The Greatest Story Never Told

THE GREATEST STORY NEVER TOLD
Until Now!
Written by Albert Lynn Barcroft
Edited by His Many Friends and Fellow Americans
COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT OCTOBER, 1999

United States Postal Copyright February, 2000
All Rights Reserved
The Greatest Story Never Told 1

PREFACE
The book you are about to read is a compilation and result of 15 years of hard study, work, failures,
and successes that I have personally experienced in my own fight to regain the birthright left to me
by my forefathers. Those forefathers gave their property, standing in the community, and even their
lives in order to leave to me those freedoms which had never before existed for the common man on
this earth. Most of them suffered hardships that we today could not even imagine, and they did it all
so that their children and posterity could have freedom forevermore. The gift they left us is the most
wonderful and valuable gift ever given by Man; and, I have no doubt that it was inspired and
coordinated by God himself. This book is dedicated to those brave men who gave all they had on
this earth in order to leave the gift of freedom to their descendants. Although most of their
descendants no longer even realize the great gift left to them, the sacrifices made by those heroes will
forever be enshrined in the Freedoms Hall Of Fame as the framers of the most wonderful system of
government ever devised on this earth. To those men go all the praise and credit for whatever
freedom has existed, or still exists today! It is my full intention to honor those men in my actions
and in these writings.
Among other things, this book will show you the secrets used by many Americans even today to
avoid the traps of the Federal Government which have placed millions of Americans into a state of
servitude to the United States and all of its sister companies and coparties. The book will show you
in detail how to know if you are eligible to be a sovereign with no income taxes, and few, if any,
property taxes (many of you are!). It will show you how to establish a bank account right in your
hometown bank that the IRS cannot even look at, much less seize. It will show you how to stop
being told (and punished if you dont listen and abide by the Code and regulations) whether or not to
wear a seatbelt or stop at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere with no one else around. It will show
you how to tell the IRS to go away, and then make them do it. If you qualify, this book will change
your life so dramatically that you wont recognize yourself, either physically or spiritually, within six
months after you have employed the secrets contained herein.
I have not used a social security number or paid any income taxes since 1987, when I started to learn
the truth about my country and my Rights. I have recently learned that I have never even had a social

security number. I have not paid a traffic ticket in almost thirty years (and Ive had many issued),
and I have never even seen the inside of a jail. At first, I fully expected to be jailed and disgraced,
but I was so fed up with the system that I frankly didnt care. I decided that if they could do the
horrible things to me which they had done, they might as well pay for my room and board while they
were doing it. To my great surprise, not only did I not go to jail, I wasnt even contacted by mail for
over two years after I stopped filing the IRS returns. During that time I gathered an immense amount
of information about the system and how it works. I learned how to challenge any claims which
the IRS might make against me, and how to defend against any criminal accusations aimed at me.
The result was that, when they finally did come after me, I was ready and I won time and again. For
several years [the early 1990s until the early 2000s), the IRS virtually abandoned the use of
criminal prosecutions in its attempt to force tax compliance; however, in the last few years, they have
re-doubled their frontal attack by the filing of criminal charges against any who fight them [unless
the party resisting has his defense based upon solid ground]. The courts favor the IRS in a manner
which could never be referred to as justice, and the jury pools are tainted from the outset. The few
cases where a true American does prevail, the courts have found a very effective way of keeping the
results from the public by the simple use of a ploy called a gag order. This order forbids any
information about a case from being released for public consumption, and forbids any of the parties
or attorneys from even talking about it. It was intended for use only during a trial to maintain jury
purity; but, like so many other things which started with good direction, this government found a
way to prostitute the integrity of such an order, and use it to keep silent forever anything which might
be detrimental to the assumed power of the government if it became public knowledge. That is
precisely why you probably currently believe that the government wins every tax case, and that
anyone who is not paying the income tax will surely wind up in prison.
In actions such as the unethical [if not illegal] use of the gag rule by Federal courts, real hope can be
found by those people who are fighting the fight for truth, justice, and the American Way. It is very
heartening to know that we have been able to push this de facto government into a position where it
is forced to twist the law in order to maintain its position. This action alone tells us that the persons
responsible for keeping this government in place know that they cannot be truthful and forthcoming
with the American People and hope to maintain their power. It also points out that these leeches of
society will do anything to keep their power over the people. They will lie, cheat, steal, and even kill

to maintain the peoples image of their power. Anytime that they are successful in terrorizing or
intimidating an American, it will be plastered on the front page of every newspaper in the country,
and it will be the lead story on the TV newscasts. But when an American wins a battle, it is sealed
off from the public like a contagious disease.
Recently, at a New Years Eve party, a few of my friends started asking questions about my beliefs
on paying taxes, being free, and America. After a couple of hours of discussions, one of my friends
looked at me and said, You know, Al, I really resent you. I go out here and work hard everyday,
and I pay my fair share out of my earnings. You make more money than I do, and you dont pay
anything, much less your fair share. This really set me back for a second. I never even thought
about any of my friends resenting the fact that I was standing up to this tyrannical trust manifesting
itself as the de facto government. After a few seconds of actually feeling shame, I started getting
angry. How dare someone question my sacrifices! I looked this friend directly in the eye, and, with
all the others at the party in dead silence, I said, Steve, I wish you hadnt said that. Ive let you off
the hook for a long time, but now youve made this personal between us. My forefathers, just like
yours, gave a lot to provide freedom for themselves and their descendants. My Great Great Great
Great Great Great Great Grandfather, Samuel Huntington, signed the Declaration of Independence.
He knew when he did that he would probably suffer great hardships as a result. He still followed his
beliefs without concern for his own instant security, favoring instead long-term freedom for himself
and his offspring. All of the other signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the extreme
danger they placed themselves in with their signature and support, but all signed it anyway, and
almost every one was either killed or had his property seized and died broke as a result of that
signature. To those men, the most important thing a man could do was to deliver freedom to himself
and his offspring as a birthright. They even warned us that eternal vigilance was the only way we
could maintain this wonderful gift. And what have we done with this gift? We have apathetically
given it away without so much as a whimper in the night, without a fight; and, basically to the same
people that our forefathers threw out of control. Trying to fight to regain little parts of that once all-
encompassing freedom is really very difficult today, because of people like you, Steve, who fall
down and pay homage without question to this monster that would control everything. And why do
you do that, Steve? Because you are getting Farm subsidies and other handouts from the system
which would not be available if you didnt follow their every instruction without question. So tell

me, Steve, when are you going to start doing your fair share toward maintaining this great country
that your forefathers left you? I hope its soon, because, frankly, the load is getting pretty heavy for
me to carry without a little help. Needless to say, our conversation ended fairly abruptly, and we
havent had occasion to talk since.
I point out this encounter to make the point that, even though I dont pay income taxes (and several
other taxes), I dont have a free ride either. If you decide to follow the information given in this
book to your own freedom, you will find that many of your friends will become very jealous of you.
It will be particularly noticeable with those who would love to do exactly what you are doing, but
they just dont have the guts. They can read and understand that they are really not required to do the
distasteful things that they do as duties under this government; but deep down, in their hearts, they
just know that they will go to jail if they dont follow the instructions laid out for them. The really
sad thing is that they are already in prison of the worst kind self-imposed. They can never escape
it, because this government has stolen their minds and their free will, and made cowards out of them;
and it would take the courage of their forefathers to seize back control. I am sorry to report that few
still have that courage. But for those who do stand up and say, I want what is mine, and I want to
be free, the rewards are so great that I cannot start to make you understand them. But you will pay
your fair share. You will pay it in having to explain a thousand times over why Americans and
citizens of the United States are different, and how our forefathers never intended that some federal
monster would again take over and rule our lives. You will pay it when you have to fight for the
little things that the slaves(citizens of the United States) are given freely. But you will reap the
rewards when you lay down at night knowing that you are a free Man, and that no king or
government can lay claim to your body, soul, or property, because you are the sovereign, exactly as
God and your forefathers intended that you should be. When you wake up and look at yourself in the
mirror you can be proud of the reflection of a FREE MAN; and then, and only then, you will know
why your forefathers were willing to give everything so that you and your children could enjoy this
thing called FREEDOM!!
This book can be the first step in regaining your individual freedom. It is intended to give you a true
and factual step-by-step account of where you are and how you got there. More important, it will
give you the understanding needed to repair the damage that it has taken you a lifetime to suffer.

Read this book like an instruction guide, check it for accuracy, but do not discount it just because it
may seem ludicrous to you right now. If you fully research the book and its contentions, you will
find that what you have always believed to be true is, in fact, that which is truly ludicrous. You will
also discover secrets, and how to use them, that only a precious few have heretofore enjoyed the
benefits of. Most important, the principals and ideas contained in this book are true, factual, and
usable. If employed properly, they are completely lawful, and you can use them with total
confidence.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO DISPROVE ANY OF THE BASE CONTENTIONS, FACTS, OR

CONCLUSIONS GIVEN IN THIS BOOK! However, this book is not intended as legal advise, and
its contents are offered only as a learning tool. You must each decide your on fate and position in
this world based upon the facts which you accumulate. It is my wish and hope that this book gives
you aid in that process.

CHAPTER 1 CITIZENSHIP OR SOVEREIGNTY?
When most people who consider themselves Americans are asked about their citizenship, they
realize, maybe for the first time, that they have never given the issue much thought. Oh sure, they all
know that they are citizens of the United States; and, if pushed, most also believe themselves to be
Americans. But precious few understand what citizenship really is, much less what sovereignty is.
Most think that it is bestowed upon them without any duties or responsibilities attached [except
paying taxes], and that nothing they do can affect their status as an individual Man or Woman with
Rights left for them by their forefathers, and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of
America. If thats what you believe, hold on to your boots, because the Earth is going to shake under
your feet. All of the assumptions that you have made concerning your citizenship or standing are
going to be proven totally wrong, not by words, but by proof. The following facts are presented to
you as historically correct evidence, and all will be supported by unquestionable evidence. Nothing
in this evaluation is intended to be disrespectful or degrading (and certainly not racist) toward any
group of people; however, in order to know and understand the truth about your heritage and your
birthright, you must first understand how you got into the position that you currently occupy. So,
we will start at the beginning, and follow the chain of events that has led us to the place where we
stand today. Please keep an open mind until you have examined the facts without historical revision.
The united States of America actually came into being on July 4, 1776, with the
signing of the Declaration of Independence, when the states declared :
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that
all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought
to be totally dissolved.
The Articles of Confederation, agreed to in 1777 and ratified in 1781, created the Union
of the States, and delegated a portion of their sovereignty to this new Confederacy or
Union . This confederation declared that:
And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we
respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.(emphasis added)
This Confederacy further declared in Article I:

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
The 13 Colonies declared themselves to be Free and Independent States; and the People who
created these Free and Independent States would likewise, of necessity, have been free and
independent, otherwise, they would not have had the authority to enter into such an agreement and to
have created a free and independent State. The British Crown, which had previously claimed the
right of sovereignty over the 13 Colonies and its people, recognized that the independence and
freedom of these States and the People thereof with the Paris Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the
following quote from that document:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire,
Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such,
and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government,
propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
This passage represents an acknowledgement from the most powerful earthly sovereign of that time,
King George III of England, that the thirteen colonies/states of the American Union of The United
States of America were sovereigns of equal power with the king. Under the terms of their
government [the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution for The United States of
America], that sovereignty was extended from the people of those colonies/states, meaning that
those people were the sovereigns. Also, for future reference, please note that the thirteen colonies
are listed by name [a point which will become evident as to its importance later in the book].
In order to create a more perfect Union, the People of The United States of America
ordained and established the Constitution for The United States of America, creating a Union
government and delegating additional portion of its sovereignty to the United States. This
Constitution, in Article IV Section 4, guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican form of
Government. To understand the nature of the overall agreement to join together in a Union, we must
first understand what a Republic is. Blacks Law Dictionary (hereinafter Blacks) defines
Republic as:
A commonwealth; that form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all
of the citizens. In another sense, it signifies the state, independently of its form of government.
It further defines Republican government as, A government in the republican form; a
government of the people; a government by representatives chosen by the people.

