Medical Neglect Reporting Over Vaccines


The Letter Agency Corruption WHISTLEBLOWERS

Part 1 Office of Inspector General Disclosure on Horowitz Plan.

Inspector General of the DOJ Michael Horowitz releases the White Hat Bulldog on the Deep State and his name is Senator Grassley. Dr. Stephen returns to explain..





Deep State Coup Against Trump Exposed! — Nunes Memo


you are free tv revealing goings on regarding jan 28 2018

EXCLUSIVE: FBI Used Agents As Pawns To Insulate Hillary, Aides & Clinton Foundation From Prosecutions

John Darash has sent you a group email from National Liberty Alliance.


On Saturday January 27, 2018 at 7PM EST the Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury assembled to consider, and did find for indictments against:

Hillary Clinton,

Harry Mason Reid,

BLM Director Daniel Love,

Attorney General Loretta Lynch,

FBI Director James Comey, and

Oregon Governor Katerine Brown,

FBI Special Agent Gregory T. Bretzing,

Grant County Commissioner Boyd Britton,

Sheriff David Ward,

Judge Steven Grasty,

FBI Agent W. Joseph Astarita,

Numerous John/Jane Doe’s from multiple agencies (To be identified) which include, but are not limited, to the

Local Police,

State Police,

BLM, FBI and NGO Contractors,

Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen,

Magistrate Judge Carl Hoffman,

US Attorney Daniel G. Bogden,

US Attorney Steven W. Myhre,

U.S. Attorney Nicholas D. Dickinson,

US Attorney Nadia J. Ahmed,

US Attorney Erin M. Creegan,

Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro,

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Hogan,

Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken,

Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan,

U.S. Attorney Amy E. Potter,

U.S. Attorney Frank R. Papagni,

Jr., Judge Anna J. Brown,

Magistrate Judge John Acosta,

Judge Stacie F. Beckerman,

Judge Dustin Pead,

U.S. Attorney Billy J. Williams,

U.S. Attorney Ethan D. Knight,

Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey A. Barrow, and

Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Gabriel.

FOR CHARGES OF: – Murder, 18 USC §241, 18 USC §242, 18 USC §1001, 42 USC 1983, 42 USC §1986, 18 USC §1117, 18 USC §1111 and Jury Tampering (Stacking)

Join our on line conference for disscussion and Q&A on Monday at 9PM EST go to > for instructions to join.

John Darash

Hillary reveals her mentor was head of KKK

ZAPPA on the corrupt music industry


JOE BIDEN IS A SICK PEDAPHILE and loves destroying other countries along with Clinton’s Bushes and Obama.

NO to Net Neutrality

Blackstone Intelligence Network Subs 125K Published on Feb 5, 2018  More FBI whistleblowing – Deep State Tries to Entrap Me By Using a Professional Con Artist

Did Congress & Trump Provide the Ultimate TAX Remedy? Hidden In the Rules?

Everyone that hasn’t read this… bottom line NO more tax withholding on wages. Get your W-4 write EXEMPT unless you want to voluntarily pay them!  Write “EXEMPT” in Block 7 per the instructions.



LINK TO BILL – then click on Constitutional Authority Statement

The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, – that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:

1. completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years;

2. strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment; and

3. completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is,

– to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally direct taxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that have been by used by the politicians to create the welfare based, class warfare system of taxation that has resulted in the divisive destruction of America, its people’s Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights;

– by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is constitutionally authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicialenforcement of only the perverted judicial Fabian opinions they issue, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that is authorized and exists.

What ? You may say – that’s crazy. What the hell are you talking about ?

It’s the same tax it’s always been ! There’s nothing new in the law that could do that ! Yea, – that’s right, it’s the same income tax law that it has always been, and now they have admitted it on the Congressional Record, and their world is about to change, – well, actually, implode.

Congress has no idea of what they have done, or of the true extent or size of the catastrophe within the tax enforcement system, that they have wrought with the new income tax law, and few Americans, if any have realized it yet,

– but any honest lawyer will tell you (after reading this) that everything you are about to read (and have read up to this point in this article) is irrefutably true.

FACT: For the last 60 years the IRS has been issuing income tax collection correspondence to Americans asserting that American citizens owe the payment of an income tax on their work, because of the adoption of the 16th Amendment. This claim to legal authority is all over their website; it is in their “frivolous Arguments” propaganda publications, where they repeatedly assert the income taxing authority under the 16th Amendment, and label as frivolous any reference made to the limitations on the taxing powers imposed under Article I of the Constitution; and, it is in the pleadings made on the record of the court by the United States as a plaintiff, in every tax case prosecuted in the federal courts in the last 30 years.

FACT: The Department of Justice attorneys argue in every single income tax case prosecuted in the federal courts, that the income tax is owed by the individual defendant as a function of the 16th Amendment alone, without use or need of any “applicability” of the authorized indirect Article I, Section 8, impost, dutyand excise taxing powers.

FACT: For the last 60 years the federal courts have been wrongfully allowing and upholding the constitutionally prohibited, and therefore unconstitutional, direct taxation of the alleged gross income of the American People, created as a function of all of their labors and work, as a direct tax without apportionment, under alleged authority conferred under the 16th Amendment to tax “… income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

FACT: The 16th Amendment has no enabling enforcement clause in it, that would constitutionally authorizes the U.S. Congress to write any law to enforce any power alleged newly created or authorizedunder authority of the Amendment alone.

FACT: There are Amendments to the Constitution, both before and after the 16th Amendment, that do have and clearly contain an enabling enforcement clause within them, irrefutably proving the absencewithin the Amendment, of such alleged grant of any new enforceable power, is intentional.

FACT: In assessing the legal effect of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court plainly said in 1916 that “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation“. “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of
taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out
of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged . . .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916)

FACT: The Article I, Section 8, clause 1, authorities to tax only indirectly, by uniform
impost, duty and excise, do not reach the labors of the American people with legal effect. This is why the federal government has argued for sixty years that the 16th Amendment was the sole basis for the enforcement of the income tax imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 United States Code (Title 26 is also called the I.R.C.). In speaking of the power to tax by ‘duties,’ ‘imposts,’ and ‘excises,’ the Supreme Court has consistently said:

” ‘We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and
excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.’ Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. 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.‘ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.

If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the
Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to populationPacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253; Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.“ Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 151-152 (1911)” Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 “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 the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)1

Which is mirrored in Black’s Law Dictionary: “Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition

“The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different. “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” Art. 1, § 8. If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1 , 240 U. S. 12.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581

“The [income] tax being an excise, its imposition must conform to the canon of uniformity. There has been no departure from this requirement. According to the
settled doctrine the uniformity exacted is geographical, not intrinsic. Knowlton v. Moore, supra, p. 178 U. S. 83; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, p. 220 U. S. 158; Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 232 U. S. 282; Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605, 245 U. S. 613; LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 256 U. S. 392; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 282 U. S. 117; Wright v. Vinton Branch Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U. S. 440.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 583 “Whether the tax is to be classified as an “excise” is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an “impost” (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7 Wall. 433, 74 U. S. 445), or a “duty” (Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S.  546, 75 U. S. 547; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,157 U. S. 429, 157 U.
S. 570; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46). capitation or other
direct” tax it certainly is not.” Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548
(1937), at 581-2

1 Again, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of excise taxing power.

So, the granted taxing powers are conclusively defined within the U.S. Constitution: “Mr. Chief Justice Chase in The License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 72 U. S. 471, when he said: “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.” And although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax nor included under the words “duties, imposts and excises,” such a tax, for more than one hundred years of national existence, has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances [that] has invited thorough investigation into sources of revenue.” And with respect to the power to tax income the Supreme Court has said:

“The act now under consideration does not impose direct taxation upon property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under article 1, [section] 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform throughout the United States. Within the category of indirect taxation, as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of the [income] tax imposed in the act under consideration. The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership. In the present case the tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax, measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain way.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 150 (1911) Which is repeatedly supported: “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself.  Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann.  Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed. –, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.” Stratton’s, supra at 414 So imposts and duties are taxes on imported and exported goods, i.e. commodities and articles of commerce that are imported into, and or exported from, the United States of America. Imposts are also taxes on foreign persons” and their activities in the United States (foreign individuals & companies, & organized operations like a foreign trust, charity, etc.). Imposts and duties are also taxes, where imposed, on persons in the U.S. territories and possessions, and on America citizens who are living and working in a foreign country under a tax treaty with the United States that allows the federal taxation of the American persons in that foreign country, under the active tax treaty.

So taxation, by impost and duty, by definition, fundamentally does not reach the labors of the American people conducted in the fifty states, where the labor does not involve any import or export, or other foreign activity. And Excise taxes are now accepted as being constitutionally defined by both law and precedent (over 600 times) as: “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … “.

But Title 15 U.S.C. Section 17, plainly and clearly states that: “The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce… “. Under the U.S. Constitution this law removes the (domestic) labor of a human being (American citizens)” from subjectivity to any and all taxation by excise under Article I, Section 8.

This is of course why the United States’ IRS, DOJ, and the entire federal judiciary (at this point) PREVIOUSLY have had to claim in court for 50 years that – it is the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income tax, and not Article I, Section 8. Thus, under Article I of the Constitution, there is an admitted total lack of subjectivity of the citizens to any and all impost, duty or excise taxation on Labori.e.: the indirect taxation of the citizen’s labor, or a tax upon the exercise of his or her Right to Work resulting in the payment of “salary” or “wages“, does not apply to citizens, because it is not statutorily authorized, now made enforceable, as it is fundamentally outside of the legal reach, and scope of legal effect, of all of the granted Constitutional authorities to tax indirectly under authority of Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

The reason why this is so important to understand, is because this basic information, concerning the proper, limited, application and enforcement of the constitutional, and constitutionally granted, powers to tax, is essential in properly and fully understanding the legal issue of the limited subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts that exists with respect to the taxation of the individual citizens. A proper and complete understanding of this legal issue, immediately leads to the realization that there is no constitutionally granted subject-matter jurisdiction that can be taken over a civil action to adjudicate and or enforce the claims that are alleged by the United States in any Complaint filed in a legal action that is filed in the federal courts to pursue the enforcement of the payment of a personal income tax against an individual American citizen as defendant. In the United States of America, under the Constitution of the United States of America, our federal courts are courts of only limited, specifically enumerated, constitutionally granted, powers, that only exist as written in the law. The courts cannot enforce ideas, or a philosophy, or custom or habit, or ritual, or beliefs, or even common sense.

