PJ 16
CHAPTER 17

REC #1 HATONN

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1990 9:37 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 313

CASE IN POINT

There is a case where the situation was as spoken of regarding the statutory jurisdiction which could be described here, but I will not take the time to do so. It dealt with a young man who was set-up on a drug charge and would have gotten a 20 year prison sentence. A new prosecutor and Judge had to be appointed and in the end the young man was too frightened to continue after an offer was made by the prosecutor for a six months suspended sentence. There is always the better part of intelligence to consider because, remember--everything "they" do is "legal" even if unlawful and they can sock you away into the never-land of the dungeon where you can't give them further problems.

In this instance the charge was very serious for your President Bush had his "drug war" and quota system of "captures" out for public attention and be­cause this young man worked in the anti-drug program--didn't and never had used drugs--he was set-up for example. If you have not yet been a set-up ex­ample, don't close your eyes--for you will be before it is over for they have you in training for subservient enslavement without recourse, and they prefer you come along without trouble.

BY PAPERWORK

The above discussed what to do if orally obligated to respond. Now we will discuss what to do if you can handle a similar situation through paperwork.

You will recall that we discussed a case in a prior Journal wherein people were raided and accused of drug dealing, etc., arrested for selling peroxides and other "practices of medicine without a license" and thus and so.

They came to Mr. Freeman and here is what they worked out--in his own de­scriptive language.

He would create a "controversy at law". He utilizes this often and tells of his own experience wherein he was charged with "driving the wrong way on a one-way street". The story is as follows:

The small town had just made a one-way street from a two-way street a
couple of days prior to the incident. I didn't notice the change (the town only has a population of 1,400 and the whole county only has 2,600 people so the necessity of one-way streets was dubious indeed), but the town fathers saw a way to pick up a little money so a one-way street was designated and police placed strategically for best benefit. So, I was one of the first to go the wrong way on the street.

I was arrested, of course, and while awaiting hearing date, I sent in papers regarding the above. I did, however, have to appear so when in court I inquired of the Judge, "Have you read the papers that are on file, that I sent a copy to you personally"? "Well", he said, "I saw some papers here but, Mr. Freeman, you ought to know better than anybody in this town that we are here to uphold the laws of this community and if you violate them you are going to pay like everybody else".
I replied, Your Honor, are you sure that you have read the papers which I sent to you personally and are in the court files"? He said, "I don't care about any papers you've sent in here. You can send and file all the papers you want but you should know better than anybody else, the laws etc., etc".

So, I said, "Just let the record show, then, that there is a controversy at law, that this court has been asked to settle. And, since this court has ignored it, this court must be held to the position laid out in the papers that is in brief".

"I don't care about your papers, Mr. Freeman", he blared, "You are gonna pay just like everybody else is gonna pay". So, he lost the case--BUT, he appealed it. And when it was appealed, the "County" Judge (he went from a Justice of the Peace to the County Judge) didn't want any part of it so he turned it over to the Supreme Court of the State. They were so unhappy over having this decision to make that they re­ported the Judge to the Bar Association and he lost his job as a Judge.

See, there are encouraging bits of information every now and then.

SETTING UP "CONTROVERSY AT LAW"

Now, let us look at exactly what to do and how to do it.

Mr. Freeman presented the following document:

'The Corporate City of city, state , has made a conclusion of law that any­one who enters the corporate territory has lost his God-given rights, guaran­teed as inalienable by both the National and State Constitutions, and upon en­tering this corporate territory the statutes and ordinances of the city are the supreme law; and upon those civil statutes, criminal charges may be made and the only due process which is allowed is the right to be heard on the letter of the statute.

"I object to that conclusion of law, my having made a contrary conclusion of law.
My contrary conclusion of law is that the God-given right, guaranteed as inalienable by both the National and State Constitutions carry with me wher­ever I travel in the 50 states; even when I enter the corporate territory of the city of ............. Before any criminal action can be levied against me, and this court take notice of this, there must be a corpus delicti or damaged party who has filed a verified complaint that I have damaged him".

"Since this court has no verified complaint of any damage, this court lacks ju­risdiction to hear this case".

Now, that was the "controversy of law" in the file.