In other words, a republic is a government of which the People are the source and origin; and in
which the People own and control everything, and the government serves at the convenience and by
the permission of the People that it governs. Hence the term public servant is used when referring
to the elected officials. Who among you believes that todays politicians truly fit the meaning of
public servants?
Understanding the true meaning of Republic, we can now see how America was formed. The
sovereign people of each individual colony of the Thirteen Colonies actually owned everything.
Remember, these people were rebelling from a repressive government in which the King owned
everything, and their main intent was to become the sovereign, a position always held by the King
[the Royal Family in the case of England] or ruler in previous governments. Blacks defines
sovereign as, A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a
chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler in a monarchy. It was the main intent of these
first Americans to keep for themselves and their posterity the things which had previously belonged
to the King [or the Royal Family], and those things were vested in the kings sovereignty. And that
is exactly what they did. The individual states retained the right to determine who the free
inhabitants of the states would be, except that paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice would
not be included [a good reason why you should never go into court and claim in forma paupers to
keep from paying the courts fees]. You must realize that, in order to be a colony sovereign in the 13
original Colonies (hereinafter also referred to as American), first, you had to be of the white race
of people, second you had to be an adult male of 21 years or older, and third, in most states you had
to be a land owner. The naming of these qualifications is not intended to insult the female sex or any
other race, but it is necessary to understand the development of the sovereignty which may be
available to you.
Understanding what a Republic and an American is, we can now further understand how America
was formed, and where the real power was bestowed. The American owned everything, and he
intended to keep it that way. He delegated to his Colony (or hereinafter also state) the power and
jurisdiction to perform certain functions, all common law in nature. He kept most of the real power
for himself and his posterity. He basically delegated to the state the jurisdiction to administer over
him in a few, very limited, areas, but he maintained the bulk of the power for himself. He realized

that in order to live in a society with other people, certain laws would have to be passed and
maintained for the protection of the individual rights of the free inhabitant or sovereign. At the same
time, he had no intention of giving up his own personal freedoms. So he created a system whereby
jurisdiction over him by the state could be attained only if he first broke certain laws that were duly
established, all under the Common Law. Specifically, he had to intentionally damage the Life,
Liberty or Property of one of his peers for the state to gain jurisdiction over him. Thus, the power
that is currently assumed by the government over almost every phase of our lives was never given to
the government over the American. So the question that needs to be answered is, How did the
Federal and State governments get the virtually unquestioned power over all of the people who now
consider themselves to be citizens of the United States? That is the question that you will soon
know the answer to.
To fully understand the position that most of you are currently in, you must also understand the
meaning of jurisdiction. Blacks defines jurisdiction as, A term of comprehensive import
embracing every kind of judicial action.. It is the power of the court to decide a matter in
controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject
matter and the parties In other words, for jurisdiction to be claimed, control over both the
subject matter at issue ( i.e. the crime or damage in dispute), and the parties that are involved in the
dispute is necessary. As you will learn later, jurisdiction is a key factor in your rights, and the duties
and requirements placed upon you by the government, or the trust acting as the de facto government.
Now that you have a basic knowledge of a few key terms, we can explore how we got where we are
today. First, remember that all power in our Republic was passed from the sovereign People to the
state. The American was the sovereign. All public property, and all power and authority, belonged
to, and was owned by, him. He passed on part of that power to the state so that society as a whole
could be protected. However, it is impossible to give away all of your power, because in so doing,
you would negate any portion that you gave away, as there would be no power left to enforce the
action taken by you. Think of a company in which the President hired a person and gave him full
authority over all operations within the company. The President would still maintain more power
than his new employee, because if he could not support his hiring with power, his new employee
could not carry out his mandate in the face of challenge. So a good rule of thumb is that you must

always maintain more power than anyone who acts under your authority. This rule applies to the
government as well. The state receives all of its power and authority from the American; therefore,
it must remain secondary in power to that American. The people of the Thirteen Colonies became
the original Americans upon the forming of the Union, also known as the sovereign America
People; and the posterity of those original Americans make up the sovereignty and form the
sovereign American People as they exist today. If you are not of the posterity of one of these people,
then you are not an American, and you cannot be one of the sovereign American People.
Following the foregoing principals, we can easily understand how our forefathers established this
government. First, the American bestowed upon the state certain limited powers and limited
jurisdiction. Within those powers was the ability to make and enforce whatever laws, treaties, and
contracts that were necessary to the welfare of the society for which it was established, as long as the
subject matter was that for which jurisdiction was given. The state, fearing more powerful nations
(such as England, France, Spain, etc.) formed a union with the other 12 independent states under
which a common defense pact was agreed to. Within the Union, the 13 member Republics
(hereinafter states) also agreed that they wanted to carry on free trade between themselves, that
they would have a common currency, a postal department that would serve them all, and a means by
which problems between them could be adjudicated without the need of war. The states realized
that, as distasteful as it was to them (remember, they had just come out from under a totalitarian
government), some form of federal government would have to be established to oversee these
functions, and to provide for the common defense. However, they were all sure that they didnt want
this new monster in their own state, so they set aside a 10 mile square of land forevermore to serve
as the Seat of Government. That area is known as Washington, D.C. This created United States
was delegated its authority from the sovereign independent states, known also as the several States of
the Union, and had no sovereign authority other than that which was delegated by these independent
sovereign States. Therefore, the idea of making Washington, D.C. a state of the Union is completely
ludicrous, and can never occur since the United States or District of Columbia has no sovereignty
to delegate other than that given by the several States. The idea is advanced only by ignorant people
who do not understand the foundation of America, or criminals who want to undermine the
Republic. So the Union was formed by the respective independent states, under authority delegated

by the Americans. Therefore, the same rule must apply - the states individually and collectively
maintained more power than the new Federal Government (hereinafter United States).
The powers and authority delegated to the United States were clearly delineated and defined, but in a
very short period of time, it became evident that this Confederacy or Union was inoperable because
of its limited authority; so, the States set about to expand this delegated authority with specific
limitations placed upon this additional delegation of authority of the United States. Eight years after
its formation, in 1781, The United States of America had a list of written authority and limitation
delegated upon it by the independent States in 1789 through a document known as The Constitution
for The United States of America (hereinafter Constitution). Within the Articles of
Confederation and the Constitution, every power given to the United States is clearly spelled out, and
the limitations are exact. The Constitution has been held to be both a contract and the Supreme Law
of the land by the Supreme Court. The contract is actually between the States, on behalf of the
Americans, and the United States, and it is totally binding and all-powerful. The wording of the
Constitution leaves no room for misunderstanding. For example, at Article IV, Section 4, it states,
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
and shall protect each of them against Invasion, and upon Application of the Legislature, or the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. From this
Article, it is clear that each State is a Republic even after the Union was formed. Since the word
Republic means a government of and for the people in which everything is owned and controlled
by the people, it becomes clear that nothing could be superior to that government except the people.
Therefore, the United States could not be more powerful than the several States, and that is
guaranteed in the Constitution. In Article X of the Amendments (The Bill of Rights), it states, The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Remember, the Constitution is in full effect
today as always since its inception. Yet today, our alleged states (STATES) clearly take their orders
from the United States (UNITED STATES), and they continually bow to the presumed authority of
the UNITED STATES. So how did this supremacy of the Federal Government happen? That, too,
you will understand shortly.

We will now look at exactly what happened in the forming of the United States. First, the party with
all the power (the American) passed on a portion of his power to the state. Then the state passed on
a portion of its power to the United States. If we made a chart showing the power structure, it would
look something like this:
American First with unlimited power
sovereign -Source of all power
state - Second with limited power delegated by the People

Derives its power directly from American
United States Limited power delegated by states

Derives its power from the states
As you can see from this chart, all power flows from the American. This chart can also be used to
understand the Rights protected by the Constitution. The Constitution is a contract which involves
these three levels of parties. It is actually granted by the States with the permission of the
Americans, and it clearly limited the power of the United States, while reserving and guaranteeing
massive Rights for the Americans. Most important to remember is that only these three parties are
included in the Constitution. This fact will become very important to you as we follow the
progression of the power grab by the United States of the next 200 years. Through it all, you must
remember that the Constitution has remained in full force for the American, and it has actually
changed very little in its content over the span of time since its signing.
Now that we understand how the United States was formed, lets follow through to see how the
structure has changed over the last 220 years. For the first 80 or so years, everything remained pretty
much the same as it started. The Americans of the time understood their power, and they knew that
the United States was there to serve them. The jurisdiction that the United States had over the
Americans arose only upon the breaking of one of the constitutionally passed laws under which a
American granted jurisdiction to the State or to the United States in order that those laws might be
enforced for the overall good of the society. Those laws all required that actual damage to another
party or his property be done by the offending party, with intent, before any jurisdiction over the
American was bestowed. Thats right, with intent. Not a single crime could be committed
accidentally. Without intent, the matter would be civil in nature. Today, that is not the case, as
there are a number of offenses which have criminal effect and punishment that can occur without

any intent on the offenders part. There are also numerous crimes today that do not involve
damage of any kind. During that early period of time, the Americans understood that they were at
the top of the pecking order, and the term public servant truly applied to the elected officials who
served in the government. Also note that there were very few career politicians during that period,
and most who served were good people from the community who gave a few years of their life to
better their country. A far cry from the power crazed politicians we find running the United States
government today. Todays politicians are paid more than over 99% of the people whom they
purport to serve, not even counting their perks, and a very large percentage of them do not even
know what its like to make a living in the real world. Virtually all use their power for their own
personal gain. Did you ever wonder how a man can go to Washington broke or with very little
money, stay there for twenty years drawing a salary that would barely pay their expenses in their
upbeat lifestyle; then retire and leave Washington a multimillionaire? That scenario is not an
exception; its the rule for those who go to Washington broke. And for those who had money when
they took office, did you ever hear of one losing any of his money while he was serving his
country?
The system established by the founding fathers worked very well and virtually without incident until
the time of the Civil War. At that time, there was a very unfortunate condition in this country called
slavery. Slaves at that time were not legally people; they had no Rights, and only whatever
privileges that their owners saw fit to grant them on an individual basis. In short, these people were
legally nothing more than property. Lincoln tried to free the slaves with the Emancipation
Proclamation, but the Supreme Court ruled that effort to be unconstitutional, ruling that you could
not free another mans property. So, at the end of the Civil War, an incredible situation arose. The
slaves actually remained slaves. Thats right; in fact, they became something called bounty.
Bounty is what a conquering nation seizes from a conquered nation. The slaves actually became the
property of the United States as a result of its victory in the Civil War. (Here it should be noted that
the Civil War was between the United States and the Confederacy, not the North and the South).
The United States, as their new owner, allowed the slaves to start acting like free men; but, in fact,
they were not. They had no standing in the society, and abuses were common. Finally realizing the
problem and the plight of the slaves, the United States managed to pass the Thirteenth Amendment
to the Constitution in 1867, two full years after the end of the Civil War. That Amendment stated,

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. So slavery was forever ended in this country. Unfortunately, the former slaves woes
were not, because simply freeing them did not create any new citizens. So almost a full year later,
in 1868, after many more abuses to the former slaves, the United States was forced to pass the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in order to afford the former slaves adequate protection
and privileges with which to live their lives. The Fourteenth Amendment states, All persons born
or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States, and of the State wherein they reside. So a new type of citizenship was born - that of a
citizen of the United States or, a citizen of the District of Columbia, as the two are synonymous -
under the authority of, and pursuant to, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Now ask yourself, over whom did the United States have jurisdiction? Certainly not the Americans
(unless they had committed a crime under which limited jurisdiction was granted, and then only to
the extent punishment for that the particular crime was involved). The only people of that period
that the United States had jurisdiction over were the former salves or immigrants from other
countries who sought citizenship; because no sovereignty was available to those persons. The
Americans were in no way affected by this new citizenship. The Supreme Court of the United States
stated: The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth
amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully
guaranteed by other provisions. (see U.S. V. Anthony]. In short, they were sovereigns with rights
guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. This new class of citizen was not sovereign. In fact,
they were still subservient to the creator of their new status, the United States; and, therefore, became
a subject of the United States. Because the United States was the giver of this new citizenship, it
could only give based on the power that had been delegated to it from the states. Therefore, it did
not have the power to grant sovereignty because the United States had no sovereignty in and of itself;
therefore, its power did not equal that of the American. It would be impossible for the United States
to create a citizen more powerful than itself, so this new entity called a citizen of the United States
[now referred to as "UNITED STATES CITIZEN] occupied a position of power one rung below the
United States, its grantor. To better understand this scenario, imagine that the owner of a company
hired a president to run his company. The president in turn hired a vice-president to handle a share

of the responsibilities. The vice-president then hired a supervisor to run a portion of the company.
Could the supervisor be given enough power by the vice-president to fire or overrule the owner of
the company? Of course not, because neither the president nor the vice-president had that much
power. So now the power chart looks like this:
American - most powerful

sovereign -Source of all power
state - Second in power

Derives its power directly from American
United States - Less powerful than the state

Derives its power from the states
citizen of the United States - No Constitutional Rights

Derives its power from the United States
Remember that the Constitution is a contract between three parties - the Americans, the states and
the United States - with the principal purpose being to provide guarantees and protection of Rights to
the Americans by drastically limiting the powers of the United States. Therefore, it covers the first
three levels of this chart; but the citizen of the United States is on the fourth level, and is outside of
the contract itself. The Fourteenth Amendment actually makes that very clear. At no point does it
even purport to give Constitutional Rights to the citizens of the United States. In fact, it does quite
the opposite. It states within the Amendment itself what privileges and immunities it bestows upon
the citizens of the United States. It states, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Didnt the American already have everything
referred to here in the form of Rights, not mere privileges and immunities granted by their creator?
Would it not have been much easier to simply say that this new citizen had full Constitutional power,
rather than to delineate the exact privileges and immunities he was given? Of course it would have,
but the fact is that this new citizen did not have all the powers and Rights guaranteed by the
Constitution to the American, because the United States did not have the power to delegate unto
these new citizens, even if it had wanted to. To do so would have been to create something more

powerful than itself, and that is impossible. So in effect, the citizen of the United States is not a Free
Man at all in reality, but merely a subject of the government which created it. It has whatever
privileges and immunities which that government chooses to bestow upon it, and that government
has the authority to change those privileges and immunities at its own discretion. The Americans of
that time knew all these facts, and it was common knowledge that two classes of standing existed in
this country. There was a "first class" sovereign known as an American who had inherent Rights
given by God and guaranteed by the Constitution. There was also a second class of citizens known
as citizens of the United States who had only whatever privileges and immunities that the United
States chose to give them. This fact was common knowledge until well into the Twentieth Century,
and many court cases can be found which address the two classes of authority or standing in
America.
Within the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to due process and equal protection
was passed to the citizen of the United States. Regrettably, the right to due process and equal
protection to the citizen of the United States has been used to convolute the issue of the differences
between the classes of people. Due process is contained within the Fourth, part of the Fifth, part of
the Sixth, and part of the Eight Articles of Amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights).
These Rights had previously been reserved to the American; however, with the Fourteenth
Amendment, the citizen of the United States was guaranteed a portion of these specific rights under
the Constitution as a result of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, when the
trust courts (something you will learn later includes almost all of the courts that you have considered
government courts in the past) make rulings affecting or relating to due process, it is usually
confused with Constitutional Rights of the American; when, in fact, it is nothing more than a
fulfillment of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The true result is that the First, Second,
Third, part of the Fifth, part of the Sixth, all of the Seventh, part of the Eight, the Ninth, and the
Tenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) are not provided for the use of
the citizens of the United States. Ever wonder how your gun ownership is restricted even though the
Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids it. Now you know. The second Amendment does
not apply to citizens of the United States, and the restrictions to gun ownership and use apply only to
citizens of the United States.

