally amounts to a negative on the power of convoking. Yet nobody will say they possess such a negative, or would be capable of usurping it by such oblique means. If the Constitution had meant to give the Senate a negative on the grade or destination, as well as the person, it would have said so in direct terms, and not left it to be effected by a sidewind. It could never mean to give them the use of one power through the abuse of another." [Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Executive Appointments, 1790. ME 3:17] "Legislative, Executive and Judiciary offices shall be kept forever separate, and no person exercising the one shall be capable of appointment to the others, or to either of them." [Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:347 ] "Citizens, whether individually or in bodies corporate or associated, have a right to apply directly to any department of their government, whether Legislative, Executive or Judiciary, the exercise of whose powers they have a right to claim, and neither of these can regularly offer its intervention in a case belonging to the other." [Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807. ME 11:382 ] "Where... petitioners have a right to petition their immediate representatives in Congress directly, I have deemed it neither necessary nor proper for them to pass their petition through the intermediate channel of the Executive. But as the petitioners may be ignorant of this, and, confiding in it, may omit the proper measure, I have usually put such petitions into the hands of the Representatives of the State, informally to be used or not as they see best, and considering me as entirely disclaiming any agency in the case." [Thomas Jefferson to Joseph B. Varnum, 1808. ME 12:196] "It seems proper that every person should address himself directly to the department to which the Constitution has allotted his case; and that the proper answer to such from any other department is, 'that it is not to us that the Constitution has assigned the transaction of this business.'" [Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1791. ME 8:250] "The courts of justice exercise the sovereignty of this country in judiciary matters, are supreme in these, and liable neither to control nor opposition from any other branch of the government." [Thomas Jefferson to Edmond C. Genet, 1793. ME 9:234] "The interference of the Executive can rarely be proper where that of the Judiciary is so." [Thomas Jefferson to George Hammond, 1793. FE 6:298 ] "For the Judiciary to interpose in the Legislative department between the constituent and his representative, to control them in the exercise of their functions or duties towards each other, to overawe the free correspondence which exists and ought to exist between them, to dictate what may pass between them and to punish all others, to put the representative into jeopardy of criminal prosecution, of vexation, expense and punishment before the Judiciary if his communications, public or private, do not exactly square with their ideas of fact or right or with their designs of wrong, is to put the Legislative department under the feet of the Judiciary, is to leave us, indeed,

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

56 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

the shadow but to take away the substance of representation, which requires essentially that the representative be as free as his constituents would be, that the same interchange of sentiment be lawful between him and them as would be lawful among themselves were they in the personal transaction of their own business; is to do away the influence of the people over the proceedings of their representatives by excluding from their knowledge by the terror of punishment, all but such information or misinformation as may suit their own views." [Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Petition, 1797. ME 17:359 ] "If the three powers maintain their mutual independence on each other our Government may last long, but not so if either can assume the authorities of the other." [Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278 ]

10

All Powers in One Branch Produces Despotism

11

"[A very capital defect in a constitution is when] all the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one." [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:162 ]

12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19

"[Where] there [is] no barrier between the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments, the legislature may seize the whole... Having seized it and possessing a right to fix their own quorum, they may reduce that quorum to one, whom they may call a chairman, speaker, dictator, or by any other name they please." [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. (*) ME 2:178 ]

24

"I said to [President Washington] that if the equilibrium of the three great bodies, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, could be preserved, if the Legislature could be kept independent, I should never fear the result of such a government; but that I could not but be uneasy when I saw that the Executive had swallowed up the Legislative branch." [Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792. ME 1:318]

25

Unlimited Powers are Always Dangerous

26

"Nor should [a legislative body] be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that... unlimited powers will never be abused because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people, when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes." [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:164 ]

20 21 22 23

27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

43 44

45 46 47 48

49 50 51

52 53 54

"Mankind soon learn to make interested uses of every right and power which they possess or may assume. The public money and public liberty, intended to have been deposited with three branches of magistracy but found inadvertently to be in the hands of one only, will soon be discovered to be sources of wealth and dominion to those who hold them; distinguished, too, by this tempting circumstance: that they are the instrument as well as the object of acquisition. With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money." [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:164 ] "It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendancy and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their advantages." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798. ME 10:44 ]

Below are some of Jefferson’s predictions on how the separation of powers would be systematically destroyed by public servants, most of whom he predicted would be in the federal judiciary: "The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will." [Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1807. FE 9:68 ] "It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation." [Thomas Jefferson to James Pleasants, 1821. FE 10:198 ] "In England, where judges were named and removable at the will of an hereditary executive, from which branch most misrule was feared and has flowed, it was a great point gained by fixing them for life, to make them independent of that executive. But in a government founded on the public will, this principle operates in an

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

57 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

opposite direction and against that will. There, too, they were still removable on a concurrence of the executive and legislative branches. But we have made them independent of the nation itself. They are irremovable but by their own body for any depravities of conduct, and even by their own body for the imbecilities of dotage." [Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:34 ] "Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct at regular periods under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses." [Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389 ] The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." [Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:326 ] "The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'" [Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297 ]

25

"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331 ]

26

Irregular and Censurable Decisions

27

"Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate." [Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121 ]

20 21 22 23 24

28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36

"The judges... are practicing on the Constitution by inferences, analogies, and sophisms, as they would on an ordinary law. They do not seem aware that it is not even a Constitution formed by a single authority and subject to a single superintendence and control, but that it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it and to require its observance." [Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113 ]

39

"[The] practice of Judge Marshall of traveling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court, is very irregular and very censurable." [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:447 ]

40

Consolidating Decisions

41

"The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them." [Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:326 ]

37 38

42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49

50 51 52 53 54 55

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.'" [Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297 ] "It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331 ]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

58 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Undermining Republican Government

2

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." [Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486 ]

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33

34 35 36

37 38

39 40 41 42

43 44 45

46 47 48

49 50 51

"This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." [Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114 ] "I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin. As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law." [Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122 ] "If, indeed, a judge goes against the law so grossly, so palpably, as no imputable degree of folly can account for, and nothing but corruption, malice or wilful wrong can explain, and especially if circumstances prove such motives, he may be punished for the corruption, the malice, the wilful wrong; but not for the error: nor is he liable to action by the party grieved. And our form of government constituting its respective functionaries judges of the law which is to guide their decisions, places all within the same reason, under the safeguard of the same rule." [Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:130 ] "One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation. And with no body of men is this restraint more wanting than with the judges of what is commonly called our General Government, but what I call our foreign department." [Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113 ] "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332 ] "What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!" [Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168]

Thomas Jefferson also predicted that the most severe threat of destruction of the separation of powers would come from the federal judiciary: "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." [Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341 ] "The [federal] judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass." [Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307] "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court." [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421 ]

Jefferson, of course, was absolutely correct in his predictions that the federal judiciary would be the source of corruption that would transform a de jure government into a de facto government. You can read exactly how this happened in a book available on our website below: What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

59 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government: With franchises6

6.4

"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description: but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people." [Justice Iredell] (Fries's Case (CC) F Cas No 5126, supra.) [Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160; 92 L.Ed 1881, 1890; 68 S.Ct. 1429 (1948)]

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

“The chief enemies of republican freedom are mental sloth, conformity, bigotry, superstition, credulity, monopoly in the market of ideas, and utter, benighted ignorance.” [Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 49 (1967)]

9 10 11

12

6.4.1

13

The Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.1 showed you the hierarchy of sovereignty and where you fit personally in that hierarchy. They showed you in Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.5 that Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees to all Americans a “republican form of government”. Then in section 5.1.1 they showed you the order that our state and federal governments were created and the distinct sovereignties that comprise all the elements of our republican political system. Now we are going to tie the whole picture together and show you graphically the tools and techniques that specific covetous government servants have used over the years to corrupt and debase that system for their own personal financial and political benefit.

14 15 16 17 18 19

Original Design of our Republic

"The king establishes the land by justice; but he who receives bribes overthrows it." [Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]

20 21

26

After you have learned these techniques by which corruption is introduced, we will spend the rest of the chapter showing exactly how these techniques have been specifically applied over the years to corrupt and debase and destroy our political system and undermine our personal liberties, rights, and freedoms. This will train your perception to be on the lookout for any future attempts by our covetous politicians to further corrupt our system so that you can act swiftly at a political level to oppose and prevent it.

27

First of all, the foundation of our republican form of government is all the following as a group:

28

1.

22 23 24 25

Sovereign power held by the People through their direct participation in the affairs of government as jurists and voters.

33

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." [Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939, 943]

34

__________________________________________________________________________________

35

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." [Julliard v. Greenman: 110 U.S. 421, (1884)]

29 30 31 32

36 37 38

39 40

2. All powers exercised by government are directly delegated to those serving in government by the people, both collectively and individually. "The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people... The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restriction except the discretion of its members." (Congress) [U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

41 42 43 44 45 46

6

Source: How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/HowScCorruptOurRepubGovt.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

of

Government,

Family

Guardian

Fellowship;

60 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people." [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] "It is again to antagonize Chief Justice Marshall, when he said: 'The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them and for their benefit. This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.' 4 Wheat. 404, 4 L.Ed. 601." [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

The implication is that the people AS INDIVIDUALS are EQUAL to the government in the eyes of the law because you can’t delegate what you don’t have:

13

“Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”

14

Nemo dat qui non habet. No one can give who does not possess. Jenk. Cent. 250.

15

Nemo plus juris ad alienum transfere potest, quam ispe habent. One cannot transfer to another a right which he has not. Dig. 50, 17, 54; 10 Pet. 161, 175.

12

16

17 18

19 20

Nemo potest facere per alium quod per se non potest. No one can do that by another which he cannot do by himself. Qui per alium facit per seipsum facere videtur. He who does anything through another, is considered as doing it himself. Co. Litt. 258.

22

Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327.

23

Quod per me non possum, nec per alium. What I cannot do in person, I cannot do by proxy. 4 Co. 24.

24

What a man cannot transfer, he cannot bind by articles. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

21

25 26

27

28 29

30

3. Separation of powers between three branches of government. That separation is described in: Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 4. Distinct separation of property rights between PUBLIC and PRIVATE. By “public” we mean GOVERNMENT property. That separation is described in: Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Without ALL of the above, every government becomes corrupt and turns into a de facto government as described in: De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

The concept separation of powers is called the “Separation of Powers Doctrine”: "Separation of powers. The governments of the states and the United States are divided into three departments or branches: the legislative, which is empowered to make laws, the executive which is required to carry out the laws, and the judicial which is charged with interpreting the laws and adjudicating disputes under the laws. Under this constitutional doctrine of "separation of powers," one branch is not permitted to encroach on the domain or exercise the powers of another branch. See U.S. Constitution, Articles I-III. See also Power (Constitutional Powers)." [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1365]

Here is how no less than the U.S. Supreme Court described the purpose of this separation of powers:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

61 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30

31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46

47

"We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid. [U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

The founding fathers believed that men were inherently corrupt. They believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely so they avoided concentrating too much power into any single individual. "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332] "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." [Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341] "The [federal] judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass." [Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307] "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court." [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421] "I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market." [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450] "What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!" [Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168] "I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." [Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146] "We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." [Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388]

For further quotes supporting the above, see: Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1060.htm

48 49 50

51

They instead wanted an egalitarian and utopian society. They loathed the idea of a king because they had seen how corrupt the monarchies of Europe had become by reading the history books. They loathed it so much that they specifically prohibited titles of nobility in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

62 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

So the founders instead distributed and dispersed political power into several independent branches of government that have sovereign power over a finite sphere and prohibited the branches from assuming each others duties. This, they believed, would prevent collusion against their rights and liberties. They therefore divided the government into the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches and made them independent of each other, and assigned very specific duties to each. In effect, these three branches became “foreign” to each other and in constant competition with each other for power and control. The founders further dispersed political power by dividing power between the several states and the federal government and gave most of the power to the states. They gave each state their own seats in Congress, in the Senate. They made the states just like “foreign countries” and independent nations so that there would be the greatest separation of powers possible between the federal government and the states: "The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct and separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute." [Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)]

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Then the founders created multiple states so that the states would be in competition with each other for citizens and for commerce. When one state got too oppressive or taxed people too much, the people could then move to an economically more attractive state and climate. This kept the states from oppressing their citizens and it gave the people a means to keep their state and their government in check. Then they put the federal government in charge of regulating commerce among and between the states, and the intention of this was to maximize, not obstruct, commerce between the states so that we would act as a unified economic union and like a country. Even so, they didn’t want our country to be a “nation” under the law of nations, because they didn’t want a national government with unlimited powers. They wanted a “federation”, so they called our central government the “federal government” instead of a “national government”. To give us a “national government” would be a recipe for tyranny: “By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us, by the Constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument. “ [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794)]

28 29 30 31 32 33

35

The ingenious founders also made the people the sovereigns in charge of both the state and federal governments by giving them a Bill of Rights and mandating frequent elections. Frequent elections:

36

1.

34

37 38

2.

39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50 51

3.

Ensured that rulers would not be in office long enough to learn enough to get sneaky with the people or abuse their power. Kept the rulers accountable to the people and provided a prompt feedback mechanism to make sure politicians and rulers were incentivized to listen to the people. Created a stable political system that would automatically converge onto the will of the majority so that the country would be at peace instead of at war within itself.

The founders even gave the people their own house in Congress called the House of Representatives, so that the power between the states, in the Senate, and the People, in the House, would be well-balanced. They also made sure that these sovereign electors and citizens were well armed with a good education, so they could keep their government in check and capably defend their freedom, property, and liberty by themselves. When things got rough and governments became corrupt, these rugged and self-sufficient citizens were also guaranteed the right to defend their property using arms that the U.S. Constitution said in the Second Amendment that they had a right to keep and use. This ensured that citizens wouldn’t need to depend on the government for a handout or socialist benefits and wouldn’t have to worry about having a government that would plunder their property or their liberty. Finally, the founding fathers created the institution of trial by jury, so that if government got totally corrupt and passed unjust laws that violated God’s laws, the people could put themselves back in control through jury nullification. This also effectively De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

63 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

18

19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29

30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44

45 46

47 48 49

dealt with the problem of corrupt judges, because both the jury and the grand jury could override the judge as well when they detected a conflict of interest by judging both the facts and the law. Here is how Thomas Jefferson described the duty of the jury in such a circumstance: "It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty." [Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283]

Then the founders separated church and state and put the state and the church in competition with each other to protect and nurture the people. This church/state separation and dual sovereignty was discussed in Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.3.6. The design that our founding fathers had for our political system was elegant, unique, unprecedented, ingenious, perfectly balanced, and inherently just. It was founded on the concept of Natural Order and Natural Law, which as we explained in section 4.1 are based on the sequence that things were created. This concept made sense, even to people who didn’t believe in God, so it had wide support among a very diverse country of immigrants from all over the world and of many different religious faiths. Natural Law and Natural Order unified our country because it was just and fair and righteous. That is the basis for the phrase on our currency, which says: “E Pluribus Unum”

…which means: “From many, one.” Our system of Natural Law and Natural Order also happened to be based on God’s sovereign design for self-government, as we explained throughout chapter 4. The founders also recognized that liberty without God and morality are impossible: "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice [greed], ambition, revenge, or gallantry [debauchery], would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [John Adams, 2nd President]

So the founders included the requirement for BOTH God and Liberty on all of our currency. They put the phrase “In God We Trust” and the phrase “Liberty” side by side, and they were probably thinking of the following scripture when they did that!: “Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” [2 Cor. 3:17, Bible, NKJV]

By creating such distinct separation of powers among all the forces of government, the founders ensured that the only way anything would get done within government was exclusively by informed consent and not by force or terror. The Declaration of Independence identifies the source of ALL "just" government power as "consent". Anything not consensual is therefore unjust and tyrannical. An informed and sovereign People will only do things voluntarily and consensually when it is in their absolute best interests. This would ensure that government would never engage in anything that wasn't in the best interests of everyone as a whole, because people, at least theoretically, would never consent to anything that would either hurt them or injure their Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court described this kind of government by consent as "government by compact": “In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.” [Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

Here is the legal definition of “compact” to prove our point that the Constitution and all federal law written in furtherance of it are indeed a “compact”: “Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states. Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

64 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

distinct and independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Enacting a mutual agreement into positive law then, becomes the vehicle for expressing the fact that the People collectively agreed and consented to the law and to accept any adverse impact that law might have on their liberty. Public servants then, are just the apparatus that the sovereign People use for governing themselves through the operation of positive law. As the definition above shows, the apparatus and machinery of government is simply the “rudder” that steers the ship, but the "Captain" of the ship is the People both individually and collectively. In a true Republican Form of Government, the REAL government is the people individually and collectively, and not their "public servants". That is the true meaning of the phrase "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" used by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address.

18

Our de jure Constitutional Republic started out as a perfectly balanced and just system indeed. But somewhere along the way, it was deliberately corrupted by evil men for personal gain. Just like Cain (in the Bible) destroyed the tranquility and peace of an idyllic world and divided the Family of Adam by first introducing murder into the world, greedy politicians who wanted to line their pockets corrupted our wonderful system and brought evil into the government. How did it happen? They did it with a combination of force, fraud, and the corrupting influence of money. This process can be shown graphically and described in scientific terms over a period of years to show precisely how it was done. We will now attempt to do this so that the process is crystal clear in your mind. What we are trying to show are the following elements in our diagram:

19

1.

12 13 14 15 16 17

20 21 22

2.

23 24 25 26 27 28

3. 4.

The distinct sovereignties between governments: 1.1. States 1.2. The federal government The sovereignties within governments: 2.1. Executive branch 2.2. Legislative branch 2.3. Judicial branch The hierarchy of sovereignty between all the sovereignties based on their sequence of creation. The corrupting influence of force, fraud, and money, including the branch that initiated it, the date it was initiated, and the object it was initiated against.

37

To meet the above objectives, we will start off with the diagram found in Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.1.1 and expand it with some of the added elements found in the Natural Order diagram found earlier in Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.1. To the bottom of the diagram, we add the Ten Commandments, which establishes the “Separation of Church v. State”. The first four commandments in Exodus 20:2-11 establish the church and the last six commandments found in Exodus 20:12-17 define how we should relate to other people, who Jesus later called our “neighbor” in Matt. 22:39. The main and only purpose of government is to love and protect and serve its inhabitants and citizens, who collectively are "neighbors". What results is a schematic diagram of the initial political system that the founders gave us absent all corruption. This is called the “De jure U.S. Government”. It is the only lawful government we have and its organization is defined by our Constitution. It's organization is also defined by the Bible, which we also call "Natural Law" throughout this document.

38

Figure 1: De Jure Hierarchy of Sovereignty

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

65 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

GOD'S LAW/BIBLE

THE CHURCH Pastor/ Clergy

Sheep/flock

"WE THE PEOPLE"

The People (as individuals)

Families

(Constitutional but not statutory “Citizens”)

Private schools

PRIVATE

GOD

Banks

Grand Jury

Trial Jury

Elections

UNION STATES ("states") Constitution

Judicial Branch

Legislative Branch

State Corporations

PUBLIC

State Franchises

Executive Branch

State statutory citizens

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Constitution

Federal Franchises

Executive Branch

CHURCH

Separation:

Love your God (Exodus 20:2-11)

Federal Corporations

Judicial Branch

Legislative Branch

Federal "States"/ territories

Federal statutory (8 USC §1401) “U.S. citizens”

STATE Love your neighbor (Exodus 20:12-17)

1

2 3

Each box in the above diagram represents a sovereignty or sovereign entity that helps distribute power throughout our system of government to prevent corruption or tyranny. The arrows with dark ends indicate an act of creation by the sovereign De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

66 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6

above. That act of creation carries with it an implied delegation of authority to do specific tasks and establishes a fiduciary relationship between the creator, and his subordinate creation. The above system as shown functions properly and fully and provides the best defense for our liberties only when there is complete separation between each sovereignty, which is to say that all actions performed and all choices made by any one sovereign: 1. 2.

7 8

3.

9 10 11 12 13

14 15

16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

4. 5.

Are completely free of fraud, force, conflict of interest, or duress. Are accomplished completely voluntarily, which is to say that they are done for the mutual benefit of all parties involved rather than any one single party exercising undue influence. Involve fully informed consent made with a full awareness by all parties to the agreement of all rights which are being surrendered to procure any benefits acquired. Are done mainly or exclusively for the benefit of the sovereign above the agent who is the actor. Are done for righteous reasons and noble intent, meaning that they are accomplished for the benefit of someone else rather than one’s own personal or financial benefit. This requirement is the foundation of what a fiduciary relationship means and also the only way that conflicts of interest and the corruption they can cause can be eliminated.

6.4.2 Main Technique of Corruption: Introduce Franchises to replace UNALIENABLE PRIVATE Rights with REVOCABLE PUBLIC Statutory PRIVILEGES “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower [is] servant to the lender.” [Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

The secret to how scoundrels corrupt our republic based on inalienable rights and replace it with a democracy based on revocable statutory privileges is to offer to loan you government property with conditions or legal strings attached. That process is called a "franchise". The Bible and the U.S. Supreme Court both describe EXACTLY, from a legal perspective, WHEN AND HOW you personally facilitate this inversion of the de jure hierarchy in the previous section to make public servants into masters and make you the sovereign into a government employee or officer. It is done with loans of government property that have legal strings attached. This loan is what we call “government franchises” (Form #05.030) on our website. The word “privilege” in fact is synonymous with loans of absolutely owned GOVERNMENT property and the legal strings attached to the loan. “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” [Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

35

“The State in such cases exercises no greater right than an individual may exercise over the use of his own property when leased or loaned to others. The conditions upon which the privilege shall be enjoyed being stated or implied in the legislation authorizing its grant, no right is, of course, impaired by their enforcement. The recipient of the privilege, in effect, stipulates to comply with the conditions. It matters not how limited the privilege conferred, its acceptance implies an assent to the regulation of its use and the compensation for it.” [Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) ]

36

_______________________________________________________________________________________

37

Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]

29 30 31 32 33 34

38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51 52

“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. “Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever. “Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

67 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you. [Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]

The problem with all such loans is that the covetous de facto (Form #05.043) government offering them can theoretically attach ANY condition they want to the loan. If the property is something that is life threatening to do without, then they can destroy ALL of your constitutional rights and leave you with no judicial or legal remedy whatsoever for the loss of your fundamental or natural PRIVATE rights and otherwise PRIVATE property! This, in fact, is EXACTLY what Pharaoh did to the Israelites during the famine in Egypt, described in Genesis 47.

22

“But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” or “public right” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts.” [Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]

23

_______________________________________________________________________________________

24 26

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

27

[. . .]

28

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.FN7 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411, 412, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

25

29 30 31

35

FN7 Compare Electric Co. v. Dow, 166 U.S. 489, 17 S.Ct. 645, 41 L.Ed. 1088; Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U.S. 641, 648, 19 S.Ct. 64, 43 L.Ed. 316; Leonard v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 198 U.S. 416, 422, 25 S.Ct. 750, 49 L.Ed. 1108. [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

36

_______________________________________________________________________________________

37

"The words "privileges" and "immunities," like the greater part of the legal phraseology of this country, have been carried over from the law of Great Britain, and recur constantly either as such or in equivalent expressions from the time of Magna Charta. For all practical purposes they are synonymous in meaning, and originally signified a peculiar right or private law conceded to particular persons or places whereby a certain individual or class of individuals was exempted from the rigor of the common law. Privilege or immunity is conferred upon any person when he is invested with a legal claim to the exercise of special or peculiar rights, authorizing him to enjoy some particular advantage or exemption. " [The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship, Roger Howell, PhD, 1918, pp. 9-10; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/ThePrivAndImmOfStateCit/The_privileges_and_immunities_of_state_c.pd f]

32 33 34

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55

See Magill v. Browne, Fed.Cas. No. 8952, 16 Fed.Cas. 408; 6 Words and Phrases, 5583, 5584; A J. Lien, “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the United States,” in Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. 54, p. 31.

Whether you know it or not, by accepting such physical or intangible property you are, in effect, manifesting your implied consent (assent) under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) to enter into a contract with the government that offered it in the process. Lawyers commonly call this type of interaction a “quid pro quo”. That contract represents a constructive waiver of the sovereignty and sovereign immunity that comes from God Himself. Because the government is asking you to GIVE PRIVATE/CONSTITUTIONAL rights in relation to them as consideration that would otherwise be INALIENABLE (Form De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

68 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

#12.038), they are acting in a private, non-governmental capacity as a de facto government (Form #05.043) with no real official, judicial, or sovereign immunity. That franchise contract (Form #12.012) will, almost inevitably, end up being an adhesion contract that will be extremely one-sided and will not only NOT "benefit" you (the "Buyer") in the aggregate, but will work an extreme injury, inequality, and injustice (Form #05.050) that God actually forbids:

5

Lending to the Poor

6

10

If one of your brethren becomes poor [desperate], and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner [transient foreigner and/or non-resident non-person, Form #05.020], that he may live with you. Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

11

The Law Concerning Slavery

12

And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants [Form #13.007] , whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.” [Lev. 25:35-43, Bible, NKJV]

7 8 9

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20

Adhesion Contract

21

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Wikipedia.

22

Related to Adhesion Contract: unilateral contract, exculpatory clause, personal contract, Unconscionable contract

23

Adhesion Contract

24

A type of contract, a legally binding agreement between two parties to do a certain thing, in which one side has all the bargaining power and uses it to write the contract primarily to his or her advantage.

25

26 27 28 29

An example of an adhesion contract is a standardized contract form that offers goods or services to consumers on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to the form contract.

37

There is nothing unenforceable or even wrong about adhesion contracts. In fact, most businesses would never conclude their volume of transactions if it were necessary to negotiate all the terms of every Consumer Credit contract. Insurance contracts and residential leases are other kinds of adhesion contracts. This does not mean, however, that all adhesion contracts are valid. Many adhesion contracts are Unconscionable; they are so unfair to the weaker party that a court will refuse to enforce them. An example would be severe penalty provisions for failure to pay loan installments promptly that are physically hidden by small print located in the middle of an obscure paragraph of a lengthy loan agreement. In such a case a court can find that there is no meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract and that the weaker party has not accepted the terms of the contract.

38

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

39

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion)

40

n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer. (See: contract)

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved. [The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Adhesion Contract; Downloaded 10/9/2019; SOURCE: https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

69 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

2

The temptation of the offer of the government franchise as an adhesion contract is exhaustively described, personified, and even dramatized in the following:

3

1.

1

4 5

2.

6 7

3.

8 9

4.

10

11 12

James Madison, whose notes were used to draft the Bill of Rights, predicted this perversion of the de jure Constitutional design, when he very insightfully said the following: “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

13 14 15

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” [James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties]

25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32

The Temptation of Jesus by Satan on the Mountain in Matthew 4:1-11. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4&version=NKJV Devil's Advocate: What We are Up Against, SEDM (OFFSITE LINK) https://sedm.org/what-we-are-up-against/ Philosophical Implications of the Temptation of Jesus, Stefan Molyneux https://sedm.org/philosophical-implications-of-the-temptation-of-jesus/ Social Security: Mark of the Beast, Form #11.407 http://famguardian.org/Publications/SocialSecurity/TOC.htm

The term “general welfare” is synonymous with "benefit" in franchise language. "general welfare" as used above is, in fact, the basis for the entire modern welfare state that will eventually lead to a massive financial collapse and crisis worldwide.7. Anyone who therefore supports such a system is ultimately an anarchist intent on destroying our present dysfunctional government and thereby committing the crime of Treason:8 Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf

33 34 35 36

The Bible also describes how to REVERSE this inversion, how to restore our constitutional rights, and how to put public servants back in their role as servants rather than masters. Note that accepting custody or “benefit” or loans of government property in effect behaves as an act of contracting, because it accomplishes the same effect, which is to create implied “obligations” in a legal sense:

7

For details on the devastating political effects of the modern welfare state, see:

Communism, Socialism, Collectivism Page, Section 10: Welfare State, Family Guardian Fellowship, https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Communism/Communism.htm#Welfare_State 8

In the landmark case of Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 310 U.S. 548 (1937) legalizing social security, the U.S. Supreme Court had the following to say about the treason of inverting the relationship of the states to the federal government: “If the time shall ever arrive when, for an object appealing, however strongly, to our sympathies, the dignity of the States shall bow to the dictation of Congress by conforming their legislation thereto, when the power and majesty and honor of those who created shall become subordinate to the thing of their creation, I but feebly utter my apprehensions when I express my firm conviction that we shall see `the beginning of the end.'” [Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 310 U.S. 548, 606 (1937)]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

70 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

"For the Lord your God will bless you just as He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow; you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you." [Deut. 15:6, Bible, NKJV]

4

______________________________________________________________________________________

5

"The Lord will open to you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season, and to bless all the work of your hand. You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow." [Deut. 28:12, Bible, NKJV]

1 2

6 7

13

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.” [Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

14

_______________________________________________________________________________________

15

"I [God] brought you up from Egypt [slavery] and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant [contract or franchise or agreement of ANY kind] with the inhabitants of this [corrupt pagan] land; you shall tear down their [man/government worshipping socialist] altars.' But you have not obeyed Me. Why have you done this?

8 9 10 11 12

16 17 18

19 20

21 22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

"Therefore I also said, 'I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns [terrorists and persecutors] in your side and their gods will be a snare [slavery!] to you.'" So it was, when the Angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voices and wept. [Judges 2:1-4, Bible, NKJV]

Following the above commandments requires not signing up for and quitting any and all government benefits and services you may have consensually signed up for or retained eligibility for. All such applications and/or eligibility is called “special law” in the legal field. “special law. One relating to particular persons or things; one made for individual cases or for particular places or districts; one operating upon a selected class, rather than upon the public generally. A private law. A law is "special" when it is different from others of the same general kind or designed for a particular purpose, or limited in range or confined to a prescribed field of action or operation. A "special law" relates to either particular persons, places, or things or to persons, places, or things which, though not particularized, are separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but not such legislation, be applied. Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Utah Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, Utah, 564 P.2d. 751, 754. A special law applies only to an individual or a number of individuals out of a single class similarly situated and affected, or to a special locality. Board of County Com'rs of Lemhi County v. Swensen, Idaho, 80 Idaho 198, 327 P.2d. 361, 362. See also Private bill; Private law. Compare General law; Public law.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pp. 1397-1398]

We also prove that all such “special law” is not “law” in a classical sense, but rather an act of contracting, because it does not apply equally to all. It is what the U.S. Supreme Court referred to as “class legislation” in Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust in which they declared the first income tax unconstitutional: “The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of four thousand dollars and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers, (the Continentalist,) "the genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the State demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue." 1 Hamilton's Works, ed. 1885, 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society [e.g. wars, political conflict, violence, anarchy]. It was hoped and believed that the great amendments to the Constitution which followed the late civil war had rendered such legislation impossible for all future time. But the objectionable legislation reappears in the act under consideration. It is the same in essential character as that of the English income statute of 1691, which taxed Protestants at a certain rate, Catholics, as a class, at double the rate of Protestants, and Jews at another and separate rate. Under wise and constitutional legislation every citizen should contribute his proportion, however small the sum, to the support of the government, and it is no kindness to urge any of our citizens to

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

71 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

escape from that obligation. If he contributes the smallest mite of his earnings to that purpose he will have a greater regard for the government and more self-respect 597*597 for himself feeling that though he is poor in fact, he is not a pauper of his government. And it is to be hoped that, whatever woes and embarrassments may betide our people, they may never lose their manliness and self-respect. Those qualities preserved, they will ultimately triumph over all reverses of fortune.” [Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court 1895)]

To realistically apply the above biblical prohibitions against contracting with any government so as to eliminate the reversal of roles and destroy the dulocracy, see: Path to Freedom, Form #09.015 https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/PathToFreedom.pdf

9 10

11 12 13

Section 5 of the above document in particular deals with how to eliminate the dulocracy. Section 5.6 also discusses the above mechanisms. The idea of a present day dulocracy is entirely consistent with the theme of our website, which is the abuse of government franchises and privileges to destroy PRIVATE rights, STEAL private property, promote unhappiness, and inject malice and vitriol into the political process, as documented in: Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 FORMS PAGE: https://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm DIRECT LINK: https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Franchises.pdf

14 15

16 17 18

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Bible both predicted these negative and unintended consequences of the abuse of government franchises, when they said: “Here I close my opinion. I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that they go down to the very foundations of the government. If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end?

25

The present assault upon capital [THEFT! and WEALTH TRANSFER by unconstitutional CONVERSION of PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property] is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness.” [Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), hearing the case against the first income tax passed by Congress that included people in states of the Union. They declared that first income tax UNCONSTITUTIONAL, by the way]

26

_______________________________________________________________________________________

19 20 21 22 23 24

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40

41

42 43 44

“Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure [unearned money or “benefits”, privileges, or franchises, from the government] that war in your members [and your democratic governments]? You lust [after other people's money] and do not have. You murder [the unborn to increase your standard of living] and covet [the unearned] and cannot obtain [except by empowering your government to STEAL for you!]. You fight and war [against the rich and the nontaxpayers to subsidize your idleness]. Yet you do not have because you do not ask [the Lord, but instead ask the deceitful government]. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship [statutory “citizenship”] with the world [or the governments of the world] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [STATUTORY “citizen”, “resident”, “inhabitant”, “person” franchisee] of the world [or the governments of the world] makes himself an enemy of God.” [James 4:4, Bible, NKJV]

The “foundations of the government” spoken of above are PRIVATE property, separation between public and private, and equality of treatment and opportunity, which collectively are called “legal justice”, as we point out on our opening page: Our ministry accomplishes the above goals by emphasizing: 12. The pursuit of legal “justice” (Form #05.050), which means absolutely owned private property (Form #10.002), and equality of TREATMENT and OPPORTUNITY (Form #05.033) under REAL LAW (Form #05.048). The following would be INJUSTICE, not JUSTICE:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

72 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

12.1 Outlawing or refusing to recognize or enforce absolutely owned private property (Form #12.025).

2

12.2 Imposing equality of OUTCOME by law, such as by abusing taxing powers to redistribute wealth. See Form #11.302.

3

12.3 Any attempt by government to use judicial process or administrative enforcement to enforce any civil obligation derived from any source OTHER than express written consent or to an injury against the equal rights of others demonstrated with court admissible evidence. See Form #09.073 and Form #12.040.

4 5 6

12.4 Offering, implementing, or enforcing any civil franchise (Form #05.030). This enforces superior powers on the part of the government as a form of inequality and results in religious idolatry. This includes making justice into a civil public privilege (Form #05.050, Section 13) or turning CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVATE citizens into STATUTORY PUBLIC citizens engaged in a public office and a franchise (Form #05.006).

7 8 9 10

Not only would the above be INJUSTICE, it would outlaw HAPPINESS, because the right to absolutely own private property is equated with “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Form #05.050 for the definition of “justice”. Click here to view a video on why all franchises produce selfishness, unhappiness, inequality, and ingratitude. [SEDM Website Opening Page; SOURCE: http://sedm.org]

11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

Too many public servants have assumed absolute authority over the people they are supposed to serve. This REVERSAL of roles and making the SERVANTS into the MASTERS was never the intent of the Founding Fathers who established the American governments as republics where the rights of the people are to be paramount and the sovereignty of the governments are limited by the rights of the people. Sovereignty in America is not based on the same premise as sovereignty in Europe. Sovereignty in Europe was based on the notion of the Divine Right of Kings where the king's sovereignty was absolute and the people were his subjects. Sovereignty in America is based on the notion that citizens are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights and then lend their permission to the governments to carry out certain, limited responsibilities on their behalf. In a republican form of government, the government is never allowed to overstep its authority or trample on the rights of the citizen no matter how egalitarian the political arguments may be. Jesus Himself also emphasized that public SERVANTS should never become RULERS or have superior authority to the people they are supposed to SERVE when He said the following. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles [unbelievers] lord it over them [govern from ABOVE as pagan idols] , and those who are great exercise authority over them [supernatural powers that are the object of idol worship]. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant [serve the sovereign people from BELOW rather than rule from above]. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [Matt. 20:25-28, Bible, NKJV]

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37

Notice the word “ransom for many” in the above. This is an admission that Jesus acknowledges that cunning public servant lawyers have KIDNAPPED our legal identity from the protection of God’s law and that legal identity has been transported to a legislatively foreign jurisdiction, the District of Criminals. We exhaustively prove this with evidence in the following memorandum of law: Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046 https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/GovernmentIdentityTheft.pdf

38 39 40 41

Jesus also states in Matt. 20:25-28 that it is the DUTY and obligation of every Christian to fight this corruption of our political system. The Holy Bible is our Delegation of Authority to do precisely this, in fact, and to restore God to His proper role as the ruler of ALL nations and ALL politicians and the only rightful Lawgiver of all human law. That delegation of authority is described in: Delegation of Authority Order from God to Christians, Form #13.007 https://sedm.org/Forms/13-SelfFamilyChurchGovnce/DelOfAuthority.pdf

42

6.4.3

43

With the above in mind, we will now add all of the corrupting influences accomplished to our system of government over the years. These are shown with dashed lines representing the application of unlawful or immoral force or fraud. The hollow

44

Graphical Depiction of the Corruption

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

73 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

2

end of each line indicates the sovereign against which the force or fraud is applied. The number above or next to the dotted line indicates the item in the table that follows the diagram which explains each incidence of force or fraud.

3

Figure 2: Graphical depiction of the process of corruption

1

GOD

Symbology:

10

Act of creation Loss of sovereignty

GOD'S LAW/BIBLE

Force or fraud

1

"WE THE PEOPLE" The People (as individuals)

1

2

1

7 Families

Grand Jury

Trial Jury

Private schools

Elections

Banks

8 2

9

9

UNION STATES ("states") 8

THE CHURCH Pastor

Constitution

11

9

Executive Branch

Judicial Branch

Legislative Branch

1 Deacons/ Leaders

8 6

Sheep/ flock

1

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Constitution

4 Executive Branch

Judicial Branch

2

Legislative Branch

1 2

3

5 1

9 Fall from grace to put churches under government jurisdiction

Separation of: Church v. State

Federal Corporations

Federal "States"/ territories

"U.S. citizens"/ idolaters

4

5

Below is a table explaining each incidence of force or fraud that corrupted the originally perfect system: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

74 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Table 1: Specific instances of force, fraud, and conflict of interest that corrupted our political system # (on diagram above) 1

Year(s)

Acting Sovereignty/ agent

Law(s) violated

Explanation

1868

State legislatures State judges Federal legislature Federal judges

18 U.S.C. §241 (conspiracy against rights) Thirteenth Amendment (slavery and peonage) 42 U.S.C. §1994 (peonage) 18 U.S.C. §1581 (peonage/slavery) 18 U.S.C. §2381 (treason)

2

1913

Corporations/ businesses/and special interests

18 U.S.C. §201(bribery of public officials) Const. Art. 1, Sect. 2, Clause 3 (direct taxes) Const. Art. 1, Sect. 9, Clause 4 (direct taxes) 18 U.S.C. §219 (government employees acting as agents of foreign principals-Federal Reserve)

After the civil war, the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. That amendment along with "words of art" were used as a means to deceive constitutional citizens to falsely believe that they were also privileged statutory "U.S. citizens" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401, and thus to unconstitutionally extent federal jurisdiction and enforce federal franchises within states of the Union. The citizenship status described in that amendment was only supposed to apply to emancipated slaves but the federal government in concert with the states confused the law and the interpretation of the law enough that everyone thought they were statutory federal citizens rather than the “non-citizen nationals” immune from federal jurisdiction, which is foreign with respect to states of the Union. This put Americans in the states in a privileged federal status and put them under the jurisdiction of the federal government. At the point that Americans voluntarily and unknowingly accept privileged federal citizenship, they lose their sovereignty and go to the bottom of the sovereignty hierarchy. State courts and state legislatures cooperated in this conspiracy against rights by requiring electors and jurists to be presumed statutory “U.S. citizens” in order to serve. At the same time, they didn’t define the term “U.S. citizen” in their election laws or voter registration, creating a “presumption” in favor of people believing that they are statutory “citizens of the United States”, even though technically they are not. Around the turn of the century, the gilded age created a lot of very wealthy people and big corporations. The corrupting influence of the money they had lead them to dominate the U.S. senate and the Republican party., which was the majority party at the time The people became restless because they were paying most of the taxes indirectly via tariffs on imported goods while the big corporations were paying very little. This lead to a vote by Congress to send the new Sixteenth Amendment to the states for ratification. Corporations heavily influenced this legislation so that it would favor taxing individuals instead of corporations, which lead the Republicans in the Senate to word the Amendment ambiguously so that it could or would be misconstrued to apply to natural persons instead of the corporations it was really intended to apply to by the American people. This created much subsequent litigation and confusion on the part of the Average American about exactly what the taxing powers of Congress are, and gave Congressman a lot of wiggle room to misrepresent the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment to their constituents. Today, Congressmen use the ambiguity of the Amendment to regularly lie to their Constituents by saying that the “Sixteenth Amendment” authorizes Congress to tax the income of every American. This is an absolute lie and is completely inconsistent with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Courts below the Supreme Court have also used the same ambiguity mechanism to expand the operation of the income tax beyond its clearly limited application to the federal zone. During the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, in 1913, the Congress also passed the Federal Reserve Act immediately after the Sixteenth Amendment. By doing this, they surrendered their control over the money system to a consortium of private banks. The Sixteenth Amendment was passed first in February of 1913 because it was the lender-security for the Non-Federal Reserve that would be needed to create a “credit line” and collateral. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December of that same year. At that point, the Congress had an unlimited private credit line from commercial banks and a means to print as much money as they wanted in order to fund socialist expansion of the government. But remember that the bible says:

3

19111939

Federal legislature

28 U.S.C. §144 (conflict of interest of federal judges) 28 U.S.C. §455 (conflict of interest of federal judges)

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

“The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower [is] servant to the lender.” [Prov. 22:7] In 1911, the U.S. Congress passed the Judicial Code of 1911 and thereby made all District and Circuit courts into entirely administrative courts which had jurisdiction over only the federal zone. All the federal courts except the U.S. Supreme Court changed character from being Article III courts to Article IV territorial courts only. All the district courts were renamed from “District Court of the United States” to “United States District Court”. The Supreme Court said in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) that the “United States District Court” is an Article IV territorial court, not an Article III constitutional court. Consequently, all the federal courts excepting the Supreme Court became administrative courts that were part of the Executive rather than the Judicial Branch of the government and all the judges became Executive Branch employees. See our article “Authorities on Jurisdiction of Federal Courts”

75 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

# (on diagram above)

Year(s)

Acting Sovereignty/ agent

Law(s) violated

Explanation

(http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm) for further details.