The courts can only enforce the written law of the statutes of the Titles of United States Code. Nothing else. And of course, under the Constitution of the United States of America, a statute (law), can only be written by Congress where,

first: – the Constitution grants a specific power to be exercised by the Congress (as is done in Article I, Section 8); and second: the Constitution specifically grants the authority to the Congress to write law (as is done in Article I, Section 8, clause 18), with specific applicability to the enforcement of the power(s) granted, that was, or were, exercised in operational practice (enforcement) by the government (IRS).

So, the three required elements of our constitutional law in America, necessary to establish the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court that can be taken over any legal actionsufficient to allow that court to entertain and adjudicate the action in the court, are:

(1) a specific power must be granted by the Constitution or Amendment for Congress (the United States) to exercise;

(2) a specific grant of authority for Congress to write law must be made by the Constitution or Amendment, with respect to the administration and enforcement of the specific power granted in (#1) above 2; and,

(3) a specific statute must be legislatively enacted by an authorized Congress, with specific application to the enforcement of the specific power alleged granted and exercised in (#1) above, and madeenforceablewith authorized law under (#2) above.

These fundamental elements of constitutional law, controlling the ability of a federal court to lawfully take a granted subject-matter jurisdiction over a legal claim made by complainant (like the United States) in the federal district court, combined with the irrefutable lack of any enabling enforcement clause that exists in the 16th Amendment as adopted, make the United States’ claims in the courts that the 16th Amendment is the foundational authority for the enforcement of the income tax against the individual citizens, on the mere basis of being a “person” with alleged “gross income”, appear dubious at best, and a complete and total lie at worst, as this lack of granted constitutional authority to write law under the 16th Amendment also explains the alleged tax-protestors’ claims of the last 50 years, that – if the tax is under the 16th Amendment, then the tax must be voluntary, as no law is constitutionally authorized to be written by Congress, and therefore no law can exist, or does exist, under the 16th Amendment that effects the income of the citizens directly, without the underlying foundational use of the impost, duty and excisetaxing authorities of Article I first being made applicable.

i.e. : a specific enabling enforcement clause of the Constitution, or one of its Amendments, must be shown to have been made applicable to the specific taxing power alleged constitutionally granted, and operationally practiced under (#1) above;

So the lower federal district and circuit courts have over time, seditiously reversed the Supreme Court’s original and true holding in 1916 – that the income tax is authorized and is constitutional under the granted and enforceable indirect Article I taxing authorities, as a measure of the amount of the indirect tax that is imposed on the income derived from the impost, duty or excise taxable activities or persons,

– who are made subject by the tax law to the payment of the uniform impost, duty or excise;

– which does not constitute an unconstitutionally unapportioned direct tax. The Supreme Court plainly held in 1916, in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) cases, that the income tax is an indirect tax under Article Iand is not direct tax under the 16th Amendment.

Again: “. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged .

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916) “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense – an authority already possessed [under Article I, Section 8] and never questioned – or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, . . .” Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 “…it clearly results that the [direct tax] proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. … This result … would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” These holdings in 1916 of course merely reasserted the Court’s long-standing recognition of the constitutional fact that the federal taxationof labor (without apportionment to the states for payment of the direct tax), is not a constitutionally granted taxing power, as labor has historically been perceived by the courts as a constitutionally protected Right, and outside of the granted internal Excise taxation powers.  “As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — ‘that all men are endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’ — not grant them but secure them — ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ “Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation,

. . . “It has been well said that, “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable [right. . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” [in Justice Field’s Concurrence in Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)] Justice Field was not alone in his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley, who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:

“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” “Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking of a nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense.” Justice Pitney in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14, 59 L.Ed. 441, L.R.A. 1915C, 960, 35 S.Ct.Rep. 240 (1915) “But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) But the lower federal district and circuit courts have reversed this clear indirect “income tax” holding that was made by the Supreme Court in 1916, by invoking as controlling, not these true, controlling Supreme Court cases cited above (Brushaber & Stanton), but instead they invoke one of their own contradictory inferior opinions from the below list of inferior circuit court decisions that openly simply declare, erroneously (and obviously so), that the federal personal income tax is authorized by the 16th Amendment as a direct unapportioned tax that is laid on all of the income of all persons.

  • United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), (which simply asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without actually citing or quoting any text from that case opinion);
  • Parker v. Comm’r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984). (which also asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without citing or quoting any actual text from the case opinion);
  • Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984), 11 The Broken Tax System (which simply cites to Parker v. Comm’r. to make its assertions);
  • United States v. Sloan, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984), (which simply cites to Lovell and Collins to make its assertions);
  • In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989), (which simply cites to Lovell and Parker to make its assertions). And so, as a result of the federal courts improperly using for the last 40 years these inferior, isolated, self-circular court decisions (upholding the direct unapportioned taxation of income under the 16th Amendment), actually reversing the Supreme Court’s true holding (upholding only indirect uniform taxation of income under Article I, Section 8), the federal personal income tax has been enforced for 60 years in the lower federal Tax Court and district and circuit courts, erroneously, as a direct unapportioned tax, in blatant violation of the prohibition on such direct taxation that is still constitutionally prohibited by Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

Which brings us back to the focus of this exposé, and the beginning of this paper,

– the new tax law H.R. 1 (Dec. 2017), made effective as law as of January 1, 2018. You see in 2011 the United States Congress passed another new law directly affecting the new tax law, requiring that all legislative Bills brought forward to the House floor for debate, contain within them a plain and clear statement identifying and declaring the alleged constitutional clause with the grant of authority that serves as the constitutional foundation to the congressional claim of a granted authority to write law with respect to the administration of the powers claimed therein, and proposed exercised under the new legislation.

So, what did they put in the Constitutional Authority Statement for H.R. 1, the new income tax law now in effect ?  Did they actually write “the 16th Amendment” was the authority, as argued for 50 years, or something else ?NO! It’s either there or it isn’t.

First, it should be noted that the re-enactment of Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) Section 1, as done in H.R. 1, of course constitutes a re-enactment of exactly the same income taxing powers, and scheme of taxation (or lack thereof), as previously existed under the previous version of the income tax law, i.e. : the 1986 IRC code provisions of Title 26 U.S.C. (IRC) Section 1. Congress has simply adjusted the number of tax-brackets from seven to four, with different earnings thresholds and tax-rates associated with each of the four new tax-brackets, and with a new set of allowed or disallowed deductions and exemptions for everyone.

But, it is basically and essentially, an undeniable reimplementation of exactly the same scheme of graduated, bracketed, gross-income taxation (under IRC § 61) of taxable income (IRC § 63), as that (schemeof taxation) which has existed since 1913.

Supposedly, under this new law, nothing substantial or constitutionally foundational is believed to have been changed concerning or controlling the fundamental taxing power exercised, to tax income, and everything about the scheme is basically left unchanged, schematically identically the same as before (since the recodification of the tax law in 1986, which was also recodified (a new written version was created) in 1939 and 1954).

The “Constitutional Authority Statement” for the new law (26 USC (IRC) Section 1) plainly states: (next page) Lets look at that, closer:

As never before…It now plainly states that the Constitutional Authority for the enactment of the new income tax law enacted under H.R. 1, is not the 16th Amendmentat all, but relies solely on “ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution of the United States.” for its authority.  If the 16th amendment was intended as the authority, it would have been listed. It is NOT!

Uh-oh! You mean it isn’t the 16th Amendment after all? … and that claim of constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment as legal foundation to sustain the imposition and enforcement of the personal income tax, can never be made by the IRS, or in court by the United States attorneys, again, – ever !! In neither civil, nor criminal, tax prosecutions?  

Finally, the true and correct constitutional authority for the federal personal income tax is plainly and clearly specified in the law, on the Congressional House record, as being established under ONLY Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which contains only the grant of the required constitutional authority to tax, indirectly, by impost, duty and excise, which powersby law (Title 15 USC Sec. 17) do notlawfully reach the labors or income of the American People with force of law though the proper and lawful invocation and enforcement upon individual persons of only the granted indirect taxing powers.

The new income tax law, H.R. 1, by completely removing the 16th Amendment as an arguable constitutional basis and legal foundation, or as the applicable constitutional authority that is allegeable as the constitutional authority for the imposition, withholding, collection, and enforcement of the personal income tax in the federal courts as direct tax,

– completely strips the IRS, the DOJ, and the federal judiciary of all of their lawful ability to legally enforce on American citizens after January 1st, 2018, the federal personal income tax in the federal courts as it has been practiced since 1945.

Its’ over. The IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary are all eviscerated. The monstrous income tax FRAUDperpetrated by the federal courts on the American People is fully exposed now, naked to the world, and the behavior and opinions of the federal judiciary are exposed as nothing but the treasonous sedition they have always been. i.e. communistic and not constitutional. Repugnant, disgusting, corrupted, polluted, perverted, ultra vires judicial behavior and opinions, all committed for sixty years outside of the granted constitutional authority that exists for the court to lawfully act under, is all exposed. Naked to the world.

The Emperor wears no clothes. This new constitutional clarification now proves it has all been conspiratoriajudicial theft. Nothing more, and nothing less. The judicial crimes of the last sixty years, fraudulently perpetrated on the American People by the federal judiciary in the name of tax has all been pure unlawful and wrongful conversion of the constitutionally protected private property of We the People,under color of law, under color of office, and in the name of tax only;

– for there is no law becausenone is authorized, and there is no enforceable
direct tax or taxing power conferred under the 16th Amendment as previously used and deceptively claimed, because no such power is constitutionally made enforceable against the individual ‘person’, as opposed to one of the “several states”.

Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 – “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned amongst the several states which may be included within this Union”

AllAmerican citizens, in all 50 states, are all nowEXEMPT – as they always were, but is now clarified by constitutional as now clarified by congress), from any required payment or withholding of the federal personal income tax from their paycheck, earned at their place of employment in one of the fifty states, and everyone should therefore now claim EXEMPT on their W-4, as provided in law thereupon, under the supremacy-clause exemption from withholding, that is made at Title 26 USC (IRC) Section 3402(n), for informed employees to claim.

Go ahead, “Google” it, – “H.R. 1 Constitutional Authority Statement”. See for yourself. Without the use of the misapplication of the 16th Amendment to erroneously allege a direct tax on income that is owed by all “persons”, there can be no lawful enforcement of the personal income tax on the income of the American People, by any Department, Agency, Service, or any other group of men that exist within the federal government,

– like the IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary, or even the “United States of America” (as a plaintiff in the courts), without there first being the clear applicability of some impostdutyor excise tax to measure, that lawfully and properly taxes the underlying
taxable (business, commodity, or trade based) activity from which the income is derived.