At this point, it is important to understand a fact which many may find distasteful and not politically
correct. The foundation of America is the Declaration of Independence, and there was no
America prior to 1776, only a British Colony sitting upon the North American Continent. The
Continent of North America, like the Continent of South America, was only a geographical location,
not a political community. This will be really unpopular, but I still must tell you that the North
American Indians who refer to themselves as Native Americans, are not Americans at all, as we
use the term in relation to sovereignty. They are natives of the North American Continent, but they
have no standing as Americans, because they were still separate nations from those which formed
The United States of America in 1776; and, they later became defeated nations, with America
being the conquering nation. Later, by act of Congress, they became citizens of the United States,
but nothing ever made them part of the sovereign American People. Even more unpopular, and a
fact which may get me accused of being racist for simply stating the truth, is the fact that there are no
Black Americans, meaning black people who are sovereign Americans, because their only basis of
citizenship or standing is that of a citizen of the United States. Nothing ever bestowed any other
citizenship or standing on the black people in America. Likewise, none of the people who are
naturalized into this country as citizens of the United States will ever be sovereign Americans,
because there is no power available to them which will create that status. They will remain citizens
of the United States.
To better understand this citizen of the United States, we can look at old England (the government
from which our forefathers rebelled). Under English law the King was the Supreme Sovereign.
(Note here that when the King referred to himself as Sovereign, he used a capital letter for the word
Sovereign, because he believed himself to be supreme to all. When our founding fathers referred
to themselves as sovereign, they used a lower case letter s, because they believed that God was
the Supreme Sovereign.) There were actually three classes of common persons under the King.
First, there were freemen. These men were free in all respects except where the King or his
assigns (the lords and landowners, also known as noblemen) were concerned. They could work at
their chosen profession, live where they wanted, and travel as they pleased. All unless the King
objected, in which case the Kings wishes were upheld, regardless of what those wishes were. They
could own property, subject, of course, to the fact that the King actually owned everything. What
this meant, in reality, is that these people only owned the use of said property, and the tax levied by

the King was actually a fee for using the Kings property. Next, the serf was the slave of the
period. He was born into his role, and could not escape it. He differed from the slave in America
only in that he was forever bound to the land, and the lord of that land, rather than to an absolute
master. Last, there was the indentured servant. This was a freeman who contracted into
servitude for a particular period of time in return for something which he wanted or needed. Many
of our forefathers paid their (and their families) way to America by serving as an indentured servant
for a period of time.
The citizen of the United States actually is very close in capacity and status to the freeman of old
England. That status is exactly what most of our forefathers were before they fled from England to
America, so this is obviously not what the founding fathers envisioned an American as. But make a
comparison, and you may be shocked. First, lets compare property rights. The freeman could own
the use of property subject to the Kings tax and his whims. Today, a citizen of the United States
can own property subject to the tax (you will learn a little later that the States as they exist today are
actually just an extension of the Federal Government) and whims of the United States. In essence,
you do not own land or property, but only the use of that land or property. Otherwise, if you were
the sovereign, nobody could tax something you owned and take it from you if you failed to pay the
tax. Just imagine someone trying to tax the King and take his land. Lets take your home as an
example. Assuming you own your home and it is totally paid off, does it belong to you? Of course
not. If it did, and you were the sovereign, no one could take it away from you because you didn't
pay the rent on it (property tax). As it is, many of the older citizens of the United States are paying
more taxes on their homes today than the payments were back in the 1950s and 1960s when they
were paying for the home. If they dont, or cant, pay those high taxes, they lose their home. Does
that sound like they own the home to you? Sounds like the Kings men to me. And what about a
whim of the government to steal that land? What if the government decides it needs that land for
some project? Did you ever hear of eminent domain? Blacks defines it as, the power to take
private property for public use by the state, municipalities, and private persons or corporations
authorized to exercise functions of public character. This power granted to the state by the Fifth
Amendment has been totally misused by the government, and has been used to punish persons whom
the government had a vendetta against. Think about the fact that, if a certain kind of rat is found on
your land, your land can be seized for the good of the rat. Thats right, and it actually happened like

that in California a few years ago when a rare kangaroo rat was found dead on a mans property.
So, who has more rights, a rat or a citizen of the United States? This mans (a citizen of the United
States) land was seized, and he was imprisoned for being suspected of killing the rat. Sounds like a
Kings power to me, and the King must have close ties to rats.
Just to be very sure that you dont really believe you actually own anything as a citizen of the United
States, lets talk about one more area of ownership, your car. Do you own your car? If it is paid
for, do you have the original title? The answer is, no, you dont. I know that many of you think
you own your car and that you have the title, but youre wrong. Get out your title and look it over.
You will see that at the top of it are the words, Certificate of Title. Blacks defines certificate as,
A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has or has not been done, or some
event occurred, or some legal formality has been complied with.. In plain language, this
document at which you are looking says that there is an original title of ownership on your car, and
you obviously dont have it. The one who does have it owns the car. That would, of course, be the
State. Furthermore, there is no way for you to get the original title. Thats because citizens of the
United States are never allowed to own property, but only to use it as the King (government) sees fit.
Is this beginning to sound more like old England to you yet? But, how did you with all the
Constitutional Rights left to you by your forefathers and guaranteed by the Constitution get here? In
a later chapter, I will explain the money scam which lead to the position described above. Keep
reading!
In the 1930s, the lust for power at the Federal level reached a new high. The pompous fat cats
running the United States Government at that time were very put off by the fact that they were
servants to a bunch of dumb farmers and laborers. They believed that they were the elite, and that
their power should be unquestioned. They looked around and realized that there did exist a class of
people to whom they did serve as virtual kings and queens. That class was those who were citizens
of the United States pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. For them, the Federal government ruled
as a benevolent monarch, raising them from the depths of society to a position where they could
exist. They were actually subjects under that government. Remember that the word Citizen or
citizen never applies to the sovereign because he owes allegiance to no one other than God.

In 1935, the United States passed the Social Security Act, designed especially for these subjects.
After all, these were the wards of the State, those who had been taken out of slavery and cared for by
the benevolent master, because it was believed that they could not fend for themselves. Whether it
was by design, or just pure luck, this new program struck a cord with the American people as a
whole. Americans began to want the same perks and benefits that were designed for the second class
citizens as a means to give them some chance of attaining a degree of happiness and security. The
United States Government officials realized that this was the vehicle through which they could gain
control over the sovereigns which had ruled over them for so long. They said simply, Come on in,
take our number, and be one of our subjects, and you can have everything that we give our other
subjects. By the millions Americans came forth to take a Social Security Number, and, in effect,
say that they no longer wished to be a sovereign, but that they wished to be ruled over and taken care
of. The benevolent government agreed that it could do a better job of running their lives than they
were doing, so it accepted the sovereigns request to sell themselves into what amounted to
voluntary servitude, much like the indentured servants of old England. Remember that the
Thirteenth Amendment forbade slavery and involuntary servitude, but it did not even mention
voluntary servitude. Remember that the Rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution cannot
be bought, sold, traded, or taken away; however, we can contract to set them aside for a period of
time in order to fulfill a contractual agreement with another party. Remember that many of the
original Americans and/or their families came to this country under voluntary servitude contracts as
indentured servants. The government officials were careful not to point out to the Americans what
their actions actually entailed, because they knew that few, if any, knew the price that would be paid
for the benefits received. But, there is one good thing about voluntary servitude - there has to be a
way out or it would become involuntary and, therefore, unconstitutional. You will learn how
important this little flaw is later in this writing.
This entire scenario is easily proven by a law enacted by Congress in 1964. It was called the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Many of you will still remember the effects of that law. It changed many of the
ways in which the white man dealt, associated, and lived with the black man. Until that time, the
black man not only was a second-class citizen, he was treated like one. He could not drink out of the
same water fountains, go to the same schools, go to the same churches, eat in the same restaurants,
and/or use the same restrooms as the white man, just to name a few of his restrictions. Yet he had

been a citizen of the United States for almost 100 years at that time. On the other hand, the white
man gained nothing from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he already had everything it offered,
and more, guaranteed to him in the Constitution as Rights. Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of
1964 did not make the classes of authority or standing equal, it only made them appear equal. The
truth is that it only bestowed more privileges and immunities upon the citizen of the United States,
but still offered no true Rights to that person. Civil rights are not Rights at all, but simply new
privileges bestowed upon subjects of the United States; all of which could be changed or completely
taken away at the whim of the grantor, the United States. But it did have a more demonic and evil
effect and purpose than any previous law - it made the citizen of the United States appear to be
synonymous with the American, thereby setting the stage to persuade the American to give up his
birthright through outright trickery and deceit. Sadly, today, few Americans even know what their
birthright is, and most will argue that they have not given up any of their Rights. The fact is that
most Americans have already given up all of their Rights through contract, and the time to reclaim
them is growing woefully short. This writing is a last ditch effort to give the knowledge to those
who wish to regain their birthright the ability and knowledge to do so before that birthright is forever
lost. With the loss of that birthright, one could also lose his mortal, and possibly immortal, soul.
The choice is simple - do you want to be a citizen of the United States whereby you remain a subject
to the whim of the government, or do you want to be an American, a sovereign, with all the powers
left to you by your forefathers as the greatest gift that can be given on this earth in this life? The
choice can still be yours. Make it wisely.
If you are satisfied with the lot in life that the United States has planned for you, then there is
no need to read the rest of this book. However, if you want the true freedom that was left to you
as an American, read on. But know that there are responsibilities associated with that freedom that
many of you have never faced; and, to be free you must. Freedom is not for cowards - Freedom is
for the brave at heart. Let the cowards remain subjects, and pray for them that the United States
remains at least a fairly benevolent master.
CHAPTER 2 - OUR MONEY SYSTEM

Understanding our money system is another necessary step in realizing the unbelievable position that
Americans have been relegated to. To understand how our money system works, we need to go to
its beginnings and follow its development through the years.
The money system today is actually a currency system only, and does not represent true worth.
Blacks gives the definition of money as, In usual and ordinary acceptance it means coins and
paper currency used as circulating mediums of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds,
evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. You will soon learn that the Federal Reserve
Notes that we currently use as money do not fit this definition.
The money system of today actually started with our original banking system. It was designed to
help people protect their assets without having to risk their lives on a daily basis. Early in the
formation of this country, the life of a wealthy person could be very hazardous. Lets say that you
had discovered gold, thus becoming very rich. Where would you go to protect your wealth? Many
tried to keep it close at hand, thereby trying to personally protect it from those who would steal it.
This method proved to be very unsatisfactory in that many wealthy people became dead broke
when thieves and killers found them. So along came the banks which, with government approval
and supervision, gave people a very viable alternative to being robbed and/or killed by those seeking
to relieve them of their wealth. The original system was not only needed by the people of that day, it
was pure and simple in its nature. Take the person who struck it rich in gold. He could bring his
gold to a bank. The bank would take the gold and issue him a certificate guaranteeing to give him
back the gold at any time in the future that he wanted it. By doing so, he could protect his gold and
his life, and he could still enjoy the benefits of his wealth. For this service, the bank would charge a
small percentage or fee, and everybody was happy.
This system worked very well for many years. But at some point years later, the government realized
a very interesting anomaly had developed. It seemed that, although the gold was available to the
depositors at any time, nobody ever came back to claim their gold. Instead, they were all simply
trading these certificates issued by the banks, thus creating paper money or currency. These
certificates proved to be much easier to carry, to hide, and to deal with in general than heavy, bulky
gold. Better still, everyone would accept these certificates as money because they knew the gold was

setting in the bank waiting to be reclaimed. Thus, the current attitude toward the worth of paper
money which we hold today was begun.
At this point, it is very important to realize the real nature of currency or money. It is nothing more
than a means by which a person can store his labor and materials for use at a future date. Lets say
that you are a person with nothing except your ability to build houses. You trade your labor to build
a friend a house for something that he has which you need or can use. But what if your friend is a
candlestick maker, and you dont need any candlesticks? In order for you to build him a house, he
would have to find someone who needed enough candlesticks to pay for the house, and who also had
something which you needed in order to get you to build him a house. It could prove to be very
difficult to find enough people who needed candlesticks and had something that you needed to pay
you for building his house. So thats where money comes in. Money is a place (or vehicle) where
you can store your labor for future use. Instead of having to find several different people who need
your particular service, and who have something that you need right then, each worker simply stores
his labor in these certificates accepted by the society in which he lives at viable storage facilities for
use at a future time. The candlestick maker then simply collects enough of the labor certificates from
people who need his candlesticks to pay you for building his house. You can then use the certificates
to buy whatever you want instead of searching for someone who needs one particular service. It is
really a wonderful and ingenious method for allowing each person to use his personal skills and labor
to exchange for the things he wants and needs.
Unfortunately, this system had a flaw. It was used to store true wealth, which equates to the labor of
an individual. Basically, all labor done is placed into a big pool for the use of anyone who has
established credit within that pool by placing his labor into the pool. The pool is backed by gold.
Consequently, the only people who should be using the pool are those who have placed true value
into the pool. Thats not the way its currently working. Sometime in the early to mid 1800s, the
United States Government discovered a way to steal a portion of all the labor that Americans
provided and stored in the pool. The banks realized that nobody ever came back to claim any of the
gold which backed the certificates. Instead, they were exchanging the certificates for what they
wanted. It became clear that it would be very simple to print more certificates without any gold to
back them. By doing so, the government could spend the new certificates exactly like they