4

1939Present

Federal executive branch

5

1939Present

Federal legislative branch

6

1950Present

Federal executive branch

7

1939Present

Trial jury

28 U.S.C. §144 (conflict of interest of federal judges) 28 U.S.C. §455 (conflict of interest of federal judges) Separation of powers Doctrine Const. Art. 1, Sect. 2, Clause 3 Const. Art. 1, Sect. 9, Clause 4 18 U.S.C. §1589(3) (forced labor) 18 U.S.C. §597 (expenditures to influence voting) 18 U.S.C. §872 (extortion) 18 U.S.C. §880 (receiving the proceeds of extortion) 18 U.S.C. §1957 (Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity) 18 U.S.C. §2111 (robbery)

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

The Revenue Act of 1932 than tried to apply income taxes against federal judges. The purpose was to put them under complete control of the Executive Branch through terrorism and extortion by the IRS. This was litigated by the Supreme Court in 1932 in the case of O’Malley v. Woodrough, 309 U.S. 277 (1939) just before the war started. The court ruled that the Executive Branch couldn’t unilaterally modify the terms of their employment contracts, so they rewrote the tax law to go around it subsequent to that by only taxing NEW federal judges and leaving the existing ones alone so as not to violate the Constitutional prohibition against reducing judges salaries. Since that time, federal judges have been beholden to the greed and malice of the Legislative branch because they are under IRS control. This occurred at a time when we had a very popular socialist President who threatened the Supreme Court if they didn’t go along with his plan to replace capitalism with socialism, starting with Social Security. President Roosevelt tried to retire all the U.S. Supreme Court justices and then double the size of the court and pack the court with all of his own socialist cronies in a famous coup called “The Roosevelt Supreme Court Packing Plan”. Right after the Supreme Court case of O’Malley v. Woodrough in 1939, the U.S. Congress wasted no time in passing a new Revenue Act that skirted the findings of the Supreme Court’s that declared income taxes levied against them to be unconstitutional. In effect, they made the payment of income taxes by federal judges an implied part of their employment agreement as “appointed officers” of the United States government in receipt of federal privileges. Once the judges were under control of the IRS, they could be terrorized and plundered if they did not cooperate with the enforcement of federal income taxes. This also endowed all federal judges with an implied conflict of interest in violation of 28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144 The Revenue Act of 1939 passed by the U.S. Congress instituted a very oppressive income tax to fund the upcoming World War II effort. It was called the “Victory Tax” and it was a voluntary withholding effort, but after the war and after people on a large scale got used to sending their money to Washington, D.C. every month through payroll withholding, the politicians cleverly decided not to tell them the truth that it was voluntary. The politicians then began rewriting the tax laws to further confuse and deceive people and hide the truth about the voluntary nature of the income tax. This included the Internal Revenue Codes of 1954 and 1986, which were major updates of the IRC that further hid the truth from the legal profession and added so much complexity to the tax laws that no one even understands them anymore. Federal government uses income tax revenues after World War II to begin socialist subsidies, starting with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” plan. Instead of paying off the war debt and ending the income tax like we did after the Civil war in 1872, the government adopted socialism and borrowed itself into a deep hole, following the illustrious example of Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” program. This socialist expansion was facilitated by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which gave the government unlimited borrowing power. The income tax, however, had to continue because it was the “lender security” for the PRIVATE Federal Reserve banking trust that was creating all this debt and fake money. The income tax had the effect of making all Americans into surety for government debts they never authorized. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s accelerated the growth of the socialist cancer to cause voters to abuse their power to elect politicians who would subsidize and expand the welfare-state concept. “Democracy has never been and never can be so desirable as aristocracy or monarchy, but while it lasts, is more bloody than either. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that never did commit suicide." [John Adams, 1815]

Trial juries filled with people receiving government socialist handouts (money STOLEN from hard-working Americans) vote against tax protesters to illegally enforce the income tax laws, and especially in the case of the wealthy. Trial by jury

76 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

# (on diagram above)

Year(s)

Acting Sovereignty/ agent

Law(s) violated

8

1960Present

Federal government

18 U.S.C. §873 (blackmail)

9

1980’sPresent

Federal executive branch

10

1960Present

Federal judicial branch

18 U.S.C. §208 (conflict of interest) 18 U.S.C. §872 (extortion) 18 U.S.C. §876 (mailing threatening communications) God’s laws (bible)

11

2000Present

State executive branch

18 U.S.C. §208 (acts affecting a personal financial interest)

Explanation

becomes MOB RULE and a means to mug and rob the producers of society. The jurists are also under duress by the judge, who does not allow evidence to be admitted that would be prejudicial to government (or his retirement check) and who makes cases unpublished where the government lost on income tax issues. Because these same jurists were also educated in public schools, they are easily lead like sheep to do the government’s dirty work of plundering their fellow citizens by upholding a tax that is actually voluntary. The result is slavery of wage earners and the rich to the IRS. The war of the “have-nots” and the “haves” using the taxing authority of the government continues on and expands. The federal government begins using income tax revenues and socialist welfare programs to manipulate the states. For instance: 1. They made it mandatory for states to require people getting drivers licenses to provide a Socialist Security Number or their welfare subsidies would be cut off. 2. They encourage states to require voters and jurists to be “U.S. citizens” in order to serve these functions so that they would also be put under federal jurisdiction. 3. They mandate that all persons receiving welfare benefits or unemployment benefits that include federal subsidies to have Socialist Security Numbers. IRS abuses its power to manipulate and silence churches that speak out about government abuses or are politically active. This has the effect of making the churches politically irrelevant forces in our society so that the government would have no competition for the affections and the allegiance of the people.

Federal judiciary eliminates God and prayer in the schools. This leaves kids in a spiritual vacuum. Drugs, sex, teenage pregnancy run rampant. Families begin breaking apart. God is blasphemed. Single parents raise an increasing number of kids and these children don’t have the balance they need in the family to have proper sex roles. Gender identity crisis and psychology problems result, causing homosexuality to run rampant. This further accelerates the breakdown of the family because these dysfunctional kids have dysfunctional families of their own. Because God is not in the schools, eventually the people begin to reject God as well. This expands the power of government because when the people aren’t governed by God, they are ruled by tyrants and become peasants and serfs eventually. That is how the Israelites ended up in bondage to the Egyptians: because they would not serve God or trust him for their security. They wanted a big powerful Egyptian government to take care of them and be comfortable and safe, which was idolatry toward government. The state executive branches abuse their power to set very high licensing requirements for home schools and private schools, backed by teacher’s unions and contributions of these unions to their political campaigns. Licensing requirements become so high that only public schools have the capital to comply, virtually eliminating private and home schooling. Teachers and inferior environment in public schools further contributes to bad education and liberal socialist values, further eroding sovereignty of the people and making them easy prey for sly politicians who want to enslave them with more unjust laws and expand their fiefdom. Government continues to grow in power and rights and liberties simultaneously erode further.

1

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

77 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

17

After our corrupt politicians are finished socially re-engineering our system of government using the tax code and a corrupted federal judiciary, below is what happens to our original republican government system. This is what we refer to as the “De facto U.S. Government”. It has replaced our “De jure U.S. Government” not through operation of law, but through fraud, force, and corruption. One of or our readers calls this new architecture for social organization “The New Civil Religion of Socialism”, where the collective will of the majority or whatever the judge says is sovereign, not God, and is the object of worship and servitude in courtrooms all over the country, who are run be devil-worshipping modern-day monarchs called “judges”. These tyrants wear black-robes and chant in Latin and perform exorcism on hand-cuffed subjects to remove imaginary “demons” from the people that are defined by majority vote among a population of criminals (by God’s law), homosexuals, drug abusers, adulterers, and atheists. The vilification of these demons are also legislated into existence with ”judge-made law”, which is engineered to maximize litigation and profits to the legal industry. The legal industry, in turn, has been made into a part of the government because it is licensed and regulated by government. This profession “worships” the judge as an idol and is comprised of golf and law school buddies and fellow members of the American Bar Association, who hobnob with the judge and do whatever he says or risk having their attorney license pulled. In this totalitarian socialist democracy/oligarchy shown below, the people have no inalienable or God-given individual rights,, but only statutory “privileges” and franchises granted by the will of the majority that are excise taxable. After all, when God and Truth are demoted to being a selfish creation of man and a politically correct vain fantasy, then the concept of “divine right” vanishes entirely from our political system.

18

Figure 3: Our present SOCIALIST Oligarchy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

78 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Luke 16:13: "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other .."

Symbology: Act of creation Illegal act

BANKS (Federal Reserve)

THE COLLECTIVE MAJORITY (democracy)

Extortion/force/sin (Exodus 23:2)

(Prov. 22:7)

Stolen loot

"NATIONAL" SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT (Neo-God) Bribery to maintain and expand socialism using illegally obtained income tax revenues

(Modern day king/ monarch)

Judicial Branch

$ Executive Branch

Legal Profession

Bribery to expand power/ socialism with unjust law

Sheep/ flock

god (servant of the whims of the people)

god's law/bible (as amended to be politically correct)

Illegal income tax enforcement Plundered property/money

Deacons/ Leaders

Bribe to poor to voter in favor of stealing from rich as jurist or elector.

$

Pastor

$

Federal "States"/ territories

$

THE CHURCH

Constitution (dead letter)

Legislative Branch

$ Federal Corporations

$

Stolen "loot" as subsidies for socialist programs

SOCIALIST FIEFDOMS (formerly "states") Judicial Branch

Executive Branch

Legal Profession

$

Constitution (dead letter)

Debt Slavery

"The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Tim. 6:10)

$

See: Prov. 22:7; Deut. 15:16, Deut. 23:19

"THE BEAST" (Rev. 13:11-18)

$

Legislative Branch

Bribery using money stolen from the rich and given to the poor "majority" to buy votes that support socialism.

"WE THE PEOPLE" (GOVERNMENT SERFS) The People (U.S. citizens/idolaters)

Dysfunctional Families

Grand Jury

Trial Jury

"BABYLON THE GREAT HARLOT" (Rev. 17:1-6)

Elections

Private schools

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

In the above diagram, all people in receipt of federal funds stolen through illegally collected or involuntarily paid federal income taxes effectively become federal “employees”. They identified themselves as such when they filed their W-4 payroll withholding form, which is a contract that says on the top “Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate”. The Internal Revenue Code identifies “employee” to mean someone who works for the federal government in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c). These federal “employees” are moral and spiritual “whores” and “harlots”. They are just like Judas or Essau…they exchanged the Truth for a lie and liberty for slavery and they did it mainly for money and personal security. They are: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

79 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

1. 2. 3. 4.

5 6

5.

7 8

6.

9 10 11

7.

12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23

8.

So concerned about avoiding being terrorized by their government or the IRS for “making waves”. So immobilized by their own fear and ignorance that they don’t dare do anything. So addicted to sin and other unhealthy distractions that they don’t have the time to do justice. So poor that they can’t afford a expensive lawyer to be able to right the many wrongs imposed on them by a corrupted government. Justice is a luxury that only the rich can afford in our society. So legally ignorant, thanks to our public “fool”, I mean “school” system that they aren’t able to right their wrongs on their own in court without a lawyer. So afraid of corrupt judges and lawyers who are bought and paid for with money that they stole from hardworking Americans in illegally enforcing what is actually a voluntary Subtitle A income against those who in fact and indeed can only be described per the law as “nontaxpayers” So unable to take care of their own needs because: 7.1. Most of their money has been plundered by a government unable and unwilling to control its spending. 7.2. They have allowed themselves to depend too much on government and allowed too much of their own hardearned money to be stolen from them. 7.3. They spent everything they had and went deep in debt to buy things they didn't need. So covetous of that government welfare or socialist security or unemployment check or paycheck that comes in the mail every month.

…that they wouldn’t dare upset the apple cart or try to right the many wrongs that maintain the status quo by doing justice as a voter or jurist. As long as they get their socialist handout and they live comfortably on the “loot” their “Parens Patriae”, or “Big Brother” sends them, they don’t care that massive injustice is occurring in courtrooms and at the IRS every day and that they are sanctioning, aiding, and abetting that injustice as voters and jurists with a financial conflict of interest in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §§201 and 208. In effect, they are bribed to look the other way while their own government loots and oppresses their neighbor and then uses that loot to buy votes and influence. “Thou shalt not steal.” [Exodus 20:15, Bible, NKJV]

24 25

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” [Gal 5:14, Bible, NKJV]

26 27

28 29 30 31

Would you rob your neighbor? No you say? Well then, would you look the other way while someone else robs him in your name? Government is YOUR AGENT. If government robs your neighbor, God will hold you, not the agent who did it for you, personally responsible, because government is your agent. God put you in charge of your government and you are the steward. Frederic Bastiat described the nature of this horrible corruption of the system in the following book on our website: The Law, by Frederic Bastiat http://famguardian.org/Publications/TheLaw/TheLaw.htm

37

If you want to know what the above type of government is like spiritually, economically, and politically, read the first-hand accounts in the Book of Judges found in the Bible. Corruption, sin, servitude, violence, and wars characterize this notable and most ignominious period and “social experiment” as documented in the Bible. Now do you understand why God’s law mandates that we serve ONLY Him and not be slaves of man or government? When we don’t, the above totalitarian socialist democracy/tyranny is the result, where politicians and judges in government become the only sovereign and the people are there to bow down to and “worship” and serve an evil and corrupt government as slaves.

38

6.4.4

39

Below is the way God himself describes the corrupted dilemma we find ourselves in because we have abandoned the path laid by our founding fathers, as described in Isaiah 1:1-26:

32 33 34 35 36

40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

God's Remedy for the Corruption

Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity A brood of evildoers Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the Lord They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

80 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37

38 39 40

41 42 43

44 45

46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53 54

55 56 57

Why should you be stricken again? You will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick [they are out of their minds!: insane or STUPID or both], And the whole heart faints.... Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor [the IRS and the Federal Reserve and a corrupted judicial system]; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow [and the " nontaxpayer"].... How the faithful city has become a harlot! It [the Constitutional Republic] was full of justice; Righteousness lodged in it, But now murderers [and abortionists, and socialists, and democrats, and liars and corrupted judges]. Your silver has become dross, Your wine mixed with water. Your princes [President, Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious, Everyone loves bribes, And follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow [or the “nontaxpayer”] come before them. Therefore the Lord says, The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, "Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries, And take vengeance on My enemies. I will turn My hand against you, And thoroughly purge away your dross, And take away your alloy. I will restore your judges [eliminate the BAD judges] as at the first, And your counselors [eliminate the BAD lawyers] as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." [Isaiah 1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]

So according to the Bible, the real problem is corrupted lawyers and judges and people who are after money and rewards, and God says the way to fix the corruption and graft is to eliminate the bad judges and lawyers. Whose job is that? It is the even more corrupted Congress! (see 28 U.S.C. §134(a) and 28 U.S.C. §44(b)) "O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths." [Isaiah 3:12, Bible, NKJV] "The king establishes the land by justice; but he who receives bribes [or government "benefits", if paid to voters, jurists, judges, or prosecutors] overthrows it." [Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]

Can thieves and corrupted judges and lawyers and jurors, who are all bribed with unlawfully collected monies they lust after in the pursuit of socialist benefits, reform themselves if left to their own devices? "When you [the jury] saw a thief [the corrupted judges and lawyers paid with extorted and stolen tax money], you consented with him, And have been a partaker with adulterers." [Psalm 50:18, Bible, NKJV] "The people will be oppressed, Every one by another and every one by his [socialist] neighbor [sitting on a jury who was indoctrinated and brainwashed in a government school to trust government]; The child will be insolent toward the elder, And the base toward the honorable." [Isaiah 3:5, Bible, NKJV] "It must be conceded that there are rights [and property] in every free government beyond the control of the State [or any judge or jury]. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, liberty and property of its citizens, subject at all times to the disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

81 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

of power, is after all a despotism. It is true that it is a despotism of the many--of the majority, if you choose to call it so--but it is not the less a despotism." [Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874)]

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

The answer is an emphatic no. It is up to We The People as the sovereigns in charge of our lawless government to right this massive injustice because a corrupted legislature and judiciary and the passive socialist voters in charge of the government today simply cannot remedy their own addiction to the money that was stolen from their neighbor by the criminals they elected into office. These elected representatives were supposed to be elected to serve and protect the people, but they have become the worst abusers of the people because they only got into politics and government for selfish reasons. Notice we didn't say they got into "public service", because we would be lying to call it that. It would be more accurate to call what they do "self service" instead of "public service". One of our readers has a name for these kinds of people. He calls them SLAT: Scum, Liars, and Thieves. If you add up all the drug money, all the stolen property, all the white collar crime together, it would all pale in comparison to the “extortion under the color of law” that our own de facto government is instituting against its own people. If we solve no crime problem other than that one problem, then the government will have done the most important thing it can do to solve our crime problem and probably significantly reduce the prison population at the same time. There are lots of people in jail who were put there wrongfully for income tax crimes that aren’t technically even crimes. These people were maliciously prosecuted by a corrupted Satan worshipping DOJ with the complicity of a corrupted judiciary and they MUST be freed because they have become slaves and political prisoners of a corrupted state for the sake of statutes that operate as the equivalent of a "civil religion" and which are not and cannot be law in their case. That's right: the corrupted state has erected a counterfeit church and religion that is a cheap imitation of God's design complete with churches, prayers, priests, deacons, tithes, and even its own "Bible" (franchise) and they have done so in violation of the First Amendment. The nature of that civil religion is exhaustively described below: Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf (OFFSITE LINK) FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE)

23

Why does God describe the source of the corruption as bad lawyers and judges instead of the people accepting the franchises as "Buyers", you might ask? The answer is that:

24

1.

25

2. 3.

22

26 27 28

4.

29 30 31 32

33

34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

43

5.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence recognize natural rights as INALIENABLE. See Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038 https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf An INALIENABLE right is one that YOU AREN'T ALLOWED BY LAW to consent (Form #05.003) to give away. If you can't even lawfully consent (Form #05.003) to give away the right, then you can never lose it or contract it away by participating in a government franchise (Form #05.030) or accepting a loan of government property. The fact that judges and lawyers ALLOW inalienable rights (Form #12.038) to be given away in a place where they aren't allowed to be given away is a sign that they love money and enhancing their own power more than they love freedom or the Constitution. Because they love money and power more than they love freedom and obeying the constitution, they are committing treason punishable by death in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2381 and serving Satan himself.

Below is how we explain this conundrum in our Disclaimer: Every attempt by anyone in government to alienate rights that the Declaration of Independence says are UNALIENABLE shall also be treated as "PRIVATE BUSINESS ACTIVITY" that cannot be protected by sovereign, official, or judicial immunity. So called "government" cannot make a profitable business or franchise out of alienating inalienable rights without ceasing to be a classical/de jure government and instead becoming in effect an economic terrorist and de facto government in violation of Article 4, Section 4. "No servant [or government or biological person] can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government]." [Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV] [Disclaimer, Section 4: Meaning of Words: "Private"; SOURCE: https://famguardian.org/disclaimer.htm]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

82 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

6.4.5

De Jure v. De Facto Government

5

We will now close this section with a tabular summary that compares our original “de jure” government to the “de facto” government that we presently suffer under. This corrupted “de facto” government only continues to exist because of our passive and tolerant approach towards the illegal activities of the government servants. We can fix this if we really want to, folks. Let’s do it!

6

Table 2: Comparison of our "De jure" v. "De facto" government

2 3 4

#

Type of Separation of Powers Separation of Church and State

De jure government

De facto government

Government has no power to control or regulate the political activities of churches

2

Separation of Money and State

Only lawful money is gold and the value of the dollar is tied to gold. Government can’t manufacture more gold so they can’t abuse their power to coin money to enrich themselves.

3

Separation of Marriage and State

People getting married did not have marriage licenses from the state. Instead, the ceremony was exclusively ecclesiastical and it was recorded only in the family Bible and church records.

4

Separation of School and State

Schools were rural and remote and most were private or religious. There were very few public schools and a large percentage of the population was homeschooled.

5

Separation of State and Federal government

States control the Senate and all legislation and taxation internal to a state. Federal government controls only foreign commerce in the form of imposts, excises, and duties under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

6

Separation between branches of government:

Three branches of government are entirely independent and not controlled by other branches.

IRS 501(c ) designation allows government to remove tax exemption from churches if they get politically involved Fiat currency is Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs). Government can print any amount of these it wants and thereby enrich itself and steal from the those who hold dollars by lowering the value of the dollars in circulation (inflation) Pastor acts as an agent of both God and the state. He performs the ceremony and is also licensed by the state to sign the state marriage license. Churches force members getting married to obtain state marriage license by saying they won’t marry them without a state-issued marriage license. Most student go to public schools. They are dumbed-down by the state to be good serfs/sheep by being told they are “taxpayers” and being shown in high school how to fill out a tax return without even being shown how to balance a check book. They are taught that government is the sovereign and not the people, and that people should obey the government. Federal government receives lions share of income taxes over both internal and external trade. It redistributes the proceeds from these taxes to the socialist states, who are coerced to modify their laws in compliance with federal dictates in order to get their fair share of this stolen “loot”. Judges are “employees” of the executive branch and have a conflict of interest because they

1

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

83 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Executive, Legislative, Judicial

7

Separation of Commerce and State

Federal government regulates only foreign commerce of corporations. States regulate all internal commerce. Private individuals have complete privacy and are not regulated because they don’t have Socialist Security Numbers and are not monitored by the IRS Gestapo. Banks are independent and do not have to participate in a national banking system so they don’t coerce their depositors to bet government-issued numbers nor do they snoop/spy on their depositors as an agent of the IRS Gestapo. Private employers are not regulated or monitored by federal Gestapo and their contracts with their employees are private and sacred.

8

Separation of Media and State

Press was free to report as they saw fit under the First Amendment. Most newspapers were smalltown newspapers and were private and independent.

9

Separation of Family and State

Families were completely separate from the state. Private individuals were not subject to direct taxation or regulation by either state or federal government. No Socialist Security Numbers and no government surveillance of private commerce by individuals. Women stayed home and out of the workforce. Men dominated the political and commercial landscape

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

are beholden to IRS extortion. Executive controls the illegal tax collection activities of the IRS and dictates to other branches it’s tax policy through illegal IRS extortion. Using the IRS, Executive becomes the “Gestapo” that controls everything and everyone. Congress and the courts refuse to reform this extortion because they benefit most financially by it. All credit issued by a central, private Federal Reserve consortium. Federal Reserve rules coerce private banks to illegally enforce federal laws in states of the Union that only apply in the federal zone. Namely, they force depositors to have Socialist Security Numbers and they report all currency transactions over $3,000 to the Dept of the Treasury (CTR’s). “Spying” on financial affairs citizens by government makes citizens afraid of IRS and government and coerces them to illegally pay income taxes by government. Employers are coerced to enslave their employees to IRS through wage reporting and withholding, often against the will of employees. Television, radio, the internet, and corporations have taken over the media and concentrated control of it to the hands of a very few huge and “privileged” corporations that are in bed with the federal and state governments. Media is no longer independent, and broadcasters don’t dare cross the government for fear of either losing their FCC license, being subjected to an IRS audit, or having their government sponsorship revoked. Using income taxes, mom was removed from the home to enter the workforce so she could replace the income stolen from dad by the IRS through illegal enforcement of the tax laws. Conflict over money breaks 84 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

and also defended their family from encroachments by government. Children were home-schooled and worked on the farm. They inherited the republican values of their parents. Morality was taught by the churches and there was an emphasis on personal responsibility, modesty, manners, respect, and humility.

10

Separation of Charity and State

Churches and families were responsible for charity. When a person was old or became unemployed, members of the church or family would take them. Personal responsibility and morality within churches and families would encourage them to improve their lives.

11

Separation of Public and Private Property

All property is presumed to be absolutely owned, private, and not subject to state or public or government control. This is the foundation of the

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

families down and divorce rate reaches epidemic proportions. Children are neglected by their parents because parents both have to work full-time and duke it out with each other in divorce court. Majority of children raised in single parent homes. Television and a liberal media dominates and distorts the thoughts and minds of the children. Public schools filled with homosexuals and liberals, many of whom have no children of their own, teach our children to be selfish, rebellious, sexually promiscuous, homosexual drugabusers. Pornography invades the home through the internet, cable-TV, and video rentals, creating a negative fixation on sex. Television interferes with family communication so that children are alienated from their parents so that they do not inherit good morals or respect for authority from their parents.. Crime rate and prison population reaches unprecedented levels. Citizens therefore lose their ability to govern themselves and the legal field and government come in and take over their lives. Monolithic, huge, and terribly inefficient government bureaucracies replace families and churches as major source of charity. These bureaucracies have no idea what personal responsibility is and are not allowed to talk about morality because they are not allowed to talk about God. Generations of people grow up under this welfare umbrella without every having to take responsibility for themselves, and these people abuse their voting power to perpetuate it. Supremacy of families and churches is eliminated and government becomes the new “god” for everyone to worship. See Jeremiah 2:26-28. Corrupt and covetous public servants implement socialism, where all property is presumed 85 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Fifth Amendment protection for private property. See: Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025.

to be absolutely owned by the government, and everyone is a BORROWER of said property with conditions. Those conditions are called "franchises", and government can regulate and control ANYONE and ANYTHING it wants. See Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, form #05.030.

2

If you would like to know all the characteristics of the de facto government we live under and see proof that it is de facto, see:

3

1.

1

4 5

2.

6 7

3.

8 9 10

11

6.5

Government Corruption, Form #11.401 (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM http://sedm.org/GovCorruption/GovCorruption.htm Government Corruption: Causes and Remedies Course, Form #12.026 (OFFSITE LINK) – SEDM http://sedm.org/GovCorruption/GovCorruption.pdf De Facto Government Scam, Form #05.043 (OFFSITE LINK)-Proves that we don't have a real, de jure government, and explains all the ways this de facto government illegally expands and protects its own criminal extortion enterprise and protection racket. http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf

How De Jure Governments are Transformed into Corrupt De Facto Governments9 “Governments never do anything by accident; if government does something you can bet it was carefully planned.” [Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States]

12 13 14

15

Franchises and/or their abuse are the main method by which:

16

1. 2. 3.

17 18 19 20 21 22

4. 5.

23 24 25

6.

26

“You shall make no covenant [contract or franchise] with them [foreigners, pagans], nor with their [pagan government] gods [laws or judges]. They shall not dwell in your land [and you shall not dwell in theirs by becoming a “resident” or domiciliary in the process of contracting with them], lest they make you sin against Me [God]. For if you serve their [government] gods [under contract or agreement or franchise], it will surely be a snare to you.” [Exodus 23:32-33, Bible, NKJV]

27 28 29 30 31 32

33

De jure governments are transformed into corrupted de facto governments. The requirement for consent of the governed is systematically eliminated. The equal protection that is the foundation of the Constitution is replaced with inequality, privilege, hypocrisy, and partiality in which the government is a parens patriae and possesses an unconstitutional “title of nobility” in relation to those it is supposed to be serving and protecting. The separation of powers between the states and federal government are eliminated. The separation between what is “public” and what is “private” is destroyed. Everything becomes PUBLIC and is owned by the “collective”. There is no private property and what you think is ABSOLUTE ownership of PRIVATE property is really just equitable title and QUALIFIED ownership of PUBLIC property. Constitutional rights attaching to the land you stand on are replaced with statutory privileges created through your right to contract and your “status” under a franchise agreement.

7.

34 35

9

Your legal identity is “laundered”, and kidnapped or transported to a foreign jurisdiction, the District of Criminals, and which is not protected by the Constitution. This is usually done by compulsion or duress, as in the case of compelled licensing.

Adapted from: Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 14; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

86 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“For the upright will dwell in the land, And the blameless will remain in it; But the wicked will be cut off from the earth, And the unfaithful will be uprooted from it.” [Prov. 2:21-22, Bible, NKJV]

1 2 3 4 5

15

8. The protections of the Constitution for your rights are eliminated. 9. Rights are transformed into privileges. 10. Republics based on individual rights are transformed into socialist democracies based on collective rights and individual privileges. 11. The status of “citizen, resident, or inhabitant” is devolved into nothing but an “employee” or “officer” of a corporation. 12. Constitutional courts are transformed into franchise courts. 13. Conflicts of interest are introduced into the legal and court systems that perpetuate a further expansion of the de facto system. 14. Socialism is introduced into a republican form of government. 15. The sovereignty of people in the states of the Union are destroyed.

16

The gravely injurious effects of participating in government franchises include the following.

17

1.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

18 19

2.

20

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. 10 Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. 11 That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. 12 and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. 13 It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. 14 Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.15” [63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32

Those who participate become domiciliaries of the federal zone, “U.S. persons”, and “resident aliens” in respect to the federal government. Those who participate become “trustees” of the “public trust” and “public officers” of the federal government and suffer great legal disability as a consequence:

3.

33 34 35

Those who participate are stripped of ALL of their constitutional rights and waive their Constitutional right not to be subjected to penalties and other “bills of attainder” administered by the Executive Branch without court trials. They then must function the degrading treatment of filling the role of a federal “public employee” subject to the supervision of their servants in the government. “The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause,

36 37 38 39 40

10

State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520. 11

12

Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783. 13

United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed.2d. 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed.2d. 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa), 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass), 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223). 14

Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325. Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996). 15

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

87 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

but in many circumstances government employees can. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).” [Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

4.

13 14

5.

"These general rules are well settled: (1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a "public right", which is a euphemism for a "franchise" to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 9 Sup.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L.Ed. 696; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L.Ed. 700; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L.Ed. 108. (2) That where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 3 Sup.Ct. 184, 27 L.Ed. 920; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558, 25 L.Ed. 212; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196. Still the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198, 19 Sup.Ct. 503, 43 L.Ed. 779; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124, 29 Sup.Ct. 556, 53 L.Ed. 936; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374, 33 Sup.Ct. 122, 57 L.Ed. 260; United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U.S. 440, 39 Sup.Ct. 340, 63 L.Ed. 696, decided April 14, 1919. [U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919) ]

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54

Those who participate may lawfully be deprived of equal protection of the law, which is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. This deprivation of equal protection can lawfully become a provision of the franchise agreement. Those who participate can lawfully be deprived of remedy for abuses in federal courts.

6.

Those who participate can be directed which federal courts they may litigate in and can lawfully be deprived of a Constitutional Article III judge or Article III court and forced to seek remedy ONLY in an Article I or Article IV legislative or administrative tribunal within the Legislative rather than Judicial branch of the government. Although Crowell and Raddatz do not explicitly distinguish between rights created by Congress and other rights, such a distinction underlies in part Crowell's and Raddatz' recognition of a critical difference between rights created by federal statute and rights recognized by the Constitution. Moreover, such a distinction seems to us to be necessary in light of the delicate accommodations required by the principle of separation of powers reflected in Art. III. The constitutional system of checks and balances is designed to guard against “encroachment or aggrandizement” by Congress at the expense of the other branches of government. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S., at 122, 96 S.Ct., at 683. But when Congress creates a statutory right [a “privilege” in this case, such as a “trade or business”], it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right.FN35 Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts. [Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. at 83-84, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983)]

Since the founding of our country, franchises have systematically been employed in every area of government to transform a government based on equal protection into a for-profit private corporation based on privilege, partiality, and favoritism. The effects of this form of corruption are exhaustively described in the following memorandum of law on our website: Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

55 56 57

What are the mechanisms by which this corruption has been implemented by the Executive Branch? This section will detail the main mechanisms to sensitize you to how to fix the problem and will relate how it was implemented by exploiting the separation of powers doctrine. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

88 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

The foundation of the separation of powers is the notion that the powers delegated to one branch of government by the Constitution cannot be re-delegated to another branch. “. . .a power definitely assigned by the Constitution to one department can neither be surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested by statute in another department or agency. Compare Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189, 201, 202, 48 S.Ct. 480, 72 L.Ed. 845.” [Williams v. U.S., 289 U.S. 553, 53 S.Ct. 751 (1933)]

3 4 5 6

7 8 9

10

Keenly aware of the above limitation, lawmakers over the years have used it to their advantage in creating a tax system that is exempt from any kind of judicial interference and which completely destroys all separation of powers. Below is a summary of the mechanism, in the exact sequence it was executed at the federal level: 1.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

2.

20 21 22 23 24 25

3.

26 27 28 29 30

4.

31 32

"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges...the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking...

33 34 35 36

...It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable...

37 38 39

Conceding the power of Congress to tax the business activities of private corporations.. the tax must be measured by some standard..." [Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)]

40 41 42

43

5.

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Create a franchise based upon a “public office” in the Executive Branch. This: 1.1. Allows statutes passed by Congress to be directly enforced against those who participate. 1.2. Eliminates the need for publication in the Federal Register of enforcement implementing regulations for the statutes. See 5 U.S.C. §553(a) and 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1). 1.3. Causes those engaged in the franchise to act in a representative capacity as “public officers” of the United States government pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), which is defined in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) as a federal corporation. 1.4. Causes all those engaged in the franchise to become “officers of a corporation”, which is the “United States”, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343. Give the franchise a deceptive “word of art” name that will deceive everyone into believing that they are engaged in it. 2.1. The franchise is called a “trade or business” and is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”. How many people know this and do they teach this in the public (government) schools or the IRS publications? NOT! 2.2. Earnings connected with the franchise are called “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”. The term “United States” deceptively means the GOVERNMENT, and not the geographical United States. In the franchise agreement, define the effective domicile or choice of law of all those who participate as being on federal territory within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. 26 U.S.C. §7408(d) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) place the effective domicile of all “franchisees” called “taxpayers” within the District of Columbia. If the feds really had jurisdiction within states of the Union, do you think they would need this devious device to “kidnap your legal identity” or “res” and move it to a foreign jurisdiction where you don’t physically live? Place a excise tax upon the franchise proportional to the income earned from the franchise. In the case of the Internal Revenue Code, all such income is described as income which is “effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States”.

6.

Mandate that those engaged in the franchise must have usually false evidence submitted by ignorant third parties that connects them to the franchise. IRS information returns, including IRS Forms W-2, 1042-S, 1098, and 1099, are the mechanism. 26 U.S.C. §6041 says that these information returns may ONLY be filed in connection with a “trade or business”, which is a code word for the name of the franchise. Write statutes prohibiting interference by the courts with the collection of “taxes” (kickbacks) associated with the franchise based on the idea that courts in the Judicial Branch may not interfere with the internal affairs of another branch such as the Executive Branch. Hence, the “INTERNAL Revenue Service”. This will protect the franchise from interference by other branches of the government and ensure that it relentlessly expands. 6.1. The Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421 is an example of an act that enjoins judicial interference with tax collection or assessment.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

89 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

7.

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16

8.

17 18 19

6.2. The Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) prohibits federal courts from pronouncing the rights or status of persons in regard to federal “taxes”. This has the effect of gagging the courts from telling the truth about the nature of the federal income tax. 6.3. The word “internal” means INTERNAL to the Executive Branch and the United States government, not INTERNAL to the geographical United States of America. Create administrative “franchise” courts in the Executive Branch which administer the program pursuant to Articles I and IV of the United States Constitution. 7.1. The U.S. Supreme Court calls such courts “The Fourth Branch of Government”, as indicated in: Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 27.7 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 7.2. U.S. Tax Court. 26 U.S.C. §7441 identifies the U.S. Tax Court as an Article I court. 7.3. U.S. District Courts. There is no statute establishing any United States District Court as an Article III court. Consequently, even if the judges are Article III judges, they are not filling an Article III office and instead are filling an Article IV office. Consequently, they are Article IV judges. All of these courts were turned into franchise courts in the Judicial Code of 1911 by being renamed from the “District Court of the United States” to the “United States District Court”. For details on the above scam, see: What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Create other attractive federal franchises that piggyback in their agreements a requirement to participate in the franchise. For instance: 8.1. The original Social Security Act of 1935 contains a provision that those who sign up for this program, also simultaneously become subject to the Internal Revenue Code. Section 8 of the Social Security Act INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

20 21 22

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:

23 24 25 26

(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum. (2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum. (3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum. (4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum. (5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.

27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

9.

8.2. Most state vehicle codes have “residence” in the state as a prerequisite to signing up for a driver’s license and they also mandate supplying a Social Security Number to get a license. Hence, by signing up for a driver’s license, you are signing up for the following THREE franchises: 8.2.1. The Vehicle code franchise. 8.2.2. The domicile “civil protection franchise” tied to those who are “residents”. This is what makes the applicant a “taxpayer” in the state’s income tax codes. See: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 8.2.3. The Social Security Franchise. See: Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Offer an opportunity for private citizens not domiciled within the jurisdiction of Congress to “volunteer” by license or private agreement to participate in the franchise and thereby become “public officers” within the Legislative Branch. The IRS Form W-4 and Social Security SS-5 form are an example of such a contract. 9.1. Call these volunteers “taxpayers”. 9.2. Call EVERYONE “taxpayers” so everyone believes that the franchise is MANDATORY. 9.3. Do not even acknowledge the existence of those who do not participate in the franchise. These people are called “nontaxpayers” and they are not mentioned in any IRS publication, even though the following recognize their existence: 9.3.1. The U.S. Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367 (1984). 9.3.2. 26 U.S.C. §7426, which refers to them as “persons other than taxpayers”.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

90 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

9.4. Make the process of signing the agreement invisible by calling it a “Withholding Allowance Certificate” instead of what it really is, which is a “license” to become a “taxpayer” and call all of your earnings “wages” and “gross income”.

4

26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3 Amounts deemed wages under voluntary withholding agreements

5

(a) In general.

6

Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term “wages” includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p). References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401(a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (§31.3401(a)– 3. _______________________________________________________________________________________

7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

Title 26: Internal Revenue

15

§31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.

16

(a) In general.

17

An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See §31.3405(c)– 1, Q&A–3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27

28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39

40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48

PART 31—EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE Subpart E—Collection of Income Tax at Source

10. Create a commissioner to service the franchise who: 10.1. Becomes the “fall guy”, who then establishes a “bureau” without the authority of any law and which is a private corporation that is not part of the U.S. government. 53 Stat. 489 Revenue Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 489 Chapter 43: Internal Revenue Agents Section 4000 Appointment The Commissioner may, whenever in his judgment the necessities of the service so require, employ competent agents, who shall be known and designated as internal revenue agents, and, except as provided for in this title, no general or special agent or inspector of the Treasury Department in connection with internal revenue, by whatever designation he may be known, shall be appointed, commissioned, or employed.

10.2. Creates and manages a PRIVATE company that is not part of the government. The IRS, in fact, is NOT part of the U.S. government and has no legal authority to exist, and therefore can service only those INTERNAL to the government. All agencies that interact DIRECTLY with the PRIVATE public must be authorized by Congress. Hence, “INTERNAL Revenue Service”. See: Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm The above means that everyone who works for the Internal Revenue Service is private contractor not appointed, commissioned, or employed by anyone in the government. They operation on commission and their pay derives from the amount of plunder they steal. See also: Department of Justice Admits under Penalty of Perjury that the IRS is Not an Agency of the Federal Government, Family Guardian Fellowship http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Evidence/USGovDeniesIRS/USGovDeniesIRS.htm 11. Create an environment that encourages omission in enforcing justice, irresponsibility, lies, and dishonesty within the bureau that administers the franchise. 11.1. Indemnify these private contractors from liability by giving them “pseudonames” so that they can disguise their identify and be indemnified from liability for their criminal acts. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, Pub.Law 105-206, Title III, Section 3706, 112 Stat. 778 and Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 1.2.4 both authorize these pseudonames. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

91 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47

11.2. Place a disclaimer on the website of this private THIEF contractor indemnifying them from liability for the truthfulness or accuracy of any of their statements or publications. See Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.8. "IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." [Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)]

11.3. Allow employees of the agency to operate without either identifying their full legal birthname but rather a pseudonym. IRS employees DO NOT use their real name so they can act essentially as anonymous, masked, international terrorists (the states are nations under the law of nations) sanctioned by law. See: Notice of Pseudonym Use and Unreliable Tax Records, Form #04.206 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 11.4. Omit the most important key facts and information from publications of the franchise administrator that would expose the proper application of the “tax” and the proper audience. See the following, which is over 2000 pages of information that are conveniently “omitted” from the IRS website about the proper application of the franchise and its nature as a “franchise”: Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 11.5. Establish precedent in federal courts that you can’t trust anything that anyone in the government tells you, and especially those who administer the franchise. See: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm 12. Use the lies and deceptions created in the previous step to promote several false perceptions in the public at large that will expand the market for the franchise. These include: 12.1. That the franchise is NOT a franchise, but a mandatory requirement that applies to ALL. In fact it can and does apply ONLY to statutory “taxpayers” and you have to VOLUNTEER to become a statutory “taxpayer” before it can have the “force of law” in your case. 12.2. That participation is mandatory for ALL, instead of only for franchisees called “taxpayers”. 12.3. That the IRS is an “agency” of the United States government that has authority to interact directly with the public at large. In fact, it is a “bureau” that can ONLY lawfully service the needs of other federal agencies within the Executive Branch and which may NOT interface directly with the public at large. 12.4. That the statutes implementing the franchise are “public law” that applies to everyone, instead of “private law” that only applies to those who individually consent to participate in the franchise. 13. Create a system to service those who prepare tax returns for others whereby those who accept being “licensed” and regulated get special favors. This system created by the IRS essentially punishes those who do not participate by deliberately giving them horrible service and making them suffer inconvenience and waiting long in line if they don’t accept the “privilege” of being certified. Once they are certified, if they begin telling people the truth about what the law says and encourage following the law by refusing to volunteer, their credentials are pulled. This sort of censorship is accomplished through: 13.1. IRS Enrolled Agent Program. 13.2. Certified Public Accountant (CPA) licensing. 13.3. Treasury Circular 230. 14. Engage in a pattern of “selective enforcement” and propaganda to broaden and expand the scam. For instance: 14.1. Refuse to answer simple questions about the proper application of the franchise and the taxes associated with it. See: If the IRS Were Selling Used Cars, Family Guardian Fellowship http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/IRSSellingCars.htm 14.2. Prosecute those who submit false TAX returns, but not those who submit false INFORMATION returns. This causes the audience of “taxpayers” to expand because false reports are connecting innocent third parties to franchises that they are not in fact engaged in. 14.3. Use confusion over the rules of statutory construction and the word “includes” to fool people into believing that those who are “included” in the franchise are not spelled out in the law in their entirety. This leaves undue discretion in the hands of IRS employees to compel ignorant “nontaxpayers” to become franchisees. See the following: Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 14.4. Refuse to define the words used on government forms, use terms that are not defined in the code such as “U.S. citizen”, and try to confuse “words of art” found in the law with common terms in order to use the presumptuous De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

92 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37 38

behavior of the average American to expand the misperception that everyone has a legal DUTY to become a “franchisee” and a “taxpayer”. 14.5. Refuse to accept corrected information returns that might protect innocent “nontaxpayers” so that they are inducted involuntarily into the franchise as well. The above process is WICKED in the most extreme way. It describes EXACTLY how our public servants have made themselves into our masters and systematically replaced every one of our rights with “privileges” and franchises. The Constitutional prohibition against this sort of corruption are described as follows by the courts: “It would be a palpable incongruity to strike down an act of state legislation which, by words of express divestment, seeks to strip the citizen of rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution, but to uphold an act by which the same result is accomplished under the guise of a surrender of a right in exchange for a valuable privilege which the state threatens otherwise to withhold. It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such conditions as it sees fit to impose. But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of Constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.” [Frost v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 46 S.Ct. 605 (1926)] “A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.” [Stevens v. State, 2 Ark. 291, 35 Am.Dec. 72; Spring Val. Water Works v. Barber, 99 Cal. 36, 33 Pac. 735, 21 L.R.A. 416. Note 57 L.R.A. 416] “The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter power to the State, but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” [Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817] “Legislature…cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.” [Taxation West Key 43]…”The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a ‘privilege’, that can be taxed.” [Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.E.2d. 453, Tenn.