Therefore, if there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that applies to the underlying taxable activity, resulting in “taxable income”, then there is no amount of gross income” to measure as tax. And, since there is no impost, duty, or excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that reaches either the “wages” or “salary” of the American People, earned by Right, as those terms (“wages” and “salary“) are not included in IRC Section 61 defining the sources of gross income constituting taxable income of an American citizen;

– but the terms are specifically included in IRC Section 1441(b), wherever “wages” or “salary” are earned by the non-resident alien person that is identified in law under IRC Section 1441(a). And, since it is only the foreign person (Follow this LINK and CLICK on Person see the definition – and also look up definition of individual in the code – it’s likely not you), who is made subject under the provisions of IRC Sections 7701(a)(16), to the collection of the federal personal income tax imposed in the code sections of Subtitle A (Chapters 1-6) of Title 26, which is where the original 1913 income tax laws are found in today’s law.

Subtitle A is the body of law that was enacted by Congress in 1913 as the federal personal income tax law, enacted under the original income tax legislation of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, then it has now become impossible (under the new H.R. 1 income tax law, ONLY under Article I, Section 8, authorities) for any party or person to lawfully withhold or collect any federal income tax from the payments made to an informed American citizen in one of the fifty states!

Oh, by the way, a Tariff, as enacted within the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, is one form of an impost, which taxing power, when exercised in the 50 states, is limited in constitutional operation to the taxation of only foreign persons and imported foreign goods, commodities, and other taxable articles of commerce“.  An impost, in the form of an enacted tariff, has no internal application to thedomestic activity of American citizens conducted by Right within the fifty stateswithout any involvement with foreign goods or foreign persons.

So, as I said in the beginning:  The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, that was just enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the immediate legal effect of:

1. Completely disemboweling and destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement practices and operations, by removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the direct taxation of income under the 16th Amendment, as practiced for the last 60 years; Exposing 60 years of IRS THEFT & UNLAWFUL CONVERSION BY FRAUD.

2. Strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its usual illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’) erroneous enforcement of a direct and unapportioned tax upon the income of We the American People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (Exposing 60 years of DOJ FRAUD AND/OR STUPIDITY); and

3. Completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last 60 years of American history, as nothing but a complete and total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true judicial conspiracy of sedition that it is, to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally direct taxation of the labors and work (“wages” and “salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund, not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that are used to create the welfare-class and class warfare systems that are resulting in the destruction of America, Freedom, Liberty, private property, and equal rights, by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is authorized, to enable the federal judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the judicial enforcement of only the perverted judicialFabian opinionsin place of the actual written constitutional tax law that exists.

This clearly exposes 60 years of JUDICIAL FRAUD, ERROR, and ARROGANCE. 

Now you also know that not only is this not crazy, it is ALL irrefutably TRUE. Oh yea, by the way, it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that calls for the graduated and communistic taxation of a population that is kept divided by the different classes of the population defined in the non-uniform tax law by the creation of the different tax-brackets established therein; with different rates of tax for each bracket as under the communistic system of unconstitutional taxation that we suffer under today (for the last 72 years- since 1945), rather than the system of uniformity in taxation that is constitutionally required of both the authorized direct, and indirect taxation of We the People in America and our activities.  That 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto, explicitly states:

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

So, now you know where the income tax enforcement operations of the IRS, the DOJ, and federal judiciary really came from, for the last 60 years, because it isn’t Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, or the 16th Amendment.

Now our government servants, and especially the federal judiciary, stand condemned by their own ignorance and arrogance, and seditionBy its own congressional admission, now made in the written formal Congressional Record of the United States of America, they are nothing but as guilty as sin itself. And now, there is only one path left by which they may escape to find their way back to justice and righteousnessrepent.

COMMENT AND CALL TO ACTION – It’s time to move in on every case pending or case already judged in the past and open the prisons doors for those enslaved under this fraud, by bringing a Mandatory Judicial Notice of this argument into that case or appeal, to prove there was never constitutional jurisdiction for the IRS to bring cases in Tax Court or US District Court citing the 16th amendment, now or in the past. Then after winning these cases or in conjunction with your action to stop those cases, sue for constitutional violations using this new found information and congressional rules as the evidence.

Basic content provided by: Thomas Freed (tell him you were sent by TJ at (

Websites: –


FREEDOM Withholding – link to letter shown below.

«First Name» «Last Name»


«City», «State»  «Zip»


«Paymaster First Name» «Paymaster Last Name»,  «Paymaster Title»

«The Company Name»

«Company Address»

«Company City», «Company State»  «Company Zip»

Re: IRS Letter received by the company attempting to alter a sworn document




  Dear «Paymaster First Name»,

This legal brief on income tax and withholding is being delivered to you in order to address the improper instructions that you have received from the I.R.S., to alter my sworn statement in the form of an Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate – Form W4, and deduct and withhold tax from my pay at a rate commisurate with a status of single and 0 allowances, based on some unidentified determination made without authorization or proper cite of statute by some unidentified person in the IRS.

To understand why the IRS has no legal authority to order the company to change the withholding rates applied to my remuneration, it is necessary to understand not only the statutes applying to the withholding of income tax by the emplyer, but also the statutes of  Subtitle A actually establishing the actual statutory liability for the payment of the the income tax that exist in the written law of the United States Code.  It is also important to understand the nature and specific language of the statutes actually making persons liable for the payment of the income tax, which is not the direct tax the American People have wrongfully been led to believe that it is, but is in fact actually much more like the indirect sales tax collected by our stores, than it is like the direct tax on income mandated by the second plank of the communist manifesto, which our government improperly practices and unlawfully imposes on the American People under a de-facto operation that is far removed from a dejure application of the law.

 INCOME TAX (1913)

  1. Income Tax Under the 16th Amendment and Subtitle A.

 In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, (1916),  the case the IRS, the Justice Department, and the judicial branch of the government all cite to establish the constitutionality of the income tax laws, it clearly states in the very first sentence of the Opinion of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice White:

“…, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913.”  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 U.S. 1, 9 (1916)

Please take careful notice of the fact that Chief Justice White clearly and unequivocably identifies in the first sentence of the Opinion that the income tax provisions in the law are part of a TARIFF ACT.  By definition, a tariff is a tax laid on foreign imports or FOREIGN economic activity.  This is the little known truth, and the “dirty little secret” which is never taught in law school about the origin of the income tax laws that were actually passed in 1913.

But one can easily verify this startling fact of law for himself with a short visit to any law library (or reliable web site posting of the Supreme Court case opinion texts).

A tariff, of course, is a tax, or a schedule of rates for a tax, on foreign goods or activity being imported into America, or a tax imposed on foreign activity conducted within America.  A tariff is one form of an “impost”, which is of course, one of the three kinds of indirect taxes, imposts, duties and excises, authorized by the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, for the government to lay and collect to provide for the operation of the government’s legitimate functions.   However, as a tax on the importation of goods from a foreign country and on foreign activity in America, a tariff, clearly is NOT and CANNOT BE, legally or lawfully applied to the domestic activities of American citizens.

             The Supreme Court tells us that the income tax was originally part of a tariff act (law), which would make the tax an indirect tax under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (authorizing imposts, duties, and excises), and not a direct tax.  But that certainly does not agree with how the tax is enforced by the I.R.S. today, does it?   So, how is the law really imposed and applied in the statutes Has it been changed since 1913, or, under the law, is there still evidence in the law that it is still, and has always been, nothing more than a tariff?  Does the Supreme Court help us understand the answers to these questions that must be immediately raised by the revelation that the income tax is originally, actually, part of a tariff act, and was not a domestic tax at all?

In the Brushaber decision cited above, Chief Justice White in the Opinion of the Court further tells us that:

2. The act provides for collecting the tax at the source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax …”  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240 US 1, 21-22 (1916)

Here, the court clearly tells us that the scheme of the income tax, as provided by the tariff act, is that of a tax that is collected at the source, by third parties identified as “corporations, etc.”  The entire scheme of the tax as it was originally imposed under the law is described by the Court in this sentence.

The Court identifies that this “…collecting the tax at the source;” is how the income tax is actually imposed in the law because “The act provides…”, and it identifies how the tax is to be collected and paid under the actual laws that were passed into existence, as it “…makes it the duty of corporations, etc. to retain and pay the sum of the tax…”.       This “collecting the tax at the source” – the duty to retain and pay the sum of the tax, is effected in the law by enacting a legislatively created duty to withhold tax from payments to subject persons before payment, so that the tax is already paid before the subject taxpayer ever even receives the funds.  This pre-collection of tax, collection at the source, is of course what the income tax was really all about in 1913.

The Opinion of the Court clearly states that the act creates and imposes a legal “duty” on the “… corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax”.            This legislatively created “duty” of the “corporations, etc.”, identified and referenced here by the Supreme Court, is actually defined in the law and has been since the inception of this tax in 1913.  Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(16) defines the lawful authority of a “Withholding Agent” and  implements that legislatively created duty “duty” to “retain and pay the tax” (by withholding from subject persons).

The SUBTITLE A “Withholding Agent

The term “Withholding Agent” is defined at Title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(16): 

  • 7701. Definitions

     (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly

incompatible with the intent thereof –

(16) Withholding agent

The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

Sections 1441 through 1443  (Exhibit B) are entitled:

  • 1441. Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens 
  • 1442. Withholding of tax on foreign corporations 
  • 1443. Foreign tax-exempt organizations

Obviously, none of these sections can be applied to withhold tax from an American citizen.   Furthermore, an American citizen may utilize the regulatory provisions of these sections to establish his or her immunity from the withholding of subtitle A income tax by a “Withholding Agent“.   This is evidenced by the provisions of
26 C.F.R. 1.1441-5(a),  It reads:

26 C.F.R. 1.1441-5  Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding.

(a) Individuals. … an individual’s written statement that he or she is a Citizen of the United States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a Citizen or resident of the United States.  This statement shall be furnished to the withholding agent in duplicate.  ….

This regulatory section corresponds to, and implements, the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Section 1441 of the United States Code.  It clearly states:

 an individual’s written statement that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United States may be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a Citizen or resident of the United States.”