represented either gold or labor, when in actuality, they represented neither. In fact, this action was
nothing more than a means by which to steal a portion of all the labor performed by Americans on an
ongoing basis.
It works like this. Lets say that you placed your labor into this pool (which, by the way, you have).
By doing so, you actually bought into the overall worth of the pool. To totally understand this
method of theft, lets just talk about the gold in the pool. Lets say that there is $1000.00 worth of
gold in the pool. Lets say that you gave labor equal to $100.00, and you were paid by certificates
from the pool. At that point, you own 10% of the worth of the pool, so you get 10% of the
certificates in the pool. Then somebody comes along and prints another $1000.00 worth of
certificates on the pool without adding any gold to the pot. Suddenly, the certificates which you
possess are worth only 5% of the new pool, and your $100.00 worth of labor is now redeemable for
only $50.00 in real value. The government has named this type of theft inflation, because they
cant tell you what really happened. They dont decrease your $100.00 value, they just increase the
cost of all the other labor driven products in the pool that you might want to purchase by enough to
cover what the government has stolen from the pool. This process is exactly what happened to the
gold and silver certificates when the government started printing extra certificates without placing
any new gold in the pool. For every $1,000,000.00 worth of gold held in the United States Treasury,
the government printed $2,000,000.00 (or more) worth of certificates, effectively stealing at least
50% of the value of that gold; and, thereby, 50% of the labor which was funded and saved in these
certificates. Not a bad deal for the government, but a real rip-off of the American.
The United States Government continued this method of theft well into the Twentieth Century. In
1913, Congress created the Federal Reserve Bank, a government institution designed to handle
regulations for private banking, and to help keep inflation and deflation in line. Remember, in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it states, The Congress shall have the PowerTo coin
Money, regulate the value thereof,. Note that Congress does not have the power to assign the
power to coin money to anyone else. Also note that the term coin money is used. It says nothing
about printing, but lets assume that the founding fathers just never thought of this method of storing
labor; however, had our government never started printing money, we certainly would not be in the
mess we are in today. There could be no debt, because true value (gold and labor) would be the

basis of every transaction. But even if the founding fathers had agreed that printing and coining
were synonymous, they certainly never gave anyone the authority to said printing and/or coining
other than Congress, and they did not give Congress the authority to assign these duties to anyone
else. What happened was exactly that.
At this point, it is also important to understand the authority delegated to Congress, and reserved to
the several states with regards to the coinage of money. Clearly, the several States are limited by
Article I Section 10 of the Constitution with regards to legal tender when it states, No State
shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of debts.... Obviously, there is
no authority delegated to the states to use any tender other than gold and silver. That, however, is
not the case with regards to the United States. The Congress was given exclusive legislative
authority over Washington, the District of Columbia, the territories, and all possessions of the United
States by the Constitution. That power is called plenary, and it is virtually absolute. There is no
limitation as to the legal tender which Congress can establish for use within those areas that it
governs by plenary authority. Therefore, Federal Reserve Notes can be legal tender without
Constitutional conflict in those designated areas. Are you beginning to realize where you reside?
Sometime early in the 1930s, by the use of plenary power and after years of theft of the gold and
labor pool by the government, a group of international bankers (hereinafter Banksters, so named
not for collecting the certificates, but for the use of the power which arose as a result of owning the
certificates which resembles very closely the methods used by gangsters in their actions) presented
the United States Government with a demand for gold based on the gold certificates which it had
issued over the years, and which they now owned. The governments years of theft had finally
caught up with them, because there was not enough gold in the United States Treasury to redeem the
certificates held by these Banksters. On that day, the United States became bankrupt. The timing
could not have been worse for the United States. The greatest depression in modern history was in
full swing. Hitler was in the process of coming to power in Europe. The world situation was very
bad, and the leaders of the United States Government felt that to announce that the United States was
bankrupt to the world would be totally disastrous. So a behind closed doors agreement was
reached with the Banksters who held the certificates, and the course of America was changed in a
way which few believe is possible. The Banksters were offered, and they agreed to accept, full

ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank, moving it from the public trust into private ownership and
control. Even more harmful and destructive than that, these Banksters were given the exclusive
right to print all money in the United States from that date forward. These provisions were given
force of law in an Executive Order signed by Franklin Roosevelt on March 16, 1933, and it remains
our way of doing business still today. The repercussions of this single action are totally
unbelievable, as every facet of our lives is directly affected in a negative way today as a result of this
one deal.
The Federal Reserve Banking system is not federal at all. Although the Fed Chairman is appointed
by the President of the United States from among the heads of the District Federal Reserve Banks,
this is a private banking institution. The Federal Reserve Banks issue federal reserve notes to
serve as legal tender. The issuance of these notes without being redeemable for anything of value
allows the theft of the peoples labor.
This system of theft used by the Federal Reserve Banks to serve as legal tender in this country
originated in ancient Babylon. The Babylonian Due Bill was written in clay tablets in the 3,000s
B.C. and showed what a purchaser owed to a merchant in exchange for goods. The Babylonian
government would print these clay tablets and force merchants within their control to accept these
Due Bills in payment for goods and merchandise under penalty of death. However, when it came
time to pay the government, taxes had to be paid in gold, silver, or other items of value. Merchants
stuck with these clay tablets could only pass them to others in purchase of other merchandise,
identical to the system in use today except that todays notes can still be used for payment of taxes.
This system amounts to little more than theft of products by their own government and those who
own and control the Federal Reserve District Banks. Now, its the private alleged Federal Reserve
Banking system in cahoots with the United States government which is stealing from the American
people.
First, lets see how this directly affects our money in our daily lives. The power given to these
Banksters to print money was, in effect, the power to rule. They were given the authority to print all
currency which could be legally used in the United States at the cost of printing, which was a cost to
them of something less than $30.00 to print 100,000 bills, regardless of the denominations of the

bills. Not a bad deal for them - imagine being able to print 100,000 $100.00 bills for $30.00, and
then go spend them at full face value. Now imagine being able to do that anytime you want to
without regulation, and you will start to realize just how powerful these Banksters have become.
What actually happens is that the Federal Reserve Bank prints all the currency in the United States at
the cost of printing, or actually at no cost since the printing is paid for with federal reserve notes.
They then loan that currency to the United States Government on interest bearing notes (Treasury
Notes) at full face value. It gets better (or worse for you) because they never print the interest. That
makes this a system of slavery wherein the citizens of the United States are sold into servitude to the
Federal Reserve Bank by their lord and landowner, the United States.
More on that later. For now let's follow this action through. To help understand this process, lets
say that you and I are the only people in the entire world working on the Federal Reserve System.
Lets say that youre a farmer and Im the only Federal Reserve Banker in the world doing business
in this fashion. One day in the spring of the year, you come into my office and inform me that you
need to borrow some money to get your crop in this year. I ask how much you need, and you tell me
that you need $100.00. I then ask you if you have any collateral. You say that you have your land
completely paid for which you will put up as collateral for the loan. I agree, and I tell you that I will
loan you the $100.00 at 8% interest payable when your crop comes in. You agree. I get up, go in
the back room, and print the money. Remember, thats all I have to do. You take the money into
the community. The people in the community know Im good for the money, so they accept my
paper for what you need, and you get your crop in. It happens that this is the best farming year in
history - the rains come right, the sun is perfect - and you have a bumper crop. You take your
harvest into the community and sell it, and then you return to pay me. You lay the paper I printed on
my desk. I pick it up and count it - there is $100.00 face amount there. Remember, thats all I
printed. I then ask you where my other $8.00 (the interest) is. You tell me that you couldnt find
any more of my paper, and ask if I would take some other form of payment? I tell you no, I only
accept my own money. I then seize your land for the remaining debt due, all legal and proper.
This process is exactly what the Federal Reserve Bank has done. Right now, the government tells
us that our national debt is over five and one-half trillion dollars. The debt was caused by the
Federal Reserve Bank, because they printed the Federal Reserve Notes and loaned them to the
government. However, there is less than two trillion dollars in circulation at this time, meaning the

rest of the debt is for interest, and those Federal Reserve Notes were never printed. Therefore, if the
United States Government came to each one of us and seized every Federal Reserve Note in our
pockets, then went to pay off the national debt, the Federal Reserve Bank would simply count the
money and then demand the other three and one half trillion dollars in debt owed it. Thus, it is
totally impossible to pay off the national debt under any conditions, and the debt must, by its nature,
continue to grow. It is designed to steal all worth and power from the American people, rendering
them into a permanent state of servitude. It has almost accomplished its goal as of this date.
You will also need to understand the actual make-up and worth of our currency, the Federal Reserve
Note, in order to fully understand the truly demonic nature of the entire system which has been laid
upon Americans. First, historically and Biblically, gold and silver have been the standard metal used
as money or for a medium of exchange. Gold and silver are ideal for this purpose since they are
easily molded into coins, easily passed, and antiviral and antibacterial; therefore they do not transmit
diseases. Outside of its use for a monetary instrument gold and silver also has its own intrinsic
value. It requires work or labor to harvest it, so therefore it actually represents labor realistically, not
just artificially. Gold and silver are also the standard metal used for jewelry and has many other
industrial uses, especially when combined with other metals and used as an alloy; therefore, gold and
silver have intrinsic value. Thus, gold and silver certificates, those instruments on which this the
American Dollar was based, had a basis of intrinsic value.
The government guaranteed to deliver to the bearer on demand a dollars worth of either gold or
silver for each dollar on the face of the certificate. That guarantee is what gave the American Dollar
its value, and made it the most sought after currency in the world. But this new Federal Reserve
Note did not (and does not) make any such guarantee. In fact, its very name is misleading, because
it is not a note at all. A note must promise to deliver something on a particular date or under a
particular condition; and therefore, a Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a Babylonian Due
Bill. Blacks defines Note as, An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of
signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a
specified time. Therefore, the gold and silver certificates issued by the government were, in fact,
notes. For example, on the One Dollar Silver Certificate, this statement appears, This certifies that
there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States of America One Dollar in Silver payable to

the bearer on demand. On Federal Reserve Notes, no such promise exists. In fact, Federal
Reserve Notes do not promise to do or deliver anything. They are purely instruments of debt.
Blacks defines Instrument as, A negotiable instrument or a security or any other writing
which evidences a right to the payment of money and is not itself a security agreement or lease and is
of a type which is in ordinary course of business transferred by delivery with any necessary
endorsement or assignment. Blacks gives one definition of Debt as, A sum of money due by
certain and express agreement.
So how could our currency have become an instrument of debt? Remember that the United States
went bankrupt in 1933 when the Banksters presented more gold and silver certificates than there was
gold and silver on reserve in the treasury. That state of the bankruptcy of the United States has
existed ever since. In bankruptcy, everything works on a negative basis, because there is a minus
net worth involved. Also remember that a double negative becomes a positive. So when you
receive an instrument of debt payable in a bankrupt system, it actually becomes a positive for use
within that system. The Federal Reserve Note is actually an instrument created by the Federal
Reserve Bank and loaned into circulation. It signifies that the United States Government owes a
certain amount of dollars to the Federal Reserve Bank. Therefore, when someone hands you a
$20.00 bill (Federal Reserve Note), he has actually just transferred $20.00 dollars worth of debt from
himself to you. Because we live and function in a bankrupt society, the negative $20.00 actually
becomes a positive for use within that society. So you say, who cares, as long as I can use the
$20.00 Federal Reserve Note to buy my case of beer? The answer is, you should care, because you
are basically selling your soul to the Federal Reserve Bank.
These Banksters are already running almost every phase of your life, and you continue to allow them
to dictate to you because youre accepting their benefits under the bankruptcy. Imagine that you
have a teenage child living with you. You have a set of rules that must be followed. The child has
the option of following the rules or moving out and fending for himself; but, if he stays, he must
follow your rules. When he breaks one of those rules, he is subject to your punishment. This
scenario is exactly what happens to you under the current system. The Federal Reserve Bank has
established what it considers to be a benevolent system of control which it administers if you choose
to accept its benefits. The next chapter will deal with the exact particulars of this system, and how it

was developed. But important right now is that you understand that participation in this system has
a very high price placed upon it in terms of giving up your birthright (i.e. your Rights under the
Constitution), and almost every person reading this book has already given up those Rights through
contract. Luckily, there is a way out. Your decision will be to decide if you really want to be free,
or if you prefer the life of a slave with a benevolent master.
You may say that the situation described above is impossible, and that it could never happen in the
good old U.S.A. Try to remember what happened in 1933. The United States had defrauded the
American people to the point of driving itself into bankruptcy. Legally, there was only one creditor
demanding payment from the United States, and that was the group of Banksters. So, in essence,
that group had a lien against all the assets of the United States. Although we have not yet discussed
the differences between the United States and the united States of America or the Union, these two
entities have almost nothing in common. You will learn in a later chapter what each actually is. For
now, just understand that there is a difference. The United States had used power which it was not
authorized to use, and by doing so, had made it look like the Union (The United States of
America) had gone bankrupt also. In truth, The United States of America had nothing to do with
the bankruptcy of the United States, but the actions followed by all parties involved allowed the
Banksters to treat the bankruptcy like it was the Union of States that had gone bankrupt.
So what are the assets of a nation? Its land and its people. The Banksters actually took a lien
against the land and the people of the United States i.e. citizens of the United States, as
compensation for what they were owed by the United States. They then looked at this new found
windfall, and said to themselves, We own everything, so should not these people living on our land
be paying something for the privilege? Maybe some type of a sharecroppers fee would be
appropriate. But then they realized that if they told the people that they owned everything, and that
the people had become nothing more than renters in their own land, there would be rebellion. So
they set about to devise a much more sinister plot to get what they felt were their just payments for
the debt due them. They decided that they would set about to offer benefits, and anyone who
wanted the benefits would agree contractually to help pay off the debt of the United States.
Being able to print all of the currency gave them a great advantage in controlling both the people as a
whole, and more particularly, the Congress. Their first great act, in concert with Congress, was the