Through the above process of corruption, the separation of powers is completely destroyed and nearly every American has essentially been “assimilated” into the Executive Branch of the government, leaving the Constitutional Republic bequeathed to us by our founding fathers vacant and abandoned. Nearly every service that we expect from government has been systematically converted over the years into a franchise using the techniques described above. The political and legal changes resulting from the above have been tabulated to show the “BEFORE” and the “AFTER” so their extremely harmful effects become crystal clear in your mind. This process of corruption, by the way, is not unique to the United States, but is found in every major industrialized country on Earth.

39

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

93 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Table 1: Effect of turning government service into a franchise #

Characteristic

DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT Protection

1

Purpose of government

2

Nature of government

3

Citizens

Public trust Charitable trust The Sovereigns “nationals” but not “citizens” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)

4

Effective domicile of citizens

Sovereign state of the Union

5

Ownership of real property is

Legal

6

Type of property ownership

Absolute and allodial

7

Meaning of word “rights”

Constitutional rights

8

Purpose of tax system

Fund “protection”

9 10

Equal protection Nature of courts

11

Branches within the government

Mandatory Constitutional Article III courts in the Judicial Branch Executive Legislative Judicial

12

Purpose of legal profession

Protect individual rights

13

Lawyers are

Unlicensed

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

DE FACTO GOVERNMENT BASED ENTIRELY ON FRANCHISES Provide “social services” and “social insurance” to government “employees” and officers For-profit private corporation (see 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)) 1. “Employees” or “officers” of the government 2. “Trustees” of the “public trust” 3. “customers” of the corporation 4. Statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 Federal territory and the District of Columbia Equitable. The government owns the land, and you rent it from them using property taxes. Qualified (shared with government). Owned by the public office and managed by the person volunteering into the office. Statutory privileges under a civil franchise. Constitutional rights don’t exist and are irrelevant. 1. Socialism. 2. Political favors. 3. Wealth redistribution 4. Consolidation of power and control (corporate fascism) 5. Bribe PRIVATE people to join the franchise and become public officers collecting “benefits” Optional Administrative or “franchise” courts within the Executive Branch Executive Legislative (Judiciary merged with Executive. See Judicial Code of 1911) 1. Protect collective (government) rights. 2. Protect and expand the government monopoly. 3. Discourage reforms by making litigation so expensive that it is beyond the reach of the average citizen. 4. Persecute dissent. Privileged and licensed and therefore subject to control and censorship by the government.

94 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

#

Characteristic

DE JURE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT “Electors”

14

Votes in elections cast by

15 16 17

Driving is Marriage is Purpose of the military

A common right A common right Protect the sovereign citizens No draft within states of the Union is lawful. See Federalist Paper #15

18

Money is

1. 2.

19 20

Purpose of sex Responsibility

21

Meaning of “State”, “this State”

Procreation The individual sovereign is responsible for all his actions and choices. “Body politic” and NOT “body corporate”

22

Meaning of “in this State” or “in the State” in statutes

PHYSICALLY PRESENT within the geographic limits of the territory composing the state.

23

Real party in interest in criminal actions filed by the state

Specific human being injured who is within the body politic

Based on gold and silver. Issued pursuant to Article 1, Section 8. Clause 5.

DE FACTO GOVERNMENT BASED ENTIRELY ON FRANCHISES “Franchisees” called “registered voters” who are surety for bond measures on the ballot. That means they are subject to a “poll tax”. A licensed “privilege” A licensed “privilege” 1. Expand the corporate monopoly internationally 2. Protect public servants from the angry populace who want to end the tyranny. 1. A corporate bond or obligation borrowed from the Federal Reserve at interest. 2. Issued pursuant to Article 1, Section 8. Clause 2. Recreation The collective “social insurance company” is responsible. Personal responsibility is outlawed. “Body corporate” and NOT “body politic”. There is no body politic and everyone is presumed to be part of the body corporate as a public officer. LEGALLY and NOT PHYSICALLY present within the corporation as a “person” and therefore “public officer” of the corporation. Private CORPORATION called “State of”. Most actions are “penal” or “quasi criminal” rather than “criminal” in a classical sense. Such penal actions can only be associated with franchisees under a civil franchise.

2

If you would like to know more about the subjects discussed in this section, please refer to the following free memorandums of law on our website focused exclusively on this subject:

3

1.

1

4 5

2.

6

7

8 9

7

Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

De Jure or De Facto Government?

We must now define the terms “de facto” and “de jure” and distinguish how de facto is turned into de jure. A good starting point for this are the following rules written by Phillip Freneau: Rule for Changing a Republic into a Democracy and then into a Monarchy, Philip Freneau http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/FreneauPhilip/freneau.htm

10

The main characteristic of all monarchies are:

11

1.

The king owns all land by divine right.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

95 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

2. 3. 4. 5.

5

6 7

Everyone who calls themselves a “citizen” is a subject of the king, whether they want to be or not. You need permission from the king to expatriate, or cease to be a subject. Nearly all services and protections offered by the king are implemented as civil franchises. The society is a caste society in which no one is equal. Subjects are at the bottom. Then you have dukes, earls, lords, etc. Then you have the King at the top.

Civil franchises are the main method of implementing the above in an otherwise egalitarian society. Social Security and the Federal Reserve are the lynchpin of the transformation, and they began in 1935 and 1913 respectively.

10

The following subsections will describe how the legal rules for transforming a de jure republic into a de facto monarchy. We covered some of the history of how this was done earlier in section 6. An understanding of this is important, because you can’t undo until you understand how it was done in the first place.

11

7.1

12

The legal definition of “de jure” is as follows:

8 9

13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46

De Jure Government generally

“de jure: Descriptive of a condition in which there has been total compliance with all requirements of law. Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. In this sense it is the contrary of de facto (q.v.). It may also be contrasted with de gratia, in which case it means "as a matter of right," as de gratia means "by grace or favor." Again it may be contrasted with de aequitate; here meaning "by law," as the latter means "by equity". [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 425]

The definition above hints at the true origin of the word “de jure”, which in fact is that the requirement for “consent of the governed” mandated by the Declaration of Independence is respected at every level by every officer and employee of the government. “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [Declaration of Independence]

Any authority claimed by a REAL, de jure government actor that cannot trace or is not required to trace its civil authority back to the express written consent of the people is inherently unjust and therefore no longer “de jure”. We covered this in the previous section. All laws enacted by the government are enacted by representatives of the people exercising delegated authority of the people collectively. These representatives are empowered by our act of voting to consent on our behalf as a collective to the enactment of civil and criminal laws intended to protect us. When more than 51% of our representatives consent to the passage of a bill or law, it then is enacted into “law” and thereby acquires “the force and effect of law”. Hence, a majority vote is an expression of the collective consent of the people through their elected representatives. When we say “consent of the people”, we REALLY mean consent of the constitutional “citizens” ONLY in the exercise of their right to vote, and not ALL people. “citizens” are only a subset of the WHOLE people, and constitutional aliens or resident aliens are not allowed to vote. Obviously, when we say that consent of the governed is mandatory, we can only mean for the purposes of CIVIL and not CRIMINAL law or law enforcement. Unlike the civil statutory law, the consent of a criminal is not required in order to enforce the criminal laws against him/her. The reason why criminal can be compelled without their consent is that they have deprived another of a protected EQUAL right and therefore lose their equal rights. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. [Exodus 21:22-25, Bible, NKJV]

The above is a fulfillment of a greater commandment given by Jesus, which is the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated. If you hurt people, then indirectly you are asking to be hurt and consenting to be hurt in return. This, in fact, is a basic principle of equity in general:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

96 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” [Matt. 7:12, Bible, NKJV]

1 2

3 4

The civil law is, in turn a product of our individual consent. It is implemented as both private law and what the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “compact”: “In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people [as individuals: that’s you!] .” [Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

5 6 7 8 9

10

A compact is, in turn, a contract which requires your consent. “Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states. Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23

You can’t be subject to the municipal civil laws of a specific jurisdiction without consenting by choosing a domicile within that specific civil jurisdiction, and thereby becoming a “protected person” called a “citizen” or a “resident”. Domicile is an exercise of your First Amendment right of political and legal association. Therefore, you cannot be penalized using the provisions of the civil protection contract or “social compact” if you never consented to it. In such a case, which is the case of a “nonresident” or “transient foreigner”, the only laws that can be enforced are the common law and not statutory civil law. This is further clarified in the following fascinating article: Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39

Nations and states defend themselves from foreigners and nonresidents, meaning those who are not protected “citizens” and “residents”, using: 1. 2.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97, in the case of the federal government. The Longarm or Nonresident Statutes of your state, in the case of state governments under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you would like a list of such statutes for your state, consult the “Authorities” section for your state within the following and look for “Long arm statute”: 2.1. SEDM Jurisdictions Database, Litigation Tool #09.003 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm 2.2. SEDM Jurisdictions Database Online, Litigation Tool #09.004 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm

A de jure government, HOWEVER, cannot do anything to a nonresident under the civil law that it would not do in its own case as a principle of equity and the law of nations. The authority for invoking the FSIA or the Longarm Statute within your state derives from conducting commerce within the forum, which is called “purposeful availment”. Those who seek “the benefits or protections” of the laws of a jurisdiction they are doing business in are presumed in many cases by the courts to have consented to the jurisdiction of said court when there is a dispute with a party within the forum or venue. Here is an example:

47

“In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the Supreme Court held that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant consistent with due process only if he or she has "certain minimum contacts" with the relevant forum "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " Id. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Unless a defendant's contacts with a forum are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be "present" in that forum for all purposes, a forum may exercise only "specific" jurisdiction - that is, jurisdiction based on the relationship between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's claim. The parties agree that only specific jurisdiction is at issue in this case.

48

In this circuit, we analyze specific jurisdiction according to a three-prong test:

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

97 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

4

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and

5

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.

6

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d. 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d. 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). The first prong is determinative in this case. We have sometimes referred to it, in shorthand fashion, as the "purposeful availment" prong. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 802. Despite its label, this prong includes both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some combination thereof.

1 2

7 8 9 10 11

We have typically treated "purposeful availment" somewhat differently in tort and contract cases. In tort cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant "purposefully direct[s] his activities" at the forum state, applying an "effects" test that focuses on the forum in which the defendant's actions were felt, whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the forum. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 803 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984)). By contrast, in contract cases, we typically inquire whether a defendant "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities" or "consummate[s] [a] transaction" in the forum, focusing on activities such as delivering goods or executing a contract. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d. at 802. However, this case is neither a tort nor a contract case. Rather, it is a case in which Yahoo! argues, based on the First Amendment, that the French court's interim orders are unenforceable by an American court. [Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d. 1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006)]

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27

Courts which impose the FSIA or Longarm statutes against nonresident litigants violate the principle of equity all the time and try to destroy the equal protection that is the foundation of the Constitution. For instance, if they enforce a franchise outside their territory against a nonresident and do so outside of their express delegated constitutional authority, then they must ALSO, as a matter of equity: 1. 2.

28

Be able and willing to identify all such activity as PRIVATE business. Implicitly surrender sovereign immunity and agree to be sued in the local civil courts that protect the parties they are contracting with. Convey rights to the nonresident party the same way they conveyed rights to themselves.

29

3.

30

For instance, if the federal government enforces Social Security within a state of the Union, outside its own territory, and outside the statutory “United States” and outside the domicile of those within said states of the Union, then all such activity:

31

32 33

1. 2.

34 35 36 37

38 39 40

3. 4.

Must be treated as a private business concern. Carries with it an implied waiver of sovereign immunity by all those in the government who enforce it outside of federal territory. Must be litigated in a STATE rather than federal court as a PRIVATE concern under EQUITY. Cannot be protected by asserting sovereign immunity and does not require a statute waiving sovereign immunity before the enforcer can be sued.

Because courts routinely and hypocritically enforce UNEQUAL rules against themselves in implementing waivers of sovereign immunity by nonresidents, they are not operating in equity and therefore no longer are “de jure”, but de facto. Below are some holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court hinting at these principles:

44

“When a State engages in ordinary commercial ventures, it acts like a private person, outside the area of its "core" responsibilities, and in a way unlikely to prove essential to the fulfillment of a basic governmental obligation.” [College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense, 527 U.S. 666 (1999)]

45

_________________________________________________________________________________

46

See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) ("`The United States does business on business terms'") (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) ("When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent") (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) ("The United States, when they contract with

41 42 43

47 48 49 50 51

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

98 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf"); Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875) (explaining that when the United States "comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there").

12

See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 ("Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant"); O'Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, "[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action"). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party. [United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996) ]

13

_________________________________________________________________________________

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40

41 42 43 44

45

46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54

55 56 57

“The truth is, States and cities, when they borrow money and contract to repay it with interest, are not acting as sovereignties. They come down to the level of ordinary individuals. Their contracts have the same meaning as that of similar contracts between private persons. Hence, instead of there being in the undertaking of a State or city to pay, a reservation of a sovereign right to withhold payment, the contract should be regarded as an assurance that such a right will not be exercised. A promise to pay, with a reserved right to deny or change the effect of the promise, is an absurdity." Is, then, property, which consists in the promise of a State, or of a municipality of a State, beyond the reach of taxation? We do not affirm that it is. A State may undoubtedly tax any of its creditors within its jurisdiction for the debt due to him, and regulate the amount of the tax by the rate of interest the debt bears, if its promise be left unchanged. A tax thus laid impairs no obligation assumed. It leaves the contract untouched. But until payment of the debt or interest has been made, as stipulated, we think no act of State sovereignty can work an exoneration from what has been promised to the [446] creditor; namely, payment to him, without a violation of the Constitution. 'The true rule of every case of property founded on contract with the government is this: It must first be reduced into possession, and then it will become subject, in common with other similar property, to the right of the government to raise contributions upon it. It may be said that the government may fulfil this principle by paying the interest with one hand, and taking back the amount of the tax with the other. But to this the answer is, that, to comply truly with the rule, the tax must be upon all the money of the community, not upon the particular portion of it which is paid to the public creditors, and it ought besides to be so regulated as not to include a lien of the tax upon the fund. The creditor should be no otherwise acted upon than as every other possessor of money; and, consequently, the money he receives from the public can then only be a fit subject of taxation when it is entirely separated' (from the contract), 'and thrown undistinguished into the common mass.' 3 Hamilton, Works, 514 et seq. Thus only can contracts with the State be allowed to have the same meaning as all other similar contracts have. [Murray v. City of Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 (1877)]

The principle of equity is behind every de jure government of delegated powers. This is so because the thing created cannot be greater than the thing that created it. According to the courts YOU created government and THEY did not create you. Therefore, they work for you and you DO NOT work for them. To wit: “Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.” [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

The United States government is, in fact, a government of “delegated powers alone”. "The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people... The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restriction except the discretion of its members." (Congress) [U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)] "The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people." [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)] "It is again to antagonize Chief Justice Marshall, when he said: 'The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them and

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

99 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

for their benefit. This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.' 4 Wheat. 404, 4 L.Ed. 601." [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

281H

All government powers came from the people and the method of delegating them was to choose a municipal domicile within the place protected by that specific government. It ought to go without saying that the people cannot delegate ANY power to a government that they themselves DO NOT ALSO HAVE. Hence, any authority the government claims must ALSO be possessed by ALL PEOPLE AS PRIVATE HUMAN BEINGS who have not delegated it to a specific government. Hence, a de jure government must approach all nonresident parties as EQUALS and in EQUITY, and apply all the same protections to them regarding surrenders of sovereign immunity which the government itself uses. For instance, the United States government cannot be sued without the plaintiff producing written evidence consent found in a statute. Likewise, if the government sues a private party, they too ought to be required to produce evidence of consent IN WRITING signed by the defendant or respondent where all rights surrendered are spelled out. In practice, judges seldom do this and therefore deprive private parties before them or the constitutional requirement for equal protection and equal treatment. All governments in the world presently assert the power of “sovereign immunity”. This principle says that the government cannot be sued in civil court without its express statutory written consent. The same principle must also be applied to the people as private parties when they are prosecuted for a civil liability by a government: The government has an obligation to prove that the party they are suing CONSENTED IN WRITING, with full disclosure of all terms and a signature of the government, to the thing being enforced. Otherwise, we aren’t talking about a legal proceeding, but simply paganism, theft, and idolatry which imputes in effect, SUPERNATURAL powers to the government that the people as individuals do not possess. The legal definition of religion, in fact, confirms that a religion is really about “worship of superior beings”, and by enforcing unequal powers and imputing supernatural powers to either themselves or the government they are acting on behalf of, they are establishing a religion and forcing you to “worship”, meaning obey, it. “Religion. Man's relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submission to mandates and

23

precepts of supernatural or superior beings. In its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments. Bond uniting man to God, and a virtue whose purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things. Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1292]

24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

32 33

Not surprisingly, the principle of absolute equity is almost never respected by the CORRUPTED courts of today. Why? Because: 1. 2.

34 35

36 37 38

39 40 41

42 43 44

45 46

3.

The principle of sovereign immunity is a judicial creation not found in any statute. Judges typically are corrupt and jealously guard their power and try to unlawfully extend it by treating people before them UNEQUALLY and therefore PREJUDICIALLY in relation to their employer. Thomas Jefferson confirmed this corruption, which has existed from the foundation of this country. See: Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Section 29 http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1270.htm What you think of as a “court” is NOT, in fact, a court in a constitutional sense. Instead, it is a legislative franchise court which functions as an administrative body that is actually in the Executive rather than Judicial branch of the de facto government. See: What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

This absolute, injurious, and unconstitutional refusal to enforce equity in all courts makes the judges who engage in it into de facto judges operating in their private capacity who have waived sovereign immunity and come down to the level of ordinary people who can be sued in equity for a tort. "The doctrine of sovereign immunity, raised by defendants, is inapplicable since plaintiff's content that the defendants' action were beyond the scope of their authority or they were acting unconstitutionally." [Berends v. Butz, 357 F.Supp. 143 (1973)]

If you would like to know more about the subject of equal protection and equal treatment, see the following free memorandum of law on our website: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

100 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7.2

Legal definition of a de jure “government”16

The term "government" is defined to include that group of people dedicated to the protection of purely and exclusively PRIVATE RIGHTS and PRIVATE PROPERTY that are absolutely and exclusively owned by a truly free and sovereign human being who is EQUAL to the government in the eyes of the law per the Declaration of Independence. It excludes the protection of PUBLIC rights or PUBLIC privileges (franchises, Form #05.030) and collective rights (Form #12.024) because of the tendency to subordinate PRIVATE rights to PUBLIC rights due to the CRIMINAL conflict of financial interest on the part of those in the alleged "government" (18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §§144, and 455). See Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 for the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE.

19

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1] Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2] That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3] and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4] It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual [PRIVATE] rights is against public policy. [5]“ [63C American Jurisprudence 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247 (1999)]

20

_______________________________________

21

[1] State ex rel. Nagle v. Sullivan, 98 Mont. 425, 40 P.2d. 995, 99 A.L.R. 321; Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d. 8.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

22

[2] Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v. Sistrunk, 249 Ga. 543, 291 S.E.2d. 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v. Finley (1st Dist), 161 Ill.App.3d. 796, 113 Ill.Dec. 712, 515 N.E.2d. 697, app gr 117 Ill.Dec. 226, 520 N.E.2d. 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill.2d. 147, 131 Ill.Dec. 145, 538 N.E.2d. 520.

23 24 25

[3] Chicago Park Dist. v. Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill.2d. 555, 37 Ill.Dec. 291, 402 N.E.2d. 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill.App.3d. 222, 63 Ill.Dec. 134, 437 N.E.2d. 783.

26 27

[4] United States v. Holzer (CA7 Ill), 816 F.2d. 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 U.S. 807, 98 L.Ed. 2d 18, 108 S.Ct. 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F.2d. 1343, cert den 486 U.S. 1035, 100 L.Ed. 2d 608, 108 S.Ct. 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v. Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F.2d. 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v. Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F.2d. 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v. Boylan (CA1 Mass), 898 F.2d. 230, 29 Fed.Rules.Evid.Serv. 1223).

28 29 30 31 32 33

[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v. Keane, 64 Ill.2d. 559, 2 Ill.Dec. 285, 357 N.E.2d. 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill.App.3d. 298, 61 Ill.Dec. 172, 434 N.E.2d. 325.

34 35

[6] Indiana State Ethics Comm’n v. Nelson (Ind App), 656 N.E.2d. 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 N.E.2d. 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).

36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Anything done CIVILLY for the benefit of those working IN the government at the involuntary, enforced, coerced, or compelled (Form #05.003) expense of PRIVATE free humans is classified as DE FACTO (Form #05.043), nongovernmental, PRIVATE business activity beyond the core purpose of government that cannot and should not be protected by official, judicial, or sovereign immunity. Click here (Form #11.401) for a detailed exposition of ALL of the illegal methods of enforcement (Form #05.032) and duress (Form #02.005). "Duress" as used here INCLUDES any type of LEGAL DECEPTION, Form #05.014 or any attempt to insulate government workers from responsibility or accountability for their false or misleading statements (Form #05.014 and Form 12.021 Video 4) forms, or publications (Form #05.007 and Form #12.023). The only type of enforcement by a DE JURE government that can or should be compelled and lawful is CRIMINAL or COMMON LAW enforcement where a SPECIFIC private human has been injured, not CIVIL statutory enforcement (a franchise, Form #05.030). 16

Source: SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4: Meaning of Words; http://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

101 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Every type of DE JURE CIVIL governmental service or regulation MUST be voluntary and ALL must be offered the right to NOT participate on every governmental form that administers such a CIVIL program. It shall mandatorily, publicly, and NOTORIOUSLY be enforced and prosecuted as a crime NOT to offer the right to NOT PARTICIPATE in any CIVIL STATUTORY activity of government or to call a service "VOLUNTARY" but actively interfere with and/or persecute those who REFUSE to volunteer or INSIST on unvolunteering. All statements by any government actor or government form or publication relating to the right to volunteer shall be treated as statements under penalty of perjury for which the head of the governmental department shall be help PERSONALLY liable if false. EVERY CIVIL "benefit" or activity offered by any government MUST identify at the beginning of ever law creating the program that the program is VOLUNTARY and HOW specifically to UNVOLUNTEER or quit the program. Any violation of these rules makes the activity NONGOVERNMENTAL in nature AND makes those offering the program into a DE FACTO government (Form #05.043). The Declaration of Independence says that all "just powers" of government derive from the CONSENT of those governed. Any attempt to CIVILLY enforce MUST be preceded by an explicit written attempt to procure consent, to not punish those who DO NOT consent, and to not PRESUME consent by virtue of even submitting a government form that does not IDENTIFY that submission of the form is an IMPLIED act of consent (Form #05.003). This ensures "justice" in a constitutional sense, which is legally defined as "the right to be left alone". For the purposes of this website, those who do not consent to ANYTHING civil are referred to "non-resident non-persons" (Form #05.020). An example of such a human would be a devout Christian who is acting in complete obedience to the word of God in all their interactions with anyone and everyone in government. Any attempt by a PRIVATE human to consent to any CIVIL STATUTORY offering by any government (a franchise, Form #05.030) is a violation of their delegation of authority order from God (Form #13.007) that places them OUTSIDE the protection of God under the Bible. Under this legal definition of "government" the IDEAL and DE JURE government is one that: 1. The States cannot offer THEIR taxable franchises within federal territory and the FEDERAL government may not establish taxable franchises within the territorial borders of the states. This limitation was acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in the License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) and continues to this day but is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ignored more by fiat and practice than by law. 2. Has the administrative burden of proof IN WRITING to prove to a common law jury of your peers that you CONSENTED in writing to the CIVIL service or offering before they may COMMENCE administrative enforcement of any kind against you. Such administrative enforcement includes, but is not limited to administrative liens, administrative levies, administrative summons, or contacting third parties about you. This ensures that you CANNOT become the unlawful victim of a USUALLY FALSE PRESUMPTION (Form #05.017) about your CIVIL STATUS (Form #13.008) that ultimately leads to CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT (Form #05.046). The decision maker on whether you have CONSENTED should NOT be anyone in the AGENCY that administers the service or benefit and should NEVER be ADMINISTRATIVE. It should be JUDICIAL. 3. Judges making decisions about the payment of any CIVIL SERVICE fee may NOT participate in ANY of the programs they are deciding on and may NOT be "taxpayers" under the I.R.C. Subtitle A Income tax. This creates a criminal financial conflict of interest that denies due process to all those who are targeted for enforcement. This sort of corruption was abused to unlawfully expand the income tax and the Social Security program OUTSIDE of their lawful territorial extent (Form #05.018). See Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) and later in Hatter v. U.S, 532 U.S. 557 (2001). 4. EVERY CIVIL service offered by any government MUST be subject to choice and competition, in order to ensure accountability and efficiency in delivering the service. This INCLUDES the minting of substance based currency. The government should NOT have a monopoly on ANY service, including money or even the postal service. All such monopolies are inevitably abused to institute duress and destroy the autonomy and sovereignty and EQUALTY of everyone else. 5. CANNOT "bundle" any service with any other in order to FORCE you to buy MORE services than you want. Bundling removes choice and autonomy and constitutes biblical "usury". For instance, it CANNOT: 5.1. Use "driver licensing" to FORCE people to sign up for Social Security by forcing them to provide a "franchise license number" called an SSN or TIN in order to procure the PRIVILEGE of "driving", meaning using the commercial roadways FOR HIRE and at a profit. 5.2. Revoke driver licenses as a method of enforcing ANY OTHER franchise or commercial obligation, including but not limited to child support, taxes, etc. 5.3. Use funds from ONE program to "prop up" or support another. For instance, they cannot use Social Security as a way to recruit "taxpayers" of other services or the income tax. This ensures that EVERY PROGRAM stands on its own two feet and ensures that those paying for one program do not have to subsidize failing OTHER programs that are not self-supporting. It also ensures that the government MUST follow the SAME free market rules that every other business must follow for any of the CIVIL services it competes with other businesses to deliver. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

102 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

6. 7.

5 6

8.

7 8 9 10

9.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Jesus described the above de jure government as follows. He is implying that Christians cannot consent to any government that rules from above or has superior or supernatural powers in relation to biological humans. In other words, the government Christians adopt or participate in or subsidize CANNOT function as a religion as described in Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles [unbelievers] lord it over them [govern from ABOVE as pagan idols] , and those who are great exercise authority over them [supernatural powers that are the object of idol worship]. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant [serve the sovereign people from BELOW rather than rule from above]. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [Matt. 20:25-28, Bible, NKJV]

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

32

For documentation on HOW to implement the above IDEAL or DE JURE government by making MINOR changes to existing foundational documents of the present government such as the Constitution, see: Self Government Federation: Articles of Confederation, Form #13.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

7.3

34

The legal definition of “de facto” is as follows: de facto: In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, a position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955, 57 L.Ed. 1260. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. Compare De jure. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 416]

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48

49 50

De Facto Government "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." [Frederic Bastiat]

33

35

5.4. Piggyback STATE income taxes onto FEDERAL income taxes, make the FEDERAL government the tax collector for STATE TAXES, or the STATES into tax collectors for the FEDERAL government. Can lawfully enforce the CRIMINAL laws without your express consent. Can lawfully COMPEL you to pay for BASIC SERVICES of the courts, jails, military, and ROADS and NO OTHERS. EVERYONE pays the same EQUAL amount for these services. Sends you an ITEMIZED annual bill for CIVIL services that you have contracted in writing to procure. That bill should include a signed copy of your consent for EACH individual CIVIL service or "social insurance". Such "social services" include anything that costs the government money to provide BEYOND the BASIC SERVICES, such as health insurance, health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc. If you do not pay the ITEMIZED annual bill for the services you EXPRESSLY consented to, the government should have the right to collect ITS obligations the SAME way as any OTHER PRIVATE human. That means they can administratively lien your real or personal property, but ONLY if YOU can do the same thing to THEM for services or property THEY have procured from you either voluntarily or involuntarily. Otherwise, they must go to court IN EQUITY to collect, and MUST produce evidence of consent to EACH service they seek payment or collection for. In other words, they have to follow the SAME rules as every private human for the collection of CIVIL obligations that are in default. Otherwise, they have superior or supernatural powers and become a pagan deity and you become the compelled WORSHIPPER of that pagan deity. See Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 for details on all the BAD things that happen by turning government into such a CIVIL RELIGION.

The definition above gives us a hint about the characteristics of what a “de facto” government is: 1. 2.

Operates as a corporation for profit instead of a non-profit ministry ordained by ONLY God. Imputes a “position or status” upon either you or themselves which:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

103 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5

3.

6 7

4.

8 9 10 11 12

5.

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20

2.1. You never expressly consented to and CANNOT consent to without violating the Declaration of Independence. 2.2. Is illegitimate or unlawful. 2.3. Makes you UNEQUAL in relation to them and therefore, makes civil rulers the object of religious worship in violation of the First Amendment. Operates out of self-interest instead of fiduciary duty towards the true Sovereigns, WE THE PEOPLE, it is supposed to be protecting and serving. Operates under “color of law”, meaning that they appear to have authority justified by that which LOOKS like law, but in fact is not IN YOUR CASE. For instance, they enforce a voluntary franchise against a non-participant, and go out of their way to make it FRAUDULENTLY APPEAR that the target of the enforcement consented to participate. Hence, the franchise agreement would not be LAW in the case of the target of the enforcement and the enforcement action would therefore be pursued under the “color of law”. Disrespects, destroys, or undermines the PRIVATE rights of those it is charged with protecting by: 5.1. Presuming that you own no private property. 5.2. Presuming that you have equitable rather than legal title to your property and that the de facto government is the REAL owner. 5.3. Presuming that you are a public officer on official business managing THEIR property. 5.4. Refusing to enforce the burden imposed on the government of proving that you donated your private property to a public use, public office, or public purpose BEFORE they can attach obligations against you in the use of it.

To the above we would also add that a “de facto government” does not seek or enforce the requirement for consent and equal treatment in all interactions with the public at all levels, both administratively and legally.

22

Various authorities, including the Bible and the U.S. Supreme Court, also further clarify some additional characteristics of de facto governments:

23

1.

21

24 25

2.

26 27

They insist on sovereign immunity and an express waiver in writing before you can sue them or enforce against them, but do NOT enforce the SAME right on your part when they are enforcing a liability against you. They attempt to undermine or circumvent the straight jacket constraints of the Constitution by creating a system of law outside of its limits. This is done mainly by illegally implementing and enforcing franchises, and by FORCING people to participate in them:

31

“I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism..

32

[. . .]

28 29 30

36

“The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside the independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to..

37

[. . .]

38

It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.” [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissenting]

33 34 35

39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50

3.

They love YOUR money and STEALING it from you more than they do the purpose of their creation, which is to protect you from the very evils and crimes that they themselves are the worst perpetrators of. Note that God says that the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil. Government “benefits” are payments, and therefore the love of government “benefits” could also be the root of all evil, especially if they are deceptively packaged to LOOK like they are free but in fact produce “privilege induced slavery” through the abuse of franchises: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” [1 Timothy 6:9-10, Bible, NKJV]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

104 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

4.

2 3 4

They corrupt the legal profession and the courts by creating compromising conflicts of interest that will protect their criminal enterprise. This includes attorney licensing, and causing judges to have a criminal and financial conflict of interest by being statutory “taxpayers” and franchise participants. Note that any kind of “benefit” or franchise constitutes a “bribe”: "The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes [socialist handouts, government "benefits", or PLUNDER stolen from nontaxpayers] overthrows it." [Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]

5 6 7

"And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous." [Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]

8 9

"He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house, But he who hates bribes will live." [Prov. 15:27, Bible, NKJV]

10 11 12

15

"Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason. And a bribe debases the heart." [Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]

16

_________________________________________________________________________________________

13 14

“How the faithful city has become a harlot! It [the Constitutional Republic] was full of justice; Righteousness lodged in it, But now murderers [and abortionists, and socialists, and democrats, and liars and corrupted judges]. Your silver has become dross, Your wine mixed with water. Your princes [President, Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious, Everyone loves bribes, And follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow [or the “nontaxpayer”] come before them.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Therefore the Lord says, The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel, "Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries, And take vengeance on My enemies. I will turn My hand against you, And thoroughly purge away your dross, And take away your alloy. I will restore your judges [eliminate the BAD judges] as at the first, And your counselors [eliminate the BAD lawyers] as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." [Isaiah 1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42

43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

5.

They make themselves superior and unequal in relation to the human beings they were created ONLY to serve and protect by: 5.1. Imputing supernatural powers to themselves that they refuse to impute or enforce against anyone, and especially any private human being. “Dishonest scales are an [hateful] abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.” [Prov. 11:1, Bible, NKJV]

5.2. Refusing to allow the courts to operate in equity and providing no remedy in the courts that affords equity and equality of the citizen in relation to them. Instead, all of the courts are transformed into administrative franchise courts where you can only approach them as a subservient “employee” or “public officer” subject to any and every political whim. Judges operate in a political capacity in these courts in violation of the separation of powers. Hence, there is no judicial branch and the so-called “judicial branch” is thus assimilated into the Executive Branch and becomes a tyranny. Thus, they gut the very foundation of the Constitution, which is equality of rights. Notice how the U.S. Supreme Court below held that equality of rights is “the foundation of ALL free governments”. Hence, if you aren’t EQUAL in every respect to the government, YOU ARE A SLAVE!: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

105 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty.” [The Spirit of Laws, Charles de Montesquieu, http://famguardian.org/Publications/SpiritOfLaws/sol-02.htm]

4

________________________________________________________________________________

1 2

19

“The equal protection demanded by the fourteenth amendment forbids this. No language is more worthy of frequent and thoughtful consideration than these words of Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for this court, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S.Sup.Ct. 1064, 1071: 'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.' The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, [165 U.S. 150, 160] that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." [Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) ]

20

________________________________________________________________________________

21

Sin Confessed

22

Therefore justice is far from us, Nor does righteousness overtake us; We look for light, but there is darkness! For brightness, but we walk in blackness! We grope for the wall like the blind, And we grope as if we had no eyes; We stumble at noonday as at twilight; We are as dead men in desolate places. We all growl like bears, And moan sadly like doves; We look for justice, but there is none; For salvation, but it is far from us. For our transgressions are multiplied before You, And our sins testify against us; For our transgressions are with us, And as for our iniquities, we know them: In transgressing and lying against the LORD, And departing from our God, Speaking oppression and revolt, Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. Justice is turned back, And righteousness stands afar off; For truth is fallen in the street, And equity cannot enter [INTO COURT!]. So truth fails, And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. [Isaiah 59:9-15, Bible, NKJV]

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

5.3. Replacing equality and equal treatment with franchises, privileges, and public rights that make the government superior to everyone else. Notice that the U.S. Supreme Court implies in the cite below that there is NO HIGHER duty of any court than to ensure EQUALITY between the human being and the government running the court. “The equal protection demanded by the fourteenth amendment forbids this. No language is more worthy of frequent and thoughtful consideration than these words of Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for this court, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S.Sup.Ct. 1064, 1071: 'When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.' The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, [165 U.S. 150, 160] that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

106 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." [Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) ]

1 2 3 4 5

6

6.

7 8 9 10

“The [PRIVATE] rights of individuals and the justice due to them, are as dear and precious as those of states. Indeed the latter are founded upon the former; and the great end and object of them must be to secure and support the [PRIVATE] rights of individuals, or else vain is government.” [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793)] __________________________________________________________________________________

11 12 13 14 15

"It must be conceded that there are rights [and property] in every free government beyond the control of the State [or any judge or jury]. A government which recognized no such rights [PRIVATE RIGHTS], which held the lives, liberty and property of its citizens, subject at all times to the disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all a despotism. It is true that it is a despotism of the many--of the majority, if you choose to call it so--but it is not the less a despotism." [Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874) ]

16 17 18 19 20 21

22

They refuse to either recognize or protect private rights and furthermore, abuse legal process as the equivalent of a democratic auction of people’s property for donation to the public fisc. After all, governments are established for the protection of private rights. Hence, a de facto corporation that refuses to recognize or protect private rights, and which imputes or assumes that it owns everything cannot be a REAL government. It is not only what the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “vain government”, but NO GOVERNMENT AT ALL.

7.

23

They expand their power unlawfully by creating contrived national emergencies as an excuse to bypass the straight jacket constraints of the Constitution for the sake of expediency. “No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.17 An emergency, however, while it cannot create power, increase granted power, or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon the power granted or reserved, may allow the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency.18

24 25 26 27

34

The circumstances in which the executive branch may exercise extraordinary powers under the Constitution are very narrow.19 The danger must be immediate and impending, or the necessity urgent for the public service, such as will not admit of delay, and where the action of the civil authority would be too late in providing the means which the occasion calls for.20 For example, there is no basis in the Constitution for the seizure of steel mills during a wartime labor dispute, despite the President's claim that the war effort would be crippled if the mills were shut down. 21” [16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional Law, §52 (1999)]

35

_______________________________________________________________________________

36

Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions [290 U.S. 398, 426] which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.

28 29 30 31 32 33

37 38 39 40 41

17

As to the effect of emergencies on the operation of state constitutions, see § 59.

Veix v. Sixth Ward Building & Loan Ass’n of Newark, 310 U.S. 32, 60 S.Ct. 792, 84 L.Ed. 1061 (1940); Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413, 88 A.L.R. 1481 (1934). 18

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency and its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the states were determined in the light of emergency, and are not altered by emergency. First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762 (1938). 19

Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d. 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. granted, 446 U.S. 951, 100 S.Ct. 2915, 64 L.Ed.2d. 807 (1980) and aff'd in part, cert. dismissed in part, 452 U.S. 713, 101 S.Ct. 3132, 69 L.Ed.2d. 367 (1981), reh'g denied, 453 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 892, 69 L.Ed.2d. 1024 (1981) and on remand to, 542 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1982) and on remand to, 578 F. Supp. 231 (D.D.C. 1984), aff'd in part, remanded in part, 807 F.2d. 180 (D.C. Cir. 1986), on remand to, 723 F. Supp. 1535 (D.D.C. 1989), related reference, 1991 WL 120167 (D.D.C. 1991), remanded, 1992 WL 394503 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 20

Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115, 13 How. 115, 14 L.Ed. 75 (1851).

21

Youngstown Sheet &Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153, 47 Ohio.Op. 430, 47 Ohio.Op. 460, 62 Ohio.L.Abs. 417, 62 Ohio.L.Abs. 473, 26 A.L.R.2d. 1378 (1952).

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

107 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. 'Although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.' Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332, 348 , 37 S.Ct. 298, 302, L.R.A. 1917E, 938, Ann.Cas. 1918A, 1024. [Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)]

1 2 3 4 5

6

8.

7 8 9

They abuse their power to tax as a method to redistribute wealth in order to buy influence of voters and enlarge their own importance. This leads to all kinds of criminal activity, such as bribery to procure a public office per 18 U.S.C. §210, impersonating a public officer under 18 U.S.C. §912, bribing jurists with socialist handouts per 18 U.S.C. §201, etc.: “The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks, drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage. This power can be readily employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.

18 19 20 21

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

22 23 24

31

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.” [Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

32

________________________________________________________________________________

33

"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another." [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

25 26 27 28 29 30

34 35 36

37 38 39

40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

9.

They accept NO LIMITS upon their authority, least of all the limits imposed by either the constitution or the laws which implement it. This is done mainly by abusing words of art to transcend the limits of law imposed upon their behavior, and refusing to operate in equity against others. The U.S. Congress also calls this “communism”: TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841. Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of fact The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and [FRANCHISE] privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution [Form #10.002]. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of, Form #05.014, the tax franchise "codes", Form #05.001] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public FOOL system by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

108 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members [ANARCHISTS!, Form #08.020]. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to; force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced [illegally KIDNAPPED via identity theft!, Form #05.046] into the service of the world Communist movement [using FALSE information returns and other PERJURIOUS government forms, Form #04.001], trained to do its bidding [by FALSE government publications and statements that the government is not accountable for the accuracy of, Form #05.007], and directed and controlled [using FRANCHISES illegally enforced upon NONRESIDENTS, Form #05.030] in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Incidentally, this refusal to accept any limits upon its authority was the original motivation for Eve to eat the apple in the Garden of Eden. The serpent promised her that she would be like a god, and gods are accountable to NO ONE and therefore not limited by anything. Gen. 3:2-4. Lucifer himself was also motivated by the same lust for immunity from everything and superiority over everyone:

19 20 21 22

“I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’ [Isaiah 14:13-14, Bible, NKJV]

23 24 25 26 27

28

7.4

What makes a “Corporation” into a De Jure “Government”?22 "In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover, and wickedness insensibly open, cultivate and improve." [Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207]

29 30 31

32

The elements or characteristics essential to call a corporation a “government” are:

33

1.