Always remember, no administrative agency makes "legal" determinations. IRS, HUD, DEA, EPA--they all seem to be making legal determinations, but all they do is make "conclusions of the law" and YOU have a right to make a "contrary conclusion of the law". Only courts of law may make legal determi­nations.

DO IT RIGHT

The "trick" behind what you can do is that your adversary does not want to admit, just yet, what they have done.

This can be related quite nicely to the story of Daniel and old King Neb­uchadnezzar and the King's dream. Old Nebbi was the first King of Babylon and he had a dream that terrified him so he called all his psychics in to see if they could interpret the dream. So all the prophets came and they said if he would tell them the dream then they would interpret it. He said no, if they were good prophets they could tell him what the dream was AND interpret it. They couldn't do it, of course. It finally came Daniel's turn and he prayed to God and God revealed the dream and the interpretation thereof.

Daniel told old Nebbi that he had dreamed of a giant statue, of a man who had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, a belly of bronze, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. Old Nebbi said "Golly, that's exactly right--what does it mean"? Well, Daniel said he also saw a stone come out of nowhere and hit the image on the feet of iron and clay and they broke into bits and the whole image crashed down into dust, etc.

Interpretation; Daniel said that the head of gold "is a world system", which when Nebbi would be replaced there would be another world system which would carry on much the same as the King's system--the King being repre­sented by the head of gold, the next world system was represented by the new world order. Now, you know from history that when Babylon went down the Medo-Persians had an empire (two arms), then after that system would go down, there would be another one (belly of bronze) and they would carry on much the same as previously, and you know that was Alexander the Great (Greek Empire) and after that system would dissolve, another system exercising the same encompassing powers would replace that--that is the two legs of iron and one leg was in Rome and the other in Constantinople (Istanbul) and when Rome would go down the final world government would be replaced and the final world government is symbolized by the feet of iron mixed with clay--the iron would be strong as with Caesar who was strong as any Emperor; now, the final world government is working on the same system but it has the strength of iron as you are witnessing--but, there is clay mixed in also. Those feet of clay that will topple the iron of the world dictator--IS THE CONSTI­TUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! The Emperor ap­pears to be in total control but the foundation of such an empire meets the base of clay and when this world system tumbles, the awaited return shall come to pass as is written. So, the world system, which is only just coming into your full attention of its massive power, will fall if you do your part for it is in serious trouble.

Just picture that your nation has been taken over by the "iron" part of the world government and you are feeling the impact of that in a massive way, now.

In the colonizing of your nation you were a bit dutiful unto God and were blessed for it. You have become disobedient unto God and so you are picking up some of the backlash of that behavior which has gotten completely out of control in its rush into opposition of the God-ness.

There is good news, however, for eventually Justice prevails for God tells you that His people will prevail if there is a turn about unto Him. Further, if you turn unto Him, He would heal of your land.

It is simply that most ones are still sleeping or awfully drowsy, and don't yet realize the desperation of the situation which has befallen you. The IRS is helping you approach that situation of crisis awfully quickly now. They don't seem to recognize the better part in intelligence and thrust their "non-exis­tent" and illegal powers around like spike-balls and they are setting them­selves up for the fall; for many will eventually rebel and refuse to hear the lies any longer. Thirty million people heard it this year and filed no tax papers.

Consider the IRS your friend for they will get a lot of good soldiers on your side and you can move forward and reclaim your Constitutional rights under God. Where do you think the government will go for the makeup of those tax funds? That is correct
--RIGHT TO YOU!

GOD'S REMNANT

Consider yourself as part of God's Remnant, and KNOW that you can survive through this tribulation period. God tells you that a thousand will fall to your right hand and a thousand to your left but if you follow His instructions and listen to the teachers sent forth unto you--you shall not be touched and you shall prevail. So, we are bringing those instructions for action and educate you of God's Remnant in things that you must know and actions you MUST take. God's people will only perish if they fail to accept the knowledge being brought forth. We are herein efforting to do our portion to bring you infor­mation in truth that you will have the knowledge with which to take action and reclaim your birthright.

God has said that He sends you out as sheep among the wolves--well, I sup­pose you are beginning to recognize who are the wolves and who are the sheep for you are getting sheared and fleeced every day of your current exis­tence.