passing of the Social Security Act in 1935. On the surface, that Act was designed to help the
second class citizens (i.e. the citizens of the United States) to achieve a better quality of life. In
reality, it was designed and administered in a way that would first convince the American that he
would be better off as a citizen of the United States; and second, at a later date, convince him that
there was no difference between an American and a citizen of the United States. The plan worked on
both fronts. Early in the process, work programs were established for these second class citizens.
Since many of the Americans were out of work at that time due to the Depression, these jobs were
very appealing to them. Many Americans immediately seized upon the opportunity to become a
citizen of the United States and start getting the benefits reserved for those subjects of the
government.
As the years passed, the United States Government, in concert with the Federal Reserve Bank,
created many new programs designed and provided for their subjects. At the same time, they started
to collect from those subjects the debt owed to the Banksters by the United States. They did this
with a vehicle called the income tax. Each time that they wanted to raise taxes, they would simply
give, or say they were giving, another benefit. Of course, the benefits never even approached what
they were taking, but the people loved getting something for nothing from the government.
What few Americans, or for that matter, citizens of the United States, have ever realized, is that the
United States Government actually had very little to do with either the benefits or the taxes. Those
are areas controlled almost completely by the Federal Reserve Bank. More on that in the next
chapter. But the taxes and the benefits began to grow, with each feeding the other. What was once
a Republic started to operate as a trust, and the government in power became de facto in nature (a
de facto government is one which maintains itself with a display of force against the will of the
rightful legal government and is successful in overturning the institutions of the rightful government
by setting up its own in lieu thereof). The de jure government (de jure is descriptive of the
government condition in which there has been total compliance with all the requirements of law)
withdrew in the face of the overwhelming acceptance of this new way of doing business. The fact
that the political leaders of the time allowed this to happen spoke to both their fear and the fact that
their power was greatly increased as a result of the development of the false government. It just
seemed like the right thing to do at the time. All banks came under the power and control of the

Federal Reserve Bank, and our entire system of credit, investments, and major employers came under
that same control.
Today, it is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to buy a car, a house, to get a phone, an insurance
policy, a drivers license, to get any kind of credit, to get most jobs, and a list of other items too long
to name here, unless you first profess to be a slave to the Federal Reserve Bank (i.e. citizen of the
United States) by placing your slave number (i.e. social security number) on virtually every
document you sign. That situation exists because a trust now operates in place of the de jure
government, and the social security number identifies you as a member of the trust entitled to its
benefits (fully explained in a following chapter).
Ive had many people tell me that they have never agreed to be a slave or a subject. They say they
would never do that, and that they have not given up their Rights. Well, if they use a social security
number, they are just totally wrong. Have you ever noticed that you are always required to write
down your social security number, even if they already have it in front of them? For example, take
the drivers license requirement of a social security number. You must write it on their form each
time you renew your license. They tell you that it is so they can check to see if you owe any back
child support. What a ridiculous lie!!! They have had your social security number for years, and it
hasnt changed. Did they just forget what it was? Of course not - they just want you to say that you
are still a willing member of their trust before you get their benefits. When you fill out a credit
application, you are always required that you give your social security number. They will tell you
that it protects against fraud, and that they dont have any other way of identifying you. What a load
of bunk. I know people who have literally thousands of other peoples social security numbers from
previous contacts. Anyone whom you have worked for, has sold you a car, a house, entered your
child into school, or any number of other contacts, has your social security number. Anyone who
has ever taken an application of any kind on you has all the other necessary information to do a new
application on you. So the use of a social security number has no effect on fraud, and it is a very
poor way of identifying you.
So there must be another reason for its required use. The true reason for making you write the
number down each time you sign something is that it renews, solidifies, and makes stronger the
original contract through which you became a member of the trust, thereby agreeing to voluntary

servitude. Remember, they only have the power over you that you give them, because this
government can govern only by the consent of the governed [especially in the case of an American].
The problem is that you have given them your consent for almost limitless power over you by taking
the social security number [thereby contracting to be a 'citizen of the United States'], and you
continue to reaffirm your decision with each new commitment to their trust i.e. each time you accept
a benefit [use your social security number].
Remember, that as an American, no one, not even you, can take your Rights away. However, as an
American, you are guaranteed the unlimited Right of contract. In other words, you can contract into
and/or for almost anything. Under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, involuntary
servitude is forbidden, but voluntary servitude is not forbidden. Therefore, it is legal to contract
yourself into a state of voluntary servitude. However, having done so, you also must be allowed to
leave that servitude, or it would become involuntary and forbidden by the Constitution. Thats why
it is so important to the Federal Reserve Bank that you restate your desire to remain in voluntary
servitude each time you apply for a benefit. Once again, you make that statement by simply writing
down your trust membership number [social security number] and signing beneath it. When you
want to reclaim your freedom, you will have to discontinue that action and stop using the trust
number.
Just a little matter as a side issue here. We have all heard numerous versions of who killed
President John Kennedy, and why. There is one possibility which I doubt you have heard. It
happens to be the one that I believe, and I think more real evidence points there than any other place.
Very shortly before his murder, President Kennedy decided to have the United States Mint start
printing United States money again. That marked the first time in almost three decades that anyone
other than the Federal Reserve Bank had printed any currency for the United States. The facts as to
why he made this decision, and what kind of objections were raised and by whom, have been well-
guarded secrets. But we do know what actually occurred. A very short time prior to his death,
President Kennedy caused to be released into circulation four and one-half billion dollars in United
States Notes printed by the United States Mint. The Federal Reserve Bank had nothing to do with
these instruments. Immediately after Kennedys death, President Johnson was sworn into office, and
almost immediately recalled the United States Notes just released. Today, the only evidence of

these notes is in the hands of rare coin and currency dealers; however, these notes are available at a
small premium, and you should go to a local dealer and purchase a $2.00 United States Note printed
in 1963. It may really help you understand and believe what really happened to Kennedy; and
consequently, what has, and is, happening to you.
The facts are clear. A private corporation, owned by private individuals and operated to make
profit, now prints every dollar of currency in the United States. The notes that it prints are
instruments of debt showing that the United States owes the Federal Reserve Bank money as
shown on the notes. Since there is no worth associated with these notes, they can only be used in
a bankrupt system, and anything purchased by them actually belongs to the creditor and creator of the
notes, the Federal Reserve Bank. Anyone using these notes gains a privilege or benefit from the
use thereof, and is therefore indebted to the creditor who owns the worth behind the note; once
again, the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank has caused to be put in place a trust to
administer over its interests, and to provide benefits for its members. Membership is readily
provided; however, the cost of said membership is everything you own or ever hope to own. The
rest of this book is dedicated to providing proof of this trust, and to showing you how to live in the
society without remaining a subject of the King, i.e. citizen of the United States.
Chapter 3 - The Trust

One of my first memories of theories raised by those in the Patriot Community (those
folks who are constantly coming with new and improved ways to defeat certain aspects of

the government, usually based around not paying taxes) is the proposition that the United
States government in its defacto form is a corporation by nature. For many years, I
subscribed to that line of thinking. When I first wrote this book, I believed that scenario
to be true. I now understand that what most people currently equate as the government
is, in fact, a trust. To be more specific, it is an implied, charitable, and/or resulting trust,
foreign in nature, and operating as an insolvent commercial trader within the exterior
boundaries of the individual states i.e. THE STATE OF TEXAS (or your state). Okay,
so that is a mouthful, and you dont understand a word I said. Lets do this in pieces.
As you will recall from Chapter One, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868,
providing a new form of citizenship to the newly freed slaves. To administer over that
new citizenship and its members, a public trust was formed. A set of rules and
regulations, generally called codes were passed and implemented by Congress under its
plenary authority (that authority delegated over the District of Columbia, its territories
and possessions) to provide protection and benefits to these trust members, as well as to
place limitations upon their activities. In the period of time between 1868 and 1933,
these codes were applicable only to members of the Fourteenth Amendment trust i.e.
citizens of the United States. During that period of time, the de jure constitutionally
created and bound government was still in place and operating effectively for the
American. There were clearly two classes of authority or standing in this country, and it
was easy to distinguish between them. Furthermore, everyone in both groups recognized
and fully understood the differences.
The fall of the gold system in 1933 had a devastating effect on the de jure government. In
fact, for all practical purposes, it brought the individual State governments down. Article
I, Section 10 of the Constitution states, No State shall...make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.... Do you know of any State today which can
meets that standard? Of course not, because none do. Therefore, the de jure States no
longer exist, and a de facto government has replaced them. So exactly what has taken
their place?

When the Gold system fell in 1933, two operating governing authorities were in place.
First, the de jure government was operating for the American under constitutional
authority. Second, the Fourteenth Amendment trust was operating for the citizens of the
United States who had obtained their citizenship through, and depended upon, the
Fourteenth Amendment for their standing in the society. This group included the newly
freed slaves as well as anyone who had sought and received citizenship through the
authority of the Fourteenth Amendment. This group would include immigrants coming
here from other countries and seeking citizenship from the United States. The de jure
government of the several States was dependant upon the Constitution; therefore, when
the money system required by the constitution fell, the de jure government necessarily
failed because it could not function under constitutional authority with no real money
available. But the trust was not dependant upon the Constitution for authority; therefore,
the fall of the money system had no effect on it. Basically, there is no provision within
the Constitution which requires that either the United States or the District of Columbia
make only gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt. To the contrary, Congress
was given exclusive authority over those areas to govern as it sees fit, including the
creation of acceptable currency for use in those areas. In addition, the Gold and Silver
standard did not apply to Americans; therefore, their standing remained unchanged.
Suddenly, there was a large group of people, the Americans, who had no governing
authority; and, thus, had no services available for protection, adjudication of problems,
and defense against foreign nations, among other things. There was, in fact, a large void
in this country. The resulting effect was that the trust in place for the Fourteenth
Amendment citizens (federal citizens) immediately began to fill that void by starting to
provide services for the original Americans. By a process known as operation of law,
the trust took over the responsibilities that the de jure government had been providing.
Operation of law is a manner in which rights and liabilities devolve upon a person by
the mere application to the particular transaction of the established rules of law, without
the act or co-operation of the party himself. In other words, by our behavior, acceptance,
and failure to object, a new governing authority took over.

The new authority, referred to as the trust or public trust, realized its lack of authority
over the American. After all, the American had done nothing wrong, he had not become
bankrupt, and he still owned everything. A plan was devised whereby the American
would voluntarily turn over authority to the trust. The first phase of that plan was
implemented in 1935 with the Social Security Act.
The Social Security Act was devised and employed by the trust for its members, and
appeared to be a very benevolent attempt on the part of the trust to provide for the basic
needs of its members. Remember, the great masses of lower income people in this
country, many of whom were already citizens of the United States, were in the midst of
living through the Great Depression, which had been raging for six years. The basics
necessary to sustain life were in question for many of these people. There were no jobs,
no money, and many times, no food. To help combat this problem for its members, the
trust issued numbers to each of its members which could identify them as a member of
the trust, and establish certain benefits on their behalf. The benefits were very limited at
first; however, a program called the WPA was placed into effect shortly after the passage
of the Social Security Act for the members of the trust. Its function was to supply trust
members with jobs so that they could feed and care for their families. This turned out to
be a noble cause with dire repercussions.
My Father was the third oldest son in a family containing 22 children, 18 of which were
living at home during the depression years. Although their heritage was as part of the
sovereign American People, they were poor farmers. Drought spelled what almost
amounted to their doom. My grandfather, along with the older boys, sought jobs to feed
the family, but none were available. From 1932 until late 1935, this entire family lived
on a grand total of less than $2.00 per week. That didnt buy much, even then. They
raised what they could, devised ways to kill rabbits and squirrels with rocks and traps,
and fished a lot just to eat. My Father reported to me that he never remembered being
full during that time. Then came the WPA offering jobs that paid $2.00 a day. That
was an enormous amount of money to them at that time. As soon as they heard about it,
my Father, grandfather, and two other brothers applied at the worksite for a job. Two

separate and distinct tables were set up at the worksite location, one to apply for jobs and
the other to apply for social security numbers. When my Father applied for a job, he was
told to go to the other table, get a number, and then he could be hired. He followed the
instructions, was issued a social security number on the spot, and began work that day.
The Barcrofts didnt go hungry anymore, and my Father went to his grave believing that
social security was the best single thing that ever happened to him in this lifetime, outside
of his strong relationship with his God. I am extremely thankful that he died before I
learned the true nature of social security.
After the WPA, the trust began adding other benefits, but there was a price to pay for
each. Moreover, the trust was created and operated by the same kind souls who had
forced this country into bankruptcy in the first place; and, it was (and is) their belief that
everything in this country rightfully belonged to them because they held the debt. Based
on that belief, these parties wanted to start collecting a sharecroppers fee from each
person living and working on their land. However, they feared, probably rightfully so,
that, if they told the people that their land had been taken, and that they could no longer
own anything, the people might rise up and take back what belonged to them, possibly
hanging a few crooks along the way. So a plan was devised whereby each time more
money was demanded from the members of the trust, new benefits or services would be
provided. It was the plan to make these trust members so dependant upon the benefits
offered by the trust that they would never consider leaving the trust; or, for that matter,
even challenging the basic authority of the trust. Their plan worked to perfection.
By 1938, the plan to have the trust as the primary authority within this country had been
fully integrated into the courts. The trust, fully commercial in nature, needed courts to
rule based on laws of commerce rather than the common law. To do this, a contract was
necessary. The contract, of course, was formed around the social security number, the
benefits offered through social security, and the considerations required from the
members in exchange for the benefits. Those who used the number were accepting the
benefits; therefore, the courts could operate under the presumption that anyone having a
social security number was a member of the trust and under commercial contract; and,