34 35 36

Requires three elements to be valid. If you take away any one or more of the following elements, you don’t have a “government”. 1.1. Territory. A valid government must have exclusive legislative jurisdiction within its own territory and no jurisdiction without its territory. "Judge Story, in his treatise on the Conflicts of Laws, lays down, as the basis upon which all reasonings on the law of comity must necessarily rest, the following maxims: First 'that every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory'; secondly, 'that no state or nation can by its laws directly affect or bind property out of its own territory, or bind persons not resident therein, whether they are natural born subjects or others.' The learned judge then adds: 'From these two maxims or propositions there follows a third, and that is that whatever force and obligation the laws of one country have in another depend solely upon the laws and municipal regulation of the latter; that is to say, upon its own proper jurisdiction and polity, and upon its own express or tacit consent." Story on Conflict of Laws §23." [Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Chambers, 73 Ohio.St. 16, 76 N.E. 91, 11 L.R.A., N.S., 1012 (1905)]

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

1.2. Laws. The civil laws of the government do not extend beyond the boundaries of the territory comprising the body politic. 1.3. People. These people are called “citizens”, “residents”, and inhabitants who all have in common that they have voluntarily chosen a domicile within the civil jurisdiction of the body politic and thereby joined and become a “member” of the body politic. Mere physical presence on the territory of the sovereign does NOT constitute an act of political association by itself, but must be accompanied by what the courts call “animus manendi”, which is intent to join the body politic. It is a financial conflict of interest for the People in the body politic to also serve as

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

22

Adapted from Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 4.3.1 http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

109 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

2.

4

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . .” [Declaration of Independence]

5 6 7 8

9

10

3.

11 12 13

15

4.

18 19

5.

21

23 24

26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43

Consent of the governed. The Declaration of Independence indicates that all just governments derive their authority from the “consent of the governed”: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [Declaration of Independence]

22

25

Equal protection of all persons within the jurisdiction. “No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." [Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897) ]

17

20

We cover the mandatory legal separation between PUBLIC and PRIVATE in the following presentation; Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Rights are consistently recognized as unalienable in relation to the government, which means they can’t be bargained away or sold to the government through any commercial process. This means that franchises may not lawfully be offered to those protected by the Constitution, because they are commercial processes. Notice the word “unalienable” in the Declaration of Independence above, which is defined as follows. “Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1693]

14

16

“employees” or officers of the corporation if they are voting on issues that directly affect their pay. See 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455. Main purpose of establishment is protection of private rights. This includes maintaining the separation between what is private and what is public with the goal of protecting mainly what is private.

6.

All powers are derived or delegated directly from the Sovereign People AS INDIVIDUALS and NOT as a collective. It is a legal impossibility for a collective to have any more delegated authority than the private people who make up the collective. To suggest otherwise is to impute a “supernatural” source to the powers possessed by government and makes government into a religion in which the “collective” is a pagan deity. "It is again to antagonize Chief Justice Marshall, when he said: 'The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them and for their benefit. This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.' 4 Wheat. 404, 4 L.Ed. 601." [Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) ] 281H

"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers, in fact, have been given by the people... The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it, and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect, we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restriction except the discretion of its members." (Congress) [U.S. v. William M. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)] "The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people." [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

47

“Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitive. The power [sovereign immunity in this case] which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.” [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2131]

48

“Nemo potest facere per obliquum quod non potest facere per directum.

44 45 46

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

110 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

No one can do that indirectly which cannot be done directly.” [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2147]

1 2

“Quod per me non possum, nec per alium.. What I cannot do in person, I cannot do through the agency of another.” [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, pg. 2159]

3 4 5

6

7.

7 8 9

Both before and after the time when the Dictionary Act and § 1983 were passed, the phrase “bodies politic and corporate” was understood to include the [governments of the] States. See, e.g., J. Bouvier, 1 A Law Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America 185 (11th ed. 1866); W. Shumaker & G. Longsdorf, Cyclopedic Dictionary of Law 104 (1901); Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dall.) 419, 447, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793) (Iredell, J.); id., at 468 (Cushing, J.); Cotton v. United States, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 229, 231, 13 L.Ed. 675 (1851) (“Every sovereign State is of necessity a body politic, or artificial person”); Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 288, 5 S.Ct. 903, 29 L.Ed. 185 (1885); McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 24, 13 S.Ct. 3, 6, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892); Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175, 188, 36 S.Ct. 78, 82, 60 L.Ed. 206 (1915). See also United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 109, 26 F.Cas. 1211 (CC Va.1823) (Marshall, C.J.) (“The United States is a government, and, consequently, a body politic and corporate”); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 154, 6 S.Ct. 670, 672, 29 L.Ed. 845 (1886) (same). Indeed, the very legislators who passed § 1 referred to States in these terms. See, e.g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 661-662 (1871) (Sen. Vickers) (“What is a State? Is *79 it not a body politic and corporate?”); id., at 696 (Sen. Edmunds) (“A State is a corporation”).

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

The reason why States are “bodies politic and corporate” is simple: just as a corporation is an entity that can act only through its agents, “[t]he State is a political corporate body, can act only through agents, and can command only by laws.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, supra, 114 U.S., at 288, 5 S.Ct. at 912-913. See also Black’s Law Dictionary 159 (5th ed. 1979) (“[B]ody politic or corporate”: “A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good”). As a “body politic and corporate,” a State falls squarely within the Dictionary Act's definition of a “person.”

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

While it is certainly true that the phrase “bodies politic and corporate” referred to private and public corporations, see ante, at 2311, and n. 9, this fact does not draw into question the conclusion that this phrase also applied to the States. Phrases may, of course, have multiple referents. Indeed, each and every dictionary cited by the Court accords a broader realm-one **2317 that comfortably, and in most cases explicitly, includes the sovereign-to this phrase than the Court gives it today. See 1B. Abbott, Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence 155 (1879) (“[T]he term body politic is often used in a general way, as meaning the state or the sovereign power, or the city government, without implying any distinct express incorporation”); W. Anderson, A Dictionary of Law 127 (1893) (“[B]ody politic”: “The governmental, sovereign power: a city or a State”); Black’s Law Dictionary 143 (1891) (“[B]ody politic”: “It is often used, in a rather loose way, to designate the state or nation or sovereign power, or the government of a county or municipality, without distinctly connoting any express and individual corporate charter”); 1A. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 212 (2d ed. 1871) (“[B]ody politic”: “A body to take in succession, framed by policy”; “[p]articularly*80 applied, in the old books, to a Corporation sole”); id., at 383 (“Corporation sole” includes the sovereign in England). [Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304 (U.S.Mich.,1989)]

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47

48 49 50 51

52 53 54

55 56 57 58

Consists of BOTH a “body politic” AND a body “corporate”. If you take out the body politic or remove the requirement for domicile as a qualification for joining the body politic, all you have left is a “body corporate” or simply a private corporation. The body politic, in turn, consists of “citizens” domiciled on the territory who participate directly in the affairs of the government as jurists and voters and NOT full-time “employees” or “officers” of the corporation.

8.

Taxes collected are used ONLY for the support of government and not private citizens. This means that taxes may not be used to pay “benefits” to private citizens, nor may benefit programs be used as a way to make private citizens into public officers or employees and thereby destroy the separation of powers between what is public and what is private. “To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms. Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479. Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

111 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.” [Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

4

______________________________________________________________________________________

5

"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another." [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

1 2

6 7 8

9

9.

10 11 12

The People individually and not collectively are the “sovereigns” and the “state”, and not their rulers or the government that serves them. Because the government is one of delegated powers, the COLLECTIVE can have no more rights, powers, or authorities than a single human, and ESPECIALLY against those who are NOT members of the body politic. Those who are non-members of the body politic are called “non-resident non-persons”.

23

“State. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. United States v. Kusche, D.C.Cal., 56 F.Supp. 201 207, 208. The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moralitis, C.C.A.Md., 136 F.2d. 129, 130. In its largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp., 44 Misc.2d 636, 254 N.Y.S.2d. 763, 765. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex re. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d. 539, 542. A territorial unit with a distinct general body of law. Restatement, Second, Conflicts, §3. Term may refer either to body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an individual government unit of such nation (e.g. California).

24

[…]

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

27

The people of a state, in their collective capacity, considered as the party wronged by a criminal deed; the public; as in the title of a cause, “The State vs. A.B.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1407]

28

__________________________________________________________________________________

29

33

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." [Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F. 939, 943]

34

__________________________________________________________________________________

35

"There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." [Julliard v. Greenman: 110 U.S. 421, (1884)]

25 26

30 31 32

36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50

7.5

Signs that a “government” is actually a private de facto corporation

Governments are formed EXCLUSIVELY to protect PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property. When such governments become corrupt and want to STEAL from the people they are supposed to be protecting, they surreptitiously convert ALL PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE property into PUBLIC property using deception and words of art. Once they have done the conversion, they procure the right to tax the property and extract anything they want from it. Hence, corrupted governments conduct a WAR on PRIVATE rights, meaning they set out to do the OPPOSITE purpose for which they were created. The U.S. Supreme Court identified the battle line of this war when they ruled on Congress’ first attempt to institute a national income tax and declared it unconstitutional: “The present assault upon [PRIVATE] capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; a war of growing intensity and bitterness.” [Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895).]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

112 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The “assault on capital” described above is really just an assault on PRIVATE capital by converting it to PUBLIC OFFICES and PUBLIC FRANCHISES without the consent of the owner. We allege that ANYTHING that converts PRIVATE property or PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights or PUBLIC OFFICES or franchises accomplishes a purpose OPPOSITE that for which governments are created and hence, constitutes PRIVATE business activity that cannot and should not be protected with sovereign immunity. Even if it is attempted by a government officer acting under the “color of law”, it is STILL not “government activity” that can be protected by sovereign immunity, but is mere PRIVATE business activity that operates at the same level as ANY OTHER business must as a matter of equity. See also Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363, 369 (1943) ("`The United States does business on business terms'") (quoting United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534 (1926)); Perry v. United States, supra at 352 (1935) ("When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference . . . except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent") (citation omitted); United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53, 66 (1877) ("The United States, when they contract with their citizens, are controlled by the same laws that govern the citizen in that behalf"); Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 398 (1875) (explaining that when the United States "comes down from its position of sovereignty, and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there").

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

See Jones, 1 Cl.Ct. at 85 ("Wherever the public and private acts of the government seem to commingle, a citizen or corporate body must by supposition be substituted in its place, and then the question be determined whether the action will lie against the supposed defendant"); O'Neill v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 823, 826 (1982) (sovereign acts doctrine applies where, "[w]ere [the] contracts exclusively between private parties, the party hurt by such governing action could not claim compensation from the other party for the governing action"). The dissent ignores these statements (including the statement from Jones, from which case Horowitz drew its reasoning literally verbatim), when it says, post at 931, that the sovereign acts cases do not emphasize the need to treat the government-as-contractor the same as a private party. [United States v. Winstar Corp. 518 U.S. 839 (1996) ]

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

30

Based on the above, we can see that when one or more of the following occurs, we are no longer dealing with a “government”, but rather a private corporation and franchise or “employer” in which a “citizen” is really just an “employee” of the private pseudo-government corporation who has no choice but to do exactly and only what they are commanded to do through corporate policy disguised to “look” like public law but which in actuality is just special law or private law that is part of their employment agreement:

31

1.

26 27 28 29

32 33 34

35

2.

36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

3.

Taxing Power Abused to pay “benefits” to Private Citizens. It has always been a violation of the constitution to pay public monies to otherwise private citizens. This constraint is avoided by making EVERYONE into a statutory rather than constitutional citizen and defining such citizen as a public officer and/or statutory “employee” within the government. Such “benefits” include such things as Social Security, Medicare, etc. See: The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Consent of the governed: Government refuses to acknowledge the requirement for consent of the governed. For instance: 2.1. They do not recognize, protect, or enforce the First Amendment right to politically and civilly disassociate with the body corporate to become a STATUTORY “non-resident non-person” protected by the common law and the constitution and not subject to the civil statutory protection franchise or code. 2.2. They do a tax assessment without respecting the requirement for consent to the assessment mandated by 26 U.S.C. §6020(b). See: Why the Government Can’t Lawfully Assess Human Beings With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 2.3. Courts and administrative bodies refuse to meet the burden of proof as the moving party to demonstrate proof of consent in writing to the franchise agreement, such as Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A and C BEFORE they attempt enforcement actions. Requirement for EXPRESS CONSENT and INTENT ignored or interfered with in becoming a statutory “citizen” or “resident”. Domicile requires the coincidence of physical presence within the territory of the sovereign and an intention to join the political community that it is a part of. However, tyrants and dictators who rule by force and fraud disregard the intention requirement. If you have an “address” or physical presence on their territory, the government “presumes” that fact alone constitutes consent to become a “citizen”, “resident”, or “inhabitant”, thus ignoring the consent and intent portion of the domicile requirement. This has the practical effect of turning a republic consisting mainly of private property into a monarchy, where everything is public property because the king owns all the land and everyone is nothing more than a tenant subject to his whim and pleasure by divine right. British subjects can’t even expatriate from their country without permission of the king or queen in fact. They in effect are chattel property of the monarch. If you would

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

113 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4

4.

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20

5.

21

like to see how much land the monarch of England owns, it currently stands at 6 Billion acres. God says that "all the earth is mine" (Exodus 19:5)...and the queen of England retorts..."except for the 6 billion 600 million acres I own which is 1/6th of the non-ocean surface of the earth.". For proof, see: Who Owns the World http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/?ref=patrick.net Protection of private rights: Government refuses to acknowledge the protections of the Constitution for your private rights. For instance: 4.1. They violate the rules and law protecting private property and convert most or all private property to public property illegally. See: Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 4.2. They make the false and self-serving presumption that everyone they interact with in the public is a public officer in the government and a franchisee called a “taxpayer” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14)) or statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizen” (8 U.S.C. §1401) 4.3. They refuse to prosecute those who compel others to use government identifying numbers, thus forcing those so compelled to donate formerly private property to a public use, a public purpose, and a public office. 4.4. They refuse to recognize the existence of “nontaxpayers” or defend their private rights. For instance, enforcing the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421 to prevent private parties injured by zealous tax collectors from having their private property seized because they are the victim of FALSE information return reports that the IRS refuses to correct. 4.5. They refuse to correct false information returns filed by third parties against those who are non-taxpayers, thus compelling private people to involuntarily assume the duties of a public office in the government. They also refuse to prosecute the filers of these false reports. See: Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Unalienable rights: Government sets up a franchise or a business whose purpose essentially is to bribe or entice people to give up constitutionally protected rights. In modern day terms, that business is called a “franchise”. “Thus, Congress having power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, may, without doubt, provide for granting coasting licenses, licenses to pilots, licenses to trade with the Indians, and any other licenses necessary or proper for the exercise of that great and extensive power; and the same observation is applicable to every other power of Congress, to the exercise of which the granting of licenses may be incident. All such licenses confer authority, and give rights to the licensee.

22 23 24 25 26

37

But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the States. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the States. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a State is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the State over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it.” [License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 18 L.Ed. 497, 5 Wall. 462, 2 A.F.T.R. 2224 (1866)]

38

________________________________________________________________________________________

39

"It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution." Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583. "Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,' Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 644, or manipulated out of existence,' Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345." [Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965)]

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48 49 50

6.

Equal protection: Government provides unequal protection or unequal benefit to those within its jurisdiction. For instance: 6.1. Government imputes to itself sovereign immunity and the requirement to prove ITS consent when civilly sued, but does not enforce the same EQUAL requirement when IT tries to enforce a civil obligation against a citizen. 6.2. Government allows otherwise PRIVATE Americans to be effectively elected into public office with FALSE information return reports and without their consent but refuses to allow its own workers or itself to be elected into servitude of anyone else.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

114 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

7.

5 6

6.3. One group of people pays a different percentage tax rate or amount than another or receives a different benefit in exchange for the same amount of money paid in. This violates the apportionment clauses of the constitution. 6.4. Franchises are abused to make FRANCHISEES inferior to the government grantor. Franchises are abused to destroy CONSTITUTIONAL remedies and force people into an administrative franchise court instead. The main abuse is offering or enforcing them to those domiciled OUTSIDE of federal territory and the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of Congress.

7

"These general rules are well settled:

8

(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a "public right", which is a euphemism for a "franchise" to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 9 Sup.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L.Ed. 696; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L.Ed. 700; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L.Ed. 108.

9 10 11 12

(2) That where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 3 Sup.Ct. 184, 27 L.Ed. 920; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558, 25 L.Ed. 212; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196. Still the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require us to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198, 19 Sup.Ct. 503, 43 L.Ed. 779; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124, 29 Sup.Ct. 556, 53 L.Ed. 936; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374, 33 Sup.Ct. 122, 57 L.Ed. 260; United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U.S. 440, 39 Sup.Ct. 340, 63 L.Ed. 696, decided April 14, 1919." [U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919)]

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

8.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45

46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54

9.

Courts are converted from CONSTITUTIONAL courts to STATUTORY FRANCHISE or ADMINISTRATIVE FRANCHISE courts. Examples: 1. U.S. Tax Court; 2. Traffic court; 3. Family Court. Such courts are really just binding arbitration boards for fellow public officers within the Executive Branch of the government. At the present time, all United States District Courts and Circuit Courts are NOT expressly authorized by Congress to hear any Article III Constitutional issue. Instead, they are legislative franchise courts that administer ONLY federal property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the USA Constitution. See the following for proof: 8.1. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 24 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 8.2. What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012-proves that there are NOT any constitutional courts left at the federal level accessible to the average American. http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm There is no “body politic”. All those who participate in the affairs of the government as statutory “voters” or “citizens” are in fact franchisees and public officers of the government with an financial and personal conflict of interest. 9.1. There is no one outside the pseudo-government private corporation who any of the people in pseudo-government can be or are accountable to, and certainly no one who has Constitutional rights. 9.2. They are violating their state constitutions, because most state constitutions forbid anyone from simultaneously serving as a public officer in the federal government and the state government. Federal taxpayers are public officers (engaged in a “trade or business” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) ) in the federal government while state “taxpayers” are similarly public officers in the state government. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 7 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SEC. 7. A person holding a lucrative office under the United States or other power may not hold a civil office of profit [within the state government]. A local officer or postmaster whose compensation does not exceed 500 dollars per year or an officer in the militia or a member of a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States except where on active federal duty for more than 30 days in any year is not a holder of a lucrative office, nor is the holding of a civil office of profit affected by this military service.

9.3. Everyone who participates as a jurist or voter in any proceeding involving taxation and who is a recipient of federal “benefits” is committing a crime by having a conflict of interest in violation of: 9.3.1. 18 U.S.C. §208 in the case of statutory but not constitutional “citizens” and “taxpayers”. 9.3.2. 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455 in the case of judges. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

115 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9

10.

10 11 12 13

11.

14

15

12.

16 17

18

13.

19 20

14.

21 22 23 24 25

9.3.3. 18 U.S.C. §201: Bribery of public officials and witnesses. All jurists and all “taxpayers” are public officers in the government and receipt of federal “benefits” bribes them to perpetuate the “benefit” when taxes are at issue. 9.4. If you try to participate as a jurist or voter as a constitutional but not statutory citizen, the registrar of voters and the jury commissioner will expel you and refuse to address the legal evidence proving that he or she is committing a FRAUD upon the public by preventing REAL constitutional but not statutory citizens from participating. Consequently, any tax imposed upon constitutional citizens is taxation without representation. We have watched this process first hand. See: Jury Summons Response Attachment, Form #06.015 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm An enterprise or portion of the government is not a “body politic”, but only a “body corporate”. For instance, the “District of Columbia” is a “body corporate”, but NOT a “body politic”, which means it is not part of the government, but a private corporation. Yet, sovereign immunity is abused by the corrupt corporate courts to protect the activities of this private corporation. Practicing federal attorneys take an oath to the wrong sovereign. Their oath ought to be to the people and the “State” they serve, but instead is to the government. The two are not the same. See: Petition for Admission to Practice, Family Guardian Fellowship http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/PetForAdmToPractice-USDC.pdf “Words of Art” are abused to illegally expand definitions in such a way that PRIVATE rights and PRIVATE party unlawfully become the subject of any government enforcement authority. This kind of abuse is very commonly done with definitions in the Internal Revenue Code. The following document explains and proves this kind of abuse: Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm All powers are derived or delegated directly from the people: Government arrogates authority to itself that it denies to others and thereby becomes the equivalent of a pagan deity and an object of idol worship. Government dispenses with one or more of the three elements needed to make it valid: People, Laws, and Territory. For instance, if the government tries to setup a “virtual state” using territory borrowed from another government that is not its own, then it can no longer be called a government. This, in fact, is exactly how state income taxes function. State income taxes presume a domicile on federal territory borrowed from the federal government. State income taxes are imposed under the authority of the Buck Act of 1940 and the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which are codified at 4 U.S.C. §106 and 5 U.S.C. §5517. See: State Income Taxes, Form #05.031 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

27

Next, we will provide a tabular comparison of a de jure government and a de facto private corporation to synthesize all the points in the previous subsections into one place:

28

Table 2: "De jure government" and "De Facto Private corporation" compared

26

# 1

Characteristic Territory, laws, and people?

De jure government Yes

2

Purpose of establishment

Protect PRIVATE rights

3

Private rights are unalienable

Yes

4

Equal protection of all?

Yes

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

De facto private corporation No. Only contracts/franchises and corporate “employees” that do not attach to specific territory. 1. Protect PUBLIC rights and convert all PRIVATE rights into PUBLIC rights/franchises. 2. Expand the corporation and centralize all power to the CEO/President. No. All rights are PUBLIC/CORPORATE rights No. Only corporate “employees” are protected. All others are TERRORIZED until they join the corporation.

116 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

# 5

Characteristic Civil laws based on consent of the governed?

De jure government Yes

6

Powers derived from

The Sovereign People, both individually and collectively

7 8 9

Body corporate? Body politic? Taxes used only for

Yes Yes Support of government

8

De facto private corporation No. All civil law is corporate policy that forms the employment agreement for officers of the corporation. CEO and Board of Directors of the Corporation. “Employees” must do as they are told or they are FIRED and/or persecuted Yes No Support of employees and officers of the corporation, which is EVERYONE. Called “benefits” and dispensed under a civil franchise.

De Facto government is “The Beast” spoken of in the Holy Bible

2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11

12 13

14 15

Jesus Himself said the entire world is “in the sway of the wicked one”, meaning controlled by Satan. The world cannot be controlled by Satan unless all of its rulers are also controlled by Satan: “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one [Satan].” [1 John 5:19, Bible, NKJV]

When Jesus was in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, Satan offered Him all the kingdoms of the world if he would bow down and worship Satan. Satan could not have offered these Kingdoms unless he controlled the rulers. "Again, the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me. [Satan]" "

Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve."' "

Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him." [Matt. 4:8-11, Bible, NKJV]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

117 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

Satan was trying to get Jesus to commit idolatry by worshipping, serving, or subsidizing something OTHER than the one and only God. There are many forms of idolatry, including idolatry towards money, sex, power, political rulers, or even government.

4

God also revealed to the Prophet Samuel that it was a sin to elect a king to be above us or superior to us.

1 2

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, ‘Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations [and be OVER them]’. “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also [government becoming idolatry].” [1 Sam. 8:4-8, Bible, NKJV] _________________________________________________________________________________________

16

“And when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ when the Lord your God was your king.

17

…..

15

18 19 20

21 22

23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking a king for ourselves.” [1 Sam. 12:12, 19, Bible, NKJV]

Jesus also confirmed that the only kind of government we can have is a SERVANT government that serves from below rather than rules from above: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you [Christians]; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave---just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28, Bible, NKJV]

Not only does God identify political rulers (kings) as agents and representatives of Satan, but he also identifies the cities where they rule and derive their authority as an abomination. The very first city described in the Bible, Babylon, was created by Nimrod, who the Bible described as a hunter of men. Gen. 10:8-12. Nimrod was a predator of men, not a protector of them. Hence, a “mighty hunter”, as the Bible describes him. For a fascinating sermon on this subject, see: SEDM Sermons, Section 4.1: Statism http://sedm.org/Sermons/Sermons.htm

32 33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

The passage below talks about what God thinks of evolutionists. Evolutionists believe that they descended from a rock or a tree through “natural selection”. Notice the comment about cities being gods. In the old days, each city had a King and that king was the personification of the city and a pagan deity all his own. People could only enter his presence or the city by going through the gate of the city walls, and they had to pledge allegiance to the king to do so, which was privilege induced slavery. “As the thief is ashamed when he is found out, So is the house of Israel ashamed; They and their kings and their princes, and their priests and their prophets, Saying to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ And to a stone, ‘You gave birth to me.’ For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face. But in the time of their trouble They will say, ‘Arise and save us.’ But where are your gods that you have made for yourselves? Let them arise, If they can save you in the time of your trouble; For according to the number of your cities Are your gods, O Judah. [Jeremiah 2:26-28, Bible, NKJV]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

118 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

The passage above is also confirmed by the following, which is an address to the King of Babylon and indirectly to Lucifer himself: “All the kings of the nations, All of them, sleep in glory, Everyone in his own house; But you are cast out of your grave Like an abominable branch, Like the garment of those who are slain, Thrust through with a sword, Who go down to the stones of the pit, Like a corpse trodden underfoot. You will not be joined with them in burial, Because you have destroyed your land And slain your people. The brood of evildoers shall never be named. Prepare slaughter for his children Because of the iniquity of their fathers, Lest they rise up and possess the land, And fill the face of the world with cities.” [Isaiah 14:18-21, Bible, NKJV]

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22

The Bible book of Revelation talks about “The Beast”, by describing it as “the kings of the earth”, which in contemporary times would simply be political rulers. “And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.” [Rev. 19:19 , Bible, NKJV]

23 24 25

26 27 28

Notice that the Beast and the kings of the earth are both fighting against God and are on the same side. Political rulers throughout history have constantly warred against God. Isaiah 14 also reveals that these same kings and rulers are agents of Satan and not God. The message below is addressed to the King of Babylon, who is the same Beast personified above: “Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you [the King of Babylon] at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations. They all shall speak and say to you:

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

‘ Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us? Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, And the sound of your stringed instruments; The maggot is spread under you, And worms cover you.’ [Isaiah 14:9-11, Bible, NKJV]

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43

Conclusion from the above:

44

1.

“Hell from beneath is excited about you, to meet you at your coming”.

45

46

2.

49

50 51

All kings of the nations were raised to their thrones by Hell: “Hell from beneath…it has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations”.

47

48

The King of Babylon is going to hell:

3.

All the dead kings are already in hell. That is the only way they could be raised up by Hell to speak to the King of Babylon in the first place.

A woman, Babylon the Great Harlot, is described as fornicating with this Beast and living a life of luxury. She is, in fact SATAN’S WHORE. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

119 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24

25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37

38 39 40

41

42 43 44

45 46

47 48

“Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot [Babylon the Great Harlot] who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth [politicians and rulers] committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk [indulged] with the wine of her fornication.” [Rev. 17:1-2 , Bible, NKJV] “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.” [Rev. 17:15 , Bible, NKJV]

This woman is, in fact, conducting commerce with political rulers. Not surprisingly, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “commerce” as “intercourse”. Hence, the term “fornication” refers to commercial relations of God’s people with political rulers. “Commerce. …Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]

Babylon the Great Harlot is further described as follows: “And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.” [Rev. 17:3-6 , Bible, NKJV]

What is the “Mother …of the abominations of the earth?”. Well, the Bible says that the love of money is the root of ALL EVIL. Certainly evil itself is an abomination. Hence, the Harlot loves money more than she loves truth, justice, equality, or a lawful government. Included within the category of money is “government benefits”: "For the love of money [and even government “benefits”, which are payments] is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.” [1 Timothy 6:5-12, Bible, NKJV]

What about the phrase: “Mystery, Babylon” in Rev. 17:3-6? The mystery about this woman is that she was ignorant and dependent, and that ignorance and dependence caused her to fornicate with the Beast. Most of that ignorance relates to ignorance about law. Anything that an ignorant person does not understand is a “mystery” that incidentally, never gets solved because laziness and dependency was the cause of the ignorance in the first place: “The hand of the diligent will rule, But the lazy [or irresponsible] man will be put to forced labor.” [Prov. 12:24, Bible, NKJV]

Babylon the Great Harlot is a slave to her own sin, and the main sin she engages in is ignorance. “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. [John 8:34-35, Bible, NKJV]

How did this woman become ignorant and dependent? By being “put to sleep” intellectually and “sleeping with the Beast” in public schools run by the De Facto Government Beast. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..!" [Hosea 4:6, Bible, NKJV]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

120 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

Human beings are the only animal in all of nature STUPID enough to turn their own offspring over to THE ENEMY to be raised, programmed, and indoctrinated: "Give me your four year-olds and in a generation I will build a socialist state. . .destroy the family and the society will collapse." [Vladimir Lenin, Communist]

3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10

The Bible Book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John, while he was exiled by the Roman government on the island of Patmos as a punishment for his political views. It was actually written as an encrypted condemnation of the oppressors who exiled him while he was in exile. That is why he had to use so much symbolism and vague metaphors in the Book of Revelation. Thomas Paine, one of the men responsible for fomenting the American revolution, said: "That government is best which governs least." [Thomas Paine]

11 12

13 14

15 16 17 18

A corollary to this axiom is that the best government is SELF-GOVERNMENT under God’s laws with NO external manmade government, because they are ALL corrupt and love YOUR money more than they love truth or justice anyway. We argue that all civil rulers who derive their authority from anything but God and His law are agents of Satan who ultimately will resort to unlawful force, licensing, and compelled enumeration (666) to place the people they are supposed to be protecting into compelled servitude and subjection to them. THAT is what “the Beast” is really referring to in the Bible book of Revelations. To wit: So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take [STEAL] your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take [STEAL] your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take [STEAL] the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take [STEAL] your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work [as SLAVES]. He will take [STEAL] a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” [1 Sam. 8:4-20, Bible, NKJV]

30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41 42

As an example of the above phenomenon of THEFT and FORCE and SLAVERY by corrupt civil rulers, every state in the Union and the national government routinely confiscate and close down any business functioning in a licensed field that refuses to obtain a license, and they do so AT GUNPOINT against private people who are nonresident and outside their civil jurisdiction. Hence, they abuse the police powers of the state to recruit more “public officer” franchisees who are their slaves and sponsors. If they really had the legal authority to enforce civilly, they wouldn’t need the consent of the applicant for a license as part of a civil franchise Therefore, they are engaging in a mafia extortion and protection racket in which the police are the gun wielders. Recall that: 1. 2. 3.

43 44

4.

45 46 47 48 49 50 51

5.

Franchises are implemented with civil law and civil contracts. Civil law has no force against nonresidents. The jurisdiction to which one is resident as a franchisee is federal territory not within the constitutional state. MOST PEOPLE who apply for a license do not satisfy this criteria and therefore apply ILLEGALLY and FRAUDULENTLY. Those contracting with each other have an inherent right to contract the government OUT of their relationship by agreeing that no license is needed or will be enforced. A person who doesn’t want to be protected from abuses that a license would prevent should have the right to do so, and any government that interferes with that right is impairing the obligation of contracts and thereby undermining the purpose of its creation, which is to protect your right to contract. By applying for a license, you are consenting to their jurisdiction and effectively waiving your right to claim an injury from participating. It is a maxim of law that he who consents cannot complain of an jury. It’s bad enough that de facto governments are engaging in a criminal protection racket, but they make it MUCH worst by placing those at gunpoint who refuse to consent to become part of it in applying for a license. Hence, they have used the point of a gun as a

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

121 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

means to compel people to alienate rights that are supposed to be unalienable. The result is compelled agreement produced through fraud and duress, but not true consent. Gangster government at its finest.

1 2

3 4 5 6

If you bring up the content of this section with a government representative and expose the illegal duress by government, they will refuse to address it in an attempt to protect their criminal and illegal and unconstitutional protection racket, and later they will single you out for “selective enforcement”, thus further abusing their enforcement powers to silence dissidents just as the communists did. We have firsthand experience with this SCAM.

10

Therefore, all civil government is “the Beast” as God calls it in Rev. 19:19 and ultimately and unavoidably produces a mafia protection racket that plunders rather than truly protects those who seek protection. They create a monopoly on protection for themselves, and they use that mafia to force you to become an “employee” or “officer” subject to their supervision instead of a “customer” who has the right NOT to seek their services.

11

Some really good corroborating sources that confirm the conclusions of this section so far are:

12

1.

7 8 9

13 14 15

2.

16 17

Devil’s Advocate Movie Clip, SEDM. Al Pacino plays Satan and demonstrates how Satan is taking over the legal profession and the government to destroy you and society. Very enlightening http://famguardian.org/Media/DevilsAdvocate-Part13.mp4 Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil. Essay by Thomas Paine, who also authored Common Sense, a document that started the American Revolution. http://mises.org/story/2897

18

9

19

A de facto officer is legally defined as:

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46

47 48

49 50

De Facto Officer Doctrine

Officer de facto. As distinguished from an officer de jure; this is the designation of one who is in the actual possession and administration of the office, under some colorable or apparent authority, although his title to the same, whether by election or appointment, is in reality invalid or at least formally questioned. Norton v. Shelby County, 6 S.Ct. 1121, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L.Ed. 78; State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449, 9 Am.Rep. 409. One who has the reputation of being the officer he assumes to be, and yet is not a good officer in point of law. 6 East 368; City of Terre Haute v. Burns, 69 Ind.App. 7, 116 N.E. 604, 608; Johnson v. State, 27 Ga. App. 679,109 S.E. 526,527. Official acts of officer de facto are binding on others. McNatt v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 91 S.W.2d. 1068, 1069. A de facto officer is also distinguished from a "usurper" who has neither lawful title nor color of right. Smith v. City of Jefferson, 75 Or. 179, 146 P. 809. 812. To constitute an officer de facto it is not a necessary prerequisite that there shall have been an attempted exercise of competent prima facie power of appointment or election; a de facto officer being one whose title is not good in law, but who is in fact in the unobstructed possession of an office and is discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper. U.S. v. Royer, 45 S.Ct. 519, 520, 268 U.S. 394, 69 L.Ed. 1011. A person is a "de facto officer" where the duties of the officer are exercised-First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be. Second. under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer has failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like. Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public. Fourth. under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such. Wendt v. Berry, 154 Ky. 586, 157 S.W. 1115, 1118, 45 L.R.A,N.S., 1101, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 493. Officer de jure. One who is in all respects legally appointed and qualified to exercise the office. People v. Brautigan, 310 Ill. 472, 142 N.E. 208, 211. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pp. 1235-1236]

Under the de facto officer doctrine, those wishing to challenge the authority of a de facto officer must do so AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY ACTION. Here is an example: We find that the failure of the officers to take their antibribery oaths or renew their constitutional oaths and the failure of one prosecuting attorney to execute the correct oath of office does not affect their status as de facto

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

122 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

public officers. A de facto officer is one who has the reputation of being an officer and who acts under color of a known and valid appointment, but who has failed to conform to some precedent requirement such as taking an oath, giving a bond, or the like. Williams v. State, 588 S.W.2d. 593, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (citing Weatherford v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. 530, 21 S.W. 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1893)); Delamora v. State, 128 S.W.3d 344, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059, No. 03-02-00557-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1059, at *25-33 (Tex. App.--Austin Feb. 5, 2004, no pet. h.). Here, there is evidence in the record that each DPS trooper was acting under the color of authority and had a reputation in the community as a law enforcement [*7] officer. See id. Similarly, the prosecuting attorney testified that she had held her offices for some time and had a reputation in the community as a prosecuting attorney. See Ex parte Grundy, 110 Tex. Crim. 367, 8 S.W.2d. 677, 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928) (validating acts of assistant prosecuting attorney who failed to take oath of office).

15

In addition to arguing the failure of a prosecuting attorney to execute her constitutional oath, appellant argued that her conviction is void because all three prosecuting attorneys failed to possess written certificates of office. She cites section 601.008 of the [Texas] government code for the proposition that one holding an appointed office without a written certificate of appointment cannot exercise the power of that appointment. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § § 601.007, .008(b), (c) (West 1994 & Supp. 2004).

16

Section 601.007 states:

11 12 13 14

17 18 19 20 21

On demand of a citizen of this state, . . . [an] officer of the state or of a municipality who is authorized by law to make, order, or audit payment to an officer of the state, of a county, or of a municipality of compensation, fees, or perquisites for official services [*8] shall, before making, ordering, or auditing the payment, require the officer to produce:

23

(1) the certificate of election or of appointment to the office that is required by law to be issued to the officer; . .

24

Id. § 601.007 (West Supp. 2004). Section 601.008 states in relevant part:

25 26

(b) A person who has not been elected or appointed to an office or has not qualified for office . . . is not entitled to:

27

...

28

(2) exercise the powers or jurisdiction of the office.

29 30

(3) The official acts of a person who claims a right to exercise the power or jurisdiction of an office contrary to this section are void.

31

Id. § 601.008 (West 1994).

22

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53

Nothing in those sections requires a written certificate of appointment before exercising the power of the office or appointment. To qualify for the office, an assistant prosecuting attorney need only take the constitutional oath of office. See id. § 41.103 (West 1988); see also State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d. 921, 929 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (plurality opinion) (stating that assistant prosecuting attorney qualifies by taking constitutional oath); Gaitan v. State, 905 S.W.2d. 703, 707 [*9] (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd) (same). In Pirtle, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals indicated that there was no requirement for any sort of written instrument to occupy the office of assistant prosecuting attorney. 887 S.W.2d. at 929. Execution of the constitutional oath is the only requirement to hold that office. Id. The record indicates that each assistant prosecuting attorney had taken the constitutional oath of office. Even if it were true that the prosecuting attorneys were required to hold some written certificate of office, their acts, as we have indicated above, were validated under the de facto officer doctrine. In short, because we find that the DPS Troopers and prosecuting attorneys were acting under color of authority, any defects in their failure to qualify were validated under the de facto doctrine. We overrule appellant's points of error two, three and six. n3 n3 In her first point of error, appellant challenged the authority of a justice of the peace to issue the search warrant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 18.01, .02 (West 1989). It is undisputed that the State obtained appellant's written consent to search. Because we have determined that Trooper Wardlow was a de facto law enforcement officer when he secured appellant's consent to search, we need not address appellant's first point of error. We find that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant freely and voluntarily consented. Morton v. State, 761 S.W.2d. 876, 878 (Tex. App.--Austin 1988, pet. ref'd). [Amanda Sykes, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, NO. 03-02-00783-CR, COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, THIRD DISTRICT, AUSTIN]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

123 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Hence, those wishing to challenge the authority of a de facto officer acting under color of law must:

2

1.

3 4 5

2.

6

Volunti non fit injuria. He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

7 8

Consensus tollit errorem. Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Co. Litt. 126.

9 10

Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.

11 12

Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20

Challenge the officer for legal evidence of their authority BEFORE allowing the officer to execute any action that would adversely affect their rights. The form this legal evidence must take would be a written certificate of election or appointment. Not at any time consent to the actions of the de facto officer. Any act done with your consent cannot form the basis for an injury.

10 How you are DUPED into illegally joining the de facto government as a public officer The U.S. Supreme Court alluded to the mechanism by which the government carries all of its powers, including its enforcement powers, into existence: “All the powers of the government [including ALL of its civil enforcement powers against the public] must be carried into operation by individual agency, either through the medium of public officers, or contracts made with [private] individuals.” [Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. 738 (1824) ]

21 22 23 24

26

Therefore, the only way one can become a “person” subject to government civil jurisdiction is through either a contract or consenting to occupy and being elected or appointed into a public office. An example of such a contract would be:

27

1.

25

28

“It is generally conceded that a franchise is the subject of a contract between the grantor and the grantee, and that it does in fact constitute a contract when the requisite element of a consideration is present.23 Conversely, a franchise granted without consideration is not a contract binding upon the state, franchisee, or pseudofranchisee.24 “ [36 American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §6: As a Contract (1999)]

29 30 31 32 33

34

Civil Franchises. In law, all government franchises are contracts between the government grantor and the private human being. All franchises case those accepting them to become public officers.

2.

35 36

Domicile or residence, which are “protection franchises”. Jean Jacque Rousseau and Charles de Montesquieu call this contract a “social compact”. A “compact” in fact is legally defined as a contract or agreement. Montesquieu wrote The Spirit of Laws upon which the founders based the constitution.

23

Larson v. South Dakota, 278 U.S. 429, 73 L.Ed. 441, 49 S.Ct. 196; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U.S. 544, 57 L.Ed. 633, 33 S.Ct. 303; Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 50 L.Ed. 801, 26 S.Ct. 427; Arkansas-Missouri Power Co. v. Brown, 176 Ark. 774, 4 S.W.2d. 15, 58 A.L.R. 534; Chicago General R. Co. v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 253, 52 N.E. 880; Louisville v. Louisville Home Tel. Co., 149 Ky. 234, 148 S.W. 13; State ex rel. Kansas City v. East Fifth Street R. Co. 140 Mo. 539, 41 S.W. 955; Baker v. Montana Petroleum Co., 99 Mont. 465, 44 P.2d. 735; Re Board of Fire Comrs. 27 N.J. 192, 142 A.2d. 85; Chrysler Light & P. Co. v. Belfield, 58 N.D. 33, 224 N.W. 871, 63 A.L.R. 1337; Franklin County v. Public Utilities Com., 107 Ohio.St. 442, 140 N.E. 87, 30 A.L.R. 429; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Marble City Electric Light Co., 65 Vt. 377, 26 A. 635; Virginia-Western Power Co. v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 469, 99 S.E. 723, 9 A.L.R. 1148, cert den 251 U.S. 557, 64 L.Ed. 413, 40 S.Ct. 179, disapproved on other grounds Victoria v. Victoria Ice, Light & Power Co. 134 Va. 134, 114 S.E. 92, 28 A.L.R. 562, and disapproved on other grounds Richmond v. Virginia Ry. & Power Co., 141 Va. 69, 126 S.E. 353. 24

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Bowers, 124 Pa. 183, 16 A. 836.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

124 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27

There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man. If then there are opponents when the social compact is made, their opposition does not invalidate the contract, but merely prevents them from being included in it. They are foreigners among citizens. When the State is instituted, residence constitutes consent; to dwell within its territory is to submit to the Sovereign.[1] Apart from this primitive contract, the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. This follows from the contract itself. But it is asked how a man can be both free and forced to conform to wills that are not his own. How are the opponents at once free and subject to laws they have not agreed to? I retort that the question is wrongly put. The citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his opposition, and even those which punish him when he dares to break any of them. The constant will of all the members of the State is the general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free[2]. When in the popular assembly a law is proposed, what the people is asked is not exactly whether it approves or rejects the proposal, but whether it is in conformity with the general will, which is their will. Each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes. When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that I should not have been free. This presupposes, indeed, that all the qualities of the general will still reside in the majority: when they cease to do so, whatever side a man may take, liberty is no longer possible. In my earlier demonstration of how particular wills are substituted for the general will in public deliberation, I have adequately pointed out the practicable methods of avoiding this abuse; and I shall have more to say of them later on. I have also given the principles for determining the proportional number of votes for declaring that will. A difference of one vote destroys equality; a single opponent destroys unanimity; but between equality and unanimity, there are several grades of unequal division, at each of which this proportion may be fixed in accordance with the condition and the needs of the body politic.