            IRS Publication 515, the instruction booklet from the IRS to the “Withholding Agent“, on how to implement the subtitle A withholding regulations, confirms that American citizens are not subject to the withholding of subtitle A income tax by “Withholding Agents“.  It states:


You should withhold any required tax if facts indicate that the individual, or the fiduciary, to whom you are to pay the income is a nonresident alien.  However, the alien may be allowed an exemption from withholding or a reduced rate of withholding as explained here.

Evidence of Residence.  If an individual gives you a written statement stating that he or she is a Citizen or resident of the United States, and you do not know otherwise, you do not have to withhold tax. …

Citizens who formally declare themselves to be American citizens, are clearly exempted from the withholding of income tax by Withholding Agents, and are in fact completely outside of the Withholding Agent’s legal authority to withhold Subtitle A income tax by virtue of the specific statutory definition of the Withholding Agent.

Subsection (c) of 26 CFR 1.1441-5 provides the instructions to the Withholding Agent for the handling and disposition of the duplicate Statements of Citizenship:

(c) Disposition of statement and form.

The duplicate copy of each statement and form filed pursuant to this section shall be forwarded with a letter of transmittal to Internal Revenue Service Center, Philadelphia, PA 19255.  The original statement shall be retained by the withholding agent.

Companies that refuse to obey this regulation after it has been provided to them, and simply refuse to forward the duplicate copy of furnished Statements of Citizenship to the Philadelphia offices as instructed in the regulation, are committing a willful violation of a known legal duty.

The last section (statute) referenced in the definition of the Withholding Agent, Section 1461, states:

  • 1461. Liability for withheld tax

Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

This statute clearly states that it is the Withholding Agent who is made liable for the payment of the income tax in Subtitle A.  And, of course, he is not made liable for the payment of income tax on his own income, he is made liable for the payment of the income tax that he has already collected by withholding from other subject persons.  There is no other statute in all of Subtitle A that establishes any statutory liability for the payment of the income tax by any other person other than the “Withholding Agentbecause the tax is indirect, and it is kept indirect by this provision for liability, not for tax on one’s own income, but for the tax that has been collected by withholding from other subject persons.  Just the same way that the store is made liable for the payment of the sales tax that is collected by the store from third party taxpayers actually subject to the payment of the tax at the cash register, but not made liable for the payment of the tax to the Treasury.  That is the duty of the store, the tax collector.  It is the same with the income tax. It is the duty of the “Withholding Agent” to retain and pay the tax, and the only liability that exists in law is this liability for tax that has been withled from subject parties. There is no liability for tax on one’s own income established anywhere in the law because that would be unconstitutionally direct taxation which is still prohibited.

            I REPEAT, Section 1461 is the ONLY statute in ALL of SUBTITLE A that makes anyone liable to pay the income tax.  By making ONLY the Withholding Agent liable for the payment of tax, the scheme for the collection and enforcement of the income tax is kept entirely INDIRECT – just as it was identified by the SUPREME COURT in 1913.  By injecting this third party (the Withholding Agent) into the scheme for the collection of the income tax, the burden to pay the tax is shifted by withholding from the payer of the tax – the tax collector (the Withholding Agent), to the actual taxed subject and real taxpayer – the non-resident aliens and foreign corporations that are the proper taxed subjects of the federal government under the law, and the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 3-5).

Under the actual provisions of Title 26’s Subtitle A, which is nothing more than the statutory implementation of the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act, the income tax (tariff) act taxes the FOREIGN PRESENCE and FOREIGN ACTIVITY in America, INDIRECTLY!   It DID NOT and DOES NOT directly and communistically tax the fruits of the labors of the American citizens, as the IRS would have us all believe – BUT, the Supreme Court says differently, and has so since 1913.

Remember, the Brushaber case is still the supreme authority as regards the constitutionality of the income tax provisions, and if the law is applied outside of the approved scheme of the tax that was actually implemented in the statutes in 1913 (and which still exist today as shown herein) – which is a scheme of indirect collection by withholding by third parties from subject foreign persons, then that un-supported application is a bastard child of a de-facto practice, which is done outside a dejure application of the law, and which, cannot be shown to have any statutory basis or legitimacy at the heart of the practice.

             The injection, by the statutes, of this third party, the Withholding Agent, into the income tax collection scheme of collection at the source keeps the income tax indirect because the tax is collected by that third party – the Withholding Agent, and the burden is shifted from that third party to the actual subject foreign taxpayer through withholding. Under the actual provisions of the statutes, the tax is not collected directly by the government from the subject taxpayer, but is collected indirectly by the third party Withholding Agents, who are then made liable (under § 1461) for the payment of the tax that they have collected from those subject taxpayers, almost exactly the same way that the State governments have third parties (the stores) collect their sales taxes for them from customers (the taxpayers)

Under the actual provisions of the statutes of Subtitle A, the sovereign American citizens and domestic corporations are not taxed and are not cast in the role of subject taxpayers, but rather are empowered as the third party tax collectors.  It is the subject, foreign, non-resident entities – individual and corporate “persons”, that are actually cast in the role of subject taxpayers by the Subtitle A income tax laws.

Finally, Section 1463 states who it really is that is to be penalized with interest, penalties, and additions to tax, if the tax is not properly withheld and paid into the U.S. Treasury as required by this indirect scheme established by these “collection at the source”  provisions for withholding tax from payments to subject persons:

  • 1463. Tax paid by recipient of income 


(1) any person, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, fails to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter, and

(2) thereafter the tax against which such tax may be credited is paid,

the tax so required to be deducted and withheld shall not be collected from such person; but this section shall in no case relieve such person from liability for interest or any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect of such failure to deduct and withhold.   (emphasis added)

This code section says that it is the Withholding Agent who is responsible for, and who must pay, the penalties and interest and additions to tax that are due on the tax that was not properly withheld, reported, and paid into the Treasury by the Withholding Agent.  It is not the actual taxpayer who must pay any of these things, not the interest, not the penalties, and not the additions to tax.  This is because, to impose any of those things on the taxpayer directly would be to transform the constitutional indirect scheme of collection that is actually provided for in the statutes, into an unconstitutional scheme of direct taxation of the people, which the Supreme Court still says today, cannot exist under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

This is all straight from the law, as it exists today, and this agrees completely with what the Supreme Court wrote in its Brushaber Opinion in 1916: that the income tax is part of a tariff act, withheld at the source by Withholding Agents from subject persons who are all foreign.  The tax is laid in the original act, and still in the law today, as a tariff that is withheld only from foreign persons – because only non-resident foreign persons and foreign corporations can be lawfully forced to pay a tariff on their domestic activities in the fifty states.

The income tax is not a direct tax under some new authority or power established or newly granted by the 16th Amendment, but rather an indirect one under Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1 – and, according to the Supreme Court, the tax is withheld at the source and paid by third parties, the “corporations, etc.” with a “duty” to “retain and pay the sum of the tax”, i.e.: the Withholding Agents.  The domestic activity (within America) of an American citizen cannot properly be made the subject of any tariff laws because tariff laws only apply to foreign activity.

However, the  activity of a non-resident alien or foreign corporation in any of the fifty states is properly subjected to the payment of an income tariff because it actually constitutes foreign activity, and not domestic activity because it is conducted by a foreign entity in America who is not an American citizen or resident.   It is foreign activity and foreign activity alone that is legally and properly subjected to the payment of an income tariff, which by definition, can only be imposed on foreign activity (or the income derived from it), and not on domestic activity or the income derived from it.

After the Brushaber decision was taken and the Opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice White, the Treasury Department released Treasury Decision 2313 (Exhibit C) on March 21, 1916.  It states, in summary:

T.D. 2313

“Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 24th, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.

Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the specific exemption designated in paragraph C of the income tax law, but are liable for the normal and additional tax upon the entire net income “from all property owned, and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States,” computed upon the basis prescribed in the law.

The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of nonresident aliens, who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on within the United States, shall make a full and complete return of the income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax, normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in behalf of their nonresident alien principals.”

One should carefully note that this Treasury Decision implements the withholding of income tax ONLY from foreign persons, and further states that it is those non-resident (foreign)  aliens that are liable for the payment of  income tax on their trade and business.  It does not say that American citizens are liable because this Decision is implementing A TARIFF ACT.  It was understood in 1913 that a tariff does not apply to citizens’ activity inside America, and this irrefutable legal fact has been lost track of by the legal community because they have also lost track of the fact that the income tax provisions that were tested by the Supreme Court in 1916 were PART OF A TARIFF ACT, and WAS NOT domestic legislation.

So we clearly see, that the United States government knew (at one time at least) that the income tax was (and under the law still is) a tax in the form of a tariff that was only imposed on and withheld from non-resident foreign persons and foreign corporations.  Under the scheme of the tax adopted in the tariff act, the foreign entity, non-resident aliens and foreign corporations, are the actual taxpayers and subjects of the income tax, and the sovereign entities, the American citizens and corporations, were, and are, cast in the role of the sovereign tax collector, not the subject taxpayers.  The only tax they paid was on the income of foreign persons that they themselves had withheld monies from when services or properties were paid for.  Under the letter of the actual law the citizens did not, and still under the law do not, pay tax on their own income, only on the income of the non-resident foreigners’ whom they do business with and make payments to for services rendered.

This is how the income tax was applied and enforced for the first thirty one years it existed, from 1913 to 1944.   American citizens did not pay the income tax on their own income during this period, as many older folks will tell you, because the law was properly enforced.   Then, in 1944 the Subtitle C Employment tax laws were passed to authorize the withholding of tax for the new Social Security program, and, for the first time, also authorized the withholding of the income tax from any person who requested it on a Form W-4, rather than only withholding from the actual subject foreign persons as the law had provided for the previous thirty one years as shown above.  Additionally, widespread use of Form 1040 began for the first time for the legal purpose of obtaining a refund, or in order to claim deductions, credits, expenses, etc., which all require the filing of a Form 1040 in order to be claimed.

However, the scheme of the income tax under Subtitle A was not changed by this addition to the code in 1944 of the employment tax laws of Subtitle C.    The employer of Subtitle C is not the Withholding Agent of Subtitle A.   Subtitle A and Subtitle C are separate programs (taxes) in the law, each constituting its own distinct authority over its tax program.  They do not share each other’s powers and they each play a distinct and different role within their own Subtitle. They are distinct and separate authorities implementing different requirements of the law.