that commercial law was necessarily in effect. In 1938, Roosevelt released a document
entitled Restatement of the Law, which outlines the different usages and effects of law
after the bankruptcy of 1933. In 1939, in the landmark decision of Erie Railroad v.
Thompkins, the Supreme Court officially made commercial law the rule in all federal
matters stating that except in cases governed by the Constitution or treaties, state law
(commercial law or CODE) would apply. Here, the Supreme Court acknowledged that
there were still those who could demand common law and an Article III Court, but the
great majority of the cases had already switched to commercial law. Therefore, the
overriding presumption from that date forward was that every case before the court was
commercial in nature, and should be governed by commercial law/CODE. Anyone
coming in the common law would be required to rebut that presumption, and prove that
he had a right to the common law i.e. that he was one of the sovereign American People
with Rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, and that he was not under
contract [did not have a social security number], before he could be granted a hearing
under the common law. That system remains in effect today, except that now most of the
courts do not even have the authority to hear common law cases. Effectively, the courts
are obligated to make the presumption that any case before them is one of a commercial
nature. When you come into most of the courts of today claiming that you have a right to
a hearing in law, they simply cannot hear you. The matter is totally out of their
jurisdictional authority. Thats why you see so many frustrated would be protestors who
run around claiming that the courts are corrupt or that they didnt receive a fair hearing.
Their problem is always that they have gone into a trust court expecting to have the
judicial authority of the Constitution applied. Its just not going to happen, because the
court they are in is legislative in nature exercising the plenary power given by Congress
under its authority of exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia (United States),
its territories and possessions. These courts do not have the authority to hear
constitutional issues.1
1
Those who do not wish to be ruled by commercial law/CODE, should immediately request
a jurisdictional hearing before any other action in any case. In that jurisdictional hearing,
the overriding presumption that the man involved has a social security number or is

After 1939, there still existed the problem of a disparity between the people who were
members of the trust, and those who remained outside the trust, many of whom were part
of the sovereign American People. It was simply becoming unmanageable for the
governing authorities. One class of people possessed Rights that the second class did not
have, and the differences were readily apparent. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
devised to change all that. Cleverly disguised as an act to give equality to different races
of people, what it actually did was to raise the benefits [privileges] given to the trust
members [citizens of the United States] to an approximate level with the Rights owned by
the American. The idea was to make both classes look the same, convince the masses
that a citizen of the United States and the American are synonymous, then gradually
reduce the privileges of the citizen of the United States to a level more in line with the
needs of the trust. The idea was that the American, as a party to the trust, would lose
sight of his sovereign standing, and allow his Rights to be replaced with privileges under
the contract. The plan has worked extremely well. If you dont believe that, just go out
tonight and tell all your friends that there is a difference between a citizen of the United
States and an American. Then make note of the number that even know what youre
talking about. It wont be a long list. Then make a note of how many laugh at you or
think youre nuts. That will be a much longer list.
In order to administer to its members, the trust needed some form of rules and
regulations. Because most of its members were relying totally upon the trust, it was
necessary to have some authority which would serve in the stead of actual law for its
members. Such rules and regulations were created, and given the name codes. Codes
were established to govern the members of the trust only in their capacity as members of
otherwise under the authority of the United States must be rebutted. That is done by first
proving one's standing [American, and not citizen of the United States] by showing that no
social security number attaches to that man. Once that is done, the court loses jurisdiction,
the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act [28 USC 1603-1611] applies, and the man has
immunity from all charges.

the trust; in other words, artificial beings created by contract or other means. Codes were
never meant to govern a flesh and blood Man. As you will learn later, codes are still not
used to govern the flesh and blood Man, although they are structured in such a manner as
to make one believe they are doing exactly that.
We now look at how and where the trust exists, and exactly what nature of creature it is.
First, its name is always very telling. Lets take the name, The United States of
America. That name was ascribed in the Articles of Confederation and refers to the
Union, the States which joined together and were later incorporated by the Constitution.
But when that name is changed to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it takes on a
different meaning. The way a proper name is written is with the first letter of each word
being capitalized, while each succeeding letter is lower case. This rule applies unless the
name represents an artificial entity such as a trust or corporation. In state law, the names
of trusts and corporations must be written in all capital letters. Therefore, The United
States of America is the name of the Union of States joined by the Constitution. So
what does that make UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? That would be the artificial
entity acting in the capacity of a trust, and doing business as a foreign commercial trader.
Foreign? Yes, foreign, because it is an insolvent entity, witnessed by the fact that it uses
only instruments of debt as medium of exchange and payment of debts, it is obviously
foreign to the de jure The United States of America. In real terms, the States because
insular possessions of Washington, D.C.; therefore, Washington, D.C. law applied.
The trust is now accepted as the governing authority by well over 95% of the American
People. Mention that you are an American, but not a citizen of the United States, and you
will be immediately branded an idiot, a radical nut; or, worse still, a terrorist. The
demonization process has worked to perfection, so to claim your Birthright, you will have
to be well-informed and thick skinned. But the fact remains that the American still
exists; and, if you can prove your Birthright, you can still claim the sovereignty that
rightfully belongs to you.

CHAPTER 4 - THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
This chapter is going to be very technical and legal in nature, but it is necessary to follow the legal
maze that has been constructed as an obstacle to the American who wishes to understand the law as
it applies to him. To understand the so-called law, you must first understand where and how the
law is written. First, what most refer to as law is actually code. Remember that codes are intended
and authorized to regulate the activities of members of the trust in their capacity as artificial entities.
The body of those codes is found in the United States Code (hereinafter Code), which is
comprised of 50 different Titles, each with a different subject matter. Congress supposedly wrote
and approved the Code, but it has not enacted all of the Code into positive law, as you will soon
learn. Some of the code is special law which applies only to those who have agreed to honor that
law (The Internal Revenue Code is a Special Law). The second part of the so-called law is found in
the Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter Regulations). This is the body of rules and
regulations written by bureaucrats which are supposed to implement the Code. None of these
rules and regulations were ever voted on by anyone, yet they are treated as law within the trust. In
California Bankers Association V. Shultz, 39 L.Ed. 2d 820 & 830, the Supreme Court ruled that
neither the Code nor the Regulations could stand alone as law. In that decision, the Court ruled that
the Code was only broad, authorizing language, and that the penalties attach only upon the
violation of the Regulations thus prescribed. Therefore, in order for force of law to exist, it takes
both the Code and the implementing Regulations. Keeping this structure in mind will help you
understand the confusing facts which you are about to discover. Please, try not to make any pre-
judgments as to what you believe. Do your best to read the following pages with a clear mind, and
you may see that the law does not say what you have always believed it did. In the end, you will
see that the law means exactly what it actually says, regardless of what you may have thought it
said.
If you ask the people in America today what or who they fear most, a large majority would answer
the IRS. If you ask who or what the IRS is, most will tell you that it is the branch of the United
States Government that collects taxes, and that it is a government agency under the U.S. Treasury
Department. After all, isnt that what they say they are? Well, actually, no its not. If you
examine their paperwork very closely, you will learn some interesting facts. To begin with, their

symbol states, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury. Seems clear on the surface,
but a closer examination reveals an interesting fact - nowhere does it mention the United States, and
it does not state which Department of the Treasury it is a part of. After all, dont all countries and
most large companies have treasury departments? In fact, nowhere in any of the IRSs literature,
writings, letterhead, or designation are the words United States or U.S. found in relation to the
IRS.
Well, certainly this is just an error. So all we have to do is to go to the Department of the Treasury
of the United States (where they would like us to believe they gain their authority), and there the IRS
will be found as an agency under that department of government. Wrong again! Title 31 of the
United States Code is the Title devoted to the Department of the Treasury of the United States, and
Chapter 3 of that Title is the organizational breakdown. There are 10 agencies or offices within the
department, all listed. They are, (1) Department of the Treasury, (2) Treasury of the United States,
(3) Bureau of Engraving and Printing, (4) Bureau of the Mint, (5) Federal Financing Bank, (6) Fiscal
Service, (7) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, (8) United States Customs Service, (9) Office
of Thrift Supervision, and (10) Continuing in Office. Not a single word about the IRS. If you
follow through the organizational breakdown of each of these agencies within the Department of the
Treasury of the United States, you will find that the IRS is not even a sub-agency under any of those
agencies. Is the IRS so insignificant that it does not even get a mention? Do you still believe its
just a mistake? If so, stick around, because there are a lot more mistakes.
Several inconsistencies immediately appear if a close study of the Code and the Regulations is
undertaken. First, no Act of Congress ever created the Internal Revenue Service. If it were an
agency in the government of the United States, one could easily find the Act which created it. The
fact is that there is no such Act; and, when questioned about this fact, the IRS simply says that this is
a frivolous argument because everyone knows they exist. They will refer you to their own manual
(which has consistently been ruled to be inadmissible as evidence by the courts) where it states,
(emphasis added) ... The Bureau of Internal Revenue has been organized under the Act of last
session*** Also it can be seen that Congress had intended to establish a Bureau of Internal Revenue,
or thought they had .... This statement in their manual refers to the session of Congress of 1862, in
which the Congress created an Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The same

statement appears again in a similar publication in 1974, at 39 Fed. Reg. 11572, 1974-1 Cum. Bul.
440,. The statement essentially admits that Congress never created either the Bureau of Internal
Revenue or the Internal Revenue Service. It only created an Office of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. It clearly shows that the IRS itself cannot find anything whatsoever which
actually created an agency called either the Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of Internal
Revenue.
The truth is that every government agency was created by some official document, and that
document is easily found in the official records. The Federal Register is the official record of
everything that goes on in Congress, and every act that has been taken by Congress is recorded there.
The only time the Internal Revenue Service is ever mentioned in the Federal Register is in 1976,
Federal Register, Vol. 41, September 15, 1976, where it states, The term Director, Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms Division has been replaced by the term Internal Revenue Service. . So
according to the Federal Register, Internal Revenue Service is only a term (not an agency), and
Congress has never even considered making it a part of the United States Government. Are we to
believe that something as powerful and all-encompassing as the IRS has its authority to operate so
well hidden that even the directors of the agency itself cannot identify where their authority to act
comes from? You will find that this situation does not occur in any other agency of the
government. In fact, a true governmental agency is required to state its specific authority to operate
on request. Why would the IRS be any different? Moreover, if they truly had the authority that
they claim to have, why wouldnt they just tell you where the authority arises from and be done with
it? Authority cannot arise out of their own manual. The truth of the matter is that the Act which
created that Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (which was the only office or agency
ever created that could possibly be the IRS) was in 1862, and was repealed by the enactment of the
Revised Statutes of 1873. The IRS says that the Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
implied that Congress thought it had created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, and that Treasury
Decision 6038 changed that Bureau into the Internal Revenue Service in 1953. If that were the
case, why didnt Congress simply correct the error of not having properly created an agency with
such expansive powers? To do so would take very little effort on Congresss part, and would
completely settle the issue. The whole idea put forth by the IRS as to its beginnings and its authority

is patently false, because a Treasury Decision would not have the authority to create an agency in the
United States Government; and, even if it did, the fact would have to be confirmed in writing
somewhere at the Congressional level; and, therefore, be found in the Federal Register.
The reason that the IRS is not established by an act of Congress is because it is a function of the
trust, not the government. It was formed by those holding the debt against the United States as a
means of getting their sharecroppers fees from the people occupying what they consider to be
their land. As you will discover later in this book, the money collected by the IRS does not go into
the treasury of the United States; rather, it is for the private use of those who hold the debt against
the United States, and the debt is not getting smaller.
Title 26 of the United States Code is also referred to as the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter
IRC). This is the section of what is loosely referred to as law that the IRS relies on when it is
enforcing the tax laws. However, a close examination of the Title 26 shows that it has never been
codified and enacted into positive law. Clearly, this is because it is a special private law intended
for use only by members of the trust. Subtitle F of the IRC contains Chapters 61 through 80, and
Sections 6001 through 7873, inclusive. Within those Chapters and sections contained exclusively in
Subtitle F, are all of the enforcement provisions of the IRC. Subtitle F of the IRC clearly takes
effect, and therefore, gives authority, only after the enactment of Title 26 of the United States Code;
the day after, to be exact. The phrase, shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this
title is used within Subtitle F in reference to when its provisions will take effect. The enactment of
Title 26 has not occurred as of this date. This fact becomes clear in section 7851. In the case of
Subtitle F, the entire subtitle does not take effect until the day after the date of enactment of Title 26.
26 USC 7851(a)(7) refers to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, so this section is not an ancient
writing which has no meaning today. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 claims, in Section 1, to
have been enacted on October 22, 1986, as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (many of you who
were paying taxes prior to 1986 probably thought it was enacted long before 1986). The information
is sparse and convoluted. For evidence of the fact that Title 26 has never been enacted, we have
only to look at the Preface - 1988 Edition of the United States Code, signed by the then Speaker of
the House of Representatives, Thomas Foley. In the second paragraph, it states, ...Titles 1, 3, 4, 5,
9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49 have been revised, codified,

and enacted into positive law and the text thereof is legal evidence of the laws therein contained.
The matter contained in the other titles of the Code is prima facie evidence of the laws. (By the
way, prima facie means good on its face until challenged) In the same edition of the Code, under
the heading, Titles of United States Code, all 50 Titles of the Code are listed. Next to Title
numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, and 49, an asterisk
appears. No asterisk appears next to Title 26. At the bottom of the list appears the note, * This
title has been enacted as law. However, any Appendix to this title has not been enacted as law.
Here, it is clear that Title 26 has not been enacted as law. If that is true, then provisions of Subtitle
F of Title 26 are not in effect; and since all enforcement is contained within Subtitle F, no penalties
are available for failure to comply with Title 26. That is, unless you are a member of the trust; and,
therefore, bound to the special private law.
The fact is that the Internal Revenue Service could never be created by an act of Congress, because,
as a part of the government prescribed by the Constitution, it would be blatantly unconstitutional.
The maze begins to clear up as to what the IRS is and where it gets its power when we closely
examine Section 7805 of the IRC. IRC Sec. 7805(a) states, (emphasis added), Except where
authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the
Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the
enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any
alteration of law in relation to internal revenue. This is the section which gives the Secretary
authority to write the needful rules and regulations for Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. This
person is obviously the same Secretary that is empowered throughout the IRC to carry out all of the
enforcement of the Title. The Code identifies this person as The Secretary of the Treasury, but it
does not tell us which treasury he is the secretary of. To understand exactly who this person really
is, and where he derives his authority from, we must refer to the implementing regulations for this
section (written by this particular Secretary) for a definition of exactly who he is. To do that, the
government has printed what it calls the CFR Index, which is a cross-reference between the Code
and the Regulations. The CFR Index lists, as some of the implementing regulations for this section,