34

There are two general rules that may serve to regulate this relation. First, the more grave and important the questions discussed, the nearer should the opinion that is to prevail approach unanimity. Secondly, the more the matter in hand calls for speed, the smaller the prescribed difference in the numbers of votes may be allowed to become: where an instant decision has to be reached, a majority of one vote should be enough. The first of these two rules seems more in harmony with the laws, and the second with practical affairs. In any case, it is the combination of them that gives the best proportions for determining the majority necessary. [The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 1762, Book IV, Chapter 2]

35

________________________________________________________________________________________

28 29 30 31 32 33

36 37 38

39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

“Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people [as individuals: that’s you!] .” [Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

A government that wants to become omnipotent and compete with God for the affection, obedience, and allegiance of the people to become a false idol makes EVERYONE into a public officer or de facto public officer, which in turn produces a de facto government. Within the present de facto state and national governments, everyone is a public officer in the national government and is recruited to this status by fraud, presumption, coercion, and deception. This transformation is accomplished in order to transcend the territorial limitations of all civil law and replace it with contract law enforceable everywhere. All civil law is limited to the territory of the law making power and those domiciled on said territory while contracts with private human beings are not limited as to place:

47

Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci.

48

Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.

49

Locus contractus regit actum.

50

The place of the contract [franchise agreement, in this case] governs the act. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

51 52

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

125 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

People are unwittingly recruited into the status of being a public officer within the national government by:

2

1.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. 3.

11 12 13 14 15

4.

16 17 18 19 20 21

5.

22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29

Changing a statutory “U.S. citizen” under federal law into a franchise and decoupling it from one’s true domicile outside the statutory “United States”, which is federal territory. This is done in order to: 1.1. Replace civil law with contract law. 1.2. Transcend the territorial limits of the national government. 1.3. Reach people anywhere they are located, including within foreign countries. This must be done because it is a maxim of law that debt and contract are not limited to a specific territory, while classical, common law citizenship and the domicile that makes it possible IS limited to a specific territory. Using governing identifying numbers as a means to recruit people into the public office franchise. Compelling or forcing the use of government identifying numbers in the following circumstances: 3.1. When requesting or invoking government services. 3.2. When opening financial accounts. 3.3. Within employment. 3.4. When obtaining government ID. Unlawfully offering or enforcing federal franchises outside of the federal territory they are limited to by statute. This includes: 4.1. Social Security. 4.2. Federal income taxes. 4.3. Medicare. 4.4. Health care. Using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) as a way to change the civil choice of law in federal court of those who participate in the franchise, so that the protections of state law and the separation of powers between the state and federal governments can be dispensed with and replaced with federal law.

The first step in the above process is to turn a statutory “U.S. citizen” into a franchise. The remainder of this section will describe in detail how this is deceptive and mechanism works and give you an example of this mechanism from the U.S. Supreme Court. Sections 3 through 3.3 of the following describe the differences between a constitutional citizen and a statutory citizen and how national franchises are used to illegally transform constitutional citizens into statutory citizens and effectively kidnap their domicile and move it to federal territory illegally. Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

31

It is very important to understand the following principles of law limiting federal legislative jurisdiction to federal territory and property and those domiciled on federal territory:

32

1.

30

33

34 35

36 37 38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

States of the Union are NOT “territories” of the national government, but rather “foreign states” who by virtue of being “foreign” are beyond the legislative jurisdiction of Congress. Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia "§1. Definitions, Nature, and Distinctions "The word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and does not necessarily include all the territorial possessions of the United States, but may include only the portions thereof which are organized and exercise governmental functions under act of congress." "While the term 'territory' is often loosely used, and has even been construed to include municipal subdivisions of a territory, and 'territories of the' United States is sometimes used to refer to the entire domain over which the United States exercises dominion, the word 'territory,' when used to designate a political organization, has a distinctive, fixed, and legal meaning under the political institutions of the United States, and the term 'territory' or 'territories' does not necessarily include only a portion or the portions thereof which are organized and exercise government functions under acts of congress. The term 'territories' has been defined to be political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States, and in this sense the term 'territory' is not a description of a definite area of land but of a political unit governing and being governed as such. The question whether a particular subdivision or entity is a territory is not determined by the particular form of government with which it is, more or less temporarily, invested.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

126 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

"Territories' or 'territory' as including 'state' or 'states." While the term 'territories of the' United States may, under certain circumstances, include the states of the Union, as used in the federal Constitution and in ordinary acts of congress "territory" does not include a foreign state.

1 2 3

"As used in this title, the term 'territories' generally refers to the political subdivisions created by congress, and not within the boundaries of any of the several states." [86 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Territories, §1 (2003)]

4 5 6

7

2.

8 9 10 11

“It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.” [Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)]

12 13 14

“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”) [Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)]

15 16 17 18

“There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”) [U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222.]

19 20 21

22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43

It is a canon of statutory construction and interpretation that all federal law is limited to the “territory” and property of the national government subject to its exclusive and general jurisdiction. Based on the previous item, that “territory” does not include the exclusive jurisdiction of any constitutional state of the Union and includes ONLY federal territory. That “territory” could conceivably be within the exterior limits of a state of the Union such as a national park or shipyard.

3.

The right of the national government to enforce national law and tax law upon federal territory extends to those DOMICILED on federal territory, wherever physically situated. 3.1. Extraterritorial jurisdiction over those domiciled on federal territory and who are abroad but NOT within a state of the Union was recognized in the case of Cook v. Tait, where the U.S. Supreme Court held: “Plaintiff assigns against the power not only his rights under the Constitution of the United States, but under international law, and in support of the assignments cites many cases. It will be observed that the foundation of the assignments is the fact that the citizen receiving the income and the property of which it is the product are outside of the territorial limits of the United States. These two facts, the contention is, exclude the existence of the power to tax. Or, to put the contention another way, to the existence of the power and its exercise, the person receiving the income and the property from which he receives it must both be within the territorial limits of the United States to be within the taxing power of the United States. The contention is not justified, and that it is not justified is the necessary deduction of recent cases. In United States v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299, the power of the United States to tax a foreign-built yacht owned and used during the taxing period outside of the [265 U.S. 55] United States by a citizen domiciled in the United States was sustained. The tax passed on was imposed by a tariff act, but necessarily the power does not depend upon the form by which it is exerted.” [Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)]

The important point of the above is that so long as the person claims to be a “citizen of the United States” under federal statutory law, then he or she is a “taxpayer”, regardless of what domicile they claim. 3.2. All tax liability is a civil liability in a de jure government which attaches to one’s choice of domicile. The only way to lawfully decouple tax liability from domicile is to create a PRIVATE LAW franchise contract in which: 3.2.1. The “taxpayer” is a public officer engaged in franchises by private law contract. Since the franchise is a contract, that contract is enforceable anywhere:

44

Debitum et contractus non sunt nullius loci.

45

Debt and contract [franchise agreement, in this case] are of no particular place.

46

Locus contractus regit actum.

47

The place of the contract [franchise agreement, in this case] governs the act. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

48 49

50

3.2.2. The public officer is representing a federal corporation that IS a statutory “U.S. citizen” per 8 U.S.C. §1401. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

127 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3.2.3. Information returns filed against the “taxpayer” connect them to the public office, and therefore provide evidence that the party was engaged in the franchise. 3.3. The right to tax those domiciled on federal territory includes those who are statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizens” per 8 U.S.C. §1401 or “Resident aliens” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B), who have in common a domicile on federal territory. Hence, they are subject to the civil laws of the United States wherever they physically are. 3.4. A corollary is that those born or naturalized anywhere in the Union and domiciled in a foreign state, such as either a foreign nation or a Constitutional but not statutory state of the Union, are NOT statutory “U.S. citizens” per 8 U.S.C. §1401 or “Resident aliens” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B), but rather non-resident non-persons, “nationals” under federal law per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21), and “stateless persons” beyond the legislative jurisdiction of Congress. Note in the ruling below that Bettison was described as “stateless” because he was not domiciled on federal territory in a statutory federal “State”, but rather in a foreign state and foreign country that is not subject to federal law, which in this case was Venezuela but could also have been a constitutional state of the Union.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

At oral argument before a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Easterbrook inquired as to the statutory basis for diversity jurisdiction, an issue which had not been previously raised either by counsel or by the District Court Judge. In its complaint, Newman-Green had invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of one State sues both aliens and citizens of a State (or States) different from the plaintiff's. In order to be a citizen of a State within the meaning of the diversity statute, a natural person must both be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. See Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 646, 648-649 (1878); Brown v. Keene, 8 Pet. 112, 115 (1834). The problem in this case is that Bettison, although a United States citizen, has no domicile in any State. He is therefore "stateless" for purposes of § 1332(a)(3). Subsection 1332(a)(2), which confers jurisdiction in the District Court when a citizen of a State sues aliens only, also could not be satisfied because Bettison is a United States citizen. [490 U.S. 829]

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

When a plaintiff sues more than one defendant in a diversity action, the plaintiff must meet the requirements of the diversity statute for each defendant or face dismissal. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267 (1806).{1} Here, Bettison's "stateless" status destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(3), and his United States citizenship destroyed complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). Instead of dismissing the case, however, the Court of Appeals panel granted Newman-Green's motion, which it had invited, to amend the complaint to drop Bettison as a party, thereby producing complete diversity under § 1332(a)(2). 832 F.2d. 417 (1987). The panel, in an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, relied both on 28 U.S.C. §1653 and on Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as sources of its authority to grant this motion. The panel noted that, because the guarantors are jointly and severally liable, Bettison is not an indispensable party, and dismissing him would not prejudice the remaining guarantors. 832 F.2d. at 420, citing Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 19(b). The panel then proceeded to the merits of the case, ruling in Newman-Green's favor in large part, but remanding to allow the District Court to quantify damages and to resolve certain minor issues.{2} [Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)]

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

4.

The right of the federal government to officiate and legislate over its own chattel property extends EVERYWHERE in the Union and wherever said property is physically located. 4.1. Jurisdiction over government chattel property extends to every type of property owned by said government. In law: 4.1.1. All rights are property. 4.1.2. Anything that conveys rights is property. 4.1.3. Contracts convey rights and are therefore “property”. 4.1.4. All franchises are contracts between the grantor and the grantee and therefore “property”. 4.2. This jurisdiction over chattel property originates from Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. “The Constitution permits Congress to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. This power applies as well to territory belonging to the United States within the States, as beyond them. It comprehends all the public domain, wherever it may be. The argument is, that the power to make ‘ALL needful rules and regulations‘ ‘is a power of legislation,’ ‘a full legislative power;’ ‘that it includes all subjects of legislation in the territory,‘ and is without any limitations, except the positive prohibitions which affect all the powers of Congress. Congress may then regulate or prohibit slavery upon the public domain within the new States, and such a prohibition would permanently affect the capacity of a slave, whose master might carry him to it. And why not? Because no power has been conferred on Congress. This is a conclusion universally admitted. But the power to ‘make rules and regulations respecting the territory‘ is not restrained by State lines, nor are there any constitutional prohibitions upon its exercise in the domain of the United States within the States; and whatever rules and regulations respecting territory Congress may constitutionally make are supreme, and are not dependent on the situs of ‘the territory.‘”` [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856)]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

128 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29

4.3. The jurisdiction of federal district and circuit courts is limited almost exclusively to disputes involving chattel property and franchises. All such courts, in fact, are created and maintained under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the united States Constitution and they are NOT created under the authority of Article III of the United States Constitution. NOWHERE, in fact, within the statutes creating such administrative franchise courts is Article III expressly invoked such as it is in the case of the Court of International Trade. Hence, the only REAL Article III courts are the Court of International Trade and the U.S. Supreme Court. Every other federal court is an Article IV franchise court that can only manage property. These conclusions are exhaustively established with thousands of pages of evidence in the following book on our website: What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm We wish to elaborate further on the case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) mentioned above because it is very effective in illustrating the main thesis of this section. Ordinarily, and especially in the case of states of the Union, domicile within that state by the state “citizen” is the determining factor as to whether an income tax is owed to the state by that citizen: "domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310m 213 A.2d. 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges." [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 485] "Thus, the Court has frequently held that domicile or residence, more substantial than mere presence in transit or sojourn, is an adequate basis for taxation, including income, property, and death taxes. Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter. Of course, the situs of property may tax it regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or residence of the owner, the most obvious illustration being a tax on realty laid by the state in which the realty is located." [Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]

We also establish the connection between domicile and tax liability in the following article. Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Only in the case of the national government for Americans abroad are factors OTHER than domicile even relevant, as pointed out in Cook v. Tait. What “OTHER” matters might those be? Well, in the case of Cook, the thing taxed is a franchise, and that status of being a statutory but not constitutional “U.S. citizen” abroad exercising what the courts call “privileges and immunities” of the national government is the franchise. Note the language in Cook v. Tait, which attempted to connect the American located and domiciled “abroad” in Mexico with receipt of a government “benefit” and therefore excise taxable “privilege” and franchise. We may make further exposition of the national power as the case depends upon it. It was illustrated at once in United States v. Bennett by a contrast with the power of a state. It was pointed out that there were limitations upon the latter that were not on the national power. The taxing power of a state, it was decided, encountered at its borders the taxing power of other states and was limited by them. There was no such limitation, it was pointed out, upon the national power, and that the limitation upon the states affords, it was said, no ground for constructing a barrier around the United States, 'shutting that government off from the exertion of powers which inherently belong to it by virtue of its sovereignty.' “The contention was rejected that a citizen's property without the limits of the United States derives no benefit from the United States. The contention, it was said, came from the confusion of thought in 'mistaking the scope and extent of the sovereign power of the United States as a nation and its relations to its citizens and their relation to it.' And that power in its scope and extent, it was decided, is based on the presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and that opposition to it holds on to citizenship while it 'belittles and destroys its advantages and blessings by denying the possession by government of an essential power required to make citizenship completely beneficial.' In other words, the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

129 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal—the government having power to impose the tax.” [Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)]

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

So the key thing to note about the above is that the tax liability attaches to the STATUS of BEING a statutory but not constitutional “citizen of the United States” under the Internal Revenue Code, and NOT to domicile of the party, based on the above case. “Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal—the government having power to impose the tax.” [Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)]

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

There are only two ways to reach a nonresident party through the civil law: Domicile and contract.25 That status of being a statutory “U.S. citizen” under the Internal Revenue Code, in turn, can only be a franchise contract that establishes a “public office” in the U.S. government, which is the property of the U.S. Government that the creator of the franchise can regulate or tax ANYWHERE under the franchise “protection” contract. All rights that attach to STATUS are, in fact, franchises, and the Cook case is no exception. This, in fact, is why falsely claiming to be a “U.S. citizen” is a crime under 18 U.S.C. §911, because the status is “property” of the national government and abuse of said property or the public rights and “benefits” that attach to it is a crime. The use of the “Taxpayer Identification Number” then becomes a de facto “license” to exercise the privilege. You can’t license something unless it is ILLEGAL to perform without a license, so they had to make it illegal to claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” before they could license it and tax it.

28

Therefore, if you are domiciled outside the statutory but not constitutional “United States”, meaning federal territory, and you wish to ensure that you are not falsely regarded as a “taxpayer” as in the case of Cook v. Tait above, then you need to ensure that you:

29

1.

26 27

30

31

2.

32 33 34 35 36 37

3.

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

4.

47 48 49 50

Thoroughly understand citizenship so that the court can’t play word games on you like they did in Cook. Read the following to accomplish this: Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Attach evidence to your pleadings to prevent the kind of word games pulled by the U.S. Supreme Court in cook. Some good documents to attach that prevent such judicial verbicide and THEFT are the following: 2.1. Federal Pleading/Motion/Petition Attachment, Litigation Tool #01.002 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm 2.2. Rules of Presumption and Statutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006 http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm DO NOT connect yourself to the status of being a statutory “citizen of the United States” per 8 U.S.C. §1401. Note that a CONSTIUTTIONAL “citizen of the United States” per the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT equivalent and mutually exclusive to that of a statutory “citizen of the United States” per 8 U.S.C. §1401. This was the MAIN mistake in the Cook case. He claimed to be domiciled abroad and yet described himself as a statutory citizen, which means that he contradicted himself. You can only have a domicile in one place and therefore be a statutory “citizen” of one place at a time. If the Plaintiff was domiciled in Mexico as he claimed, then he had no business calling himself a statutory “citizen”, but rather a non-resident non-person under statute law. He, on the other hand, essentially claimed to be a statutory citizen of TWO places at a time, and therefore to have a domicile in TWO places at once, which is a theoretical impossibility. Describe yourself as: 4.1. A “national” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) . 4.2. Not a statutory “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the United States” per 8 U.S.C. §1401. 4.3. A “stateless person” not subject to federal statutory law or statutory jurisdiction. 4.4. A non-resident of the statutory “United States” and a nonresident of federal territory.

25

See Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.2.4: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

The Two Sources of Federal Civil Jurisdiction: “Domicile” and “Contract”;

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

130 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The Plaintiff in Cook DID NOT do the above and that is why the U.S. Supreme Court picked this case to rule on: To create yet more deception about the proper application of the revenue laws that illegally manufactures more “taxpayers” and unlawfully enlarges their revenues and importance. Chances are that the Cook also filed a “resident” tax form such as the 1040 instead of more properly calling himself a nonresident alien, even though he was not domiciled in the “United States”, which left room for the Supreme Court to create BAD precedent such as Cook v. Tait. The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, took advantage of the situation by deliberately confusing statutory citizens with constitutional citizens to create the false appearance of civil jurisdiction that did not, in fact, exist in the case of a stateless person domiciled outside the country. Forms which implement all the above and which are intended to protect you from this type of THEFT, judicial verbicide, and abuse by the courts and the government are available on our website at: Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

10

The severe problems with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation in Cook v. Tait are that:

11

1.

12 13 14 15 16

2.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

3.

27 28

4.

29 30 31

5.

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

50 51 52

6.

They say that state taxing authority stops at the state’s borders because it collides with adjacent states, and yet they don’t apply the same extraterritorial limitation upon United States taxing jurisdiction, even though it: 1.1. Similarly collides with and interferes neighboring countries. 1.2. Violates the sovereignty of adjacent nations under the law of nations. 1.3. Is completely hypocritical. Americans domiciled abroad ought to be able to decide when or if they want to be protected by the United States government while abroad and that method ought to be DIRECT and explicit, by expressly asking in writing to be protected and receiving a BILL for the cost of the protection. Instead, based on the outcome in Cook, the Supreme Court made the request for protection INDIRECT by associating it with the voluntary choice of calling oneself a statutory “U.S. citizen” under federal law. This caused the commission of a crime under current law and additional confusion because: 2.1. 18 U.S.C. §911 makes it is a crime to claim to be a statutory “U.S. citizen” under 8 U.S.C. §1401. 2.2. Under current law, you cannot be a statutory “citizen” without a domicile in a place and you can only have a domicile in one place at a time. Cook had a domicile in Mexico and therefore was a “resident” or “citizen” of Mexico, in which case he COULD NOT be a statutory “citizen of the “United States” at the same time. If an American domiciled abroad doesn’t want to be protected and says so in writing, they shouldn’t be forced to be protected or to pay for said protection through “taxation”. The U.S. government cannot and should not have the right to FORCE you to both be protected and to pay for such protection, because that is THEFT and SLAVERY, and especially if you regard their protection as an injury or a “protection racket”. YOU and not THEY should have the right to define whether what your government provides constitutes “PROTECTION”. You can’t be sovereign if they can define their mere existence as “protection”, force you to pay for that protection, and charge whatever they want for said protection. After all, they could injure you and as long as they are the only ones who can define words in a dispute, then they can call it a “benefit” and even charge you for it! If the government is going to enforce their right to force you to accept their “protection benefits” and pay for them, then by doing so they are: 6.1. “Purposefully availing themselves” of commerce within your life and your private jurisdiction. 6.2. Conferring upon you the same EQUAL right to tax THEM and regulate THEM that they claim they have the right to do to you under the concept of equal rights and equal protection. 6.3. Conferring upon you the right to decide how much YOU get to charge THEM for invading your life, stealing your resources, time, and property, and enslaving you. The above are an unavoidable consequence of the requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (F.S.I.A.), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97. That act applies equally to ALL governments, not just to foreign governments, under the concept of equal protection. YOU are your own “government” for your own “person”, family, and property. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, ALL the power of the U.S. government is delegated to them from YOU and “We the People”. Therefore, whatever rights they claim you must ALSO have, including the right to enforce YOUR franchises against them without THEIR consent. Hence, the same rules they apply to you HAVE to apply to them or they are nothing but terrorists and extortionists. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that when they tax nonresidents without their consent, it is more akin to crime and extortion than a lawful government function. "The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares --

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

131 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another state, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance, and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this Court to be beyond the power of the legislature, and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; State Tax on Foreign-Held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants' National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358. In Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property [199 U.S. 203] without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mt. Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 519." [Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905)]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21

22 23

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cook v. Tait DID NOT address any of the problems created above by their hypocritical double standard and self-serving word games, and if they had reconciled the problems described, they would have had to expose the FALSE presumptions they were making and the deliberate conflict of law those presumptions created, and thereby reconcile them. As you will eventually learn, most cases in federal court essentially boil down to a criminal conspiracy by the judge and the government prosecutor to “hide their presumptions” and “hide the consent of the governed” in order to advantage the government and conceal or protect their criminal conspiracy to steal from you and enslave you. This game is done by quoting words out of context, confusing the statutory and constitutional contexts, and abusing “words of art” to deceive and presume in a way that benefits them. They know that: 1. 2.

24 25

3.

26 27 28

They can’t govern you civilly without your consent as the Declaration of Independence requires The statutory “person”, “individual”, “citizen”, “resident”, and “inhabitant” they civilly govern is created by your consent When you call them on it and say you aren’t a “person”, “citizen”, “individual”, or “resident” under the civil law because you never consented to be governed, and instead are a nonresident, then instead of proving your consent to be governed as the Declaration of Independence requires, the criminals on the bench call you frivolous to cover up their FRAUD and THEFT of your property.

40

Likewise, corrupt governments frequently try to hide the prejudicial and injurious presumptions they are making because having to justify and defend them would expose the conflicts and deception in their reasoning. They know that all presumptions that prejudice rights protected by the Constitution are a violation of due process of law and render a void judgment so they try to hide them. For instance, in the Cook case, the presumption the Supreme Court made was that the term “citizen of the United States” made by the Plaintiff meant a STATUTORY citizen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401, and NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen. However, the only thing the Plaintiff reasonably could have been was a CONSTITUTIONAL and NOT STATUTORY citizen by virtue of being domiciled abroad. It is a fact that you can only have a domicile in one place at a time, that your statutory status as a “citizen” comes from that choice of domicile, and that you can therefore only be a statutory “citizen” on ONE place at a time. The Plaintiff in Cook was a citizen or resident of Mexico and NOT of the statutory “United States”. Hence, he was not a “taxpayer” because not the statutory ”citizen of the United States” that they allowed him to claim that he was. Allowing him to claim that status was FRAUD, but because it padded their pockets they tolerated it and went along with it, and used it to deceive even more people with a vague ruling describing their ruse.

41

If the Supreme Court had exposed all of their presumptions in the Cook case and were honest, they would have held that:

42

1. 2.

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51

3. 4. 5.

Cook was NOT a statutory “citizen of the United States” under the Internal Revenue Code. Cook could not truthfully claim to be a statutory “citizen of the United States” if he was domiciled in Mexico as he claimed and as they accepted. He didn’t have a domicile on federal territory called the “United States” therefore his claim that we was such a statutory “citizen” was FRAUD that they could not condone, even if it profited them. Cook was a nonresident and a “stateless person” immune from federal jurisdiction. Cook did not lawfully occupy a public office in the federal government as that term is legally defined. Since all public offices must be executed in the District of Columbia and not elsewhere, and since Cook wasn’t in the District of Columbia, then the I.R.C. could not be used to CREATE that public office and the “taxpayer” status that attaches to it in Mexico where he was.

So the U.S. Supreme Court:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

132 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

1. 2. 3.

4 5 6

4.

7 8 9

10 11 12

Made their ruling ambiguous and short. Refused to address all the implications described above. Left everyone speculating and afraid about what it meant, and how someone could owe a tax without a domicile in the United States (federal territory), even though in every other case domicile is the only reason that people owe an income tax. Used the fear and speculation and presumption that uncertainty creates and compels to force people to believe things that are simply not supportable by evidence nor true about tax liability, such as that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, regardless of where they physically are or where they are domiciled, owe a tax to the place of their birth, if that place of birth is the United States of America.

What a SCAM these shysters pulled with this ruling. And why did they do it? Because the Federal Reserve printing presses were running full speed, and yet paper money was still redeemable in gold, so they had to have a way to sop up all the excess currency they were printing.

15

The bottom line is that any entity that can FORCE you to accept protection you don’t want, call it a “benefit” even though you call it an injury and a crime, and force you to pay for it is a protection racket and a mafia, not a government. And such crooks will always resort to smoke and mirrors like the above to steal from you to subsidize their protection racket.

16

By the ruling in Cook v. Tait, the U.S. Supreme Court created a new franchise “status” called a statutory “U.S. citizen” that:

17

1.

13 14

18 19

2.

20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27

3. 4. 5.

Exists apart from your circumstances or your domicile. Hence, they superseded the common law, which requires that statutory citizenship MUST be tied to domicile. Attached a government “benefit” to the status. That “benefit” is the “consideration” needed to enforce the franchise contract, which is codified in the private law franchise contract codified in Internal Revenue Code, Subtitles A and C. Implies consent to a civil franchise agreement if the status is invoked. Causes a waiver of sovereign immunity in federal court. Transcends the territorial limits of federal law and allows them to legislate for people ANYWHERE who claim that status.

11 General Symptoms that you are living under a de facto government "To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism." [G. Edward Griffin]

28

11.1 You have equitable rather than legal title to your property

29

Black’s Law Dictionary defines property as follows:

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48

Property. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one. In the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government. Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State, 65 Misc.Rep. 263, 121 N.Y.S. 536. The term is said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. The highest right a man can have to anything; being used to refer to that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which no way depends on another man's courtesy. The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal, everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments, and includes every invasion of one's property rights by actionable wrong. Labberton v. General Cas. Co. of America, 53 Wash.2d. 180, 332 P.2d. 250, 252, 254. Property embraces everything which is or may be the subject of ownership, whether a legal ownership. or whether beneficial, or a private ownership. Davis v. Davis. TexCiv-App., 495 S.W.2d. 607. 611. Term includes not only ownership and possession but also the right of use and enjoyment for lawful purposes. Hoffmann v. Kinealy, Mo., 389 S.W.2d. 745, 752.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

133 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Property, within constitutional protection, denotes group of rights inhering in citizen's relation to physical thing, as right to possess, use and dispose of it. Cereghino v. State By and Through State Highway Commission, 230 Or. 439, 370 P.2d. 694, 697. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1095]

1 2 3 4

5

6 7 8 9 10

REAL “ownership” and REAL “rights” over property as legally defined therefore consists of: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

11 12 13 14 15

6. 7.

16 17 18 19 20

8.

21 22

That which belongs exclusively to one. Term “property” extends to every species of valuable right and interest Property includes everything which is or could be the subject of ownership Even RIGHTS protected by the Constitution are property Includes: 5.1. RIGHT to control use of it by others 5.2. RIGHT to exclude everyone else from benefitting from its use in any way 5.3. RIGHT to penalize others for unauthorized use Use and control over your property in no way depends on another’s discretion or courtesy You can give your property rights away WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT. Here’s how you do it…. 7.1. Contracting them away in writing to a PRIVATE (not government) third party in exchange for a PRIVILEGE 7.2. Implied consent through inaction or acquiescence 7.3. Accepting a government “benefit” 7.4. Being exploited by lawyers because of legal ignorance Real possession and ownership of your property, your rights, your life, your land, buildings, objects, and so forth, depend on NO ONE’S courtesy or patronage or whim (unless you turn your rights in for privileges, which this course will help you avoid)

23

QUESTION: Do you own:

24

1. 2. 3.

25 26

27 28 29 30

Your real property? Your own labor? ( (are you a SLAVE?) Your land?

ANSWER: Not if someone can charge you a fee or a tax on your property you don’t! A “property tax” means the government is the REAL owner and you pay ‘rent’ to live on THEIR property. If you don’t pay the tax, the REAL government owners CLAIM the right to take the property from you because, as stated earlier, the word property implies the right to exclude nonowners (you, for example) from the use or enjoyment of the property

33

In fact, most of what you think you “own” you only have an equitable interest in, and the government is the REAL owner, and a trust indenture called the public trust connects the two of you. How? Because if you connected it with government property such as a government license number called a Social Security Number:

34

1.

31 32

35 36

2.

37 38

3.

39 40

4.

41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49

5.

You donated it to a public use, public purpose, and public office in the U.S. government in order to procure the “benefits” of the socialism franchise. The real owner is the government, and the property is held in trust. That trust is the U.S. government and the trust indenture is the United States constitution. That trust is called a “public trust”. You are a trustee over the property who claims an equitable interest in the formerly private property, and that interest is the “compensation” you receive as trustee. The position of trustee is called a “public office”. That “public office” and the “res” or “corpus” of the trust are domiciled in the District of Columbia per the franchise agreement and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). The franchise agreement dictates choice of law (see 26 U.S.C. §7408(d) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) ) and places the trust and the officer who is surety for the trust in the District of Columbia, outside the protections of the Constitution. The public office and the trust are also a statutory and not constitutional “citizen of the United States” per 8 U.S.C. §1401, because the owner of the office and the franchise trust is a corporation called the “United States” and all corporations are statutory “citizens and residents” within the jurisdiction where they were created. "A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only." [19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

134 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Don’t believe us? Read the following and PLEASE prove us wrong: Resignation of Compelled Social Security Trustee, Form #06.002 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3

In fact, you will learn in the next section that every franchise offered by the government, which is a “public trust” is ALSO implemented as a trust.

4

11.2 Fiat currency not backed by substance

2

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America rise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” [John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787]

5 6 7 8

9 10

Upon the founding of this country, all money was denominated in gold and silver. Our constitution itself recognized only gold and silver as lawful money: United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1

11 12

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin as Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

13 14 15

16

The power of Congress to coin money is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

18

U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5

19

The Congress shall have Power To. . .

20

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

17

21

The first definition of money appeared in the United States of America Money Act, 1 Stat. 246, April 2, 1792.

22

24

The gold standard was suspended as a national emergency in 1933 by the Emergency Bank Relief Act, 48 Stat. 1. That state of national emergency continues to this day and renders everything the government does in relation to commerce as “de facto”.

25

In a monetary system not backed by substance, the value of currency is regulated by two factors:

26

1. 2.

23

27 28

29 30 31 32

The supply of currency in circulation. The endless borrowing of corrupted governments and the inevitable inflationary effect of both the borrowing and the desire to inflate away the debt itself.

No system of national currency can be stable without a method to retire excess currency from circulation. That purpose, in fact, is the main purpose behind the creation of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service itself. Before the Federal Reserve could be created, a national income tax had to be ratified by the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in February 1913. The history of this fraudulent ratification is covered in the following two volume series of books: The Law that Never Was, William Benson http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

33 34 35 36 37

Once the de facto politicians had gotten that amendment ratified by fraud in February of 1913, then and only then could they enact the Federal Reserve Act and use the Federal Reserve as the equivalent of a counterfeiting franchise for fiat currency. In December of 1913, that same year of the fraudulent ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, during Christmas recess and with only SIX votes, Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act that allowed them to counterfeit unlimited supplies of fiat currency unlawfully. The income tax had to be in place before the Federal Reserve could be created because a method had De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

135 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

to be provided to retire excess fiat currency from circulation in order that the value of currency could be stable while the specie (gold and silver) was debased. Ever since the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in December, 1913, Americans have been plagued with becoming involuntary surety to regulate the supply of currency by being compelled, ILLEGALLY, to pay a national income tax based upon franchises that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to offer or enforce within a constitutional state of the Union. The Internal Revenue Code itself is not unconstitutional, but the way it is MISREPRESENTED and ILLEGALLY ENFORCED in violation of itself is unconstitutional and criminal. For an exhaustive treatment of the ENFORCEMENT hoax that illegally expands tax revenues, see: Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

9

11.3 A perpetual state of emergency is instituted in any aspect of the way government functions

12

As we explained earlier in section 4, de facto government expand their power by creating contrived states of national emergency. Most of the corruption of the government has been introduced during a times of national emergency. Types of national emergencies include financial depressions and wars. Examples of this phenomenon:

13

1.

10 11

14 15 16

2.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24

The first income tax was instituted in 1862 to fund the Civil War. See Revenue Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 432. It was later repealed in 1872, but then reemerged after the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, which again was a period of World War. The suspension of redeemability of Federal Reserve Notes in gold and silver was introduced during a time of financial emergency following the Great Depression of 1929. 2.1. Redeemability was suspended as part of the Emergency Bank Relief Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 1. That state of national emergency continues to this day. 2.2. This violation of our Constitution is being perpetuated in the name of an ongoing national emergency under the authority of 12 U.S.C. §95b. 2.3. 12 U.S.C. §95b is legislation that unconstitutionally delegates to the President of the United States the authority to decree law, and thus it violates the separation of powers doctrine.

Not even a national emergency justifies suspension of any portion of the United States Constitution: “No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.26 An emergency, however, while it cannot create power, increase granted power, or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon the power granted or reserved, may allow the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency.27

25 26 27 28

The circumstances in which the executive branch may exercise extraordinary powers under the Constitution are very narrow.28 The danger must be immediate and impending, or the necessity urgent for the public service, such as will not admit of delay, and where the action of the civil authority would be too late in providing the means which the occasion calls for.29 For example, there is no basis in the Constitution for the seizure of steel mills during a wartime labor dispute, despite the President's claim that the war effort would be crippled if the mills were shut down. 30” [16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Constitutional Law, §52 (1999)]

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

26

As to the effect of emergencies on the operation of state constitutions, see § 59.

Veix v. Sixth Ward Building & Loan Ass’n of Newark, 310 U.S. 32, 60 S.Ct. 792, 84 L.Ed. 1061 (1940); Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413, 88 A.L.R. 1481 (1934). 27

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency and its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the states were determined in the light of emergency, and are not altered by emergency. First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762 (1938). 28

Halperin v. Kissinger, 606 F.2d. 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. granted, 446 U.S. 951, 100 S.Ct. 2915, 64 L.Ed.2d. 807 (1980) and aff'd in part, cert. dismissed in part, 452 U.S. 713, 101 S.Ct. 3132, 69 L.Ed.2d. 367 (1981), reh'g denied, 453 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 892, 69 L.Ed.2d. 1024 (1981) and on remand to, 542 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1982) and on remand to, 578 F. Supp. 231 (D.D.C. 1984), aff'd in part, remanded in part, 807 F.2d. 180 (D.C. Cir. 1986), on remand to, 723 F. Supp. 1535 (D.D.C. 1989), related reference, 1991 WL 120167 (D.D.C. 1991), remanded, 1992 WL 394503 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 29

Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 115, 13 How. 115, 14 L.Ed. 75 (1851).

30

Youngstown Sheet &Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153, 47 Ohio.Op. 430, 47 Ohio.Op. 460, 62 Ohio.L.Abs. 417, 62 Ohio.L.Abs. 473, 26 A.L.R.2d. 1378 (1952).

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

136 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

The outcome of ending redeemability of currency in gold and silver is to “debase the currency”, which is an act punishable by DEATH under the original United States of America Money Act, 1 Stat. 246-251, Section 19. That act is still in force and has NEVER been repealed.

4

United States of America Money Act, 1 Stat. 246-251

5

Section 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of the fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same out to be pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

Hence, socialist President Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have been tried for treason and sentenced to DEATH for starting the government on the road to what amounts to transforming our money system into the equivalent of a counterfeiting franchise that makes the government completely unaccountable to the people and legalizes THEFT. If you would like to learn more about this SCAM and ORGANIZED CRIME on the part of the de facto government, see: The Money Scam, Form #05.041 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

17

18 19

11.4 Government employees able to deceive with anonymity and impunity The Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.) published online by the Internal Revenue Service, admits that you CANNOT TRUST anything they write or publish and therefore, that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE for anything they say to the public. . "IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." [Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.8 (05-14-1999)]

20 21 22

23

At the same time, the IRS hypocritically:

24

1. 2.

25

26 27 28

29 30 31 32

Goes after anyone who puts anything untrue on their tax forms by prosecuting them for perjury. Penalizes people for relying on the advice or recommendations of ITS OWN EMPLOYEES!

Why on earth would anyone want to sign any government form under penalty of perjury that even the government refuses to accept accountability for the accuracy of? This is not only hypocrisy, but it is a violation of the requirement for equal protection and equal treatment that is the cornerstone of the United States Constitution. The IRS itself further protects their racketeering and fraud ring by conveniently “omitting” the most important key facts and information from their publications that would expose the proper and lawful application of the “tax” and the proper audience. See the following, which is over 2,000 pages of information that are conveniently “omitted” from the IRS website about the proper application of the franchise and its nature as a “franchise”: Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41

Even worse, the Internal Revenue Service openly conceals the real identities of its own employees from access by the public in order to encourage them to lie to the public with impunity. They do this by giving themselves “pseudonames” so that they can disguise their identity and be indemnified from liability for their own fraud and criminal acts. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, Pub.Law 105-206, Title III, Section 3706, 112 Stat. 778 and Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 1.2.4 both authorize these and regulate the use of these “pseudonames”. How come we are NOT EQUALLY protected in using pseudonyms on all tax forms to protect OUR identity and OUR liability for what we say? Even the federal courts are in on this form of racketeering, fraud, and extortion, because they have established legal case precedents warning the public that you can’t trust anything that anyone in the government tells you, and especially those who administer the income tax franchise. See: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

137 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

1.

2 3

2.

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13

Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/ Federal Courts and the IRS’ Own IRM Say the IRS is NOT RESPONSIBLE for Its Actions or Its Words or For Following Its Own Written Procedures!, Family Guardian Fellowship http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm

Hence, you can count on the fact that the IRS and the courts will continue to LIE to and deceive the public about the proper very limited application of the Internal Revenue Code and what the law actually requires the average American to do, and the reason they will do it is because there is NO DOWNSIDE and no punishment for doing so, and because they enforce UNEQUAL standards against themselves than they do against the public. Hence, they have implemented the equivalent of an unconstitutional “Title of Nobility” and privilege for themselves that causes the enslavement of every American in what we call “the new white slavery”.

11.5 Your Identity is Routinely and Illegally Kidnapped and connected to domicile in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction: federal territory31

18

We covered the rules for how the government became corrupted earlier in section 6.2, in which we showed that a combination of franchises and imposing territorial law within the states is the main method of conquest. Civil franchises offered by the government, like all law, is territorial in nature and does not reach outside the territory of the sovereign. Therefore, to reach state citizens with territorial franchise law, corrupted government must do so through identity theft by abusing legalese and the rules of statutory construction. These abuses are exhaustively described in the following:

19

6.

14 15 16 17

20 21 22

7.

23 24 25

8.

26 27 28

29 30

31 32 33

The most central subject to study to prevent identity theft is to understand franchises and the law of domicile. Government doesn't want you to know any of the following facts about domicile: 1. 2. 3.

34 35 36 37

4. 5. 6.

38 39 40

7. 8.

41 42

43 44 45

Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014-how the rules of statutory construction and interpretation are abused to legally kidnap people http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046-detailed memorandum of law on all the various techniques of government identity theft. http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm SLIDES: http://sedm.org/LibertyU/FoundOfFreedom-Slides.pdf VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvnTL_Z5asc

That all civil jurisdiction originates from your choice of domicile. That all income taxation is a civil liability that originates from your choice of domicile. That domicile requires your consent and is the equivalent of your consent to be civilly governed as required by the Declaration of Independence. That because they need your consent to choose a domicile, they can't tax or even govern you civilly without your consent. That domicile is based on the coincidence of physical presence and intent/consent to permanently remain in a place. That unless you choose a domicile within the jurisdiction of the government that has general jurisdiction where you live, they have no authority to institute income taxation upon you. That no one can determine your domicile except you. That if you don't want the protection of government, you can fire them and handle your own protection, by changing your domicile to a different place or group or government or choosing no domicile at all. This then relieves you of an obligation to pay income taxes to support the protection that you no longer want or need.

Therefore, governments have a vested interest in hiding the relationship of “domicile” to franchises and income taxation by removing it or at least obfuscating it in their “codes”. A number of irreconcilable conflicts of law are created by COMPELLING EVERYONE to have either a specific domicile or an earthly domicile. For instance:

31

Adapted from Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002, Section 13; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

138 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

1.

2 3 4 5

2.

6 7 8 9 10 11

3.

12 13 14 15 16 17

4.