Subtitle A provides the income tax laws that were passed in 1913, and Subtitle C specifies the social security and employment tax laws which were passed 31 years later in 1944.  The employment tax laws of 1944 are distinct and separate from the income tax laws passed in 1913.   The Subtitle A income tax laws actually imposing the income tax, and providing for its withholding by Withholding Agents, were never altered, re-written or expanded to actually impose the tax on domestic activity, it was just authorized under Subtitle C to be withheld by the employer from any employee who requested that it be withheld on a Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.   However, no law requiring the filing of a Form W-4 to obtain employment has ever been passed.

Obviously the legal powers of a Withholding Agent, as established by statutory definition, do not effect or impact myself or my earnings.  Section 1461 also can confirm for the company, that since it would be obviously operating outside of the provisions of the law in withholding from a declared American citizen such as myself, that the company is NOT indemnified for moneys wrongfully withheld from my earnings, as this statute (1461) only indemnifies agents who withhold and make payments “in accordance with the provisions of this chapter“, (i.e. Chapter 3 – from FOREIGNERS).

This is the entire extent of the complete legal authority to withhold income tax under Subtitle A.  The authority to withhold is an authority to withhold ONLY FROM FOREIGN PERSONS.  There is no other authority established anywhere in Subtitle A for the withholding of income tax from citizens, or any other persons, and it is clear that it is the Withholding Agents themselves, according to 26 USC § 1461, who are liable for the payment of tax, not the American citizen (unless he or she is personally performing in the capacity of a Withholding Agent, which I am not doing).    It is absolutely clear, a “Withholding Agent” has no legal power to withhold tax for any reason, absent a court order, from any American citizen who declares such status through the use of duplicate Statements of Citizenship under the provisions of 26 CFR Section 1.1441-5(a).

Again, the little known, but irrefutable truth about the income tax is that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution did NOT do away with the Constitutional prohibition on DIRECT taxation established in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 (and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3).   The Supreme Court ruled in 1916 regarding the 16th Amendment that:

“… the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the … power of income taxation possessed by Congress … from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.. ”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112 (1916).

This decision re-states and confirms the ruling handed down in the Brushaber case, which was the case decided just previously to this Stanton case in 1916.  In both cases the Supreme Court says the same thing, – that the income tax is not a direct tax, but is rather an indirect tax under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 that may not be legally imposed on citizens in a direct fashion.   Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 authorizes the federal government to lay taxes: imposts, duties and excises.    The Supreme Court tells us in the first sentence of the Brushaber decision that the income tax provisions being tested are part of a tariff act.   A tariff is one form of an impost.  Why and how is there any confusion at all about how this tax is actually laid and collected in the provisions of the statutes?  The irrefutable truth is always crystal clear.


Income tax under Subtitle C, and withholding under Section 3402.

The SUBTITLE C “Employer”

In 1944 the employment tax laws were added to the statutes and for the first time the income tax began to be withheld not only from just the foreign persons upon whom it is actually imposed, but, as we will see when we examine the statutes themselves, also from any person in America who did not know to formally and legally certify that they were not liable for tax under Subtitle A.  Few citizens were aware in 1944, and even fewer are aware today, of the Subtitle A reality that this brief documents, ie.: that liability for the payment of income tax is only established indirectly in the name of the Withholding Agent, and that no citizen has any statutory liability at all for the payment of any income tax what-so-ever on his own, personal, domestic income under the actual provisions of the Subtitle A income tax laws actually enacted in 1913 under the (Underwood-Simmons) tariff act.

The statutes providing for the “collection at the source” of the income tax by the employer of Subtitle C, under an extension of the same sort of indirect scheme that was identified by the Supreme Court in 1916, are also quite clear. These statutes are found in Chapter 24 of Title 26.  Title 26 U.S.C. Section 3402, subsection (a), appears to authorize the general withholding of income tax at the source by the “employer” from “wages” paid by the employer to its employees.    That section states:

  • 3402. Income tax collected at source

     (a) Requirement of withholding

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of  wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary …

Note that the very first sentence of this statutory authority of the employer to withhold income tax is prefaced by the words “Except as otherwise provided in this section ..”.   

             “Except as otherwise provided in this section …”

              The actual authority to withhold tax under this statute IS NOT ENTIRELY DEFINED BY SUBSECTION (a), but is clearly made contingent upon other provisions of the statute.   In fact, that apparent authority of the employer to withhold under subsection (a) is severely restricted and limited by the specific language of subsection (n) of this same code section, 3402.  It reads:

     (n) Employees incurring no income tax liability

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold ANY tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding exemption certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee –

(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and

(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for  his current taxable year.

The Secretary shall by regulations provide for the coordination of the provisions of this subsection with the provisions of subsection (f). …

The duplicate Statements of Citizenship I am providing  to the company make the certification necessary regarding liability for income tax under Subtitle A, this year and last, necessary according to this statute, to relieve the company, as an employer, from any legal duty to withhold income tax from me under BOTH, Section 3402 and the entire Chapter 24.

One should note that Subsection (f), whose provisions the Secretary is commanded to coordinate with the provisions of this subsection (n), is entitled:   “(f) Withholding exemptions”.

As you should now be aware, I have no statutory liability for the payment of any income tax under Subtitle A, because it is ONLY the Withholding Agents that are made liable for the payment of the income tax in Subtitle A, and I have had no business dealings with any foreign persons, and therefore have had no duty to withhold any tax from any payments made to any persons The Withholding Agents, of course, are only made liable for the tax that they have collected from the actual subject, foreign, third party taxpayers that they have withheld money from under the statutory mandate of Subtitle A to withhold tax from foreign “persons” (§§ 1441 and 1442).

I repeat again, the ONLY Code section in Subtitle A that specifies liability for payment of the income tax is Section 1461.    Nor do I have any liability for tax under the provisions of Subtitle C.   Section 3403 is the only statute in Subtitle C (just as Section 1461 is the only statute in Subtitle A) that specifies liability for payment of the income tax under Subtitle C.   Section 3403 states:

  • 3403. Liability for tax

The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.

I am not the employer.  However, the employer is only legally liable for the payment of this tax (that is withheld under the provisions of Section 3402), where money is actually withheld from payments to an employee.  If an employer does not deduct and withhold from payments to an employee who is an American citizen for a just or reasonable legal cause, then the employer is NOT made liable for the payment of any tax (because it was properly not withheld), and also, cannot be made liable for any addition to tax, interest, or penalties associated with that failure to withhold, as shown below.

Further, one should note that the withholding of income tax at the source under Section 3402(a) is critically hinged upon the definition of the term, “wages“; as it is only from “wages” that the tax withholding is authorized.  Although the term “wages” has at least three different definitions within Title 26 alone, those definitions being found at 3121(a), 3306(a) and 3401(a), the controlling definition of “wages” within chapter 24, where Section 3402 is found, and relevant to this discussion, is provided at Section 3401(a).  It states:

  • 3401. Definitions

  (a) Wages

For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

Since “wages” are defined in the code in terms of an “employee” and “employer“, in order to accurately determine precisely who is affected by this requirement, it is necessary to examine how those terms are defined and which persons are included in the definition of those terms.  The term “employee” is defined at § 3401(c), it states:

  • 3401. Definitions

(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.  The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

The remuneration in the instant matter, mine, will not be earned by a person who is included in this definition of federal employees whose employment contracts may be controlled by the federal government.  Therefore my remuneration cannot technically under the law be considered or treated as “wages” subject to the withholding of tax under Section 3402(a) unless I provide my permission for such withholding by providing an Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate – Form W-4 allowing such deduction and withholding from my pay.

Furthermore, since the term “employer” is itself defined in terms of a [government] “employee“:

  • 3401. Definitions

 (d) Employer. For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, …

It is clear that the “employer” intended by Congress to be affected by these statutes is the federal employers, who have lawful jurisdiction over their own employment contracts, but who are constitutionally prohibited from interfering with private contracts between private parties in the fifty states.

I am not the intended “employee” under the law, the company is not the intended “employer” under the law, and as such, I will not even be earning “wages” which are actually subject to the withholding of income tax at the source under the provisions of Section 3402(a), as determined and controlled by the specific definitions provided for use in the entire Chapter (24) by Section 3401.

Since these payments do not meet the statutory definition of the term “wages” under Section 3401, they are not lawfully subject to the withholding of tax under Section 3402, unless I provide my voluntary permission for such withholding by providing a W-4 Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, requesting and authorizing withholding as proscribed under Section 3402(p).

Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) at Section 31.3402, which corresponds to 26 U.S.C. § 3402(p),  it states in pertinent parts:

31.3402 (p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.

(a)  In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402 (p) to provide for the withholding of income tax

(b)  … an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section

3402 (p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402 (f) and the regulations thereunder.  The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding….

And Title 26 C.F.R. 31.3402 (p) -1(b)(2) states :

“An agreement under Section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and the employee mutually agree upon.  However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other.”  

By these statutes and regulations it is clear that the withholding of income tax is by the citizen’s allowance, not a legal mandate.

However, one should not be distracted from the core issue here, which is the legal fact that after the citizen makes the certifications necessary regarding liability for tax under subtitle A as specified under subsection (n) of Section 3402, the company is relieved of the legal duty of withholding tax under Section 3402(a).

It is irrelevant what the company believes regarding the certifications of NO liability for tax under Subtitle A that have been delivered.   Without evidence, or statutory fact to indicate the contrary, and having been provided with the certification statutorily specified as necessary, the company is henceforth relieved of the legal duty, and legal power, to withhold income tax from my remuneration under the provisions of this Subtitle C, section 3402.

  1. Withholding of F.I.C.A. tax under Sections 3101, 3102 & 3111

 The withholding of the F.I.C.A. tax from American citizens under the provisions of Section 3101, 3102 and 3111 is generally wrongfully assumed, by both the employment and legal communities, to apply in a mandatory fashion to American citizens living and working in one of the fifty states of America.

The fundamentally voluntary nature of the Social Security program is evidenced by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co, 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935), wherein the court ruled that Congress did not have authority to create a mandatory benefits program and cannot compel U.S. Citizens to participate in any benefits program:

“The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless.  Provision for free medical assistance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and  a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.  Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things?  It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such?  We think the answer is plainThese matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.