"BE WISE AS A SERPENT AND GENTLE AS THE DOVE". So be wise and act as the dove in peaceful, cooperative and friendly manner--but the wise Teacher said, "You shall know the truth and it shall be the truth which shall set ye free"! (Provided you remember you are a sheep in wolf country!)

Now if you mishear that advice and go out as "a wolf in black sheep country" and try to run off the dirty bounders, you will lose the battle post-haste. These wolves are wiser and more clever than the fox among the chickens so you bet­ter be polite, courteous, nice, smiling, agreeable--but you carry the big stick of the Constitutional LAW in perfection--not half-baked with typographical loop-holes.

Go forth as the innocent little lamb lacking understanding; and ruffle no feathers--just an innocent little person trying to act according to the only laws you can find--those of the Constitution. Let them box themselves into the corner, hopefully before they figure out what happened to them. I can promise you, it is the only thing that has kept Dharma and Oberli alive in this case; they knew no better and we have walked every step of the way with them simply frustrating the opposition to distraction at every turn of the string.

KNOW YOUR TECHNIQUES AND YOUR STATEMENTS

Your statements in a court are "not appealable". Any judge will tell you that he does not usually even read the statements of the defendants when he makes a speech in a court. The defendant thinks that whatever he states in the court goes into the record and that he can then appeal. The higher courts do not even read the documents containing statements made by defendants in court. All they do is review legal determinations made by the lower court in the jurisdiction in which that lower court operated. It is up to the defendant to set the jurisdiction of the court and pay attention, we will go through this with you. You must know HOW to SET THE JURISDICTION.

You must do it correctly!! HOW CAN I STRESS IT FULLY ENOUGH? DO IT RIGHT! You can use all the proper arguments and present them incorrectly and it will go worse for you than it would have otherwise.

YOU CANNOT APPEAL YOUR OWN STATEMENTS; ALL THAT IS DONE IN HIGHER COURT IS TO REVIEW LEGAL DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE LOWER COURT. THE PROPER WAY IS TO ASK QUESTIONS. EVERY TIME YOU ASK A QUESTION OF THE COURT AND THE COURT ANSWERS, THAT IS A LEGAL DETER­MINATION THAT IS APPEALABLE AND YOU MUST STATE THE DETERMINATION "FOR THE RECORD". IF THE COURT REFUSES AND YOU HAVE ASKED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THEY REFUSE TO RESPOND--THEY HAVE MADE A LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A CRIMINAL ACTION IN DEFIANCE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. THAT IS APPEALABLE SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ANSWER THE QUESTION, EVERY­THING THAT HAS GONE ON IS APPEALABLE IF USING THIS PROPER FORMAT.

IF YOU CAN LEARN TO KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTHS SHUT AND JUST ASK QUESTIONS THEN EVERY TIME THE COURT ANSWERS A QUESTION, THE COURT IS MAKING A LEGAL DETERMINATION AND THAT IS APPEALABLE. Be careful indeed, for just about every patriot makes the above error.

SETTING UP CONTROVERSIES AT LAW

NEVER USE AN ADJECTIVE OR AN ADVERB IN STATING THE CONCLUSION OF LAW OF YOURSELF OR YOUR ADVERSARIES.

Example: In Mr. Freeman's case, suppose he had just put the word "false" in there. As in, "The city of ......... has made a 'false' conclusion of law as follows:­ ......... and then stated it as before". The minute the word "false" is added, the "controversy at law" is negated. This is because that by use of the word there is an indication of your having already "judged" the case and said it is "false". The city and Judge have already judged your act as criminal so the conflict is then between two judges. Who settles a conflict between two Judges? A chancellor. What is a chancellor? A State Created GOD. YOU WILL NOT WIN!

So, be minutely careful for one judgmental word can ruin the entire case and it will be thrown out along with you.

Just state that "the city made this conclusion of law" and how do you know? Well, you saw what they did. Then reason with self--"What would the law have to be to make what they did lawful"? That then becomes their conclu­sion of law. Look at the traffic case of the one-way street. The city of ....... has made a conclusion of law that anyone who enters its corporate territory has lost his God-given laws guaranteed as unalienable by the national and state constitutions.