If the First Amendment recognizes our universal right to freely associate and also implies a right to DISASSOCIATE, how can we be compelled to associate with a “state” or the people in the locality where we live without violating the First Amendment? It may not be presumed that we moved to a place because we wanted to associate with the people there. Domicile creates a duty of allegiance, according to the cite above. All allegiance MUST be voluntary. How can the state compel allegiance by compelling a person to have or to choose an earthly domicile? What gives them the right to insist that the only legitimate type of domicile is associated with a government? Why can’t it be a church, a religious group, or simply an association of people who want to have their own police force or protection service separated from the state? Since the only product that government delivers is “protection”, why can’t people have the right to fire the government and provide their own protection with the tax money they would have paid the government? When one chooses a domicile, they create a legal or contractual obligation to support a specific government, based on the above. By compelling everyone to choose an earthly domicile whose object is a specific government or state, isn’t the state interfering with our right to contract by compelling us to contract with a specific government for our protection? The Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 says no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Implicit in this right to contract is the right NOT to contract. Every right implies the opposite right. Therefore, how can everyone be compelled to have a domicile without violating their right to contract? The U.S. Supreme Court also said that income taxation based on domicile is “quasi-contractual” in nature.

20

“Even if the judgment is deemed to be colored by the nature of the obligation whose validity it establishes, and we are free to re-examine it, and, if we find it to be based on an obligation penal in character, to refuse to enforce it outside the state where rendered, see Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 292, et seq. 8 S.Ct.

21

1370, compare Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 , 28 S.Ct. 641,

18 19

still the obligation to pay taxes is not penal. It is a statutory liability, quasi contractual in nature, enforceable, if there is no exclusive statutory remedy, in the civil courts by the common-law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit. United States v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 , 31 S.Ct. 155; Price v.

22 23 24 25

United States, 269 U.S. 492 , 46 S.Ct. 180; Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227; and see Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 542; Meredith v. United States, 13 Pet. 486, 493. This was the rule established in the English courts before the Declaration of Independence. Attorney General v. Weeks, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 223; Attorney General v. Jewers and Batty, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. 225; Attorney General v. Hatton, Bunbury's Exch. Rep. [296 U.S. 268, 272] 262; Attorney General v. _ _, 2 Ans.Rep. 558; see Comyn's Digest (Title 'Dett,' A, 9); 1 Chitty on Pleading, 123; cf. Attorney General v. Sewell, 4 M.&W. 77. “ [Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935)]

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

The “quasi-contract” they are referring to above is your voluntary choice of “domicile”, no doubt. How can they compel such a contract if the person who is the object of the compulsion refuses to “do business” with the state and also refuses to avail themselves of any of the benefits of membership in said state? Wouldn’t that amount to slavery, involuntary servitude, and violate the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude?

33 34 35 36

40

Do you see how subtle this domicile thing is? It's a very sneaky way to draw you into the world system and force you to adopt and comply with earthly laws and a government that are hostile towards and foreign to God’s laws. All of the above deceptions and ruses are designed to keep you enslaved and entrapped to support a government that does nothing for you and which you may even want to abandon or disassociate with.

41

11.5.1

37 38 39

42 43

44 45 46

You should view every opportunity to complete a government form or any form that indicates a “domicile”, “residence”, or “permanent address” as: 1. 2. 3.

47 48 49

4. 5.

50 51

Domicile on government forms

6.

A waiver of sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §1605(b)(2). A change in status from "foreign" to "domestic" in relation to the government that created the form. An agreement to become a “customer” of government protection called a “citizen”, “resident”, and/or “inhabitant” within a specific jurisdiction. The conveyance of “consent to be governed” as the Declaration of Independence indicates. An attempt to nominate a protector and delegate to them the authority to supervise and even penalize your activities under the authority of the civil law. An agreement to pay for the protection of the specific government you have nominated to protect you.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

139 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

7.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8.

9

10 11

A voluntary attempt on your part to surrender rights recognized in the Constitution in exchange for privileges and “benefits” under a franchise agreement and to change your status from a “transient foreigner” to a “person” subject to federal statutes. The most privileged status you can be in is to be a resident alien participating in federal franchises. The Declaration of Independence says that rights protected by the Constitution are “unalienable”, meaning that they CAN’T be sold, transferred, or bargained away in relation to any government by any commercial process, including a government franchise or application. Therefore, you are recognizing that the grantor of the benefit is not a government, but a private corporation. An attempt to destroy equal protection mandated by the Constitution and make a specific government your "parens patriae", or government parent.

In short, anyone who asks you to fill out a government form or indicate a “domicile”, “residence”, or “permanent address” on their own private form is asking you the following question: “Who’s your daddy and where does he live? We want to notify him that you have selected him as your protector and agreed to become liable to subsidize his protection racket and his supervision of your otherwise private affairs. We don’t trust you so we want you to agree to sign this protection contract, nominate a protector, and agree to become his privileged employee or officer so he will ensure you won’t become a burden, bother, or injury to us.”

12 13 14 15 16

18

There are several ways that you are often deceived into inadvertently declaring a domicile on federal territory on government forms.

19

1.

17

20 21 22

By declaring that you maintain a domicile or live in the “United States”, which is defined as federal territory and excludes states of the Union pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). This is done by filling out anything in the block labeled “permanent address” or “residence” and indicating anything in that block other than the de jure republic you were born within or the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. [Internal Revenue Code] Sec. 7701. - Definitions

23 24

26

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

27

(9) United States

28 29

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only Columbia.

30

(10) State

31 32

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

33

________________________________________________________________________________

34

TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 4 > § 110

35 36

CHAPTER 4—THE STATES § 110. Same; definitions

37

As used in sections 105–109 of this title—

38

(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

25

39 40 41 42 43

2.

the States and the District of

People born and domiciled within the de jure states of the Union are domiciled in the “United States of America” or in the name of their state. For instance, under “country” put “California Republic” instead of “United States”. By filling out a government form and indicating that you are a statutory “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 or “resident” or “permanent resident” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(4)(B). All such persons have a legal domicile on federal territory. Collectively, these people are called statutory “U.S. persons” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

140 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

3.

2 3

1040A 11327A Each U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

4 5

Annual income tax return filed by citizens and residents of the United States. There are separate instructions available for this item. The catalog number for the instructions is 12088U.

6 7

W:CAR:MP:FP:F:I Tax Form or Instructions [IRS Published Products Catalog (2003), p. F-15; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/IRS/IRSDoc7130.pdf]

8 9 10

11

By filling out a form that presumes you are a “U.S. person”, such as IRS Form 1040. That form is ONLY for use by “U.S. persons” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) who have a legal domicile on federal territory. If you are not domiciled on federal territory, the only correct form to use is the IRS Form 1040NR.

4.

12 13 14

By requesting or using a Social Security Number on any government form. Social Security Numbers can only lawfully be issued to persons with a legal domicile on federal territory. 20 C.F.R. §422.104 says the number can only be issued to statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 or statutory “permanent residents”, both of whom have in common a domicile on federal territory.

15

26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(g)

16

(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons—

17

(1) General rule—

18

(i) Social security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual's social security number. _________________________________________________________________________________________

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TITLE 20--EMPLOYEES' BENEFITS CHAPTER III--SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PART 422_ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES--Table of Contents Subpart B_General Procedures Sec. 422.104 Who can be assigned a social security number.

26 27 28 29 30 31

(a) Persons eligible for SSN assignment. We can assign you a social security number if you meet the evidence requirements in Sec. 422.107 and you are: (1) A United States citizen; or (2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or under other authority of law permitting you to work in the United States (Sec. 422.105 describes how we determine if a nonimmigrant alien is permitted to work in the United States); or

32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

5.

By requesting or using a Taxpayer Identification Number on any government form, you create a presumption that you are engaged in the “trade or business” franchise and are a “resident” of federal territory. The only people who need them are “taxpayers” who are engaged in a “trade or business”/”public office” in the District of Columbia and therefore partaking of federal franchises. All such persons have an effective domicile in the District of Columbia because they are representing a federal corporation, the “United States” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) and are officers of that corporation. 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39), 26 U.S.C. §7408(d), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) all place their effective domicile in the District of Columbia and not within the place they physically occupy by virtue of the fact that they are acting in a representative capacity as a “public officer”.

46

26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.

47

A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a

48 49 50 51 52 53 54

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

141 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized. [Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975] [SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Resident-26cfr301.7701-5.pdf]

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11

We will now spend the rest of the section talking about how to avoid the problem described in item 1 above. There are many occasions on government forms, and especially tax forms, where we will be asked if we are “residents” and what our “residence” is and we must be very careful what we put on these forms. If a “residence” must be established on a government form for any reason, the safest way to handle this situation as a Christian is as follows: 1. 2.

12 13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20 21 22 23

24 25

26 27 28 29

3. 4. 5.

Line out the word “residence” and replace it with “domicile”. In the block declaring “residence” or “permanent address”, put one of the following: 2.1. “Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (not within any man made government)”. 2.2. A geographical place that has no owner and no government, such as the middle of the ocean. At the end of the address line put in parenthesis: “Not a domicile or residence.” If they ask you if you are a “resident”, simply say “NO”. Put a note at the bottom saying: “See and rebut the following web address for details, if you disagree: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/ChangeOfAddressAttachment.htm “

Any location of “residence” other than “Kingdom of Heaven on Earth” or a place not within the jurisdiction of any manmade government, however, will prejudice your rights, violate the Bible, and result in idolatry towards man/government. In fact, we believe the word “residence” and “resident” were invented by the legal profession as a way to separate intent from the word “domicile” so that people would no longer have a choice of their legal home. Christians should be very wary of this devious legal trap and avoid it as indicated above. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose [rebuke] them.” [Eph. 5:11, Bible]

There are also BIG advantages to declaring our domicile as being outside of federal jurisdiction in either the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth or a state of the Union, which is “foreign” with respect to the federal government. For instance, one's domicile determines the rules of decision of every court in which a person is sued. Below is an excerpt from the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) which proves this:

31

IV. PARTIES > Rule 17. Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity

32

(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.

33

Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows:

34

(1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile; (2) for a corporation, by the law under which it was organized; and (3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located, except that: (A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws; and (B) 28 U.S.C. §§754 and 959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver appointed by a United States court to sue or be sued in a United States court. [SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule17.htm]

30

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47

The above may not seem like a big deal, until you consider that if a person declares “heaven” as their domicile, then the court has to use God's laws in the Holy Bible as the only rules of decision! They cannot quote ANY federal statute or even court ruling as authority for what they are doing. The only thing they can apply is God's law and the rulings of ecclesiastical courts on the subject. We would LOVE to see this in a tax trial. The government would get CREAMED! This tactic is what we affectionately call “courtroom evangelism”.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

142 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3

Below is an example of how to fill out a Change of Address for the state of California to remove any presumptions about “residence”. If you don’t do this, the state will essentially legally “presume” that you are an “alien”, a “resident”, and a “taxpayer”, and this will grossly prejudice your Constitutional rights:

4

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/ChangeOfAddressAttachment.htm

5

A number of legal factors are used in determining one's domicile. The following facts and circumstances, although not necessarily conclusive, have probative value to support a claim of domicile within a particular state:

1 2

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

22 23 24 25 26

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Continuous presence in the state. Payment of ad valorem (property) taxes. Payment of personal income taxes. Reliance upon state sources for financial support. Domicile in the state of family, or other relatives, or persons legally responsible for the person. Former domicile in the state and maintenance of significant connections therein while absent. Ownership of a home or real property. Admission to a licensed practicing profession in the state. Long term military commitments in the state. Commitments to further education in the state indicating an intent to stay here permanently. Acceptance of an offer of permanent employment in the state. Location of spouse's employment, if any. Address of student listed on selective service (draft or reserves) registration.

Other factors indicating an intent to make a state one's domicile may be considered. Normally, the following circumstances do not constitute evidence of domicile sufficient to effect classification as a domiciliary: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Voting or registration for voting. The lease of living quarters. A statement of intention to acquire a domicile in state. Automobile registration; address on driver's license; payment of automobile taxes. Location of bank or saving accounts.

36

To conclude this section, you may wish to look at a few of the government's forms that effectively ask you what your “domicile” is, so you can see what we are talking about in this section. Before we do, we must emphasize that in some cases, the version of a form we choose to file, even if it says nothing on the form about domicile, may determine our “residence”! This is VERY important. For instance, if we file a 1040NR form, we are claiming that we are not a “resident alien” and that we do not maintain a domicile in the District of Columbia. Whereas, if we file an IRS Form 1040, we are claiming that we are either a “resident” with a domicile in the District of Columbia, or are a “U.S. citizen” who is described as a “alien” coming under a tax treaty with the United States if we attach a form 2555 to the IRS Form 1040. Also keep in mind that only a “resident” can have a “residence”, and that all “residents” are aliens under the tax code, as far as we understand it. This is confirmed by our quote of 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2 earlier in this section, which you may want to go back and read. With these important considerations, below are a few of the forms that determine our “domicile”:

37

Table 3: Example forms that determine domicile

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

#

Issuing agency

Form number

Form name

“Domicile”

1

IRS

1040, 1040EZ, 1040A

District of Columbia (only)

2

IRS

1040NR

State of the Union or foreign country

None. Just filing the form does this.

3

IRS

2555

U.S. Individual Income Tax Return U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return Foreign Earned Income Exclusion

Blocks that determine domicile None. Just filing the form does this.

4

IRS

W-8BEN

Abroad (foreign country) Place indicated in Block 4

None. Just filing the form does this. Block 4: “Permanent address”

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

Amplification

Make sure you put “Heaven” here!

143 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

#

Issuing agency

Form number

Form name

“Domicile”

5

Dept. of State

DS-11

Place indicated in Block 13.

6

States

Change of address

Application for U.S. Passport or Registration Example: California DMV14 form

7 8

States States

Voter registration Driver’s license application

Voter registration Driver’s license application

Place indicated in “New Correct Residence Address” State where filed State where filed (some states, not all)

Blocks that determine domicile Block 13: “Permanent address” “New Correct residence address”

Amplification Make sure you put “Heaven” here! Make sure you put “Heaven” here!

In Oregon, you declare yourself to be a “resident” just by getting a state Driver’s License. However, not all states do this.

3

When you fill out government forms to reflect a domicile that is in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, some ignorant or wicked or atheist clerks may decide to argue with you. Below are the three most popular arguments you will hear, which are each accompanied by tactics that are useful in opposing them:

4

1.

1 2

5 6 7

2.

8 9

A problem common to both religion clauses of the First Amendment is the dilemma of defining religion. To define religion is in a sense to establish it--those beliefs that are included enjoy a preferred constitutional status. For those left out of the definition, the definition may prove coercive. Indeed, it is in this latter context, which roughly approximates the area covered by the free exercise clause, where the cases and discussion of the meaning of religion have primarily centered. Professor Kent Greeawalt challenges the effort, and all efforts, to define religion: “No specification of essential conditions will capture all and only the benefits, practices, and organizations that are regarded as religious in modern culture and should be treated as such under the Constitution.” [First Amendment Law, Barron-Dienes, West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-22677-X, p. 432]

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

If you submit the government form to a private company or organization, they may say that they have an unofficial “policy” of not accepting such forms. In response to such tactics, find another company that will accept it. If all companies won't accept it, then sue the companies for discrimination and violation of First Amendment rights. They may say that “domicile” is based on a physical place and that Heaven is not a physical place. In response to this, we must remember that the First Amendment prevents the government from “establishing a religion”. Because of this prohibition, the government can't even “define” what a religion is:

3.

To even define what “Heaven” is or to say that it doesn't physically exist is effectively to establish a religion. In order to determine that “Heaven” is not a physical place, they would be violating the separation of church and state and infringing upon your First Amendment right to practice your religion. They may say that no place can qualify as a domicile that you didn't occupy at one point or another. When they do this, the proper response is to say that they are interfering with your First Amendment religious rights and then to quote them the following scriptures, which suggest that we had an existence in Heaven before we ever came to earth and before time began:

26

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in

27

trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and

28

made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, “

29 30

31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41

[Eph. 2:4-6, Bible, NKJV] ______________________________________________________________________________________ “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” [Jeremiah 1:5, Bible, NKJV] ______________________________________________________________________________________ “

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before [earthly] time began,” [2 Tim. 1:8-9, Bible, NKJV] ______________________________________________________________________________________

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

144 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” [Eph. 2:10, Bible, NKJV] ______________________________________________________________________________________

1 2 3 4

I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The [earthly] days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them! [Psalm 139:14-17, Bible, NKJV]

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Another approach that is useful against this tactic is to point out that the federal courts have ruled that:

18

“Similarly, when a person is prevented from leaving his domicile by circumstances not of his doing and beyond his control, he may be relieved of the consequences attendant on domicile at that place. In Roboz (USDC D.C. 1963) [Roboz v. Kennedy, 219 F.Supp. 892 (D.D.C. 1963), p. 24], a federal statute was involved which precluded the return of an alien's property if he was found to be domiciled in Hungary prior to a certain date. It was found that Hungary was Nazi-controlled at the time in question and that the persons involved would have left Hungary (and lost domicile there) had they been able to. Since they had bee precluded from leaving because of the political privations imposed by the very government they wanted to escape (the father was in prison there), the court would not hold them to have lost their property based on a domicile that circumstances beyond their control forced them to retain.” [Conflicts in a Nutshell, David D. Siegel and Patrick J. Borchers, West Publishing, p. 24]

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

We should always remember that we never chose to come here to earth, and our presence is involuntary. Therefore, everything we do while here is a matter of compulsion rather than true choice. This subject is covered more thoroughly in sections 4.11.6 through 4.11.6.4 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 if you wish to investigate. Therefore, we can be relieved of the consequences attendant to domicile if we do not wish to have one here.

29 30 31 32

37

If all the above arguments are ineffective or when the government refuses to recognize your choice of Heaven as a domicile, remember also that the First Amendment STILL prevents them from compelling you to associate with any group, including a state, and that they can't compel you to belong to or consent to any earthly government or law, to accept or pay for protection you don't want and don't need, and which you can even prove is harmful to you. In effect, they cannot violate the very reason for their establishment, which is protecting you the way YOU, not THEM want to be protected.

38

11.5.2

39 40

The government has compelled domicile or interfered with receiving the benefits of your choice by any of the following means:

41

1.

33 34 35 36

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

2.

How the tax code compels choice of domicile

Nowhere in Internal Revenue Code is the word “domicile” admitted to be the source of the government’s jurisdiction to impose an income tax, even though the U.S. Supreme Court admitted this in Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954). The word “domicile”, in fact, is only used in two sections of the entire 9,500 page Internal Revenue Code, Title 26. This is no accident, but a very devious way for the government to avoid getting into arguments with persons who it is accusing of being “taxpayers”. It avoids these arguments by avoiding showing Americans the easiest way to challenge federal jurisdiction, which is demanding proof from the government required by 5 U.S.C. §556(d), who is the moving party, that you maintain a domicile in the District of Columbia. The two sections below are the only places where domicile is mentioned: 1.1. 26 U.S.C. §7448(j)(1)(B)(vi): Annuities to surviving spouses and dependent children of judges. 1.2. 26 U.S.C. §6091: Defines where returns shall be submitted in the case of deceased “taxpayers”, which is the “domicile” of the decedent when he died. They renamed the word “domicile” on government tax forms. They did this so that income taxation “appears” to be based entirely on physical presence, when in fact is also requires voluntary consent as well. If you knew that the

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

145 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

government needed your consent to become a “taxpayer”, then probably everyone would “un-volunteer” and the government would be left scraping for pennies. Below are some examples of other names they gave to “domicile”: 2.1. “permanent address” 2.2. “permanent residence” 2.3. “residence”: defined above, and only applying to nonresident aliens. There is no definition of “residence” anywhere in the I.R.C. in the case of a “citizen”. Below is how Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Volume 28, Domicile, §4, describes the distinction between “residence” and “domicile”:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

11

Corpus Juris Secundum Domicile §4 Domicile and Residence Distinguished

12

b. Use of Terms in Statutes

9 10

The terms “domicile” and “residence,” as used in statutes, are commonly, although not necessarily, construed as synonymous. Whether the term “residence,” as used in a statute, will be construed as having the meaning of “domicile,” or the term “domicile” construed as “residence,” depends on the purpose of the statute and the nature of the subject matter, as well as the context in which the term is used. 32 It has been declared that the terms “residence” and “domicile” are almost universally used interchangeably in statute, and that since domicile and legal residence are synonymous, the statutory rules for determining the place of residence are the rules for determining domicile.34 However, it has been held that “residence,” when used in statutes, is generally interpreted by the courts as meaning “domicile,” but with important exception.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Accordingly, whenever the terms “residence” and “domicile” are used in connection with subjects of domestic policy, the terms are equivalent, as they also are, generally, where a statute prescribes residence as a qualification for the enjoyment of a privilege or the exercise of a franchise. “Residence” as used in various particular statutes has been considered synonymous with “domicile.” 39 However, the terms are not necessarily synonymous.40 [28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §4 Domicile and Resident Distinguished]

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.

29

By telling you that you MUST have a “domicile”. For instance, the Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Volume 28 section on “Domicile” says the following on this subject:

30

Corpus Juris Secundum §5 Necessity and Number

31 32 33

“It is a settled principle that every person must have a domicile somewhere.3 The law permits no individual to be without a domicile,42 and an individual is never without a domicile somewhere.13 Domicile is a continuing thing, and from the moment a person is born he must, at all times, have a domicile .” [28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §5 Necessity and Number] ________________________________________________________________________________

34 35 36 37 38 39

Corpus Juris Secundum §9 Domicile by Operation of Law

40 41 42

“Whenever a person does not fix a domicile for himself, the law will fix one for him in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case; l2 and an infant's domicile will be fixed by operation of law where it cannot be determined from that of the parents.73” [28 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Domicile, §9 Domicile by Operation of Law]

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

4.

Indirectly, what they are suggesting in the above by FORCING you to have a domicile is that: 3.1. You cannot choose God as your sole Protector, but MUST have an earthly protector who cannot be yourself. 3.2. Although the First Amendment gives you the right to freely associate, it does not give you the right to disassociate with ALL governments. This is an absurdity. 3.3. Government has a monopoly on protection and that individuals are not allowed to fire the government and provide their own protection, either individually or collectively. By inventing new words that allow them to avoid mentioning “domicile” in their vague “codes” while giving you the impression that an obligation exists that actually is consensual. For instance, in 26 U.S.C. §911 is the section of the I.R.C. entitled “Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad”. This section identifies the income tax liabilities of persons domiciled in the “United States” (federal zone) who are living temporarily abroad. We showed earlier that if they have a domicile abroad, then they cannot be either “citizens” or “residents” under the I.R.C., because domicile is a prerequisite for being either. In that section, they very deceptively: 4.1. Use the word “abode” in 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3) to describe one’s domicile so as to remove the requirement for “intent” and “consent” from consideration of the subject, even though they have no authority to ignore this requirement for consent in the case of anything but an “alien”.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

146 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

4.2. Don't even use the word “domicile” at all, and refuse to acknowledge that what “citizens” or “residents” both have in common is a “domicile” within the United States. They did this to preserve the illusion that even after one changes their domicile to a foreign country while abroad, the federal tax liability continues, when in fact, it legally is not required to. After domicile is changed, those Americans who changed it while abroad then are no longer called “citizens” under federal law, but rather “nationals” and “nonresident aliens”. 4.3. They invented a new word called a “tax home”, as if it were a substitute for “domicile”, when in fact it is not. A “tax home” is defined in 26 U.S.C. §911 as a place where a person who has a temporary presence abroad treats himself or herself as a privileged “resident” in the foreign country but still also maintains a privileged “resident” and “domicile” status in the “United States”.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART III > Subpart B > § 911 § 911. Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad

12

(d) Definitions and special rules For purposes of this section—

13

(3) Tax home

10

The term “tax home” means, with respect to any individual, such individual’s home for purposes of section 162 (a)(2) (relating to traveling expenses while away from home). An individual shall not be treated as having a tax home in a foreign country for any period for which his abode [domicile] is within the United States [federal zone].

14 15 16 17 18

The only way the government can maintain your status as a “taxpayer” is to perpetuate you in a “privileged” state, so they simply don’t offer any options to leave the privileged state by refusing to admit to you that the terms “citizen” and “resident” presume you made a voluntary choice of domicile within their jurisdiction. I.R.C. section 162 mentioned above is the section for privileged deductions, and the only persons who can take deductions are those engaged in the privileged “trade or business” excise taxable franchise. Therefore, the only person who would derive any benefit from deductions is a person with a domicile in the “United States” (District of Columbia) and who has earnings from that place which are connected with a “trade or business”, which means U.S. government (corporation) source income as a “public officer”.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

11.5.3

28 29

Even the legal encyclopedia tries to hide the nature of domicile. For instance, Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Volume 28 at:

30

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/Domicile-28CJS-20051203.pdf

31 32 33

which we quoted in the previous section does not even mention the requirement for “allegiance” as part of domicile or the fact that allegiance must be voluntary and not compelled, even though the U.S. Supreme Court said this was an essential part of it: “Since the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a citizen of the state wherein he resides, the fact of residence creates universally reciprocal duties of protection by the state and of allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter.” [Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954)]

34 35 36 37

38 39

40 41

The legal encyclopedia in the above deliberately and maliciously omits mention of any of the following key concepts, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged elements of them as we have shown: 1. 2.

42 43

3.

44 45 46 47

How the Legal Encyclopedia compels choice of domicile

4.

That allegiance that is the foundation of domicile must be voluntary and cannot be coerced. That external factors such as the withdrawal of one’s right to conduct commerce for failure to give allegiance causes domicile choice to no longer be voluntary. That a choice of domicile constitutes an exercise of your First Amendment right of freedom of association and that a failure to associate with a specific government is an exercise of your right of freedom from compelled association. That you retain all your constitutional rights even WITHOUT choosing a domicile within a specific government because rights attach to the land you are standing on and not the civil status you choose by exercising your right to associate and becoming a member of a “state” or municipality.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

147 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

The result of maliciously refusing to acknowledge the above concepts is a failure to acknowledge the foundation of all just authority of every government on earth, which is the consent of the governed mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [Declaration of Independence]

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

A failure to acknowledge that requirement for “consent of the governed” results in a complete destruction of the sovereignty of the people, because the basis of all your sovereignty is that no one can do anything to you without your consent, unless you injured the equal rights of others. This concept is exhaustively described in the following document: Requirement for Consent, Form #05.003 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

13

11.5.4

14

In order to do business within any jurisdiction, and especially with the government and financial institutions, one usually needs identification documents. Such documents include:

15

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23

24 25

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

How governments compel choice of domicile: Government ID

State driver’s license. Issued by the Dept. of Motor Vehicles in your state. State ID card. Issued by the Dept. of Motor Vehicles in your state. Permanent resident green card. National passport. Issued by the U.S. Dept. of State. U.S. Citizen Card. Issued by the Dept. of State. These are typically used at border crossings.

All ID issued by the state governments, and especially the driver’s license, requires that the applicant be a “resident” of the “State of____”. If you look up the definition of “resident” and “State of” or “State” or “in this State” within the state tax code, these terms are defined to mean a privileged alien with a domicile on federal territory not protected by the Constitution. USA passports also require that you provide a domicile. The Department of State Form DS-11 in Block 17 requires you to specify a “Permanent Address”, which means domicile. See: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/DOS-DS11-20080320.pdf

26 27 28

Domicile within the country is not necessary in order to be issued a national passport. All you need is proof of birth within that country. If you would like tips on how to obtain a national passport without a domicile within a state and without government issued identifying numbers that connect you to franchises, see: Getting a USA Passport as a “State National”, Form #10.013 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36

37 38 39 40

State ID, however, always requires domicile within the state in order to be issued either a state driver’s license or a state ID. Consequently, there is no way to avoid becoming privileged if you want state ID. This situation would seem at first to be a liability until you also consider that they can’t lawfully issue a driver’s license to non-residents. Imagine going down to the DMV and telling them that you are physically on state land but do not choose a domicile here and that you can’t be compelled to and that you would like for them to certify that you came in to request a license and that you were refused and don’t qualify. Then you can show that piece of paper called a “Letter of Disqualification” to the next police officer who stops you and asks you for a license. Imagine having the following dialog with the police officer when you get stopped: Officer: May I see your license and registration please? You: I’m sorry, officer, but I went down to the DMV to request a license and they told me that I don’t qualify because I am a non-resident of this state. I have a Letter of Disqualification they gave me while I was there stating that I made application and that they could not lawfully issue a license to me as a nonresident. Here it is, officer.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

148 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

Officer: Well, then do you have a license from another state?

2

You: My domicile is in a place that has no government. Therefore, there is no one who can issue licenses there. Can you show me a DMV office in the middle of the ocean, which is where my domicile is and where my will says my ashes will be PERMANENTLY taken to when I die. My understanding is that domicile or residence requires an intention to permanently remain at a place and I am not here permanently and don’t intend to remain here. I am a perpetual traveler, a transient foreigner, and a vagrant until I am buried.

3 4 5 6

Officer: Don’t get cute with me. If you don’t produce a license, then I’m going to cite you for driving without a license.

7 8

You: Driving is a commercial activity and I am not presently engaged in a commercial activity. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Furthermore, I’d love to see you explain to the judge how you can punish me for refusing to have that which the government says they can’t even lawfully issue me. That ought to be a good laugh. I’m going to make sure the whole family is there for that one. It’ll be better than Saturday Night Live!

9 10 11 12

16

We allege that the purpose of the vehicle code in your state is NOT the promotion of public safety, but to manufacture “residents” and “taxpayers”. The main vehicle by which states of the Union, in fact, manufacture “residents”, who are privileged “public officers” that are “taxpayers” and aliens with respect to the government is essentially by compelling everyone to obtain and use state driver’s licenses. This devious trap operates as follows:

17

1.

13 14 15

18 19 20 21

22

23 24 25 26 27

28 29

30 31 32 33 34

35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47

48 49 50 51 52

You cannot obtain a state driver’s license without being a “resident”. If you go into any DMV office and tell them you are not a “resident”, then they are not allowed to issue you a license. You can ask from them what is called a “Letter of Disqualification”, which states that you are not eligible for a driver’s license. You can keep that letter and show it to any police officer who stops you and wants your “license”. He cannot then cite you for “driving without a license” that the state refuses to issue you, nor can he impound your car for driving without a license! California Vehicle Code “14607.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in this section, a motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture as a nuisance if it is driven on a highway in this state by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver, who is a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment and has a previous misdemeanor conviction for a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5. (b) A peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole reason of determining whether the driver is properly licensed. (c) (1) If a driver is unable to produce a valid driver's license on the demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code, as required by subdivision (b) of Section 12951, the vehicle shall be impounded regardless of ownership, unless the peace officer is reasonably able, by other means, to verify that the driver is properly licensed. Prior to impounding a vehicle, a peace officer shall attempt to verify the license status of a driver who claims to be properly licensed but is unable to produce the license on demand of the peace officer. (2) A peace officer shall not impound a vehicle pursuant to this subdivision if the license of the driver expired within the preceding 30 days and the driver would otherwise have been properly licensed. (3) A peace officer may exercise discretion in a situation where the driver without a valid license is an employee driving a vehicle registered to the employer in the course of employment. A peace officer may also exercise discretion in a situation where the driver without a valid license is the employee of a bona fide business establishment or is a person otherwise controlled by such an establishment and it reasonably appears that an owner of the vehicle, or an agent of the owner, relinquished possession of the vehicle to the business establishment solely for servicing or parking of the vehicle or other reasonably similar situations, and where the vehicle was not to be driven except as directly necessary to accomplish that business purpose. In this event, if the vehicle can be returned to or be retrieved by the business establishment or registered owner, the peace officer may release and not impound the vehicle. (4) A registered or legal owner of record at the time of impoundment may request a hearing to determine the validity of the impoundment pursuant to subdivision (n). (5) If the driver of a vehicle impounded pursuant to this subdivision was not a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment, or if the driver of the vehicle was a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment but the driver does not have a previous conviction for a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 12500 or Section 14601, 14601.1, 14601.2, 14601.3, 14601.4, or 14601.5, the vehicle shall be released pursuant to this code and is not subject to forfeiture.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

149 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20 21

22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30

31 32

33 34

35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

(d) (1) This subdivision applies only if the driver of the vehicle is a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment. Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (c), if the driver of a vehicle impounded pursuant to subdivision (c) was a registered owner of the vehicle at the time of impoundment, the impounding agency shall authorize release of the vehicle if, within three days of impoundment, the driver of the vehicle at the time of impoundment presents his or her valid driver's license, including a valid temporary California driver's license or permit, to the impounding agency. The vehicle shall then be released to a registered owner of record at the time of impoundment, or an agent of that owner authorized in writing, upon payment of towing and storage charges related to the impoundment, and any administrative charges authorized by Section 22850.5, providing that the person claiming the vehicle is properly licensed and the vehicle is properly registered. A vehicle impounded pursuant to the circumstances described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) shall be released to a registered owner whether or not the driver of the vehicle at the time of impoundment presents a valid driver's license. (2) If there is a community property interest in the vehicle impounded pursuant to subdivision (c), owned at the time of impoundment by a person other than the driver, and the vehicle is the only vehicle available to the driver's immediate family that may be operated with a class C driver's license, the vehicle shall be released to a registered owner or to the community property interest owner upon compliance with all of the following requirements: (A) The registered owner or the community property interest owner requests release of the vehicle and the owner of the community property interest submits proof of that interest. (B) The registered owner or the community property interest owner submits proof that he or she, or an authorized driver, is properly licensed and that the impounded vehicle is properly registered pursuant to this code. (C) All towing and storage charges related to the impoundment and any administrative charges authorized pursuant to Section 22850.5 are paid. (D) The registered owner or the community property interest owner signs a stipulated vehicle release agreement, as described in paragraph (3), in consideration for the nonforfeiture of the vehicle. This requirement applies only if the driver requests release of the vehicle. (3) A stipulated vehicle release agreement shall provide for the consent of the signator to the automatic future forfeiture and transfer of title to the state of any vehicle registered to that person, if the vehicle is driven by a driver with a suspended or revoked license, or by an unlicensed driver. The agreement shall be in effect for only as long as it is noted on a driving record maintained by the department pursuant to Section 1806.1. (4) The stipulated vehicle release agreement described in paragraph (3) shall be reported by the impounding agency to the department not later than 10 days after the day the agreement is signed. (5) No vehicle shall be released pursuant to paragraph (2) if the driving record of a registered owner indicates that a prior stipulated vehicle release agreement was signed by that person. (e) (1) The impounding agency, in the case of a vehicle that has not been redeemed pursuant to subdivision (d), or that has not been otherwise released, shall promptly ascertain from the department the names and addresses of all legal and registered owners of the vehicle. (2) The impounding agency, within two days of impoundment, shall send a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all legal and registered owners of the vehicle, at the addresses obtained from the department, informing them that the vehicle is subject to forfeiture and will be sold or otherwise disposed of pursuant to this section. The notice shall also include instructions for filing a claim with the district attorney, and the time limits for filing a claim. The notice shall also inform any legal owner of its right to conduct the sale pursuant to subdivision (g). If a registered owner was personally served at the time of impoundment with a notice containing all the information required to be provided by this paragraph, no further notice is required to be sent to a registered owner. However, a notice shall still be sent to the legal owners of the vehicle, if any. If notice was not sent to the legal owner within two working days, the impounding agency shall not charge the legal owner for more than 15-days' impoundment when the legal owner redeems the impounded vehicle. (3) No processing charges shall be imposed on a legal owner who redeems an impounded vehicle within 15 days of the impoundment of that vehicle. If no claims are filed and served within 15 days after the mailing of the notice in paragraph (2), or if no claims are filed and served within five days of personal service of the notice specified in paragraph (2), when no other mailed notice is required pursuant to paragraph (2), the district attorney shall prepare a written declaration of forfeiture of the vehicle to the state. A written declaration of forfeiture signed by the district attorney under this subdivision shall be deemed to provide good and sufficient title to the forfeited vehicle. A copy of the declaration shall be provided on request to any person informed of the pending forfeiture pursuant to paragraph (2). A claim that is filed and is later withdrawn by the claimant shall be deemed not to have been filed.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

150 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

(4) If a claim is timely filed and served, then the district attorney shall file a petition of forfeiture with the appropriate juvenile, municipal, or superior court within 10 days of the receipt of the claim. The district attorney shall establish an expedited hearing date in accordance with instructions from the court, and the court shall hear the matter without delay. The court filing fee, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50), shall be paid by the claimant, but shall be reimbursed by the impounding agency if the claimant prevails. To the extent practicable, the civil and criminal cases shall be heard at the same time in an expedited, consolidated proceeding. A proceeding in the civil case is a limited civil case.” [California Vehicle Code, Section 14607.6, Sept. 20, 2004]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13

14

2.

Below is evidence showing how one person obtained a “Letter of Disqualification“ that resulted in being able to drive perpetually without having a state -issued driver's license. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/DomicileBasisTaxationDL-20060522.pdf Most state vehicle codes define “resident” as a person with a domicile in the “State”. Below is an example from the California Vehicle Code: California Vehicle Code

31

516. “Resident” means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency. The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration: (a) Address where registered to vote. (b) Location of employment or place of business. (c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education. (d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school. (e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption. (f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence. (g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident. (h) Possession of a California driver's license. (i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. [SOURCE: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=49966114921+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve] __________________________________________________________________________________________

32

California Vehicle Code

33

12505. (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile. “State of domicile” means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

53 54 55

56

Prima facie evidence of residency for driver's licensing purposes includes, but is not limited to, the following: (A) Address where registered to vote. (B) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education. (C) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption. (D) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. (2) California residency is required of a person in order to be issued a commercial driver's license under this code. (b) The presumption of residency in this state may be rebutted by satisfactory evidence that the licensee's primary residence is in another state. (c) Any person entitled to an exemption under Section 12502, 12503, or 12504 may operate a motor vehicle in this state for not to exceed 10 days from the date he or she establishes residence in this state, except that he or she shall obtain a license from the department upon becoming a resident before being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways. [SOURCE: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=49860512592+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve] _________________________________________________________________________________________ 516. “Resident” means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency. The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

151 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

(a) Address where registered to vote.

2

(b) Location of employment or place of business.

3

(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.

4

(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.

5

(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.

6

(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence. (g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.

7 8

(h) Possession of a California driver's license.

9

(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient. [SOURCE: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=00001-01000&file=100-680]

10 11

12

3.

13

The term “State” is then defined in the revenue codes to mean the federal areas within the exterior limits of the state. Below is an example from the California Vehicle Code: California Revenue and Taxation Code

14

16

17017. “United States,” when used in a geographical sense, includes the states, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.

17

17018. “State” includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.

15

18 19

4.

You must surrender all other state driver’s licenses in order to obtain one from most states. the California Vehicle Code:

Below is an example from

20

California Vehicle Code

21

12805. The department shall not issue a driver's license to, or renew a driver's license of, any person:

22

[. . .]

23

(f) Who holds a valid driver's license issued by a foreign jurisdiction unless the license has been surrendered to the department, or is lost or destroyed. __________________________________________________________________________________________

24 25

26 27

28 29

12511. No person shall have in his or her possession or otherwise under his or her control more than one driver's license.

Consequently, the vehicle code in most states, in the case of individuals not involved in “commercial activity”, applies mainly to “public officers” who are effectively “residents” of the federal zone with an effective “domicile” or “residence” there:

30

26 U.S.C. §7701

31 32

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

33

(39) Persons residing outside United States

34 36

If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—

37

(A) jurisdiction of courts, or

38

(B) enforcement of summons.

35

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

152 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25

[SOURCE: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701]

These persons are “taxpayers”. They are Americans who have contracted away their Constitutional rights in exchange for government “privileges” and they are the only “persons” who inhabit or maintain a “domicile” or “residence” in the “State” as defined above. Only people with a domicile in such “State” can be required to obtain a “license” to drive on the “highways”. While they are exercising “agency” on behalf of or representing the government corporation, they are “citizens” of that corporation and “residents”, because the corporation itself is a “citizen” and therefore a person with a domicile in the place where the corporation was formed, which for the “United States” is the District of Columbia: “Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes 'all persons,' ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. 'No man shall be taken,' 'no man shall be disseised,' without due process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal government, by the amendments to the constitution.” [Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)] __________________________________________________________________________________________ “A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.” [19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)] __________________________________________________________________________________________

28

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure IV. PARTIES > Rule 17. Rule 17. Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity

29

(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued.

30

Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as follows:

31

(1) for an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity, by the law of the individual's domicile; (2) for a corporation[or one REPRESENTING a PUBLIC CORPORATION called the government as a “public officer”], by the law under which it was organized; and (3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located, except that: (A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under that state's law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United States Constitution or laws; and (B) 28 U.S.C. §§754 and 959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver appointed by a United States court to sue or be sued in a United States court. [SOURCE: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule17.htm]

26 27

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46

If you don’t want to be a “public officer” who has an effective “domicile” or “residence” in the District of Columbia, then you have to divorce the state, create your own “state”, and change your domicile to that new “state”. For instance, you can form an association of people and choose a domicile within that association. This association would be referred to as a “foreign jurisdiction” within the vehicle code in most states. The association can become the “government” for that group, and issue its own driver’s licenses and conduct its own “courts”. In effect, it becomes a competitor to the de facto state for the affections, allegiance, and obedience of the people. This is capitalism at its finest, folks!

47

California Vehicle Code

48

12502. (a) The following persons may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a driver's license under this code:

49

50 51 52 53

(1) A nonresident over the age of 18 years having in his or her immediate possession a valid driver's license issued by a foreign jurisdiction of which he or she is a resident, except as provided in Section 12505. [SOURCE: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=12001-13000&file=12500-12527]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

153 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2

As long as the driver’s licenses issued by the government you form meet the same standard as those for the state you are in, then it doesn’t matter who issued it.

3

California Vehicle Code

4 5

12505. (a) (1) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile. “State of domicile” means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and

6

permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the

7

returning whenever he or she is absent.

8

[. . .]