The fact that social security, under the current code provisions, is not mandatory in the 50 states for an American Citizen, is clearly revealed by the definitions provided for “State” in Title 26, U.S.C. Section 3121, which is in Chapter 21, which is where the imposing statutory sections,  3101, 3102 and 3111, are located.     These definitions control the territorial limits of the statutory power of the government to mandate the withholding of these (social security) taxes (imposed in Chapter 21).   Subsection (e) of Section 3121 clearly provides:

 (e) State, United States, and citizen

For purposes of this chapter –

 (1) State

The term ”State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

 (2) United States

The term ”United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

Any individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

These definitions, controlling within Chapter 21 of the code and over all of that Chapters’ provisions, do not include the fifty union states.  Lest there be any question that Congress is capable of writing clear laws, and capable of ONLY making obvious distinctions where it intends to, I would cite 26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(5), which states:


(5) State

The term “State” means –

(A) any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, …

Any child can see that one of these definitions clearly includes the fifty states, AND ONE OF THEM DOES NOT.  Section 3121, EXCLUDING THE FIFTY STATES, is controlling within this discussion of Chapter 21 withholding requirements because it is itself sourced from within that Chapter, and clearly states within its text “For purposes of this chapter –“, making its definition (and no other) applicable and controlling within the application of this Chapter’s statutes.

The limited Chapter 21 definitions of territorial areas covered under the F.I.C.A. program (by virtue of the definitions provided for “state” and “United States” within Chapter 21), clearly show that the Subtitle C Employment Taxes are NOT direct or mandatory taxes for American citizens in the 50 states.   To be so, would be a violation of the provisions of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United State of America and the Alton R.R. Supreme Court ruling cited above.  The taxes are indirect and voluntary taxes for Citizens in the fifty states who wish to participate in the (social security) program and assume the tax,  which is collected indirectly by employers at the citizen’s request, and which are totally dependent upon the employee’s voluntary decision to participate in the Social Security program through the providing to the employer by the employee of  a request to withhold tax from the employees earnings, made on an IRS Form W-4, Withholding Allowance Certificate, which I have not done.   We all do know what ALLOW means, right ?

The fact that the legal definitions specified at 26 U.S.C. § 3121(e) do not include the fifty states is confirmed by both the Legislative Counsel’s Office and the Congressional Research Offices as well.

  1. The Constitution of the United States and Case Authorities


The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides five basic guarantees to every American citizen.  It reads:

Amendment V

No person shall

[1] be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or  indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia,  when in actual  service in time of war or public danger;

[2] nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

[3] nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

[4] nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

[5] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This dispute involves elements four and five, which are the Constitutional Rights to private property that are possessed by every American citizen as proscribed and enumerated under this Amendment.  The portion of this Amendment that is relevant to this discussion, states:  

 “No person shall … be deprived of property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. “

It is upon this Amendment that the entire American system of private property is established and preserved.  To erode the strength of its provisions is to willfully undermine that essential Right to private property, and ultimately will have the effect of unconstitutionally socializing all property in America in the name of tax.   Under the Constitution and the philosophy for a representative government that it provides for, that must not and cannot be allowed to happen.   The provisions of this Amendment are repugnant to the philosophy of social or communized property, and preclude the existence of any such mandatory laws in America.  So none exist in America, as has been shown in this brief.


While many people, including attorneys, mistakenly believe that the 16th Amendment created a “new” and previously non-existent power for Congress to tax income directly, it has already been shown that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

“… the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the … power of income taxation … from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged… ”  Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 112 (1916).

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 219 (1920)

These rulings are based on the legal realization that the Constitution cannot be allowed to conflict with itself.  Since Article 1 prohibits direct taxation without apportionment, and mandates that all direct taxes be apportioned according to the census; and since these Article 1 provisions have never been repealed; then, the 16th Amendment cannot authorize a direct tax on income without apportionment, without causing an inherent conflict within the Constitution itself, rendering that document useless as a matter of law.   The Supreme Court is sworn to uphold the Constitution and will never intentionally undermine its provisions, and that is why they had to rule that there was no new Congressional power to tax that was created by the 16th Amendment.


For Due Process to be preserved in the instant matter, the company must cite some United State Code statute (law) under which they allege they are authorized and required by law to act as a collector of federal tax in regards to my remunerations, within the instant circumstances; or,  they are unduly and unlawfully taking property without statutory or legal requirement to do so, and therefore would be acting merely in the name of tax and under color of law.  To date, no person has ever cited any statute to me as justification for the apparently unlawful taking of my property in the name of tax.

 In regards to Due Process the Supreme Court has stated:

“The essential elements of due process of law are notice and opportunity to defend;”

Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 436, 21 SUP. CT. 836, 45 L. ED 1165

“Due process in administrative hearings includes a fair trial conducted in accordance with fundamental principles of fair play and applicable procedural standards established by law, and administrative convenience or necessity cannot override this requirement.” Russell-Newman Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., C.A. Tex 1966,  370 F2d  980

“Due process requires that when government adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect legal rights of individuals, they use procedures which have traditionally been associated with judicial process.”

Amos Treat & Co. v. S.E.C., 306 F2d 260 (1962), 113 US App. D.C. 100

“Administrative due process requires:

(1) opportunity to be heard,

(2) due notice of hearing ,

(3) fair conduct of hearing,

(4) support in record for decision,

(5) submission of proposed findings and tentative report, and

(6) opportunity to file and to be heard upon exceptions to the report.”

Ideal Farm, Inc. v. Benson, D.C. N.J. 1960, 181 F Supp 62, affirmed 288 F2d 608, Certiorari denied 83 Sct 1087, 327 US 965, 10 Led2d 128

“The requirement of fair trial is binding on administrative agencies as well as on the courts”  U.S. v. Brad, D.C. Cal 1968

“The fair hearing essential to meet minimal requirements of due process includes not only rudimentary fairness in conduct of hearing when and where held, but also reasonable fair opportunity to be present at time and place fixed to cross-examine any opposing witnesses, to offer evidence, and to be heard at least briefly in defense.”  Jeffries v. Olsen, D.C. Cal 1954, 121 Fsupp 163

“A full hearing is one in which ample opportunity is afforded to all parties to make, by evidence and argument, a showing fairly adequate to establish the propriety or impropriety, from the standpoint of justice and law, of the step to be taken.”  Boston and M.R.R. v. U.S., D.C. Mass. 1962, 208 Fsupp 661

“Agencies have latitude to expedite hearings in the public interest and to dispense with evidentiary hearings in view of the nature of questions raised after a notice of action is requested, but an agency cannot act on mere inspection of a file without giving notice and opportunity to request a hearing, except in a narrow class of real emergency cases.” PA. Gas & Water Co. v. Federal Power Comm., 427 F2d 568 1970, 138 U.S. App. D.C.

“Failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to denial of due process: if regulations are required by Constitution or statute.”   Curley v. United States, 791 F. Supp. 52

“Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.  Burden of proof means going forward with the evidence.”

Bosma v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, C.A. 9, 1984, 754 F2d 804

“Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved.  If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 500 (6th ed. 1990); accord, U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 [93 S.Ct. 2832, 37 L.Ed.2d 767] (1973); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 [92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551] (1972)

“To rely upon conjecture, either in favor of or against the accused, is not justice. It is not due process of law by any definition.” Haley V. Ohio , 332 U.S. 596 (1948)

“And no person who has once come within the protection of the constitution can be punished without a trial. It may be summary, as for petty offenses and in cases of contempt, but still a trial, as known to the common law.”

Fong Yue Ting v. U S, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)]

I have been summarily denied all opportunity what-so-ever for any administrative hearing, I have been denied the opportunity to present evidence to support my position and to rebut claims, I have received no satisfactory response to my cites of law to you, and I am being wrongfully denied the use of my own property.   The Federal Regulations governing I.R.S. conduct acknowledge and preserve the Fifth Amendment protections.  At 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1) it states:

(1) Rule 1.  An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction.  It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process, as the Handbook for Revenue Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following:

During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional uarantees and individual rights must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person of the taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass, assault  and battery, conversion, etc.

And the courts have reliably, historically told us:

“In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is not there.”  United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77 S Ct 1138 (1957)

The company has been unable to provide to me a copy of any lawful IRS Notice or letter supposedly controlling my property; I am being refused an opportunity to a hearing to present evidence and offer rebuttals; I am being refused any legal response under the law explaining to me the company’s actions.   My property has been, and is being forcibly taken from me by deception, fraud and intimidation, amounting to nothing less than an unlawful exercise of power under color of office, and has been removed from my possession, control, and use, in direct violation of the provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

Since the company has never provided any satisfactory legal explanation as to their behavior, or addressed the above established statutory facts regarding the legal power to withhold tax, and  have not  provided any legal or written response to my written, notarized, legal correspondence, it is unknown whether the company believes that it is operating as an employer, allegedly empowered under the Subtitle C provisions of the United States Code to withhold income tax at the source, or, if they believe that they are operating as a Withholding Agent, empowered under the provisions of Subtitle A.

Since the duplicate Statements of Citizenship were written to address the statutory requirements of both Subtitles A and Subtitle C, this document covers and addresses all of the statutory legal powers and requirements of both Subtitles relating to the withholding of tax from declared American citizens within the 50 states.


 If the company is concerned about penalties or fines being imposed by the IRS as a result of the company obeying the statutory provisions of the law cited by myself, Title 26 U.S.C. § 6724 establishes a waiver of all penalties with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.  It states:

 6724. Waiver; definitions and special rules

   (a) Reasonable cause waiver

No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown
that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

This waiver provision covers both Subtitle A and Subtitle C failures, so it is applicable regardless of whether the company argues they are operating as an employer or a withholding agent.   Surely the company understands that being provided with duplicate Statements of Citizenship, per 26 CFR Section 1.1441-5, and having been given certification of no liability for subtitle A tax, per 26 USC § 3402(n), that these acts by the citizen, of asserting their Rights, constitute a just and “reasonable cause” for the company to not withhold income tax from the payments made to an American citizen, like myself.   It is common knowledge in America that income tax is not actually due by law from citizens until April 15th of the next calendar year, so how can I be lawfully forced to pay a tax by this company before it is actually due under the law to be paid?

Any person who attempts to unlawfully order the withholding of tax from my remuneration after taking receipt of this legal response, will be guilty of making manifest a condition of involuntary servitude upon my person, and will therefore be in violation of the laws abolishing all forms of peonage in the United States of America.  Title 15 U.S.C. § 17,  states

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce…”,

and therefore, my labor and Rights to Contract, and to enjoy the fruits of my own labor, cannot be made the subject of any indirect tax, tariff or excise, nor may it be lawfully or properly converted to a privilege by any Government presumption or assumption, –  as though it were such revenue taxable activity, or commodity or article of commerce subject to the Congressional power to tax.