Do you get any rights in traffic court? Of course not, so just see WHAT THEY DO and that is the conclusion which will justify it. Their conclusion is that the state which is spawned by the Constitution and couldn't deny your rights, can create a corporation within the state that can deny your rights. So in this case in point, they concluded that city corporation and the territory has a right to deny your rights.

Now you must know that the Creator cannot create a creation superior to himself, but you don't go say such a thing. You just see what their conclusion of law is and state it succinctly and directly. Don't err in adding any embel­lishment by adverbs or adjectives just state the obvious conclusion as wit­nessed.

They had made several conclusions of law, one of which was that anyone who entered that corporate territory is under their statutes and ordinances as "supreme" law. Just state it exactly in that manner with no observations or comment.

And that the city has the right to write "civil" statutes and use those as evi­dence of the law in a criminal action. Now, that can be upheld even if consti­tutionally unlawful, so that is what they do. So, that is their obvious conclusion of law. The only due process in the criminal action allowed is the "right to be heard on the facts of the 'letter' of the statute", i.e. "Did you or did you not go above the posted speed limit"? That is the only question--the letter of the statute.

So, to determine what the conclusion would be, simply see what they do and then determine what the law would have to be to justify that conclusion. Don't say it's false or foolish, good or bad just state it better than they can state it--clearly, succinctly without judgment. You can give them an opportunity to change it if they would like. Say, "If you don't change it, although I wouldn't want to presume what exactly is the city's position, but it appears that this conclusion of law would justify what the city is doing; but, if the city wishes to amend this in their own words I will give them 30 days in which to amend it. If after thirty days they have not amended it, this is their position". Never even note that yours is a "constitutional" conclusion or any such description--just the facts!

At this point you have created a true "controversy at law" that involves a Constitutional Issue that can be carried through all appeals. This carries through with any jurisdictional situation, even the IRS.

After we have a break here, we will discuss a case dealing with the IRS as handled by Mr. Freeman. There is probably no one group that can stir up panic more than the IRS so it is past time we place them where they belong--somewhere near the garbage dump. So be it.


PJ 16
CHAPTER 18

REC #1 HATONN

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990 9:29 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 314

IRS--THE NIGHTMARE

To make this understandable and utilize resources which are not hypothetical parables, I shall ask you to recreate, as nearly as possible, Mr. Freeman's ver­bal dialog. I do request that names and locations are changed for protection and privacy.

We are moving into areas of great importance where you MUST function according to the "letter of the instructions" or you shall not prevail and it is criti­cal that you prevail.

Always analyze your individual circumstances, assets and tax history to avail yourself of the most advantageous mode of action. You DO NOT move from paying $150,000 or $15,000 or even $5,000 in taxes each year to utilizing tax shelters, failure to file, etc. If you do not have everything in order by filing time--then start at filing time--but do start!

You have almost half a year for personal action. Always begin with personal action because, surprisingly enough, there is where you are being eaten away. Then we can help you "manage" corporations so that you utilize your funds before you store up enough profits to owe corporate taxes. Let us take one sure step into the next and soon you will be running and not having to look back for the IRS to stalk you.

Get the Journals which discuss the Corporation Management (make sure you ALWAYS go through Nevada--no matter where you reside or WHO tells you otherwise). If there is reason not to incorporate in Nevada, you will be guided--but, rule of thumb; ALWAYS NEVADA! Then get ALL of your property out of your name and into one or more corporations depending on circumstances (see management of personal estates through "family" corpora­tions). I do not plan to repeat instructions for that herein.

As we move along, we will be writing Journals comprised of information from knowledgeable ones in every category of expertise, in understandable lan­guage of earthside input. At present, we are dealing with awakening you to the problems, urgency of the problems and giving unto you beginning actions.

For instance, we will write a chapter in this book outlining HOW you go about the using of two three cent stamps and a message of law on your first class mail (per ounce), to return to the LAW REGARDING THE MAIL/POSTAL SERVICE. Of course, at first, the mail will be returned or delivered with postage "owed". No, you pursue it right down to your post-office. While you slept you "thought" they had the right under the "law" to raise postage--NO, THEY DID NOT!