9

(e) Subject to Section 12504, a person over the age of 16 years who is a resident of a foreign jurisdiction other than a state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Canada, having a valid driver's license issued to him or her by any other foreign jurisdiction having licensing standards deemed by the Department of Motor Vehicles equivalent to those of this state, may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a license from the department, except that he or she shall obtain a license before being employed for compensation by another for the purpose of driving a motor vehicle on the highways. [SOURCE: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=12001-13000&file=12500-12527]

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

intention of

19

As long as you take and pass the same written and driver’s tests as the state uses, even your church could issue it! As a matter of fact, below is an example of a church that issues “Heaven Driver’s Licenses” called “Embassy of Heaven”:

20

http://www.embassyofheaven.com/

18

21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45

You can’t be compelled by law to grant to your public “servants” a monopoly that compels you into servitude to them as a “public officer”. In the United States, WE THE PEOPLE are the government, and not their representatives and “servants” who work for them implementing the laws that they pass. Consequently, you and your friends or church, as a “self-governing body” can make your own driver’s license and in fact and in law, those licenses will by definition be “government-issued”. To wit: “The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives [they are the government, not their servants]. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ...” [Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)] __________________________________________________________________________________________ “From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or Statesovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.” [Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 454, 457, 471, 472 (1794)]

Anyone who won’t accept such a driver’s license should be asked to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court and to prove that you AREN’T part of the government as a person who governs his own life and the lives of other members of the group you have created. The following article also emphasizes that “We The People” are the government, and that our servants have been trying to deceive us into believing otherwise: We The People Are The American Government, Nancy Levant http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/WeAreGovernment.pdf

46

If you would like to know more about this fascinating subject, see the following book:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

154 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Defending Your Right to Travel, Form #06.010 http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/DefYourRightToTravel.htm 1 2 3 4 5 6

Chances are good that you as a reader at one time or another procured government ID without knowing all the legal consequences described in this document. The existence of that ID and the evidence documenting your request for it can and probably will be used by the government against you as evidence that you are subject to their civil laws and a customer of their "protection racket". The best technique for rebutting such evidence is that appearing in the following document. The submission of this document is a MANDATORY part of becoming a Member of this fellowship, and hopefully you now understand why it is mandatory:

7

Legal Notice of Change in Domicile/Citizenship and Divorce from the "United States", Form #10.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 8

In particular, see the following sections in the above document:

9

11

1. 2.

12

11.5.5

13

17

Whenever you open a financial account or start a new job these days, most employers, banks, or investment companies will require you to produce “government ID”. Their favorite form of ID is the state issued ID. Unfortunately, unless you are an alien domiciled on federal territory within the exterior limits of the state who is not protected by the Constitution, you don’t qualify for state ID or even a state driver’s license. By asking for “government ID”, employers and financial institutions indirectly are forcing you to do the following as a precondition of doing business with them:

18

1.

10

14 15 16

19 20

2.

21 22

23

3.

24

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42

Private employers and financial institutions compelling FALSE choice of domicile

Surrender the benefits and protections of being a “citizen” in exchange for being a privileged alien, and to do so WITHOUT consideration and without recourse. Become a statutory “resident alien” pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) domiciled on federal territory and subject to federal jurisdiction, who is a public officer within the federal government engaged in the “trade or business” franchise. See: The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Become a privileged “resident alien” franchisee who is compelled to participate in what essentially amounts to a “protection racket”. “Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take up a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their [intention of] dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizenship. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizen of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.” [The Law of Nations, p. 87, E. De Vattel, Volume Three, 1758, Carnegie Institution of Washington; emphasis added.]

25

34

Section 9: Affidavit of Duress, Government ID Scam. Section 10.8: Criminal Complaint Against Those Engaged in the Government ID Scam

4.

Serving two masters and being subject simultaneously to state and federal jurisdiction. The federal government has jurisdiction over aliens, including those within a state. “No one can serve two masters [two employers, for instance]; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government].” [Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV. Written by a tax collector]

One thing you can show financial institutions as an alternative to state ID or a state driver’s license that doesn’t connect you to the “protection franchise” and a domicile on federal territory is a USA passport. What they do to deal with “difficult” people like that is say that they need TWO forms of government ID in order to open the account. Here is an example of what you might hear on this subject:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

155 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“I’m sorry, but the Patriot Act [or some other obscure regulation] requires you to produce TWO forms of government issued ID to open an account with us.”

1 2

3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11

Most people falsely presume that the above statement means that they ALSO need state ID in addition to the passport but this isn’t true. It is a maxim of law that the law cannot require an impossibility. If they are going to impose a duty upon you under the color of law by saying that you need TWO forms of ID, they must provide a way to comply without: 1. 2. 3. 4.

There are lots of ways around this trap. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court said WE are the government and that we govern ourselves through our elected representatives. “The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ..." [Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)]

12 13 14 15 16

17

Compelling you to politically associate with a specific government in violation of the First Amendment. Compelling you to participate in government franchises by providing an identifying number. Misrepresenting your status as a privileged “resident alien”. Violating your religious beliefs by nominating an Earthly protector and thereby firing God as your only protector.

28H

So what does “government id” really mean? A notary public is also a public officer and therefore part of the government. Chapter 1 Introduction §1.1 Generally

18 19 20

A notary public (sometimes called a notary) is a public official appointed under authority of law with power, among other things, to administer oaths, certify affidavits, take acknowledgments, take depositions, perpetuate testimony, and protect negotiable instruments. Notaries are not appointed under federal law; they are appointed under the authority of the various states, districts, territories, as in the case of the Virgin Islands, and the commonwealth, in the case of Puerto Rico. The statutes, which define the powers and duties of a notary public, frequently grant the notary the authority to do all acts justified by commercial usage and the "law merchant". [Anderson's Manual for Notaries Public, Ninth Edition, 2001, ISBN 1-58360-357-3]

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

29

If you hand the financial institution any of the following, you have satisfied their requirement for secondary ID without violating the law or being compelled to associate with or contract with the government:

30

1.

28

31 32 33

2. 3.

34

35 36

Notarized piece of paper with your picture and your birth certificate on it. The notary is a government officer and therefore it is government ID. Certified copy of your birth certificate by itself. The certification is from the government so its government ID. ID issued by a government you formed and signed by the “Secretary of State” of that government. The people are the government according to the Supreme Court, so you can issue your own ID.

You have to be creative at times to avoid the frequent attempts to compel you to sign up for government franchises, but it is still doable.

38

Another thing that nearly all financial institutions and private employers habitually do is PRESUME, usually wrongfully, that:

39

1.

37

40 41

42 43 44

45 46

2.

You are a “citizen” or a “resident” of the place you live or work. What citizens and residents have in common is a domicile within a jurisdiction. Otherwise, you would be called “nonresidents” or “transient foreigners”. Whatever residence or mailing address you give them is your domicile.

By making such a false presumption, employers and financial institutions in effect are causing you to make an “invisible election” to become a citizen or resident or domiciliary and to provide your tacit consent to be governed without even realizing it. If you want to prevent becoming a victim of the false presumption that you are a “citizen”, “resident”, and therefore domiciliary of the place you live or work, you must take special precautions to notify all of your business associates by De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

156 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5

providing a special form to them describing you as a “nonresident” of some kind. At the federal level, that form is the IRS Form W-8BEN or a suitable substitute, which identifies the holder as a “nonresident alien”. IRS does not make a form for “nonresidents” who are not “aliens”, unfortunately, so you must therefore modify their form or make your own form. For an article on how to fill out tax forms to ensure that you are not PRESUMED, usually prejudicially and falsely, to be a resident or citizen or domiciliary, see the following article: About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sometimes, those receiving your declaration of nonresident status may try to interfere with that choice. For such cases, the following pamphlet proves that the only one who can lawfully declare or establish your civil status, including your “nonresident” status, is you. If anyone tries to coerce you to declare a civil status for yourself that you don’t want to accept and don’t consent to, you should provide an affidavit indicating that you were under duress and that they threatened to financially penalize you or not contract with you if you don’t LIE on government forms and declare a status you don’t want. The following pamphlet is also useful in proving that they have no authority to coerce you to declare any civil status you don’t want: Your Exclusive Right to Declare or Establish Your Civil Status, Form #13.008 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47

48

We should always keep in mind that whenever a financial institution or employer asks for a tax form, they are doing so under the color of law as a “withholding agent” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16)) who is a public officer of the government. Because they are a public officer of the government in their capacity as a withholding agent, they still have a legal duty not to violate your rights, even if they otherwise are a private company. The Constitution applies to all officers and agents of the government, including “withholding agents” while acting in that capacity. Financial institutions especially are aware of this fact, which is why if you ask them to give you their criteria for what ID they will accept in writing, they will say that it is a confidential internal document that they can't share with the public. They know they are discriminating unlawfully as a public officer by rejecting your ID and they want to limit the legal liability that results from this by preventing you from having evidence to prove that they are officially discriminating. They keep such policies on their computer, protected by a password, and they will tell you that the computer doesn't let them print it out or that there isn't a field in their system for them to accept the type of ID that you have. THIS is a SCAM!

11.6 Widespread ignorance of the law by populace manufactured in the public/government school system The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart. The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduing forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold. Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults. Keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer. [Psalm 19:7-14, Bible, NKJV]

In America, your liberty derives from and is protected by education about a wide variety of subjects: "Only the educated are free."

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

157 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

[Epicetus, Discourses]

2

"...the greatest menace to freedom is an inert [passive, ignorant, and uneducated] people [who refuse, as jurists and voters and active citizens, to expose and punish evil in the government]" [Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]

3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18

19

20 21 22

23

24 25 26

27 28

29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36 37 38

39 40

41 42

43 44 45

"The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted [in order to maintain and protect their liberty]. The Ordinance of 1787 declares: 'Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness [and liberty] of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'" [Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)] "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice [greed], ambition, revenge, or gallantry [debauchery], would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [and a well educated and self-governing] people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [John Adams, 2nd President]

Knowledge, in fact, is what distinguishes the GOVERNED from those who GOVERN: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." [James Madison]

The result of not being educated is that you will be injured and exploited and oppressed. "My [God's] people are destroyed [and enslaved] for lack of knowledge [and the lack of education that produces it].” [Hosea 4:6, Bible, NKJV]

The most important subject to learn is law. The Bible makes it the DUTY of Christians to “know the law”: "And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws [of both God and man], and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work [of obedience to God] that they must do." [Exodus 18:20, Bible, NKJV] "But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow and use] the law is accursed.” [John 7:49, Bible, NKJV] "Salvation is far from the wicked, For they do not seek Your statutes." [Psalm 119:155, Bible, NKJV]

The courts universally say the SAME thing: "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large....[I]t is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority," [Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d. 1093 (9th Cir. 1981)] "Of course, ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in any one, least of all in a sworn officer of the law” [In re McCowan , 177 Cal. 93, 170 P. 1100 (1917)]

In fact, if we as Christians DO NOT learn the law, not only our entire life, but our prayers to God, in fact, become a hateful ABOMINATION: “One who turns his ear from hearing the law [God's law or man's law], even his prayer is an abomination.” [Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]

Some deluded Christians argue that the “law” spoken of by scripture above means God’s law and excludes man’s law. We argue otherwise. Why? Because the foundation of all law, and the place that law derives ALL of its authority from is the “consent of the governed”, as the Declaration of Independence indicates.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

158 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

1 2 3 4

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” [Declaration of Independence]

5 6 7

8

All of God’s laws were summarized by Jesus in only two great commandments: 1. Love your God; 2. Love Your Neighbor. “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.” [James 2:8, Bible, NKJV ]

9 10

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them: this is the law.” [Matthew 7:12, Bible, NKJV]

11 12

“Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind [See. Exodus 20:3-11]. This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (40) On these two commandments hang all law…” [Matthew 22:36-40, Bible, NKJV]

13 14 15 16 17

18

The Bible commands Christians to love their neighbor. By “love” is technically meant to “NOT HURT” your neighbor. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. “ [Romans 13:9-10, Bible, NKJV]

19 20

“Do not strive with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” [Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]

21 22

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them.” [Prov. 28:4, Bible, NKJV]

23 24

25 26 27 28

Law is therefore the collective expression and societal definition of what constitutes “harm” and the punishment for said harm against those who commit it. Governments are created mainly to PREVENT harm to PRIVATE rights using the authority of law, and therefore to protect us. Law is therefore the “schoolmaster”, as the Apostle Paul put it, of how we LEARN to love our neighbor. To wit:

31

“Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” [Gal. 3:24-25, Bible, NKJV]

32

________________________________________________________________________________

29 30

Schoolmaster — the law so designated by Paul (Gal. 3:24, 25). As so used, the word does not mean teacher, but pedagogue (shortened into the modern page), i.e., one who was intrusted with the supervision of a family, taking them to and from the school, being responsible for their safety and manners. Hence the pedagogue was stern and severe in his discipline. Thus the law was a pedagogue to the Jews, with a view to Christ, i.e., to prepare for faith in Christ by producing convictions of guilt and helplessness. The office of the pedagogue ceased when “faith came”, i.e., the object of that faith, the seed, which is Christ. [Easton, M.G.: Easton's Bible Dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996, c1897]

33 34 35 36 37 38 39

41

Those who advocate that we should not learn or that we should remain willfully ignorant of either man’s law or God’s law therefore:

42

1.

40

43 44 45

2. 3.

46 47

4.

Don’t care about learning how to love their neighbor and therefore are violating the second of the two great commandments to love their neighbor as themself. Aren’t interested in what their neighbor classifies as “harm” that must be avoided. Couldn’t possibly avoid violating the commandment to love your neighbor because they refuse to learn HOW their neighbor wants to be loved. Are advocating “lawlessness”.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

159 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

The law is also the source of all of the authority of those who work in government. "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives," 106 U.S., at 220. "Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the Citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights," 106 U.S., at 220, 221. [United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1 S.Ct. 240 (1882)]

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

No one can therefore claim to be a good or responsible citizen capable of supervising their public servants as a jurist or a voter who does not in fact know the limits imposed by law upon the authority of said public servants. The result of public servants who go unsupervised is that they take over the house and oppress their master, which is We the People. The Bible describes how disobedient servants should be governed by their masters, but you can’t enforce it unless you know the limits on their authority. The result is that you are violating the law. “But if that servant says in his heart ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” [Luke 12:45-47, Bible, NKJV]

19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26

Your public servants know all of these things, and they have taken great pains to ensure that their master is put to sleep so they could take over the house: The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy [corrupt government] came and sowed tares [weeds] among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, “Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?” He said to them, “An enemy has done this.” The servants said to him, “Do you want us then to go and gather them up?” But he said, “No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” [Matt 13:24-30]

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37

You covetous public servants bind you, the Sovereign, by taking away the source of your strength, which is knowledge about the law: “No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.” [Mark 3:27, Bible, NKJV]

38 39 40

42

Very few schools teach Constitutional law, basics of law for the average American. The reason is that judges want to have great latitude to substitute their will for what the law actually says using the following criminal activities:

43

1.

41

44 45 46 47 48 49

50 51 52

2. 3. 4. 5.

Presumptions not supported by evidence, such as that the litigant before them is a franchisee subject to statutory law that only is enforceable against the government. Omission in protecting private rights or refusal to recognize such rights. Protecting the judge’s government coworkers engaging in criminal violation of private rights. Abuse of “words of art” to encourage false presumption. See: Legislating from the bench by adding things to statutory definitions that cannot be and are not included. This is called “judicial verbicide”.

We’ll talk about the above deceptive judicial and government tactics later in this memorandum. If there is even one person sitting on a jury who knows the law, they can usually spoil the plan of a judge who wants to enforce not what the law says, but what his whim and private interest dictates. De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

160 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

To make things worse, many Christians have been trained by their pastors not only NOT to learn the law, but to shun those who insist on learning and obeying it as being “legalistic”. The entire Bible, in fact, is a law book. That, in fact, is what God Himself calls it: “And now, Israel [believers/Christians], what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways [by obeying His Holy Laws] and to love Him, to serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?” [Deut. 10:12-13, Bible, NKJV]

4 5 6 7 8

"Ye shall do My judgments, and keep Mine ordinances, to walk therein: I [am] the LORD your God." [Leviticus 18:4, Bible, NKJV]

9 10

"And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods." [2 Kings 17:37, Bible, NKJV]

11 12 13

"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." [Ezekiah 11:19-20, Bible]

14 15 16 17

18

The reason God permits or allows us to go through trials, in fact, is to FORCE US to learn His law! "The proud have forged a lie against me, but I will keep Your precepts with my whole heart. Their heart is as fat as grease, but I delight in Your law. It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes. The law of Your mouth is better to me than thousands of coins of gold and silver." [Psalm 119:69-72, Bible, NKJV]

19 20 21 22

24

In conclusion: De facto governments can only flourish where there is widespread ignorance of the law by those sitting on juries and acting as voters.

25

11.7 Legal Profession Fascism

26

Another important characteristic of a de facto government is that:

27

1. 2.

23

28 29 30

3.

31 32

4.

33 34

The legal profession acts as an extension of and officer of the government instead of independently. All lawyers are licensed to practice law and hence gagged from telling the truth about government corruption in the court record for fear of having their license pulled. They will not act as adversaries of the government within an “adversarial court system”, but instead will act as allies and recruiters for government franchises that are being illegally enforced. The main function of lawyers are as priests of the civil religion of socialism who impute, perpetuate, and protect an unequal relationship between the sovereign People, and a government that is supposed to serve them but instead rules and abuses them.

38

To give you an example of how lawyers act as an extension of an organized crime ring and as the organizers of such government crime, consider what happens when one tries to submit the correct withholding paperwork with a private employer as a nonresident alien nontaxpayer not engaged in a “trade or business” and not required by law to have or use a Taxpayer Identification Number:

39

1.

35 36 37

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

You submit the following withholding forms: 1.1. About IRS Form W-8BEN, Form #04.202 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 1.2. W-8 Attachment: Citizenship, Form #04.219 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 1.3. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 1.4. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

161 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

2.

2 3

3.

4 5 6 7 8 9

4.

10 11 12

The payroll department at your usually corporate company hands the forms to the legal department and won’t give you the name or phone number of anyone in the department to speak with. The legal department uses anonymity and the fact that you can’t contact them as a means to hide from the duty to: 3.1. Disclose what, if anything, in the paperwork you submitted is incorrect or inconsistent with prevailing law. 3.2. Respond to your phone calls, because they won’t give you their number. 3.3. Respond to your mail. Even if you send them a certified mail, they will not respond by telling you what is incorrect, because they KNOW you are correct, but if they admitted it, they would have to admit that they have been handling withholding and reporting ILLEGALLY for everyone else in the company. If you tell them they have ten days to deny and a failure to deny under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) constitutes an admission, they may tell the payroll clerk and the boss to have you either not hired or fired because having you around would ultimately mean they could be prosecuted for violating and mal-administering the Internal Revenue Code within the company.

14

Hence, lawyers, like the government, use omission and presumption and the ignorance of the average American about law as a method to:

15

1.

13

16 17 18 19 20

2.

21 22

3.

23

Force people to submit and sign under penalty of perjury withholding paperwork UNDER UNLAWFUL DURESS that is clearly false, perjurious, and criminal and hence, to engage in a willful criminal conspiracy to defraud workers within the company and the government. This causes the legal counsel at the company to be engaged in criminal witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512, because perjury statements on tax forms constitute “testimony of a witness”. Protect their illegal activities by forcing you to either SHUT UP about the crime they are committing or be fired/not hired after becoming a whistleblower. Force people ultimately to become indentured servants and public officers against their will and in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. Not only NOT protect the rights of EVERYONE in the company, but to be the WORST abusers of private rights.

24

4.

25

In short, they only care about limiting risk to themselves and the company they work for. TO HELL WITH THE WORKERS AND OBEYING THE LAW! They become priests of a Satanic civil religion and cult that worships black robed judges with a financial conflict of interest and a corrupt government. They hold “human sacrifices” to their pagan deity and YOU are the sacrifice. The blood they spill is yours when they won’t hire you or have you fired because you won’t worship SATAN as they do. If they REALLY cared about balancing their perspective, they would at least tell you, using the written law, why you are wrong and strictly observe the rules of statutory construction and interpretation when doing so. Instead, all they offer you are unconstitutional presumptions that add things to definitions that are CLEARLY excluded, and which unlawfully and unconstitutionally enlarge government power. This is their way of turning the legal profession into a priesthood, and substituting UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTOIN in the place of religious faith, thus creating as state-sponsored religion.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

"It is apparent that a constitutional prohibition cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions." [Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911)] "It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). Congress' use of the term "propaganda" in this statute, as indeed in other legislation, has no pejorative connotation.{19} As judges, it is our duty to [481 U.S. 485] construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it." [Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484 (1987)] "When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary." [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

162 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

4

In exchange for their satanic allegiance, these “deacons” of the state sponsored civil religion and church, the corrupt legal profession is paid more highly than any other profession. Many lawyers charge $400/hour or more for their services and in the end, they NEVER serve the client, but the government and their own pocket book. They sold your liberty for 20 pieces of silver to the highest bidder.

5

1.

To what or whom is an attorney's first duty? We consult the latest 7 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Attorney and Client, §4 (2003) for the answer below:

2.

What is the legal relationship between an attorney and his/her client?

3.

What is a ward of the court?

1 2 3

6

7 8

9

10

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

163 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1

(Are you an infant or person of unsound mind?)

2

3

4.

Do you need to challenge jurisdiction? Better read the following, particularly "...because if pleaded by an attorney....."

4

5

Conclusions of law:

6

1.

7 8 9

10

2. 3.

When you hire an attorney, you become a ward of the court and a second class citizen and you admit the jurisdiction of the court in the matter at hand. You can't hire an attorney if you want to challenge jurisdiction. If you want to challenge jurisdiction, the only way you can do it is as a "sui juris" and/or "in propria persona".

Should you hire an attorney? What do you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

12 Illegal abuse of Franchises by the Government: The Engine of Abuse and Conversion to a De Facto Government32 The following subsections will describe the various ways that government franchises are employed unlawfully, unconstitutionally, and illegally in order to destroy your rights, undermine the separation of powers, and destroy equal protection that is the foundation of the United States Constitution. The underlying motives for these abuses are all commercial. Franchises produce a flow of commerce to the government grantor of the franchise and pad the pockets of your public servants. This desire by your public servants to pad their pockets and enlarge their control, revenues, and importance in relation to the populace is at odds with the duty of the government to provide equal protection and equal benefit to all. In short, the love of money is the root of the evil caused by the abuses described in the following subsections: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. [1 Timothy 6:5-12, Bible, NKJV]

21 22 23

24 25 26

Public servants who therefore either promote franchises to persons protected by the Constitution or who accept the payments or “benefits” associated with those who participate, in effect, are accepting bribes and favors in exchange for disregarding their constitutional duty to provide “equal protection”. Of this corruption, the Bible says: “And you shall take no bribe [including payments for franchise services that compete with and destroy equal protection], for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous.” [Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]

27 28 29

32

Adapted from Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 23; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

164 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.” [Deuteronomy 16:19, Bible, NKJV]

1 2 3

‘Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person.’ “And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ [Deuteronomy 27:25, Bible, NKJV]

4 5

“A wicked man accepts a bribe behind the back To pervert the ways of justice.” [Proverbs 17:23, Bible, NKJV]

6 7

“The king establishes the land by justice, But he who receives bribes overthrows it.” [Proverbs 29:4, Bible, NKJV]

8 9

“Your princes are rebellious, And companions of thieves; Everyone loves bribes, And follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, Nor does the cause of the widow come before them.” [Isaiah 1:23, Bible, NKJVJ]

10 11 12

13

The above scriptures are the reason why:

14

1.

15 16 17

2.

18 19

3.

20 21 22

4.

23 24

25

26 27

It is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine and a conspiracy against rights for a public servant to offer federal franchises to those domiciled in states of the Union and protected by the Bill of Rights. Federal franchises may only lawfully be offered to persons domiciled on federal territory and not within any state of the Union. No judge can judge righteously who is participating in any federal franchise, because franchises compete with and destroy the very equality of rights that is the MAIN DUTY of the courts to protect. Federal judges must recuse themselves who are ruling on a tax trial and who are franchisees called “taxpayers” in receipt of benefits and privileges of the franchise. To do otherwise is a violation of 28 U.S.C. §144, 28 U.S.C. §455, and 18 U.S.C. §208. No judge can serve as an Article IV judge officiating over franchises and at the same time act as an Article III judge officiating over the protection of rights. All such judges who wear these “two hats” at the same time have a conflict of interest. See: What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

12.1 Legal mechanism by which commerce is abused to create inequality and servitude33 The legal foundation of the abuse of commerce to create inequality and/or servitude is the lending of either money or property or rights or privileges (franchises) of some kind: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” [Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

28 29 30

32

The above mechanism also becomes “deceit in commerce” and even criminal activity as described in the previous section when:

33

1.

31

34 35

36

2.

37 38 39 40 41

3. 4.

42

33

The terms of the loan are not directly and fully disclosed to the borrower at the time the property is received, as in the case of loans of most types of government property. In legal terminology, this type of deceit in commerce violates what is called the constitutional requirement for reasonable notice. That requirement is thoroughly documented in: Requirement for Reasonable Notice, Form #05.022 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm The loan is by a government that is geographically outside of its territorial jurisdiction. This results in the government acting as a PRIVATE business in which is surrenders sovereign immunity, and yet most governments often refuse to waive the immunity and thereby become “international economic terrorists” in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the USA Constitution, in the case of states of the Union. The terms of the loan are CHANGED after it is made. This is called an “ex post facto” law and it is unconstitutional. The thing offered or loaned has no intrinsic value of its own and therefore does not satisfy the requirement for “consideration” in forming a valid legal contract. This includes ALL so-called “government benefits”.

Source: Requirement for Equal Protection and Equal Treatment, Form #05.033, Section 5.5; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

165 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“… railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time.” [United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)]

1 2 3

“We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments… This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint.” [Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)]

4 5 6 7

8

9

5.

10

11

6.

12 13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

This subject is dealt with in detail in the following memorandum of law: The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm The loan of property causes the borrower to become a public officer in the government, because it is a CRIME to elect yourself into public office or to procure it through a bribe called “withholding”. See: Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm The loan accomplishes a purpose OPPOSITE or in direct conflict with the USA Constitution, such as when it alienates or forfeits rights that are SUPPOSED to be UNALIENABLE. This causes a government to become what is called a “de facto” government or even an “anti-government”, which accomplishes a purpose OPPOSITE to the purpose of their creation, which is protecting PRIVATE rights. This subject is covered in: Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 27.2: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

It is through the above mechanisms that many of the worst and most famous abuses found in the Holy Bible were instituted by corrupt GOVERNMENT rulers: 1. 2.

Pharaoh enslaved all of Egypt and the Israelites by LOANING grain to a starving people. See Gen. 47. The rulers enslaved the Jews in the Book of Nehemiah. See Nehemiah 5:1-13.

The Bible also speaks directly, through the prophet Jeremiah, about those “who devise evil by law” as a way to trap and enslave men using the above mechanisms of abuse. The “snares” they are referring to, at least in the area of government and the legal field, are franchises. The phrase “fearing the Lord” is defined in Proverbs 8:13 as hating, and by implication punishing and preventing, violation of God’s laws such as those described here: “Let U.S. now fear the LORD our God, Who gives rain, both the former and the latter, in its season. He reserves for U.S. the appointed weeks of the harvest.” Your iniquities have turned these things away, [filling out government forms for “benefits”] And your sins have withheld good from you. ‘For among My people are found wicked men [the District of Criminals, who are foreigners posing as protectors]; They lie in wait as one who sets snares; They set a trap; They catch men. As a cage is full of birds, So their houses are full of deceit. [in their usurious “codes” that are not law, but contracts or agreements or “compacts”] Therefore they have become great and grown rich. [by stealing and spending TRILLIONS of dollars from those who were unjustly compelled to participate in government franchises] They have grown fat, they are sleek; Yes, they surpass the deeds of the wicked; They do not plead the cause, [who pleads such a cause?: LAWYERS!] The cause of the fatherless; [or the “nontaxpayer”] Yet they prosper, And the right of the needy [or the “nontaxpayer”] they do not defend. Shall I not punish them for these things?’ says the LORD.

45 46 47 48 49 50 51

‘Shall I not avenge Myself on such a nation as this?’ “ An astonishing and horrible thing Has been committed in the land: The prophets [pastors in 501c3 “privileged” churches] prophesy falsely, And the priests [judges, who preside over a civil religion of socialism that worships the “state”] rule by their own power;

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

166 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

And My people love to have it so. But what will you do in the end?” [Jeremiah 5:24-31, Bible, NKJV]

What “trap” are they referring to above that is being used to “catch men”? It is a situation where people are desperately in need of a thing and who will perish without it. Usually that thing is inexpensive to produce, and is offered for an exorbitant cost that causes the oppressed buyer to give up nearly everything they own, their land, and even sell their kids into slavery as the Egyptians did during the famine to Pharaoh.

8

Joseph Deals with the Famine

9

Now there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished because of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.

10 11 12

13 14

15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35

36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53

So when the money failed in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us bread, for why should we die in your presence? For the money has failed.” Then Joseph said, “Give your livestock, and I will give you bread for your livestock, if the money is gone.” 17 So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the cattle of the herds, and for the donkeys. Thus he fed them with bread in exchange for all their livestock that year. When that year had ended, they came to him the next year and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is gone; my lord also has our herds of livestock. There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our lands. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants of Pharaoh; give us seed, that we may live and not die, that the land may not be desolate.” Then Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he moved them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt to the other end. Only the land of the priests he did not buy; for the priests had rations allotted to them by Pharaoh, and they ate their rations which Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their lands. Then Joseph said to the people, “Indeed I have bought you and your land this day for Pharaoh. Look, here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the harvest that you shall give one-fifth to Pharaoh [TRIBUTE/TAX]. Four-fifths shall be your own, as seed for the field and for your food, for those of your households and as food for your little ones.” So they said, “You have saved our lives; let us find favor in the sight of my lord [idolatry], and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.” And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaoh’s. [Gen. 47:13-26, Bible, NKJV]

It is interesting to note that our most revered founding fathers understood these concepts and warned against engaging in contracts or alliances, and by implication “franchises”, with any government, when they said: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been...to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others [as “public officers”]; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." [George Washington, (letter to Patrick Henry, 9 October 1775); Reference: The Writings of George Washington, Fitzpatrick, ed., vol. 34 (335)] “About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances [contracts, treaties, franchises] with none;” [Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801]

The Bible also disdains contracts, covenants, and franchises with those who are not believers and especially with foreign governments: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

167 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

“Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant or mutual agreement [contract, franchise agreement] with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in the midst of you.” [Exodus 34:12, Bible, Amplified version]

1 2 3

7

Tax agencies are the modern day Canaanites afflicting believers. God HATES Canaanite merchants who use franchises to subjugate and enslave people, or make them inferior or unequal under the law. In the Bible, “Canaanites” is a synonym for “money changers”. The Canaanites are described as “merchants” and the Lord repeatedly ordered the Israelites to KILL all the Canaanites.

8

1.

4 5 6

9 10

2.

11 12 13 14 15

16 17

18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42 43

44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

3. 4.

Indirectly, the order to kill the Canaanites was an order to eliminate those who put mammon ahead of God. See Matt. 6:24. Zechariah 14:21 (NIV) defines “Canaanites” as merchants. The NIV version of this scripture has a footnote that defines “Canaanite” as “merchant”. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=zechariah%2014&version=NIV Numbers 31, the Lord told the Israelites to kill the Midianites in the land of Canaan. Judges 1, the Lord ordered Joshua, the faithful one who brought the Israelites into the promised land, to again kill the Canaanites, meaning merchants.

It is Canaanites, called the “money changers”, or their merchant equivalent who caused Jesus to flip the tables over in the temple when they had turned it into a market place. See Mark 11:15, John 2:15. Money changing of the kind done in modern socialist governments, whereby taxation is illegally used for wealth redistribution, was Satan’s greatest transgression as well. See Ezekiel 28:13-19. The love of money and money changing is the main vehicle, in fact, by which inequality or inferiority is either maintained or created. Satan himself, personified in the serpent who beguiled Eve, was ejected from the Garden of Eden because of the iniquity of his trading (abusive commerce). “You were the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The sardius, topaz, and diamond, Beryl, onyx, and jasper, Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created. “You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. 14

“By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. 16

“Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you. 17

“You defiled your sanctuaries By the multitude of your iniquities, By the iniquity of your trading; Therefore I brought fire from your midst; It devoured you, And I turned you to ashes upon the earth In the sight of all who saw you. 18

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

168 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

19

All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you; You have become a horror, And shall be no more forever.”’” [Ezekiel 28:13-19, Bible, NKJV]

Note the phrase in the above “By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within.” In other words, ABUSIVE commerce was a vehicle of LEGAL OR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE upon others or the rights, dignity, or equality of others. Government franchises are the method of Canaanite exploitation of people that governments are supposed to be protecting. Below is a description of how the lending of government property is abused to enslave the borrower by transforming them into a trustee or public officer of the public. When one takes federal money, which is property, it always comes with regulatory strings attached. Well, they are not so much as "strings" but rather, they are massive - sized chain links, linking the federal benefit recipient to the U.S. Government in a way that always requires the surrender by the Citizen/benefit recipient, of some Right. Here is how a book on the common law describes the method by which distributing government property called “benefits” can be used to control the recipient: “How, then, are purely equitable obligations created? For the most part, either by the acts of third persons or by equity alone. But how can one person impose an obligation upon another? By giving property to the latter on the terms of his assuming an obligation in respect to it. At law there are only two means by which the object of the donor could be at all accomplished, consistently with the entire ownership of the property passing to the donee, namely: first, by imposing a real obligation upon the property; secondly, by subjecting the title of the donee to a condition subsequent. The first of these the law does not permit; the second is entirely inadequate. Equity, however, can secure most of the objects of the doner, and yet avoid the mischiefs of real obligations by imposing upon the donee (and upon all persons to whom the property shall afterwards come without value or with notice) a personal obligation with respect to the property; and accordingly this is what equity does. It is in this way that all trusts are created, and all equitable charges made (i.e., equitable hypothecations or liens created) by testators in their wills. In this way, also, most trusts are created by acts inter vivos, except in those cases in which the trustee incurs a legal as well as an equitable obligation. In short, as property is the subject of every equitable obligation, so the owner of property is the only person whose act or acts can be the means of creating an obligation in respect to that property. Moreover, the owner of property can create an obligation in respect to it in only two ways: first, by incurring the obligation himself, in which case he commonly also incurs a legal obligation; secondly, by imposing the obligation upon some third person; and this he does in the way just explained.” [Readings on the History and System of the Common Law, Second Edition, Roscoe Pound, 1925, p. 543]

The U.S. Supreme Court describes the above process as follows:

36

“When Sir Matthew Hale, and the sages of the law in his day, spoke of property as affected by a public interest, and ceasing from that cause to be juris privati solely, that is, ceasing to be held merely in private right, they referred to

37

[1] property dedicated [DONATED] by the owner to public uses, or

38

[2] to property the use of which was granted by the government [e.g. Social Security Card], or

39

[3] in connection with which special privileges were conferred [licenses].

40

Unless the property was thus dedicated [by one of the above three mechanisms], or some right bestowed by the government was held with the property, either by specific grant or by prescription of so long a time as to imply a grant originally, the property was not affected by any public interest so as to be taken out of the category of property held in private right.” [Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 139-140 (1876)]

34 35

41 42 43 44

45 46

47 48

The “title of the donee” that Roscoe Pound is referring to above, in the case of government franchises, for instance, is “taxpayer” and or “citizen”. The following maxims of law implement the above principle of equity: “Cujus est commodum ejus debet esse incommodum. He who receives the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.”

49 50 51 52 53

“Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.” [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

169 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

The principle that borrowing someone else’s property makes the borrower the servant of the lender is also biblical in origin. Keep in mind that the thing borrowed need NOT be “money” and can be ANY KIND OF PROPERTY, from a legal perspective: “The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower is servant to the lender.” [Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]

4 5 6

11

What kind of government property can be given to you that might impose an obligation upon you as the “donee”? How about any of the following, all of which are treated as GOVERNMENT property and not PRIVATE property. Receipt or use of any of the following types of property creates a prima facie presumption that you are a public officer “donee” exercising agency on behalf of the government, which agency is the other half of the mutual “consideration” involved in the implied contract regulating the use of the property:

12

1.

7 8 9 10

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

2. 3.

20 21 22 23

4.

24 25 26 27

5.

28 29

6.

30 31 32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

7. 8.

Any kind of “status” you claim to which legal rights attach under a franchise. Remember: All “rights” are property”! This includes: 1.1. “taxpayer” (I.R.C. “trade or business” franchise). 1.2. “citizen” or “resident” (civil law protection franchise”). 1.3. “driver” (vehicle code of your state). 1.4. “spouse” (family code of your state, which is a voluntary franchise). A Social Security Card. 20 C.F.R. §422.103(d) says the card and the number belong to the U.S. government. A “Taxpayer Identification Number” (TIN) issued under the authority of 26 U.S.C. §6109. All “taxpayers” are public officers in the U.S. government. Per 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1, use of the number provides prima facie evidence that the user is engaged in official government business called a “trade or business”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office” (in the U.S. and not state government). Any kind of license. Most licenses say on the back or in the statutes regulating them that they are property of the government and must be returned upon request. This includes: 4.1. Driver’s licenses. 4.2. Contracting licenses. A USA Passport. The passport indicates on page 6, note 2 that it is property of the U.S. government and must be returned upon request. So does 22 C.F.R. §51.7. Any kind of government ID, including state Resident ID cards. Nearly all such ID say they belong to the government. This includes Common Access Cards (CACs) used in the U.S. military. A vehicle license plate. Attaching it to the car makes a portion of the vehicle public property. Stock in a public corporation. All stock holders in corporations are regarded by the courts as GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS! “The court held that the first company's charter was a contract between it and the state, within the protection of the constitution of the United States, and that the charter to the last company was therefore null and void., Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the opinion of the court, said that, if anything was settled by an unbroken chain of decisions in the federal courts, it was that an act of incorporation was a contract between the state and the stockholders, 'a departure from which now would involve dangers to society that cannot be foreseen, would shock the sense of justice of the country, unhinge its business interests, and weaken, if not destroy, that respect which has always been felt for the judicial department of the government.' “ [New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S. 650 (1885)]

Once they hand you government property essentially as a “bribe”, you consent to be treated as a de facto “public officer” in the government. A “public officer” is, after all, legally defined as someone who is in charge of the property of the public. Receipt and temporary custody of the valuable property of the public therefore constitutes your “employment consideration” to act as a public officer!: “Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

170 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25

26 27 28 29

30 31 32

33 34 35 36

37 38

a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

Why do they use property as the means to effect or create the franchise? The reason is because they have jurisdiction over their property WHEREVER it is situated, including within states of the Union. “The Constitution permits Congress to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. This power applies as well to territory belonging to the United States within the States, as beyond them. It comprehends all the public domain, wherever it may be. The argument is, that the power to make ‘ALL needful rules and regulations‘ ‘is a power of legislation,’ ‘a full legislative power;’ ‘that it includes all subjects of legislation in the territory,‘ and is without any limitations, except the positive prohibitions which affect all the powers of Congress. Congress may then regulate or prohibit slavery upon the public domain within the new States, and such a prohibition would permanently affect the capacity of a slave, whose master might carry him to it. And why not? Because no power has been conferred on Congress. This is a conclusion universally admitted. But the power to ‘make rules and regulations respecting the territory‘ is not restrained by State lines, nor are there any constitutional prohibitions upon its exercise in the domain of the United States within the States; and whatever rules and regulations respecting territory Congress may constitutionally make are supreme, and are not dependent on the situs of ‘the territory.‘” [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 509-510 (1856)]

If they didn’t use the lending of their property to reach you, they would otherwise, not have civil jurisdiction over those domiciled in a legislatively (but not constitutionally) foreign state such as a Constitutional state of the Union through their civil law, since all law is prima facie territorial and they don’t own and don’t have civil jurisdiction over Constitutional states of the Union: “It is a well established principle of law that all federal regulation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.” [Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)] “The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”) [Caha v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894)] “There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”) [U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222.]

Ultimately, however, what your corrupted public servants are doing is both criminal and illegal. None of the franchises they administer expressly authorize the creation of any new public offices in the government, but rather add benefits to EXISTING public offices. If they abuse public funds and programs to bribe otherwise PRIVATE people to accept the duties of a public office, the U.S. Code says this is a serious crime: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 210 § 210. Offer to procure appointive public office

41

Whoever pays or offers or promises any money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or corporation in consideration of the use or promise to use any influence to procure any appointive office or place under the United States for any person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

42

________________________________________________________________________________

43

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 211 § 211. Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

39 40

44

45 46 47 48

49 50 51

Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title,

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

171 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.

1 2

3 4 5

If you collude with your criminal public servants in this FRAUD by accepting the bribe and carry on the charade of pretending to be a public officer, you too become a criminal who is impersonating a public officer. You also become hated in God’s eyes because you are simultaneously trying to serve two masters, meaning God and Caesar: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 43 > § 912 § 912. Officer or employee of the United States

6 7

11

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

12

________________________________________________________________________________

8 9 10

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [unrighteous gain or any other false god].”34 [Jesus in Matt. 6:24, Bible, NKJV]

13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24

Everything they give you will always be a LOAN rather than a GIFT. Everything they give you will always have legal strings attached that make the property they give you into a Trojan Horse designed to destroy and enslave you. The proverb “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” definitely applies to everything the government does. Please keep these critical facts in mind as you try and decide whether you want you and your family to give the corrupted U.S. Government the right to intrude into your personal health care. Also keep in mind that under the concept of equal protection, you can use the SAME tactic to entrap and prejudice the government and defend yourself from this tactic. Here is this principle of equity in action, as espoused by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fullilove v. Klotznick, 448 U.S. 448, at 474 (1990). What the U.S. Supreme Court is describing is the basic principle for how franchises operate and how they are used to snare you. In a 6 -3 decision that dealt with the 10% minority set - aside issue, the Court held the following: ". . .Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives... by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient... with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld... against constitutional challenge... the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy." [Fullilove v. Klotznick, 448 U.S. 448, at 474 (1990)]

25 26 27 28 29

30 31

When those who are unknowingly party to a franchise challenge the constitutionality or violation of due process resulting from the enforcement of the franchise provisions against them, here is how the U.S. Supreme Court has historically responded: “We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee's burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” [Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942)]

32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

The key to the effect of the conveyance of property is the NATURE of the funds or property conveyed by the government. If it was property of the government at the time it was conveyed, then it is a subsidy and conveys rights to the government. If, on the other hand, the property was someone else’s property temporarily loaned to the government under a franchise of the REAL owner, it ceases to be a subsidy and cannot convey any rights to the government under ITS franchise, because the government is not the rightful owner of the property. That is why everything that members of the Ministry convey to the government is identified legally not as a gift, but a LOAN, on the following form. Section 6 establishes what we call an “anti-franchise franchise” which reverses the relationship between the parties and makes all those who receive monies from the sender into officers and servants of the sender under franchise contract: Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

34

The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

172 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6

If you want to win at this game, you have to use all the same weapons and tactics as your enemy and INSIST vociferously on complete equality of treatment and rights as the Constitution mandates. You can’t do that until you have identified and fully understand how all of the weapons function. Here is yet more proof of why those who accept government benefits cannot assert their constitutional rights as a defense to challenge the statutes that regulate the benefit. The language below comes from the Brandeis Rules for the U.S. Supreme Court: “The principle is invoked that one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality. Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581, 8 S.Ct. 631, 31 L.Ed. 527; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 37 S.Ct. 609, 61 L.Ed. 1229; St. Louis, etc., Co., v. George C. Prendergast Const. Co., 260 U.S. 469, 43 S.Ct. 178, 67 L.Ed. 351.” [Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466 (1936)]

7 8 9 10 11

13

What the court is saying in the above statute is that those who accept federal benefits HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and have voluntarily surrendered ALL such rights!