27 CFR parts 250-2522. Under 27 CFR Sec. 250.11, Definitions, the definition of Secretary is
given as, The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. This clearly refers to the Secretary who
is authorized by the IRC Sec. 7805 to make the rules and regulations necessary to the enforcement of
Title 26. That same Secretary is necessarily the person referred to throughout the IRC, who is
given authority to perform the tasks of assessing and collecting taxes. This Secretary obviously is
not an officer in the United States Government, and these are his own words telling you that. WOW!
How did that happen? Well, perhaps the motherland of the trust is Puerto Rico.
Remember the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933. In that bankruptcy, Banksters were the only
recognized creditors. The Federal Reserve Bank was turned over to those Banksters when the
United States admitted a verified debt to them. The right to print money and then loan it to the
government was part of the turnover and proof of that debt. But the Banksters were not content with
this license to steal that was handed to them on a silver platter. Instead, they saw an opportunity to
control everything, including the people. Because the nation was in bankruptcy, and the only form
of currency available for use were instruments of debt (Federal Reserve Notes), anything bought with
those notes became the property of the Federal Reserve Bank. Sounds crazy, but remember that a
Federal Reserve Note simply says that the holder of the note owes the Federal Reserve Bank the
amount of money shown on the face of the note. Imagine for a moment that you loan me some
money, and that I signed a note to you saying that I would repay that money at a future date. Lets
say that I then took that note, and traded it to someone who thought it had value for a car. Since the
note only signified that I owed you money, who would own the true value received from it? If it
were I, then I would have traded something with a negative value (because I owed you the money
used) for something with a positive value (a car). In doing so, I would necessarily have to commit
fraud.
2
2011 update Earlier this year, the United States Government, under the guise of "national security",
sealed this section of the code, meaning you can no longer see it or read it. It is now "Secret Law". It
contains most of the method and necessary information needed to use the remedies provided for you. This
is Sections 194 through 399, it is massive, and the information is vital in understanding the scheme that this
government has perpetrated upon its people. To verify, go on the internet to Electronic Code of Federal
Regulations, then go to Title 27, then try to go to section 250.11. Then get very mad, because you are still
held accountable for these sections that you cannot access.

Each time that you use a Federal Reserve Note to buy something, you trade something with a
negative value (remember that Federal Reserve Notes only record a debt of the United States to the
Federal Reserve Bank) for something with a positive value. The only party that can legally own
whatever you purchased is the one who owned the value side of the Federal Reserve Note, the
Federal Reserve Bank. However, since we are operating in a bankrupt system, we are allowed to
use the thing purchased as if we had actually purchased it. But we can never gain true ownership
of it with the use of Federal Reserve Notes. Clearly, the Federal Reserve Bank, with its Federal
Reserve Notes, is the vehicle used by the Banksters to implement their quest to control the people
whom they believe owe them a debt. The Federal Reserve Bank is the center piece of the trust. It
provides all the tools for the collection of the debt owed by the United States.
Getting back to the Secretary, and where he gets his authority, it becomes clear that the ones who
own everything, the Banksters, have placed their own Secretary in charge of looking out for their
interests. Have you ever wondered why the Federal Reserve Bank has never been audited by the
IRS? No other company of its stature can make that statement. Have you ever wondered how Alan
Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank) can come into Congress and dictate to Congress
everything from interest rates to what questions he will and will not answer? Note that Congress
never tells him what to do. Why? Simple; its the Federal Reserve Banks money, property, and
power which this de facto government is ruling with and for. Naturally, their man is running the
show.
So where does the IRS fit into all this? It is, in fact, a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. Thats
right, it is nothing more than a department of the trust which is operating under the assumption that it
owns everything. Still dont believe it? Go back to the definition of Secretary which tells you
that he is the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico. Remember that the Banksters who own the
Federal Reserve Bank are the only creditors of a bankrupt government, the United States. The
United States was never given the power over the Department of the Treasury of the United States to
do with as it saw fit, because that Treasury belongs to the Union (The United States of America),
more specifically, to the American People. However, the United States owns and rules the
territories as it see fit under plenary authority, and Puerto Rico is a territory. Therefore, it can cause
that treasury department to do its bidding. In this case, the treasury department of Puerto Rice was

turned over to the trust. Congress, using its unlimited legislative authority over the possessions and
territories and following the directions of its new lord and master, the Banksters, simply wrote
authority into the Puerto Rican Treasury Department, and then convinced the American public that
the authority arose from the American Laws. That is why Congress cannot enact Title 26 (the
Internal Revenue Code) into positive law - it just does not apply to Americans, unless they have
become members of the trust through contract.
By the way, Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States, but they are not Americans. As citizens
of the United States, they are automatically members of the trust. Now do you get the picture as to
who is required to file and pay taxes; or, for that matter, abide by any of the codes? Does the
term/title citizen of the United States take on any new significance to you now? Do you still want
to be a citizen of the United States i.e. a member of the trust? If so, keep reading, because the
worst is still to come.
Most of you have probably already heard the term voluntary compliance. When you heard it,
chances are you thought, Yeah, if I want to go to jail. Well, the truth is that we are under a system
of voluntary compliance. That does not, however, mean that you can either choose to pay taxes or
not. Its not that simple. What voluntary compliance means is that you can choose to participate as
a member of the trust, or you can choose not to participate as a member of the trust. There is nothing
in the middle. If you want to be a citizen of the United States and receive the benefits designed
especially for those members of the trust, then you obligate yourself by contract to abide by the rules
of the trust. Part of those rules say that you must pay a percentage of anything that you earn to the
trust. To do so, it is required that you file a return under penalty of perjury telling the trust how
much you earned and how much you owe the trust. If you lie on that return, you are committing
fraud, and you will be prosecuted under the applicable fraud laws, not under the IRC. Thats right,
you will most likely be prosecuted under the fraud laws contained in Title 18, not under Title 26.
And, you guessed it - Title 18 has been enacted into positive law. Contracts are protected by real
law. By the way, in order to file that return, you must put down your slave number (social security
number) and sign below it because that is the number that proves you are a member of the trust; and,
therefore, the trust is authorized to accept your money. Without that number, the trust has no
authority to accept your payment, even if you want you give it. Placing the number on the form also

restates your wish to remain in a contract for voluntary servitude to the trust. If you do not put your
slave number down, your return is invalid, and the IRS will not accept any money from you. Why?
Because if you are not a trust member, the trust would be committing fraud if it accepted your
money. The IRS has no jurisdiction over you, and it wants no part of you unless you are a member
of the trust. Should you be an American, you are far too powerful for anything in this de facto
government. So, the idea is to keep you from knowing how powerful you are, or could be if you
claimed your birthright.
But, you say, what about the debt and bankruptcy? Good question, but once again, we were duped.
The American People never gave the authority to the United States to print fake money and throw the
nation into bankruptcy. Therefore, the bankruptcy and the debt have no standing with Americans.
It just simply is not our debt. Imagine that you hire me to work on your car, and authorize me to buy
whatever parts on your credit that are needed to fix the problem. But instead, I use your authority by
going out and telling other people that I have your full authority to run all of your business affairs. I
then run up unbelievable debt in your name, and I have no way to repay the debt. I may even go out
and rob a convenience store trying to get money for the debt. It gets so bad that your only recourse
is bankruptcy. What would you then say? Would you go quietly into the night and file bankruptcy,
or would you be yelling that this was not your debt and youre not going to pay for it? Would you
treat me like a king, or would you have me thrown in jail? Would you spend your entire wealth
trying to pay the creditors which I created, or would you tell them, tough luck, you should have
made sure of my authority before granting the credit? Would you be willing to go to jail because I
robbed a store to pay off the debt? I think we all know the answers to these questions.
What the United States did was no different. Read the Constitution and find one place where it
authorizes the United States to do the things it did. Where does it authorize the stealing of true
wealth through the printing of certificates with no worth? Where does it say that the American
People turned over all their wealth to the United States for them to squander as they please? Where
does it give the United States the right to put the American worth at risk in any form? Clearly,
fraud, deceit, and outright theft has occurred in the United States Government for many years, and
its getting worse. Thats because Americans have been duped into believing that they are citizens
of the United States; and, as such, that the United States is all-powerful in their lives. Far too many

Americans have become apathetic and passive where their Rights are concerned. Fortunately, this is
a mistake which can still be corrected by those who wish to regain their birthright, but it will take
some intestinal fortitude on your part if you want to do so.
Have you ever heard the term collateral damage? Do you now understand what that term refers to?
If not, pay close attention. The term is always used when non-military or non-police people are
killed. What a strange term for people dying. Well, its not so strange once you understand it full
meaning. When this United States went bankrupt, it was forced to collateralize the debt to keep the
Banksters at bay. It did so with its only possessions its land and its people. The only people under
the authority and control of the United States were those in the trust, the citizens of the United States
under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also held certain possessions with regards to
land, that being the territories and enclaves within the several States. Those things it pledged as
collateral for the debt. However, that was not enough for the Banksters. They sought ways to make
the trust larger, including more land and people. A plan to trick Americans (explained in different
parts of this book by other methods) into becoming unsuspecting members of the trust was devised.
A plan to add more land to the pot was also devised. That was done primarily with the use of zip
codes. Since the United States owned the federal enclaves within the several States, anything that
could be turned into one of those enclaves would become part of the collateral. A zip code
designates a federal area. The first two numbers of the code designate which federal judicial area
you are in. In short, when you place a zip code after your address, you are establishing the fact that
you live in a federal area, properly numbered as such. You also give your full consent for the use of
your property as collateral for the federal debt. Thank you very much!
As for the IRS, if you are an American, it has only the power over you that you give it. If you give it
no power, then it has no power over you. But remember, it is so well entrenched that you will have
to be very sure of yourself to reclaim your freedom. It will do and say things which will scare the
pants off of you; and, dont underestimate them. The trust itself is comprised of treacherous leaches
who have lived off of your efforts for over 50 years, and it will do anything to keep its power; and,
the IRS is the most vile and evil arm of the trust. However, if you understand the real issue - that
the American is the sovereign - you can defeat it. The jurisdictional issue rules over all else, even in
the corrupt corporate courts which oversee the Code and Regulations today. None of the IRS agents

will want to butt heads with a sovereign who knows hes a sovereign. Just make sure that you have
zero contracts with the trust before you have a confrontation.
The true definition and structure of the IRS is that of one branch of a trust whose purpose is to
collect payment toward the debt owed by the United States from persons who have contracted with
the trust to become members and accept said responsibilities; and to receive certain benefits and
privileges from the trust. Their power comes from a contract, and it is virtually absolute with regard
to the persons who are members of the trust.
You must never trust anyone who even works for the IRS or the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, another branch of the trust). They are not just good people doing their jobs. They are
the embodiment of all that is wrong in America today, and they are inherently evil. Their job is to
break down the American to the point where he no longer even knows what his power is, and to
destroy the American way of life. Once that is fully accomplished, it is their duty to rule over the
members of the trust in a manner fitting the slaves they have become. If you have friends working
for the IRS or ATF, and they are ignorant of these facts, then they are ignorant and evil. If they get
your trust, they will use it against you one day. If you do have friends that work for either the IRS or
the ATF, get new friends.
Author's update:
It should be noted that some 10 years after the first writing of this book, 27 CFR 250.11, that
section of the code that tells you who the IRS is and from where their authority arises, along
with all the other [very important to you] regulations between 27 CFR 194 and 27 CFR 399,
has been restricted from public viewing. In other words, while it still exists and is part of the
code for which you are held accountable, you cannot get a copy of it or read it i.e. it is now
"secret law/code". This is a huge body of law/code that is now unavailable for study or use in
the courts [unless you can get a copy of it]. It is also full information necessary to your
remedy against the treasonous bastards who hide it from you.