Oh, YOU think the post-office deserves the extra funds? YOU probably also think that your government deserves your hard earned funds to keep pulling your nation into the trash compactor. WELL, THEY DO NOT USE FUNDS FROM THE ELITE CARTEL WHO BENEFITS FROM YOUR DONATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS. ARE YOU PLEASED WITH THE WAY THE WORLD IS RUNNING? OH, YOU ARE, BECAUSE "LOOK AT FREEDOM SPREADING ACROSS THE WORLD"! NO IT ISN'T, THE NEW NATIONS UNDER "FREEDOM" HAVE NOW MOVED INTO POVERTY AND ARE IN THE MIDST OF HAVING NEW CONSTITUTIONS SET UPON THEM WHICH EXCEED ANYTHING PERPETRATED UPON THEM PRIOR TO NOW. YOUR BIG CORPORATE INDUSTRIES WILL SHIFT TO THE LOW LABOR COST MARKETS AND DRAIN AMERICA OF ALL PRODUCTION ASSETS AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA WILL BECOME THE STATE OF THE NATION.

Back to the IRS and Mr. X (John Q. Public).

Mr. X received a notice from the IRS District Counsel which said: "You will appear in XXX, XXX court house at XXX time, given date, and you will bring with you all your records and papers back to 1980 and failure to appear at this time, place and date will result in a criminal action against you under section of 7203 of the IRS Code". What could he do? He was terrified and thus in a panic.

Well, there is an answer and we will reproduce it herein for it can be adapted to almost any set of circumstances wherein you must reply to such a notice. There will be 90 day notices, and "prior to" notices and notices signed by "the big boy" and signed by the "little clerks"--all sorts of threatening notices; you remain calm and alert and you can modify responses to suit your cir­cumstance. Stop the "what if" and look at that which is in your hands and con­form your response within the direct format but responding to the demand on the "notice". SET FORTH A "CONTROVERSY AT LAW".

Here is a "what if" and we will work our way right through it as if it is YOU. Now assume you had failed to file, they contacted you and now, instead of going away--they send you follow-up demands. They will if you have been a good red-blooded beet up until now and you have withdrawn the blood and turned into a pale, anemic turnip. What are you going to do? We are going to word for word type in the response to this particular circumstance men­tioned above and you will be able to see how it can be modified to suit YOUR needs.

"IF" there is a signature on your "notice" it will be most insignificant as you "begin" the correspondence; then it will get more pointed and finally, it will bear the names (and authoritative titles) to shake you up a bit more. Finally the correspondence will bear near top authorities, usually under more au­thority of the District Director and finally head of the IRS, I suppose. DO NOT FEED INTO THEIR FEAR GAMES.

Let us remind you of the "two" United States for it impacts heavily on what you do next. Let us go over it briefly again so it is straight in your minds.

WILL THE REAL UNITED STATES PLEASE STAND!

The first two United States: One is the United States, the Union of the 50 states under the Constitution and the "REPUBLIC' that has three branches of government to it. Now, the remaining entity comes from a flaw in the Con­stitution (oh yes, there were some flaws) which is Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. That gave "Congress", the legislative branch exclusive rule over a given territory and the people living in that territory.

Whenever a governing body has exclusive rule over a prescribed territory and all people living in the territory, you have a nation. So, the Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic and within that Constitutional Republic, they created a Legislative Democracy. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, gave Congress exclusive rule over a body of people. When you have exclusive rule, YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION--ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS VOTES "FOR", YOU CAN DO AND THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED A LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY.

YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC but you notice it is always called a Democracy. Well, what they are doing is pretending that you are un­der the Legislative Democracy.

Dharma, copy the response example please:

* * * * *
From: John Q. Public
Shootyoudead, TX
XXXXXXX

DATE: ......................
TO: U.R.Rippingme ............... (example: District Director)
Internal Revenueer.rnce, Inc.
Shootyoudead, Texas

Dear Sir:

Looking at 18 U.S.C. Section 2, I find that you fit the definition therein of what is termed "a Principal": concerning unlawful actions being done in your name by others under your direction. The two individuals engaged in said unlawful actions under you, the Principal, are your Counsel, Headly Gunman from Shootyoudead, and your Agent, D.U.R. Will from Ripoff, Texas. Per­haps they have overstepped the authority that you delegated to them, so I must make you aware of the nature of their unlawful behavior before damage results by their actions without your being aware of what is being done in your name.