Any person who forces, or attempts to force, an American citizen to pay an income tax before that tax is actually due under the letter of the law, violates the Fifth Amendment property rights of that citizen.  Tax is not forcibly collectable until it is legally due under the letter of the law.  The effect of any early taking, or to enforce on a citizen the pre-payment of tax in the name of tax through withholding before any tax is actually legally due by law to be paid, is simply an unlawful taking, wherein the citizen is forced to give up and effectively loan property to the U.S. government without just compensation to the citizen in the form of interest on the loan.   I wish, and demand that the company honor my Constitutional rights, to have the use of, benefits of, and control over, ALL of my own property until such time as tax is actually legally due to be paid on it to the Treasury, NEXT APRIL 15th.

The facts in the instant matter appear to indicate that the IRS is trying to deceive and intimidate the company into conspiring with the I.R.S. to have the company steal the money from the citizen for the government, so that the government itself doesn’t actually have to commit the theft.


When one takes it upon themselves to act on behalf of or for the government, they take it upon themselves to know and obey the limits of the authority they claim to be acting under.

“Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority. . .and this is so even though as here the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.” (Emphasis added)  Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merill, 332 U.S. 380 @ 384 (1947)]

“The reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of “taxpayer” is bestowed upon them and their property seized.” Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F. 2nd 504 (1961) .

 “The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted” Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465″

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491

It is clear that the company has not accurately ascertained the bounds and limits of its legal authority, neither as a Withholding Agent dealing with contracts, nor as an employer dealing with wages, and in fact refuses to recognize those limits even after having been shown the law establishing such.  It has failed utterly to provide any due process of law, acting under color of office by unlawfully taking and wrongfully converting private property in the name of tax under color of law without true legal cause or lawful authority to do so, and in fact continues to do so to this day.

The company has willfully failed to perform the legal duties specified in the law under 26 CFR § 1.1441-5(c) and 26 USC § 3402(n), as confirmed by IRS Publication 515, and continues to willfully exceed the legal limits of its lawful authority to withhold money from citizens, allegedly for subtitle A income tax, while allegedly acting as a tax collector for the federal government, either as a withholding agent, or as an employer,

There is an overwhelming preponderance of un-rebutted statutory evidence and facts that stands against the company in this matter, sufficiently so as to warrant future legal action against the company in the courts of the State of «State» if the matter is not quickly addressed and settled in accordance with the law to my satisfaction.

Please, I would appreciate it very much if the company could give me a statement in writing explaining its intended actions in this matter, and the statutory basis for them, before taking action based on this improper letter that you have been sent by this IRS agent.  Thank you.

 Thank you for your consideration and prompt response to these important legal matters.

Sincerely and Respectfully,


«First Name» «Last Name»


The subject IRS letter.


(provided in duplicate)

I, ____________________________________________________,

residing at: ____________________________________________________________


do hereby solemnly swear that I am a natural born, or naturalized, sovereign Citizen of the United States of America, born as a free person, or naturalized by lawful federal process,

in the County of ______________________,   in the State of  _____________________,

on the date of _____________________,  and that I have never knowingly or intentionally waived any of my Constitutionally guaranteed rights as an American Citizen or as a Citizen of one of the 50 states of the union.

This Statement is provided to you in order to document for you that I am not liable for tax under subtitle A (under Section 1461), nor, under the provisions of Subtitle A, am I subject to the withholding of income tax by a Withholding Agent, as defined in subtitle A, of Title  26 U.S.C. Sections 7701(a)(16), 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461.

This statement further serves to provides the certifications necessary under 26 U.S.C. Section 3402(n), that I have no liability for tax under Subtitle A in the past year, and that I anticipate that I will have no liability for tax under Subtitle A in the current tax year as well, thus relieving the recipient of this Statement from any and all legal duties (or perceived obligations) to withhold any income tax from my pay under the provisions of Section 3402(a).


Affiant                                                       (Seal)

The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, of the State

of ______________________, County of _________________________________,

this_____ day of  _________________ in the year 20___.


Notary Public

My commission expires on _____________________.


Read the letter through and put in your name and address and the company name and address where indicated.  Do not change the arguments or the presentation, or statements about yourself being a citizen because you have heard something else is true – it isn’t.  You are a citizen, that is why you have rights that we can use to defend your property.

Print the Statement of Citizenship twice, fill in the information, but do not sign them until you get to the bank.  Take both copies to your bank and have your signature on them notarized.

Send both copies to your employer, Attn: Legal Counsel, with the signed 25 page letter, by certified mail, signature receipt return (use the green card at the post office).  Do not hand deliver them.


FREEDOM Withholding

FREEDOM Withholding Agents – No SSN 2

FREEDOM Withholding Agents letter – No SSN (2)





Bye Bye Vaccine Mandates – New division of Conscience and Religious Freedom at HHS

President Trump Drops NUCLEAR BOMB on Vaccine Mandates…

President Trump Drops NUCLEAR BOMB on Vaccine Mandates…

Wars are won by making political alliances.  If our side EVER wants to win we need to understand that simple fact.

By Kent Heckenlively, JD

It’s not the differences with your allies which should worry you, but the DESTRUCTION your common enemy has planned for everybody who is even remotely on your side.

With the establishment on Thursday of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights, Trump has laid the groundwork to smash every single vaccine mandate as well as turn BIG PHARMA into little pharma.

Don’t think this new division of Conscience and Religious Freedom at HHS is a big deal?


Continue reading Bye Bye Vaccine Mandates – New division of Conscience and Religious Freedom at HHS


SIDS blamed on vaccines. “It is more likely than not that the vaccines played a substantial causal role in the death of J.B. without the effect of which he would not have died. ” This important case decision validates that vaccines can contribute to and cause SIDS deaths in infants. There are no words to describe the importance of this decision. The Courts, FDA and independent science have all confirmed that vaccines contribute to the deaths of infants. And yet, public campaigns blame sleeping positions and co-sleeping as the primary culprits in the deaths of our most vulnerable.

Courts Confirm Vaccine Contribution to SIDS deaths


13-611V Boatmon vs HHS

“In this case, I have concluded, after review of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the vaccines played a substantial causal role in the death of J.B. without the effect of which he would not have died. The role of inflammatory cytokines as neuro-modulators in the infant medulla has been well described and is likely the reason for a significant number of SIDS deaths occurring in conjunction with mild infection. I have concluded that it is more likely than not that the vaccine-stimulated cytokines had the same effect in this vulnerable infant during sleep.”

FDA Confirms Contribution of Vaccines to SIDS Death

Medical Research Confirms Contribution of Vaccines to SIDS Deaths


by Scheibner, Viera, Ph.D.

Viera Scheibner is a retired principal research scientist with a doctorate in natural sciences. During her distinguished career, she has published three books and 90 scientific papers in prestigious scientific journals. Since the mid-80’s, she has done extensive research into vaccines and vaccinations. Her first research was in the area of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). She wasn’t even studying vaccinations, but she stumbled onto a relationship between SIDS and vaccinations that lead to a very deep study into vaccination literature in medical journals. In 1983, she published her book on the results of her research Vaccination: The Medical Assault on the Immune System. She often provides expert reports for court cases involving immunizations and vaccine-damaged individuals throughout the world.

In 1985, I was introduced into the world of vaccinations through a breathing monitor invented by my husband, Leif Karlsson, who was a bio-medical engineer specializing in patient monitoring systems. Leif developed a computerized breathing monitor for babies which we called “Cotwatch”, short for ‘watching the cot’. Our monitor gives computer print-outs, and you can monitor for weeks on end, because Cotwatch is a non-touch medical technology. The sensor pad goes under the mattress; nothing is attached to the baby and the baby can roll all over the cot while the breathing is monitored. In 1986, pediatric researchers studying Crib Death Syndrome or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) believed babies were dying because of an inborn fault in the breathing control center in the brain. So they concentrated their studies on breathing. Many parents opted for monitoring their newborn babies’ breathing at home, and we collected feedback from all parents who used our monitor in this research.

This baby was put on our monitor before he was vaccinated, and for more than three weeks, there were hardly any alarms at all. Then suddenly, the mother recorded a whole series of alarms. We thought there was a defect in the monitor, and I sent a different unit, but the alarms continued. After one night when they had six alarms in 24 hours their pediatrician advised them to stop monitoring. But if you have alarms on certain days and no alarms on other days, it is not the equipment malfunctioning; there is good reason for alarms like that. I transferred the baby’s forms onto a graph, but did not understand it at the time. Five years later, I telephoned the mother and asked her when the child was vaccinated. The first injection was given one day before these alarms started. The child hadn’t even recovered before the second injection was given. So there was a high level of stress caused by vaccines even when the child was not dying. There were no alarms before vaccination, and then a series of alarms. The alarms sound to tell you that your child is under stress when their breathing is shallow (hypopneas) or when their breathing ceases temporily (apneas).

We then informed the pediatric and SIDS researchers that the babies were having alarms after vaccinations. We were not critical of vaccines and we didn’t even know about the raging controversy surrounding vaccinations. At this point, the Crib Death Management Center pediatricians stopped sending parents to get our monitor. They didn’t want parents to know that vaccines were stressing their children. Until that time, I was actually pro-vaccination.

SIDS researchers call all the alarms which occur when the child is breathing very shallowly, but not dying, ‘false alarms’. Their notion of ‘false alarms’ actually prevents them from having any results. Instead of throwing these alarms into the garbage bin as false alarms we studied them, and did our own research using the computerized breathing monitor, recording the babies’ breathing longitudinally over weeks on end. Overnight six to eight hour studies are often used in SIDS research, but they are very misleading.

Our computer printouts of babies’ breathing showed non-stop hour by hour recording of the babies’ breathing whenever the child was in the cot. Again, the events are called apneas (pauses in breathing) and hypopneas (a stress-induced shallow, low volume breathing pattern). The graphs all showed increased stress patterns after vaccinations. For instance, after a baby was given his third triple antigen (DPT – diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) the record of breathing changed and produced peaks in the graph, which indicated increased stress levels.