14

Here is how franchises enslave and entrap you:

15

1.

12

16

"I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816]

17 18 19 20

21

2.

22 23

3.

24 25 26 27

4. 5.

28 29 30

6.

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Congress borrows money in your name (like they were using your credit card) from the private Federal Reserve Bank. You and your descendants must pay this money back at interest.

7.

Congress wants to further its broad policy objectives (like making America a socialist state under a "unitary executive"...or invading another country for its natural resources.) So Congress offers private people and state and foreign governments BRIBES using the money borrowed/STOLEN in #1. above...On condition that those private people and state and foreign governments cooperate "VOLUNTARILY" with federal policy, which is really just PRIVATE business activity disguised to LOOK like “government business”. Federal policy is whatever federal judges and other bureaucrats say it is. Among the “federal policy” you must comply with is for them to be able to lawfully and administratively take from you ANY amount of money they want to fund their program. This is done through false information return reporting, IRS administrative levies that would otherwise be a constitutional tort, etc. In short, once you accept the bribe, you change from being the BOSS of your public servants into their “employee”/officer and cheap whore. They turn the relationship upside down with trickery and words of art. If you create your own franchise (we call it an anti-franchise franchise) and call EVERYTHING you pay them a privilege and use their own game rules against them, they will hypocritically and unlawfully apply different rules against themselves than they apply to you, in violation of the requirement for equal protection. If they are going to defend the above method of acquiring rights, they have to defend your EQUAL right to play the same rules with them and prohibit themselves from abusing sovereign immunity to make the game rules unequal. They call what you give to them a non-refundable gift in 31 U.S.C. §321(d), and yet everything they give to you is a mere temporary loan that makes you their voluntary, uncompensated public officer. HYPOCRITES!

43

Notice the word "voluntarily" in Fullilove v. Klotznick above. The federal government cannot coerce a state citizen not domiciled on federal land and not taking money from King Congress. The only way the federal government can make you a subject of itself and rule over you, and tax you, is by your CONSENT in taking federal “benefits” (bribes... to entice you to agree to its jurisdiction – The Declaration of Independence requires the federal government to get your consent in order to exercise its powers).

44

Parents tell their children:

39 40 41 42

45

46

"As long as you live in my house...you play by my rules."

The federal government says, and the Supreme Court agrees:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

173 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

"As long as you take money from me...you play by my rules (e.g. compulsory health care...compulsory flu injections...compulsory education for your children in government schools...federal income tax...etc.,) not by constitutional rules.”

1 2 3

4

5 6 7

Now…: 1. 2.

Are you a free self-determining citizen of your state...or are you a subject of the federal government? Did you sign the social security APPLICATION (giving your consent) for your newborn children to be subjects of federal bureaucrats and tyrants?

8

We use the term "state citizen" in the same sense that the reader understands it.

9

If you are a subject of the federal government, and have made your children subjects of the federal government by writing them off as privileged tax deductions on a federal tax return, the Supreme Court has held over and over that you cannot bring constitutional challenges against the federal government in federal court. Federal judges will dismiss you... and rightly so... for "lack of standing".

10 11 12

13

"These general rules are well settled:

14

(1) That the United States, when it creates rights in individuals against itself [a "public right", which is a euphemism for a "franchise" to help the court disguise the nature of the transaction], is under no obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 9 Sup.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354; Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wall. 439, 21 L.Ed. 696; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 431, 433, 18 L.Ed. 700; Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193, 212, 7 L.Ed. 108.

15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

(2) That where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U.S. 165, 174, 175, 35 Sup.Ct. 398, 59 L.Ed. 520, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 118; Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U.S. 238, 3 Sup.Ct. 184, 27 L.Ed. 920; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 558, 25 L.Ed. 212; Farmers’ & Mechanics’ National Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196. Still the fact that the right and the remedy are thus intertwined might not, if the provision stood alone, require U.S. to hold that the remedy expressly given excludes a right of review by the Court of Claims, where the decision of the special tribunal involved no disputed question of fact and the denial of compensation was rested wholly upon the construction of the act. See Medbury v. United States, 173 U.S. 492, 198, 19 Sup.Ct. 503, 43 L.Ed. 779; Parish v. MacVeagh, 214 U.S. 124, 29 Sup.Ct. 556, 53 L.Ed. 936; McLean v. United States, 226 U.S. 374, 33 Sup.Ct. 122, 57 L.Ed. 260; United States v. Laughlin (No. 200), 249 U.S. 440, 39 Sup.Ct. 340, 63 L.Ed. 696." [U.S. v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 39 S.Ct. 464 (1919)]

Since the U.S. Constitution offers no remedy to statutory “subjects” and serfs of the federal government when Rights [which state citizens have surrendered for a bribe] are violated, what is it they actually celebrate on the 4th of July by waving those federal flags made in COMMUNIST China? Hmmmm... What is really going on is that there is an invisible war being waged against your constitutional rights by people who are supposed to be serving and protecting you, but who have stealthily and invisibly transformed from protectors into predators. As a result of these stealthful transformations, Americans are largely unaware that they are a conquered people. The conquerors are aliens from a legislatively foreign land called the District of Columbia, who bribed you to put on chains and go not into a physical cage, but a LEGAL cage called a franchise. “Behold, I will make My words in your mouth fire, And this people wood, And it shall devour them. Behold, I will bring a nation [in the District of Columbia, Washington D.C.] against you from afar, O house of Israel," says the LORD. "It is a mighty nation, It is an ancient nation, A nation whose language [legalese] you do not know, Nor can you understand what they say [in their deceitful laws]. Their quiver is like an open tomb; They are all mighty [deceitful] men. And they [and the IRS, their henchmen] shall eat up your harvest and your bread, Which your sons and daughters should eat. They shall eat up your flocks and your herds; They shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; They shall destroy your fortified cities [and businesses and families], In which you trust, with the sword. [Jeremiah 5:14-17, Bible, NKJV]

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

174 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

This is the same thing that Jacob did to Esau, his brother, in the Bible: Persuaded him to give up his freedom and inheritance for a stinking bowl of pottage. Here is the way the Bible dictionary describes it, wherein “taxes” used to be called “tribute” in biblical times: “TRIBUTE. Tribute in the sense of an impost paid by one state to another, as a mark of subjugation, is a common feature of international relationships in the biblical world. The tributary could be either a hostile state or an ally. Like deportation, its purpose was to weaken a hostile state. Deportation aimed at depleting the man-power. The aim of tribute was probably twofold: to impoverish the subjugated state and at the same time to increase the conqueror’s own revenues and to acquire commodities in short supply in his own country. As an instrument of administration it was one of the simplest ever devised: the subjugated country could be made responsible for the payment of a yearly tribute. Its non-arrival would be taken as a sign of rebellion, and an expedition would then be sent to deal with the recalcitrant. This was probably the reason for the attack recorded in Gn. 14. [New Bible Dictionary. Third Edition. Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. 1996, c1982, c1962; InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove]

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18

Your devious conquerors are doing and will continue to do EVERYTHING in their power to keep you in their legal cage as their SATANIC SEX SLAVE, PRISONER, and WHORE. This is the same whore that the Bible refers to as “Babylon the Great Harlot” in the Book of Revelation. By “sex”, we mean commerce between you and a corrupted de facto government that loves money more than it loves YOUR freedom. Black’s Law defines “commerce”, in fact, as “intercourse” and therefore “sex” in a figurative sense: “Commerce. …Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]

19 20 21 22 23

26

Here are the things your covetous conquerors have done and will continue to do to compel you, AT GUNPOINT, to bend over and be a good little whore, or be slapped silly with what the Constitution calls a “bill of attainder” for rattling your legal cage:

27

1.

28

2.

29

3.

24 25

30 31

4.

32 33

5.

34 35

6.

36 37

38

7.

39

8.

40 41

42 43 44

9.

They will willfully lie to you in their publications with judicial impunity about what the law requires. See: Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm They will tempt you with socialist bribes called “benefits”. See: The Government “Benefits” Scam, Form #05.040 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm They will rig their forms so that it is impossible to truthfully declare your status, leaving as the only options available statuses that connect you to consent to their franchises, even if you DO NOT consent. If you already ate the bait and signed up, they will falsely tell you that you aren’t allowed to quit, meaning that you are a slave FOR LIFE. They will hide the forms and procedures that can be used to quit the franchise by removing them from their website, but still making them available to people who specifically ask. They will make false, prejudicial, and self –serving presumptions or determinations about your status that they are not allowed to do until AFTER you expressly consent to give them that authority IN WRITING and they will do so in violation of due process of law. See: Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm They will deceive you with “words of art”. See: Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm They will publish false propaganda encouraging third parties to file knowingly false and fraudulent reports about your status such as information returns that constitute prima facie evidence of consent to participate in government franchises. Such reports include IRS Forms W-2, 1042-S, 1098, and 1099. See: Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm They will willfully refuse or omit to prosecute the filers of false information returns, thus compelling you to unlawfully and criminally impersonate a public officer who is compelled to fill a position as a franchisee. It is called theft by omission and it is also a criminal conspiracy against your constitutional rights. Both OMISSIONS and

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

175 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10

COMMISSIONS that cause injury to you are CRIMES. They might even protect criminals filing these false reports INSTEAD of the victims. 10. They will disestablish all constitutional courts that could serve as a remedy against such abuses and replace them with statutory franchise courts that can’t recognize or even rule on Constitutional issues or rights. See: What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm 11. They will use “selective enforcement” of the tax laws as a way to silence and punish those who expose their monumental scam. They don’t need to torture you physically. All they have to do is destroy your ability to survive commercially, and it is as good as putting you in jail and subjecting you to physical torture. 12. They will remove the subject of law from the curricula in public schools, so that they can do all the above things without you even realizing it is happening so that you don’t become alarmed as they tighten the bars of your cage. Welcome to the Matrix, Neo! Agent Smith with the IRS is waiting for you in the next room. See: The REAL Matrix, Stefan Molyneux YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY& LOCAL COPY: http://famguardian1.org/Media/The_REAL_Matrix.mp4

11 12

12.2 Most government franchises are offered as “unconscionable contracts” with unjust and usurious terms

16

The only reason that most government franchises are allowed by the average American to be ILLEGALLY abused to make slaves into everyone is because most of them “grant” to the applicant something that most people would regard as absolutely essential for their livelihood or life. For instance, below are the main franchises most people are illegally compelled to participate in, along with a description of the illegal duress by a corrupted government or third parties that perpetuates them:

17

1.

13 14 15

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

3.

Driver Licenses: Most people regard driver licenses as essential because they need to be able to get to work and feed themselves and their family. 1.1. Only those using the public roadways for hire on federal territory can be compelled to have or to use driver licensing or registration. All others are “volunteers”. 1.2. Police illegally enforce statutes that require driver licenses against those not using the public roadways for hire or not on federal territory, and they threaten those using registered vehicles with confiscation if the operator does not get a license. 1.3. Out of fear do people obtain licenses to avoid having their cars confiscated. Savings/Investment Accounts: Most people regard the safety of money in their savings and investment accounts as important, because they need to be able to pay their bills. If they can’t pay their bills, they might lose their house and all the equity in their house because of default on the mortgage. 2.1. Banks and financial institutions illegally compel the use of the WRONG withholding forms and the illegal use of a Social Security Number on all withholding documents as a precondition of opening accounts, because they believe the LIES of the IRS on the subject. Even though the courts continue to insist that you CANNOT trust anything the IRS or government says or writes, they believe it anyway and injure their workers in the process with fraudulent withholding documents. 2.2. Because the account is enumerated, it illegally becomes subject to statutory levy and effectively becomes a PUBLIC account in which the government has equity interest. 2.3. People pay taxes because they will lose the deposit in their account through the threat of ILLEGAL levy. The levy is illegal because the withholding paperwork is FRAUDULENT and the compulsion from the financial institution is what made it fraudulent to begin with.. Private Employment: Most people regard the ability to be paid at their job as essential because they need to be able to pay their bills and support their families. Loss of a job could cause one to lose their home and their equity in the home due to mortgage default. 3.1. Employers illegally compel the use of the WRONG withholding forms and the use of a Social Security Number on all withholding documents as a precondition of hiring, because they believe the LIES of the IRS and tax professionals on the subject. Even though the courts continue to insist that you CANNOT trust anything the IRS or government says or writes, they believe it anyway and injure their workers in the process with fraudulent withholding documents.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

176 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

3.2. Because workers are illegally enumerated and the tax status in the company records is FALSE and FRAUDULENT, their earnings illegally becomes subject to statutory levy and effectively becomes a PUBLIC account in which the government has equity interest. 3.3. People pay taxes because they will lose the deposit in their account through the threat of ILLEGAL levy. The levy is illegal because the withholding paperwork is FRAUDULENT and the compulsion from the otherwise private employer is what made it fraudulent to begin with..

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

If you would like to know why items 2 and 3 above are ILLEGAL and even CRIMINALLY administered by most banks and private companies, see: Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, Form #09.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

9 10 11

12 13

The common denominator of all the above three franchises is that the only reason most people participate is out of fear created through ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL enforcement by a corrupt de facto government and their fascist corporate co-conspirators. Because most Americans are legally ignorant and often relatively poor: 1. 2.

14 15 16

3.

17 18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Of course, there is a way to remedy the above, but the ONLY way is for the average American to learn the law, and to vociferously defend his rights in court WITHOUT being able to be effectively GAGGED by an attorney license. This would bypass the cost and conflict of interest of attorneys and guarantee a more just result. A small minority of Americans, unfortunately, are equipped or motivated sufficiently to take this route. For the average American who either can’t or won’t learn the law, we end up with a situation where the above franchises in effect become “unconscionable contracts” in which there at least “appears” to be no way out without significant loss of money, time, or property of one kind or another. It is the fear of losing these things that keeps most people needlessly compliant, even if their compliance is illegal and sometimes even CRIMINAL in nature. This compliance, in fact, is a product of what we refer to as “international terrorism” by a corrupted legal profession. The states of the Union are, in effect, independent nations for a civil jurisdiction, and yet they refuse to enforce that role because they get illegal “kickbacks” from the federal mafia to continue the illegal enforcement. Below is the definition of “unconscionable contract”: “UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACT. One which no sensible man not under delusion, duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind.App. 289, 58 N.E.2d. 947, 949, 950.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 397]

30 31 32 33

“UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN. An unconscionable bargain or contract is one which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. Hume v. U. S., 10 S.Ct. 134, 132 U.S. 406, 33 L.Ed. 393; Edler v. Frazier, 174 Iowa 46, 156 N.W. 182, 187; Hall v. Wingate, 159 Ga. 630, 126 S.E. 796, 813; 2 Ves. 125; 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1694]

34 35 36 37 38

39 40

41 42

If you look over all the biblical franchises we discussed in Form #05.030, Section 22 and following, they all had the following elements in common: 1. 2.

43 44 45 46

Most people do not know how to fight the corruption and therefore falsely believe they must comply. Most people cannot afford to hire an attorney to fight the corruption that they can’t fight on their own, and the high cost of the fight exceeds the economic benefit to winning. In a sense, exorbitant legal fees become an indirect “bill of attainder” or penalty against those who fight the illegal franchise enforcement. Even those who can afford an attorney have the problem that the attorney has a conflict of allegiance, in which is first duty is to the court. With that conflict of allegiance, attorneys are loath to fight the government because they may lose their license to practice and starve to death.

3. 4.

They were offered by a government or a ruler to the people being ruled. They involved the need for property that was critical or important to survival or a “normal” lifestyle. That “property” could be a piece of paper, a license, or a privilege to use some form of government property such as a public roadway. The need for this property or its importance is so great, that people would give up most anything to get it. The thing demanded by the covetous government or ruler in exchange for the property or privilege required is to become a “subject”, servant, and slave of the government whom they can demand just about ANYTHING from. In

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

177 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

other words, there are NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS on the behavior of the government in relation to those who are party to the franchise.

1 2

3 4

The above “scheme” to destroy your rights has already been legally defined by the Beast itself as communism. Here is that definition: TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 841. Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of fact

5 6

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [de jure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a de facto government ruled by a the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of the tax laws] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding recently by the framing of Congressman James Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination [in the public schools by homosexuals, liberals, and socialists] with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined [by the IRS and a corrupted judiciary] to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using unlawfully enforced income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

35 36

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the above mechanism for essentially DESTROYING rights guaranteed by the Constitution is itself unconstitutional: "It has long been established that a State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution." Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 271 U.S. 583. "Constitutional rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied,' Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 644, or manipulated out of existence,' Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 345." [Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 at 540, 85 S.Ct. 1177, 1185 (1965)]

37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46

47 48

A thing called the “Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine” of the U.S. Supreme Court is useful in ensuring that constitutional rights are not manipulated out of existence by enforcing franchises in places they may not even be lawfully offered. It is this tension between franchises, and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine that explains why we said in Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030, Section 11 et seq that franchises may not lawfully be offered outside of federal territory NOT protected by the Constitution.

12.3 Why all the government’s franchises are administered UNJUSTLY and FRAUDULENTLY

52

We don’t necessarily object in principle to franchises. Private companies use them all the time and they work quite well and are JUSTLY administered. Take McDonald’s, which is an international franchise, for instance. The thing we object to about government franchises is not their use, but their FRAUDULENT AND MALICIOUS ABUSE. Here are a few examples of why government franchises are FRAUDULENTLY and MALICIOUSLY abused:

53

1.

49 50 51

54

Franchise “codes” are consistently and maliciously MISREPRESENTED by both the government and the legal profession as “law” or “public law” that applies equally to EVERYONE, rather than more correctly as:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

178 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5

2.

6 7 8 9

10

3.

11 12 13

4.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

5.

23 24 25 26

6.

27 28

7.

29 30

8.

31 32

9.

33 34 35 36

10.

37 38 39

11.

40 41 42 43

12.

44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

13.

1.1. Private law. 1.2. A “compact”. 1.3. Having the “force of law” and thereby ACTIVATING only upon the express consent of those who are subject to it. The government and the IRS are not held EQUALLY accountable for telling the public the WHOLE or complete truth about the voluntary nature of the franchise and your right NOT to volunteer or NOT be penalized for NOT volunteering. Instead, they effectively LIE to the public with impunity while at the same time hypocritically requiring everything we send THEM to be signed under penalty of perjury and them being able to penalize us if we follow their example and lie. See: Federal Courts and the IRS’ Own IRM Say the IRS is NOT RESPONSIBLE for Its Actions or Its Words or For Following Its Own Written Procedures!, Family Guardian Fellowship http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/IRSNotResponsible.htm Corrupt judges (who are also franchisees with a criminal conflict of interest) sometimes refuse to allow non-franchisees to invoke the protections of the constitution or the common law when they are victimized by illegal franchise enforcement against non-franchisees, which itself is treason punishable by death per 18 U.S.C. §2381. Corrupted governments illegally and criminally abuse sovereign immunity to destroy or undermine challenges to the unlawful enforcement of the franchise against non-franchisees. For instance, they dismiss challenges based on the common law or the constitution when the officers of the de facto government are civilly sued for injuries they cause illegally enforcing the franchise against non-participants. We believe that ANY and EVERY franchise offered by the government should be treated as PRIVATE business activity BEYOND the core purposes of government and which cannot be protected by sovereign immunity. Otherwise, politicians or governments who love money and will do or say ANYTHING to get it will always abuse franchises in the ways described here to the point where they will eventually gobble up any and every PRIVATE right and destroy and undermine the very purpose of establishing government to being with, which is the protection of PRIVATE rights. A corrupted government doesn’t fully disclose that participation is VOLUNTARY in all their forms publications and every time you talk to them or litigate rights under the franchise. They do this because if they did, they would have to address HOW to un-volunteer and NO ONE in their right mind would volunteer. And when you call them on it, they claim ignorance to preserve their “plausible deniability” for their CRIMES. The legislation implementing the franchise refuses to disclose that the statutory “person”, “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “driver”, “spouse”, or “licensee” can ONLY be created through YOUR express consent in some form. A corrupted government buries the remedies so deeply in the law and makes them so complex and exasperating to implement that most people avoid a remedy for illegal enforcement of the franchise against non-franchisees. Public schools deliberately dumb down the average populace on teaching the law, thus forcing the average American to hire a prohibitively expensive lawyer for hundreds of dollars an hour to get a remedy for illegal franchise enforcement. Lawyers litigating against the government are all licensed by the same government and if they do take their fiduciary duty to their clients seriously, will end up disbarred and on the street because they took stolen look out of the mouth of the judge and his employer. Thus, there is little or no incentive or reason for them to faithfully execute the laws and enforce the remedies available to non-franchisees. Corrupted government actors routinely refuse their constitutional duty to protect those from ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT of the franchise against those who choose NOT to volunteer, and yet they CONTINUE to use the word “voluntary” to describe those who participate. This is FRAUD. The government forms and applications for the franchise refuse to provide a STATUS declaration OTHER than a franchisee for people who don’t want to volunteer. For instance, IRS Form W-8BEN has a block for entity type, but the closest thing they have on the form is an “individual”, and all individuals are public officers in the government per 5 U.S.C. §2105(a). They don’t provide a status option such as “nonresident nontaxpayer” or “private human being”. When criminal complaints are filed against those such as banks and private companies who compel people to fill out application or withholding forms that only apply to franchisees, the corrupted government refuses their constitutional duty to prosecuted such CRIMES. This type of abuse is called “selective enforcement” for personal gain. Thus, they have turned the PUBLIC trust into a SHAM trust that only benefits or protects THEM and THEIR interests at everyone else’s expense. The public be DAMNED! Those who run franchise courts such as U.S. Tax Court (Article 1 court) and the U.S. District Courts (Article IV court on tax matters), when confronted with a dispute over income taxes involving those who do not consent to be franchisees called statutory “taxpayers” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14) have a constitutional duty to dismiss the case and say they have no jurisdiction, and to enjoin the illegal enforcement activity by the I.R.S. In practice, they refuse this constitutional duty by: 13.1. Calling the non-franchisee “frivolous”. 13.2. Penalizing the non-franchisee.

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

179 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

13.3. Falsely stating that the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421, applies to EVERYONE, when in fact it can only lawfully apply to statutory “taxpayers”. Any other approach results in the destruction of all PRIVATE rights and a massive violation of the Bill of Rights and conspiracy against rights. 13.4. Quoting IRRELEVANT case law that only pertains to “taxpayers” or residents of federal territory and against them. This is an abuse of case law for political purposes and accomplishes the legal effect of identity theft and kidnapping against the innocent nontaxpayer party. That identity theft and kidnapping occurs because all law is prima facie territorial and quoting territorial law against a nonresident is an act of international terrorism and kidnapping. 14. Federal judges and even juries hearing franchise cases usually have a criminal and financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455, thus making due process IMPOSSIBLE. The foundation of due process is a completely impartial decision maker, impartial witnesses, and an impartial jury. 14.1. Judges, jurors, and witnesses are almost all “taxpayers” and therefore subject to I.R.S. illegal enforcement and terrorism if they don’t rule in favor of the government and against innocent non-franchisees. 14.2. Federal prosecutors MANUFACTURE criminal conflicts of interest in the jurors during tax trials by telling jurists that if John Doe doesn’t pay his “fair share”, then THEY will have pick up HIS bill. 15. Those NOT engaged in franchise activities are illegally and fraudulently prosecuted for failure to obtain a license. For instance, those not engaged in the use of the roadways for hire are prosecuted for “driving without a license”. The duty to obtain a license can only be imposed upon: 15.1. Those lawfully engaged in public officers in the government. AND 15.2. Domiciled on federal territory at the time…AND Otherwise, a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment has occurred and the government is STEALING from the innocent non-franchisee. 16. A fiat currency system, which we call the Federal Reserve Counterfeiting Franchise, makes it virtually impossible to rule justly and truthfully on franchise issues because they would reduce government revenues and cause the government to most likely become insolvent. See: The Money Scam, Form #05.041 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm If all of the above defects in government/public franchises were eliminated and every government application for a franchise specifically said you have a right NOT to volunteer and that they would PROTECT your right to not volunteer, the vast majority of objections we have to government franchises would be eliminated and they would be treated just like any and every other PRIVATE franchise. It is a maxim of the common law, in fact, that they MUST do this and they absolutely refuse to do this: Invito beneficium non datur. No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Vide Assent.

31 32 33

Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law introduced for his own benefit. To this rule there are some exceptions. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 83. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856, SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

34 35 36 37 38

39 40

41 42 43 44

The main thing we object to is that our system of law and government is based on absolute equality and equal treatment, and that franchises are abused to: 1. 2. 3.

Maliciously destroy that equality and equal protection. Make you subservient to the government without just compensation that only YOU determine. Create a state-sponsored religion that worships men, governments, and civil rulers. The elimination of THAT religion and the inequality that protects and perpetuates it all we seek. See: Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

180 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

12.4 Compelled participation in franchises against those civilly domiciled outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the government offering the franchise is an act of INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM We allege that any and every attempt to enforce franchises outside the exclusive civil jurisdiction of any government constitutes an act of INTERNATIONAL terrorism. Keep in mind that the states themselves are identified as no less than “nations”, and hence any attempt by an extraterritorial force to enforce within their borders is INTERNATIONAL in nature: "The States between each other are sovereign and independent. They are distinct and separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and objects of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute." [Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274 (1839)]

8 9 10 11 12 13

14

Terrorism is legally defined as follows: “Terrorism: political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes [Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation]

15 16 17

“terrorist: somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes [Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation]

18 19 20

24

So a terrorist is someone who uses violence, or threats of violence to the life, liberty, or property against those not consenting to said violence as a means of POLITICALLY influencing the target of the threat. The tools for threatening people include kidnapping. The legal profession accomplishes the equivalent of such kidnapping by removing the civil identity of a person domiciled OUTSIDE their jurisdiction to a foreign jurisdiction by the following means:

25

1.

21 22 23

26 27

28

2.

29

Using FALSE presumptions about the meaning of definitions or what is “included” in the definitions. We call this “unconstitutional eminent domain by presumption” and without compensation. See the following for exhaustive evidence of this criminal extortion technique and its unconstitutional nature: Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm Using the ORDINARY or GENERAL meaning of geographical words and yet REFUSING to allow the statutory or SPECIFIC meaning to be discussed in the context of the SPECIFIC thing being enforced.

30

"Dolosus versatur generalibus. A deceiver deals in generals. 2 Co. 34."

31

"Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions."

32

Generale nihil certum implicat. A general expression implies nothing certain. 2 Co. 34.

33

Ubi quid generaliter conceditur, in est haec exceptio, si non aliquid sit contra jus fasque. Where a thing is concealed generally, this exception arises, that there shall be nothing contrary to law and right. 10 Co. 78. [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856; SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

34 35 36

37

3.

38 39

4.

40 41 42

5.

Interfering with efforts by the falsely accused party to define the meaning of terms on any or all government forms they submit. This is especially true of geographical terms. Using “words of art” to break down the separation of civil powers between the national government and the states, to unconstitutionally place them under the control of the national government. Abusing the word “includes” to exercise what the U.S. Supreme Court calls “arbitrary control” in adding WHATEVER THEY WANT to the definitions of words. This tactic is thoroughly rebutted in: Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

181 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

6

After federal statutory law has unlawfully been imposed extraterritorially against those domiciled outside the statutory “United States”, meaning federal territory, they then use franchises to unlawfully impose “duties” against people, thus implementing involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. And if the person objects to the involuntary servitude, they FRAUDULENTLY institute civil penalties against them for refusing to associate themselves with a franchise status such as “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “U.S. citizen”, “person”, or “individual”. The result are the following crimes by GOVENRMENT terrorists:

7

1.

1 2 3 4 5

8 9 10 11

Specifically, Rowen seeks a declaratory judgment against the United States of America with respect to "whether or not the plaintiff is a taxpayer pursuant to, and/or under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(14)." (See Compl. at 2.) This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment "with respect to Federal taxes other than actions brought under section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986," a code section that is not at issue in the instant action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201; see also Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d. 531, 536-537 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of claim for declaratory relief under § 2201 where claim concerned question of tax liability). Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby DISMISSED. [Rowen v. U.S., 05-3766MMC. (N.D.Cal. 11/02/2005)]

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

2. 3.

22 23

4.

24 25 26

5.

27 28

6.

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37

38 39

40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48

49 50

Tampering with a witness. 18 U.S.C. §1512. All government forms and testimony in court constitutes “testimony of a protected witness”. Any attempt to penalize said witness directly interferes with truthful testimony and makes their the testimony given under the influence of said duress inadmissible as evidence. This is especially true if the penalty is authorized ONLY against a franchisee called a statutory “taxpayer” and the witness is NOT a statutory “taxpayer” and cannot lawfully be DECLARED or PRESUMED to be a “taxpayer” by the judge because of 28 U.S.C. §2201(a).

7.

Criminal coercion. Harassing or threatening communication. This includes all collection notices connected with the illegal penalty. All such activity is also usually chargeable as “stalking” under state law. Unlawful simulation of legal process. All legal proceedings against non-franchisees and “nontaxpayers” such as administrative summons, “notices of levy”, etc. constitute unlawful “simulation of legal process” punishable by imprisonment. Bribing public officers or jurors. 18 U.S.C. §201. All those receiving federal “benefits” derived from the “tax” at issue in any tax prosecution are being bribed to rule against those who are NOT “taxpayers”. Influencing or injuring officer or juror. 18 U.S.C. §1503. All those receiving federal “benefits” derived from the “tax” at issue in any tax prosecution are being bribed to rule against those who are NOT “taxpayers”. Prosecutors typically warn jurors that “their share” of the tax burden will go up if they DON’T convict an innocent nontaxpayer defendant. Solicitation to obtain appointive public office. 18 U.S.C. §211. Innocent nontaxpayer defendants are told that if they plead guilty to being a public officer called a statutory “taxpayer” and pay whatever the government wants, then they will get a reduced sentence or no sentence. The payment they make is a BRIBE to receive the “benefits” of the office, which include reduced sentence, and the elimination of criminal harassment by the government mafia “protection racket”.

All the above tactics not only amount to acts of international terrorism, but they also violate the ONLY mandate in the USA constitution to protect the states from invasion, because the chief invaders is the de facto U.S. government mafia itself. United States Constitution Article 4, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Likewise, franchises are POLITICALLY administered against only those who are POLITICAL officers or PUBLIC officers. All franchise courts are in the Executive Branch and hence, they act POLITICALLY if they act against those who are OUTSIDE the government or are NOT lawfully serving in public offices. This form of POLITICAL activity disguised to LOOK like legal activity but which cannot become LAW for non-franchisees, is the foundation of what “terrorism” itself is: To influence people POLITICALLY using threats that LOOK legal but in fact are NOT for those who are not consenting franchisees. Even the Wikipedia Encyclopedia itself recognizes that false accusations of government that YOU are a terrorist itself constitutes “terrorism” as legally defined:

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

182 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,35 and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism” 3637. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,38 and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).3940 [Wikipedia topic: Terrorism, 5/29/2011; SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Remember: There are only two types of REAL governments: government by consent and terrorist governments. What we have now is a terrorist government that has transformed itself from a protector to a protection racket and organized crime syndicate which is directed behind the scenes by a secret financial elite of special interests. The early Romans spread their worldwide empire by the same techniques. When they wanted to capture and conquer a city or a state without violence, they would place guards on all the main roads in and out. They would embargo the city or state from all commerce and turn the ability to conduct commerce into a franchise and a privilege, and force the inhabitants to pay tribute to Caesar in order to restore their ability to support themselves and travel freely. Then they would make everyone in the city turn in all their gold and silver as tribute. A small portion of it would be given back, all of which was melted down and re-minted with Caesar’s image on it. It was nonviolent commercial and legal conquest, but still conquest. “TRIBUTE. Tribute in the sense of an impost paid by one state to another, as a mark of subjugation, is a common feature of international relationships in the biblical world. The tributary could be either a hostile state or an ally. Like deportation, its purpose was to weaken a hostile state. Deportation aimed at depleting the man-power. The aim of tribute was probably twofold: to impoverish the subjugated state and at the same time to increase the conqueror’s own revenues and to acquire commodities in short supply in his own country. As an instrument of administration it was one of the simplest ever devised: the subjugated country could be made responsible for the payment of a yearly tribute. Its non-arrival would be taken as a sign of rebellion, and an expedition would then be sent to deal with the recalcitrant. This was probably the reason for the attack recorded in Gn. 14. [New Bible Dictionary. Third Edition. Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. 1996, c1982, c1962; InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove]

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

The only thing new in the world is the history you do not know. The reason you do not know it is that the same corporate and elite special interests who oppress you and use their franchises to destroy equal protection and your rights also run the public schools and the media and decide what they want you to know. All they want are good little corporate, tax-paying whores and drones who don’t ask any questions and keep the plunder flowing into their checking account so they don’t have to pay their fair share, which is really the only share that the Constitution can or does lawfully authorize: franchise/excise taxes upon corporate privileges. Congress is only supposed to be able to tax what it creates and it didn’t create human beings (God did), but it did create federal corporation franchises and can and should tax ONLY them. "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 219. After full consideration, this Court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra; 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247,

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

35

Hoffman, Bruce "Inside Terrorism" Columbia University Press 1998 ISBN 0-231-11468-0. p. 32. See review in The New York Times Inside Terrorism.

36

Record, Jeffrey (December 2003). "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism". Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub207.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-11. "The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited." 37

Schmid, Alex, and Jongman, Albert. Political Terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories and literature. Amsterdam ; New York : North-Holland ; New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988. 38 a b c

Geoffrey Nunberg (October 28, 2001). "Head Games / It All Started with Robespierre / "Terrorism": The history of a very frightening word". San Francisco Chronicle. http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-10-28/opinion/17622543_1_terrorism-robespierre-la-terreur. Retrieved 2010-01-11. "For the next 150 years the word "terrorism" L.Ed. a double life – a justifiable political strategy to some an abomination to others" 39 a b c

Geoffrey Nunberg (October 28, 2001). "Head Games / It All Started with Robespierre / "Terrorism": The history of a very frightening word". San Francisco Chronicle. http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-10-28/opinion/17622543_1_terrorism-robespierre-la-terreur. Retrieved 2010-01-11. "For the next 150 years the word "terrorism" L.Ed. a double life – a justifiable political strategy to some an abomination to others" 40

Elysa Gardner (2008-12-25). "Harold Pinter: Theater's singular voice falls silent". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/news/2008-12-25pinter_N.htm. Retrieved 2010-01-11. "In 2004, he earned the prestigious Wilfred Owen prize for a series of poems opposing the war in Iraq. In his acceptance speech, Pinter described the war as "a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law.""

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

183 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

252-253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206. [271 U.S. 175]" [Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926)]

1 2 3 4

5 6

12.5 Franchises are abused to UNLAWFULLY create statutory government “employees” or “officers”41 “All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient: the duty of superintending the industry of private people.” [Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776)]

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17

The U.S. Supreme Court has held many times that the ONLY purpose for lawful, constitutional taxation is to collect revenues to support ONLY the machinery and operations of the government and its “employees”. This purpose, it calls a “public use” or “public purpose”: “The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people. It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy. A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks, drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage. This power can be readily employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.

26 27 28 29

Nor is it taxation. ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’ ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’ Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

30 31 32

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’ See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.” [Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)] ________________________________________________________________________________________

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another." [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

41 42 43 44

45

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “public purpose” as follows: “Public purpose. In the law of taxation, eminent domain, etc., this is a term of classification to distinguish the objects for which, according to settled usage, the government is to provide, from those which, by the like usage, are left to private interest, inclination, or liberality. The constitutional requirement that the purpose of any tax, police regulation, or particular exertion of the power of eminent domain shall be the convenience, safety, or welfare of the entire community and not the welfare of a specific individual or class of persons [such as, for instance, federal benefit recipients as individuals]. “Public purpose” that will justify expenditure of public money generally means such an activity as will serve as benefit to community as a body and which at same time is directly related function of government. Pack v. Southwestern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.2d. 789, 794.

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

41

Adapted with permission from the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.2.5, ver. 4.38, found at: http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

184 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

The term is synonymous with governmental purpose. As employed to denote the objects for which taxes may be levied, it has no relation to the urgency of the public need or to the extent of the public benefit which is to follow; the essential requisite being that a public service or use shall affect the inhabitants as a community, and not merely as individuals. A public purpose or public business has for its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security, prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents within a given political division, as, for example, a state, the sovereign powers of which are exercised to promote such public purpose or public business.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1231, Emphasis added]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9

A related word defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is “public use”: Public use. Eminent domain. The constitutional and statutory basis for taking property by eminent domain. For condemnation purposes, "public use" is one which confers some benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to actual use by public. It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a "public advantage" or "public benefit" accrues sufficient to constitute a public use. Montana Power Co. v. Bokma, Mont., 457 P.2d. 769, 772, 773.

10 11 12 13 14 15

Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take property in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the whole community distinguished from particular individuals. But each and every member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be personally and directly affected by it; if the object is to satisfy a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient. Ringe Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186. The term may be said to mean public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit. It may be limited to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not for a particular individual. The use must be a needful one for the public, which cannot be surrendered without obvious general loss and inconvenience. A "public use" for which land may be taken defies absolute definition for it changes with varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences, changing conceptions of scope and functions of government, and other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and new modes of communication and transportation. Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 245 A.2d. 579, 586.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

See also Condemnation; Eminent domain. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1232]

28 29

30

Black’s Law Dictionary also defines the word “tax” as follows: “Tax: A charge by the government on the income of an individual, corporation, or trust, as well as the value of an estate or gift. The objective in assessing the tax is to generate revenue to be used for the needs of the public.

31 32

A pecuniary [relating to money] burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a

33

Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is NOT A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OR DONATION, BUT AN ENFORCED CONTRIBUTION, EXACTED PURSUANT TO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission v. Patt, 4 payment exacted by legislative authority. In re Mytinger, D.C.Tex. 31 F.Supp. 977,978,979.

34 35 36 37 38

Mich.App. 228, 144 N.W.2d. 663, 665. …” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1457]

39 40

41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51

So in order to be legitimately called a “tax” or “taxation”, the money we pay to the government must fit all of the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The money must be used ONLY for the support of government. The subject of the tax must be “liable”, and responsible to pay for the support of government under the force of law. The money must go toward a “public purpose” rather than a “private purpose”. The monies paid cannot be described as wealth transfer between two people or classes of people within society The monies paid cannot aid one group of private individuals in society at the expense of another group, because this violates the concept of equal protection of law for all citizens found in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If the monies demanded by government do not fit all of the above requirements, then they are being used for a “private” purpose and cannot be called “taxes” or “taxation”, according to the Supreme Court. Actions by the government to enforce the payment of any monies that do not meet all the above requirements can therefore only be described as: De Facto Government Scam Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.043, Rev. 3-11-2016

185 of 388 EXHIBIT:________

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7 8

7.

9 10 11 12 13 14

8. 9. 10.

15 16

11.

17 18 19

12.

20 21 22

13.

23 24

14.

25

26 27 28 29

Theft and robbery by the government in the guise of “taxation” Government by decree rather than by law Tyranny Socialism Mob rule and a tyranny by the “have-nots” against the “haves” 18 U.S.C. §241: Conspiracy against rights. The IRS shares tax return information with states of the union, so that both of them can conspire to deprive you of your property. 18 U.S.C. §242: Deprivation of rights under the color of law. The Fifth Amendment says that people in states of the Union cannot be deprived of their property without due process of law or a court hearing. Yet, the IRS tries to make it appear like they have the authority to just STEAL these people’s property for a fabricated tax debt that they aren’t even legally liable for. 18 U.S.C. §247: Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs 18 U.S.C. §872: Extortion by officers or employees of the United States. 18 U.S.C. §876: Mailing threatening communications. This includes all the threatening notices regarding levies, liens, and idiotic IRS letters that refuse to justify why government thinks we are “liable”. 18 U.S.C. §880: Receiving the proceeds of extortion. Any money collected from Americans through illegal enforcement actions and for which the contributors are not "liable" under the law is extorted money, and the IRS is in receipt of the proceeds of illegal extortion. 18 U.S.C. §1581: Peonage, obstructing enforcement. IRS is obstructing the proper administration of the Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution, which require that they respect those who choose NOT to volunteer to participate in the federal donation program identified under subtitle A of the I.R.C. 18 U.S.C. §1583: Enticement into slavery. IRS tries to enlist “nontaxpayers” to rejoin the ranks of other peons who pay taxes they aren't demonstrably liable for, which amount to slavery. 18 U.S.C. §1589: Forced labor. Being forced to expend one’s personal time responding to frivolous IRS notices and pay taxes on my labor that I am not liable for.

The U.S. Supreme Court has further characterized all efforts to abuse the tax system in order to accomplish “wealth transfer” as “political heresy” that is a denial of republican principles that form the foundation of our Constitution, when it issued the following strong words of rebuke. Incidentally, the case below also forms the backbone of reasons why the Internal Revenue Code can never be anything more than private law that only applies to those who volunteer into it: “The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they [the government] cannot change innocence [a “nontaxpayer”] into guilt [a “taxpayer”]; or punish innocence as a crime [criminally prosecute a “nontaxpayer” for violation of the tax laws]; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers [of THEFT and FRAUD], if they had not been expressly restrained; would, *389 in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.” [Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)]

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

39

We also cannot assume or suppose that our government has the authority to make “gifts” of monies collected through its taxation powers, and especially not when paid to private individuals or