By what is called: The Separation of Powers Doctrine the Preamble Citizens, and their heirs, of this nation were guaranteed a three branch government, known as a Republic, and called the United States of America. That Doctrine further guarantees that no single branch of the three branch Republic will as­sume the prerogative of exercising the duties of either of the other two branches. Now we know, that in any legal dispute between a citizen of this na­tion, and either the Legislative, or the Executive, Branches of our gov­ernment, that it is the duty of the Judicial Branch of our government to re­solve the issue. We can also see, that it is an offence against the United States, as a nation, for anyone in the Legislative or Executive Branches of our government to presume the prerogative of a Court of Law in making a legal determination on an issue of National Law, wherein only in Article III Judicial Court, exercising Judicial Power, is authorized to perform that function.

Since you are the Principal in an offense against the United States, which of­fense is being performed by others in your name, it is my duty to inform you of the fact, and to acquaint you with the specifics of a felony taking place, before substantive damage results bringing in other charges.

A study of the file your agency holds, with reference to my name, will show that there is an unresolved issue of law contained therein: between Contrary Conclusions of law involving a National, or Constitutional, issue that only an Article III Judicial Court, exercising Judicial Power, can resolve. Those who speak in your name, and supposedly under your authority, have taken unto themselves to make a legal determination on this issue of law, so that they may press forward on a "fact issue" that can be handled in a Legislative Tri­bunal. Having settled the law issue in their own favor, (unlawfully) they are now proceeding under color of Law to take depositions on "fact issues" which may, they hope, establish a Legislative Jurisdiction over my person and prop­erty, which does not presently exist, yet, to secure its existence, they are acting under pretended law, or under Color of Law, to deprive me of rights pro­tected by the Constitution of the United States in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 242, wherein the penalty for same is spelled out. That is the second felony, resulting from the first, wherein your Legislative Agents have impersonated a Judge at law, which offense is against the United States, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the very foundation-stone of our Republic.

For your convenience, I will outline the Contrary Conclusions of Law, upon which a felony has occurred in your name, and wherein you are the Principal. The action of your Agents is based upon their Conclusion of Law that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in its passage, repealed the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, and thereby, gave Congress the au­thority to write the civil statutes, known as 26 U.S.C., wherein no rights exist in either civil or criminal actions, based upon those civil statutes, except the right to a hearing before a Legislative Tribunal, which rules upon the letter of the Civil Statutes in both Civil, and Criminal, cases.

To the above Conclusion of Law the accused citizen, under that conclusion of Law, has made his OBJECTION known, declaring his Contra Conclusion of Law to be the following:

The accused citizen has concluded: that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, did not repeal the Bill of Rights, embodied in the first 10 Amendments, and, in fact that it did not grant any new authority to Congress, which Congress did not already have under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and that it was under that authority that Congress wrote the statutes now embodied in 26 U.S.C. That code may be lawfully applied over the territory mentioned in Clause 17, and the persons, be they individuals or corporate entities, residing in that limited territory, are subject to the jurisdic­tion of the Congress, which wrote the Code for residents of that limited terri­tory generally known as the District of Columbia, and other enclaves, specifically mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

The accused citizen further concludes that since he does not now, nor has he ever, resided, worked or had income from the limited territory, wherein Congress was granted exclusive rule and jurisdiction over the residents thereof, that he is protected from any jurisdiction of Congress over his person and property, by both his National Constitution and by the State of Texas Constitution, Texas being the State wherein he resides! Therefore, until an Article III Court, exercising Judicial Power, makes a legal determination against his Conclusion of Law, in favor of the Conclusion of Law assumed by the Principal in opposition to him, he is not under the Legislative Jurisdiction granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8, clause 17.