The graphs showed day by day summaries of events in breathing and the higher the vertical column (or the peak), the higher the stress levels in breathing. There are individual differences, and some children react more than others, but the pattern of flare-ups of stressed breathing follow the same pattern of critical days. The graphs show a number of days where there is no stress level in breathing; then comes day zero when the vaccine was administered. We see the effect of the vaccine within one hour, and the child’s stress level begins to go up and down. In all cases there was a 48 hour reaction after vaccination with a flare-up. Then the stress level went down through the following days until around days five to seven when they had an increased stress level. One child had a reaction on day 7; one on day 5 and 6, so there are individual differences, but the general pattern of these reactions is the same. The stress level again went down; then there was another flare-up at day 16. Of course, we continued to record the babies’ breathing after the sixteenth day. The stress level went down, and there was only a slight increase in the stress level towards the 24th day. These are the critical days. Even the onset of reactions like convulsions occur on these critical days. Even babies whose mothers recorded no fever or crying, had slightly increased stress level, on the same critical days as those babies who had stronger reactions. Two out of ten randomly picked babies had to be admitted to the hospital with serious breathing problems on these critical days.

Our next step was to explain the up and down dynamics of the flare-ups. A Canadian medical doctor, Dr Hans Selye studied the stress response in mammals to any noxious substance or injury of any kind. Selye established that when the animal is exposed to any stressor, it will first elicit an alarm reaction within 48 hours when the body is mobilizing its strength to deal with the insult. Then the body seemingly stops reacting, which he called ‘the stage of resistance’. And then there was another alarm-like reaction, which he called the stage of exhaustion. And I think that you will agree with me, that that is exactly what we see in the breathing of babies after vaccinations. You have the alarm reaction within one to two days, which may be biphasic, then you have the stage of resistance around day 5 to 7, and then you have the stage of exhaustion around day 16.

You can justly say, “Where are your controls?” In our research every child is its own control, because the stress level in breathing is measured before vaccination and after vaccination in each child.

Then I asked myself, are we the only people who stumbled over the dangers of vaccines? Does the medical profession know about all this? Is there anything published in the medical literature? I began to do research in medical libraries, and to my absolute astonishment, there is no end to it. For my book, Vaccination, I studied more than 30,000 pages of data published in medical journals about Crib Deaths after vaccinations. In one study, there were 41 babies who died within 21 days of their first Triple Antigen injection, and there was a clustering of these deaths along those critical days we recorded in the babies’ breathing after vaccination. This is the ultimate evidence of the causal link between the administration of those vaccines and these deaths. In the so-called “Tennessee Deaths”, hundreds of babies died there, after their DPT injections. We soon established that the vaccines are killing babies, and Crib Deaths (SIDS) are 95% vaccine deaths.

And yet the public still remains in the dark about the vaccine and SIDS connection.

Presidential Executive Order Promoting FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty


– – – – – – –


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.  It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.  For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom.  Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government.  The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech.  All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech.  In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.  As used in this section, the term “adverse action” means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Sec. 3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate.  The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg-13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.

Sec. 4. Religious Liberty Guidance.  In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Sec. 5. Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.

  • Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    • the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    • the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
  • This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
  • This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



May 4, 2017.





The answer O’BeyMi Care(?) legislation as codified in:

comes right out of the law.


42 U.S. Code § 18115 – Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs


No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

(Pub. L. 111–148, title I, § 1555, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 260.)


As always, in order to get the real, enforceable law, one must go to the Public Laws as written by Congress [opposite of PROgress] in 124 Statutes at Large 260.


 [[Page 124 STAT. 260]]


No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.


Also see:


I suggest that you learn how to find these locations on the Internet [thank you, Al Gore] and be able to show any bureaucrat that you are complying with the law by either providing your own health insurance or relying upon the Almighty ONE to protect you.

Hard to ever trust the vaccine program again

Research by Maddalena Cirignotta Daley

 Here are a few documents that make it hard to ever trust the vaccine program again. These government docs are extremely long and a bit tedious so I included page numbers to speed up the research process. Evidence of CDC corruption undermines trust in CDC recommendations.

The findings (pages 16-21) of this Office of Inspector General report are particularly concerning.

Vaccine CDC Ethics oei-04-07-00260

This Majority Staff Report from the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives outlines numerous conflicts of interest.                       (P10 and P15 -20)

Vaccine Put CHildren First 3.5

The United States Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management details many unethical behaviors. (Page 3) paints an unfavorable picture of CDC.


In addition, a group of 12 CDC whistle blowers called CDC Spider (CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research) has come forward alleging pervasive unethical conduct within the highest levels of the agency.…/upl…/2016/10/CDC_SPIDER_Letter-1.pdf

Vaccine CDC_SPIDER_Letter-1

Continue reading Hard to ever trust the vaccine program again

Del Bigtree Notice to U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services

Del Bigtree‘s legal team created this document and sent it to the US Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS)  yesterday.

It is brilliant, well researched, and cited. I recommend everyone read and share this.

ICAN-HHS-Notice-by-Del-Bigtree – see document at this link.

The time has come, the tipping point has arrived, to stop being on the defensive and be the ones pushing the offensive. They have destroyed too many people now so the awakening has steamrolled ahead.

Continue reading Del Bigtree Notice to U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services

Incompetent Minor – this is the original problem.

This is what it is really all about – The bottom line – The error was asking the state for a marriage license. – Please read entire document but begin on page 10 with Family Ties. – Now I don’t necessarily agree with every word printed here on this or other articles but for the most part, this does describe how we got to this point. Civics being removed from school curriculum hastening the reduction of knowledge of our rights as a people making it easier to mislead the populous. Just asking the govt. for a marriage license gives them the power to own your children. If you have to ask the govt. for a license to marry, you are considered to be incompetent to make any decisions of your own therefore incompetent to look after your children, in the eyes of the law. Very simple logic on their part that we must, as a people understand where they are coming from so we can do something about it. The lawyers helping fight this must come from this angle which is common law, not what they have been taught. Common law is the supreme law of the land and if presented properly always wins. The marriage contract the state told you was required is a tort of deceit in contract law and voids their misrepresented contract.

Continue reading Incompetent Minor – this is the original problem.

The Supreme Law of the Land

“Law of the Land”, “Due Course of Law” and “Due Process of Law” are synonymous. – People v. Skinner, Cal., 110 P.2d 41, 45; State v. Rossi, 71 R.I. 284, 43 A.2d 323, 326; Direct Plumbing Supply Co. v. City of Dayton, 138 Ohio St. 540, 38 N.E.2d 70, 72, 137 A.L.R.1058; Stoner v. Higginson, 316Pa.481, 175A. 527, 531

“All laws, rules and practices, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void” – Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law; but, is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment… In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed… Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution), it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law; and, no courts are bound to enforce it.” – Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent.” – Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.

“Under our system of government, upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as [to] his/her conduct to[wards] others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” – Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” – Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” – Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US22, at 24.

“A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” – Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113


HEP B FOR YOUR INFANT ! Rethink it ! Here is a fathers testimony about his now Dead baby!

Thanks Laura:

My name is Michael Belkin. I am a father, businessman, former quantitative strategist at Salomon Brothers, and Director of the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project of the National Vaccine Information Center(NVIC).

The NVIC has studied Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act covering the last nine years on hepatitis B vaccine adverse events — and in 1996 there were more than three times as many reported serious adverse reactions as reported cases of the disease in the 0 to 14 age group. Of the total 2,424 adverse event reports made between 1990 and October 1998 in children under age 14 who only received hepatitis B vaccine, there were 1,209 serious events and 73 deaths. Thus, one half of the reports for children under age 14 who received only hepatitis B vaccine were for serious events that required an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or caused life-threatening health problems or permanent disabilities.

As a UC Berkeley graduate and advisor to some of the largest financial institutions in the world, I am qualified to analyze and make conclusions about statistics. Based on that experience, I am astonished that the scientists on this Committee would disregard or cover up data showing the number and severity of adverse reactions to this vaccine. Science is observing and learning from what is observed. The assertions of the CDC that the many reported adverse reactions to this vaccine do not exist or are a coincidence violates the basic principle of science, which is rooted in the observation and analysis of data.

A benefit/risk analysis of the hepatitis B vaccine for the average infant in America, not born to infected parents, must conclude that the VAERS data on adverse reactions shows the real-world risk of a newborn infant dying or being injured by the hepatitis B vaccine is a greater threat than the remote chance of contracting the primarily blood-transmitted disease.

My 5-week old daughter, Lyla Rose, died within 16 hours of her hepatitisB vaccination, which she received because of the universal vaccination policy this Committee instituted in 1991. At her death, Lyla had four of the eight highest-reported symptoms in the VAERS hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction data. The NY Medical Examiner observed brain swelling at the autopsy but refused to record that or mention the hepatitis B vaccine Lyla received in the autopsy report.

I hold each one of you who participated in the promulgation or perpetuation of that mandated newborn vaccination policy personally responsible for my daughter’s death and the deaths and injuries of all the other beautiful, healthy infants who are victims of the hepatitis B vaccine. Your negligence is the proximate cause of my daughter’s death and you have failed to exercise reasonable care.

At the NVIC, we are overwhelmed following up constant new reports of deaths, seizures and autoimmune reactions following hepatitis B vaccination. Because the CDC refuses to acknowledge this large number of serious adverse reactions, hospitals and doctors who have been misled about the risks continue to administer the vaccine and then deny any vaccine connection when children die, get ill or have seizures within hours or days. CDC officials tell parents they have never heard of hepatitis B vaccine reactions.

That is a lie. For this government to continue to insist that hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction reports do not exist is negligent, unethical — and is a crime against the children of America.

General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent – Ralph Fucetola JD

General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent
Ralph Fucetola JD

Informed Consent is a Fundamental Human Right Protected Against Diminishment Through Legislative and Administrative Agency Denial of Philosophical or Religious Conscientious Objections to Mandated Vaccination. Informed Consent is Separate from Statutory Exemptions and May Not Be Abolished. The Right to Informed Consent is Meaningless Without the Right to Refuse Any Medical Intervention, Including Vaccination.

Informed Consent FAQs:
Law Note on Informed Consent and the Geneva Conventions:

In order to vindicate International Humanitarian Law regarding Informed Consent to any and all medical interventions, including vaccination, even during any declared local, national or international Health Emergency, the right to refuse any vaccination must be respected, whether that refusal is grounded in philosophical, medical, religious or no reasons at all.


Point One: The Legal Basis for Informed Consent Point

Point Two: Legitimate Government Regulation

Point Three: International Law Protects Informed Consent

Point Four: The Right Must Be Asserted to Be Protected

Point Five: The Right May Not Be Defeated by Unconstitutional Conditions

Continue reading General Brief on Behalf of Informed Consent – Ralph Fucetola JD