Now the Principal in this offense against the United States by his Agents, and the one to be charged with a conspiracy to deprive accused citizen of his rights protected by the U.S. Constitution under a Color of Law Action (the penalty of which is outlined in 18 U.S.C. 242), may free himself of all charges by removing the delegated authority, which Counsel Headly Gunman and Agent D.U.R. Will have assumed was delegated to them, forcing them to employ lawful means to resolve the Contrary Conclusions of law, in a proper court for resolving Constitutional conflicts, before they make any more attempts to move forward under Color of Law to resolve a "fact issue" that is without a legally determined jurisdiction.

In any event, the Principal has been notified, in specific detail, of both the law, and the facts, of a controversy, which involves him, even though the unlawful actions were not performed directly by him. Any further encroachment upon the rights of the accused citizen, may be deemed to be willful upon the part of the Principal following this official notice of the facts, and law which applies to them.

Cordially yours,

John Q. Public

AFFIDAVIT

I, John Q. Public, declare that I have examined the copies of this letter being sent to the following three parties: The District Director of the Internal Rev­enue Service at Shootyoudead, Texas, Mr. Headly of Shootyoudead, Texas, and Mr. D.U.R. Will of Ripoff, Texas, and I certify that they are true and ex­act copies of the original, which Mr. John Q. Public is holding in his posses­sion.

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing letter and know its contents, and to the best of my knowledge the statements therein are true and correct, except as to those matters upon which I rely on information and/or belief, and as to those matters I do believe them to be true and correct.

Dated: ........ day of ........

/s/ .................................

(Either have notarized or at least two witnesses to certify signature(s). i.e. as below; keeping in mind that if you have a "joint" situation (as in Mr. & Mrs.--both will need to sign).

(NOTARY PUBLIC'S JURAT)

OR
DATED: ........DAY OF ......, 19 ...

WITNESS .................

WITNESS .................

WITNESS .................

THE CASE IN POINT

The "real" person in this case sent in the above letter and then went to the meeting at the appointed time, place, etc. When he arrived for his meeting, there was no one at the place to meet him.

He told the clerk that he was to have a meeting and showed the time and place and she said that no one had told her about any meeting. He pursued it and suggested that perhaps someone was in the courtroom, would she please check. She checked and no one; then she looked at the papers and record of hearings and said, "No one told me anything, maybe it has been cancelled". So that was the end of that--and I sincerely mean it was the END of it with no follow-on--simply no further contact.

Now, some of you are asking, "Why didn't you just run that whole thing about `unlawful', indirect v. direct taxes, non ratification of the 16 amendment, etc"? NEVER OVERKILL! YOU ALLOW CHANCES FOR ERROR IF YOU SHOOT ALL YOUR AMMUNITION. HAD THESE ONES COME BACK TO MR. PUBLIC, HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED AMMUNITION TO CONTINUE THE REBUTTAL.
USE WHAT WILL DO THE JOB AND HOLD THE REST IN RESERVE!

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE IN THIS CASE?

We TIMELY and SPECIFICALLY challenged a "Separation of Powers". Here you had executive officers making a legal determination that this man was "required" under the code. Now, he had set up a Controversy at Law; he had shown what their conclusion of law is, he had timely objected to it by showing what his conclusion of law was. So you have established a Contro­versy at Law.

Only an Article III Judicial Court exercising judicial power has any authority whatsoever, to resolve that issue of law. And therefore, your executive agen­cies
--the Legislative Courts--can't do a thing. If they do, they are violating the laws of the United States, the very basic foundation of the Nation. Separation of Powers: No Legislative Agency can perform a judicial function. So, instead of them charging you with violations of the laws of the United States, they are found to be violating the laws of the United States.

As a result of that violation, they have created a felony against YOU, because Title 18, Sec. 241-242 (in this case 242 was chosen because we wanted to make the District Director the Principal). (Title 241 says: "If any two persons con­spire to deprive any citizen of rights, guaranteed by this Constitution, under power of law, they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or ten years in jail, or both").

If any Principal does it, his felony is named in Title 242. So you see, you have told them what the crime is, you have completely described it for them--every­thing is spelled out very clearly.

Dharma allow us to close this segment and then we shall move on with some other important discussion. You are at the point wherein the International Bankers could foreclose on everything in the world. They could foreclose on the United States, England, France, Russia and on and on. Every nation has borrowed more and promised to repay in substance and no one has the sub­stance. So be it.