Don't believe there is secret law in the United States? Search the internet for "Code of Federal
Regulations". Then go to the "Electronic Code of Federal Regulations". Go to Title 27, then
go down the list of sections. When you get to sections 194-399, it states [in red letters],
"[Reserved]". Excuse me?? Is this not part of the code that I am held responsible to know?
What this means is that we now have secret law within the United States. The last country to
impose secret law was Nazi Germany.
If you can find a library with older books, you can still read and use this secret law. It is still
in effect, and you are held accountable for knowing it.
You might want to give this some thought. That portion of the Code must be giving the
"masters" a whole lot of trouble, and they are willing to do anything to protect their scam.

CHAPTER 5 - WHAT IS THE UNITED STATES
I know that by now you must be wondering where all this is going. You have always believed that
you were born and raised in the United States. Everybody knows that Texas and California and
Virginia and the other forty-seven states are all part of the United States - right? Not so fast here.
The truth is that the term or name United States has several different meanings. Even the Supreme
Court said so. In a case entitled Hooven & Allison Co. V. Evatt, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, 324
U.S., 1944, the Court made the following statement, the term United States may be used in any
one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to
that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the
sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are
united by and under the Constitution. This is obviously not as simple as we were always led to
believe. In the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter IRC) as of May 15, 1990, at section 3121(e),
certain definitions are given. First, the term State is defined as, The term State includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American
Samoa. Here, it must be emphasized that, because strict construction of the Statutes is required
(meaning they must be read exactly as written), when the word includes is used anywhere in the
Code in a legal sense, it is a term of limitation, in that the only things included are whatever follows
in that definition. Therefore, everything that is included in this definition must be listed after the
word includes. But I thought these were territories, not States, and what about Texas and
California and Virginia? Next, the definition of United States is given as, The term United
States when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. But what about Texas and California, and the others? This
section then goes on to state, An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
(but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for the purposes of this section,
as a citizen of the United States. Seems clear, right? But the purpose of this section is income
taxes, and someone who is otherwise a citizen of the United States is not a citizen of the United
States under this section; and, therefore, not liable for these income taxes. Who could that be?
How about an American who had lived in Puerto Rico long enough to be a citizen there also? For
the purposes of income tax, he would not be considered a citizen of the United States. Very
interesting, but let us continue.

Since the thing that more people object to about being a citizen of the United States is the income
tax; and since that income tax is the major negative at this time of being a citizen of the United
States, we need to really understand how and why it works. To understand what the United States
relates to when the subject of income taxes comes up, lets go to a place where we can easily look at
a before and after picture of a territory which became a state of the Union. First, lets go to the
Public Law 86-70, the Alaska Omnibus Act. Lets go directly to the portion of the law relating to
the IRS. That section is 22(g), and it says, Section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
(relating to the definition of United States) is amended by striking out the Territories of Alaska
and Hawaii and inserting in lieu thereof the Territory of Hawaii. Wait a minute, why was Alaska
part of the definition of the United States before it became the forty-ninth state of the Union; and
why would they take Alaska out of the definition of the United States if it had just become a state in
the United States? The next definition, found at section 22(h) says, Section 7701(a)(10) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to definition of state) is amended by striking out
Territories and inserting in lieu thereof Territory of Hawaii. (Here, you must remember that in
1958, the United States had only two territories, Alaska and Hawaii.) Based on that definition,
Alaska was a State within the United States until it became one of the Union of States (Republics)
known as The United States of America, and then it was no longer either a State or a part of the
United States. What a revolting development this is! We get even a clearer picture of what goes on
when we look at Public Law 86-624, the Hawaii Omnibus Act. We will go to the sections of the
law which cover the information given for Alaska, that being section 18(i), where it states, Section
7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to the definition of United States) is
amended by striking out the Territory of Hawaii. Section 18(j) states, Section 7701(a)(10) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to definition of state) is amended by striking out the
Territory of Hawaii. If that doesnt give you a clear picture, I dont know what could. Here, it
is clear that when Hawaii became the Fiftieth state of the Union, it stopped being a state and left the
United States. It was a part of the definition of United States, and that part was taken out. So what
is the United States? It is Washington, D.C., the Territories, and the Federal enclaves within the
Fifty states of the Union; more specifically, everything that is owned by the United States, and under
the exclusive legislative control of Congress. The United States does not own Texas or California
or Virginia or any of the other forty-seven Republics, and they are not part of the United States.
Today, there are four Territories/States. They are Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the

Virgin Islands. These, along with Washington, D.C., make up the states of the United States. They
are also automatically included as member states of the trust, because none are among the several
States of the Union, thereby possessing constitutional authority for its people. Still wonder why the
IRS gets its authority from the Secretary of Treasury of Puerto Rico? Think about it.
What does all this mean to you? To discover that answer, we go to the Income Tax Regulations at
26 CFR Section 1.1-1. This is the section where the IRS would have you believe that you are made
liable for the income tax. It states, (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income
tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the
extent provided by section 871(b) and 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
26 CFR 1.1-1(b) states, Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all
citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the
income tax imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the
United States So, this tells us who the income tax is imposed on, but we need to really
understand who this person is. At 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) it tells us by stating, Who is a citizen. Every
person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen Notice
how this wording mimics the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. If Texas is
not a part of the United States, then I was not born, nor do I live, in the United States. I certainly
dont spend much, if any, time in Washington, D.C. or any of the territories, and I have never been
naturalized there. I must not be a citizen or resident alien of the United States, based on their
definition!!! So, according to the Code, who am I?
Lets find out more about this interesting person called a nonresident alien who does not appear to
be affected in the same way by the income tax. To do so, we go to 26 CFR 1.871-2(a) where it
states, General. The term nonresident alien individual means an individual whose residence is not
within the United States, and who is not a citizen of the United States At 26 CFR 1.871-2(b) it
states, Residence defined. An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient
or sojourner is a resident of the United States for the purposes of the income tax Now this
nonresident alien sounds like me. So lets see how this person is taxed. At 26 CFR 1.871-7, it
states, Imposition of tax. (1) This section applies for the purposes of determining the tax of a
nonresident alien individual who at no time during the taxable year is engaged in a trade or business

in the United States. Except as otherwise provided in sec. 1.871-12, a nonresident alien individual
to whom this section applies is not subject to the tax imposed by section 1 or section 1201(b) but,
pursuant to the provisions of section 871(a), is liable to a flat tax of 30 percent upon the aggregate of
the amounts determined under paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section which are received from
sources within the United States Since I dont have any income from sources within the United
States, it doesnt sound like I owe any taxes! To further understand what this means, we go to 26
CFR 1.1402(b)-1(d) where it states, Nonresident aliens. A nonresident alien individual never has
self-employment income.such nonresident alien individual will not be subject to the tax on self-
employment income, since any net earnings which he may have from self-employment do not
constitute self-employment income. This nonresident alien really seems like he has all the
advantages, and I sound like one of them.
Blacks defines non-resident alien as, One who is neither a resident or a citizen of the United
States. Citizenship is determined under the federal immigration and naturalization laws (U.S. Code
Title 8). Title 8 defines alien as any person not a citizen or national of the United States. It
further defines national of the United States as (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a
person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United
States. So, who is a nonresident alien of the United States? One non-resident alien of the United
States is the American who has not naturalized as a citizen of the United States pursuant to the
Fourteenth Amendment, and does not reside within the United States. If you find that hard to
believe, follow the definitions very closely. First, does an American live in the United States?
Some might, but most do not. Remember that the Fifty Republics known as The United States of
America are not in the United States. Second, is he a citizen of the United States? Not unless he
has entered into a contract to become one, and has not yet released himself from that contract. Does
he owe permanent allegiance to the United States? As an American, he owns everything and he is
the sovereign. The United States actually owes him allegiance, because the United States was
created by the States of the Union to serve the Americans needs. It is very clear that if you are a
fully empowered American living in Texas (or any of the other 49 Republics), you are, in fact, a
nonresident alien to the United States; more specifically, to the trust. As such, the only income that
you owe any income tax on is that which you get from the United States. If you were one of the big
defense contractors, you would not want to be taxed as a non-resident alien, because most, if not all

of your income would be from the United States. If you were a government employee, your income
would be from a source within the United States, and you would probably want to be taxed as a
citizen of the United States rather than pay a flat 30% tax on all earnings from within the United
States. But, if youre like most of us, you probably receive very little or none of your income from
within the United States, unless it is by contract, which you can break. In that case, according to the
Code, you owe no tax! But how could that be? If you are an American, you do not owe the debt
which the United States ran up through totally unlawful actions. If you are a citizen of the United
States i.e. a member of the trust, or if you reside within the United States, the corporate United States
Government requires that you help pay the old debt to the Banksters. Thats why you should be
very careful about the use of zip codes in your address. If zip codes identify a federal zone, and you
use a zip code within your address without a disclaimer, you are admitting to residence within a
federal area. Therefore, you fall under the provisions of The Internal Revenue Code.
I have had many people ask, if I dont pay my fair share, how will the government run? That
answer is simple. First, the government does not run on your income taxes. Those taxes all go to
the Banksters as payment toward the old debt. Up until 1992, the backs of checks that you wrote to
the IRS were endorsed To Any FRB as payment of US Obligation. How did the Federal Reserve
Bank, a private corporation, get your tax money? Also, find any place where the Federal Reserve
Bank ever transferred any of these tax dollars back to the United States Government. It never
happened. Moreover, this country is run on excise taxes, just like it has been run since its creation.
Everything you buy has excise taxes on it, and these taxes go directly to the government.
Remember, this country existed for almost two hundred years, and became the greatest nation ever
on earth, without any income taxes. Nothing really has changed except a bunch of thieves found a
way to steal the American Birthright, and this country would not fall apart if they were all executed
tomorrow for their crimes against mankind, and we returned to a no income tax system.
But, you say, how does this affect my citizenship? The whole system that is attempting to steal your
true birthright using this vehicle as the cornerstone of its attack on your freedoms. Your tax status is
also the status assigned to you for the rest of this corporate, de facto government. So if you can
remain clear of the IRS with regard to the income tax, you have also managed to reclaim your

sovereignty, along with all your other Constitutional Rights. Remember, since Title 26 is special
private law, you must be a member of the trust before its provisions can be enforced against you.
The tax system is more about total power for the persons running it than it is money. If they can
control your pocketbook, they know you will follow. Remember that their power to tax you on your
income comes only as a result of your membership in the trust. If you retain or regain your
sovereignty, their powers against you are void. But anytime you use a social security number for
any reason, you state that you are, and you want to remain, a member of the trust. You must
remember that these are sneaky, undermining, back-stabbing scum buckets who will do or say
anything to maintain their power over you. They have legally changed the meanings of words for
their purposes in order to make you believe things which are not true. Just a few examples of this
deceit follow. The word person is thought by most people to mean someone just like themselves.
However, the definition used in the U.S. Code is, any individual, partnership, association, company,
or other incorporated body of individuals or corporation, or body politic. Moreover, a person is a
member of the trust, artificial in nature. So, when you refer to yourself as a person, you step into
their world of false entities. Worse still, when they refer to you as a person, they definitely are not
referring to the American you think you are; and, when you respond, you admit to being an artificial
entity that is a subject to their rule with no Constitutional Rights. The Supreme Court said, in United
States V. Fox, Since in common usage, the term person does not include the Sovereign, statutes not
employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. Remember that the one made liable
to file income tax returns were persons made liable.
Then there is the word shall. Most of us have thought the word shall when used in the Code
meant that you are required to do whatever follows that word. Not so, according to the Supreme
Court who, in Cairo and Fulton R.R. Co. V. Hecht, 95 U.S. 170, stated, As against the government,
the word shall when used in statutes is to be construed as may, unless a contrary intention is
manifest. So in every place in the Code where you see the word shall, simply replace it with the
word may, and then reread the sentence. You will find the meaning to be very different. Also,
you will never find any place in the Internal Revenue Code that requires you to do anything.
Anytime the word required is used in the IRC, it is in the context of when required or if
required. The reason for this is simple - it would be unconstitutional for the United States to

require an American to do anything without that particular American previously breaking one of
the laws for which he surrendered jurisdiction. In other words, the command has meaning only to a
member of the trust. If you wish to remain a member in good standing, you follow the request. So
every time that it appears that you are ordered to do something in the IRC, the word shall or 'must
(the word must has been ruled to mean may also) is used instead of the word required. The
sorry Bastards! Unfortunately, this short list of words for which the meaning has been changed is
non-exhaustive. The list is almost never ending, and more will become evident in this writing.
To answer the question of, What is the United States?, we must put all of the facts that we have
learned together. First, let's see what it is not. It is not the fifty sovereign Republics known as the
United States of America. That becomes obvious in the small amount of information given you in
this writing, and there is much more information to prove that fact. It is not even the de jure
government established by the founding fathers to provide for the common defense and insure
domestic tranquillity. That government spent, stole, and cheated itself into bankruptcy in 1933.
What the United States is today is a part of a trust, referred to by our so-called leaders as the public
trust, which operates on behalf of the Banksters who hold the notes on the de jure United States
under the bankruptcy of 1933. The entities now operating in the place of the fifty Republics are
actually foreign, insolvent commercial traders doing business as an implied, charitable, or resulting
trust under the name of THE STATE OF TEXAS (or one of the other states). The trust has no
authority over anyone other than its members, it is insolvent because it uses only instruments of debt
as its currency in payment of debt, and it is foreign to the de jure The State of Texas for those
reasons. Therefore, as a Texas American, THE STATE OF TEXAS is a foreign state operating
within the external borders of Texas to provide services for its members. This move was completed
in 1939, and was marked by the ruling by the Supreme Court in the Erie Railroad case. This case
marked the first ruling which abandoned common law in favor of commercial law, thus ushering in
the era of the trust. The actions by the United States and the fifty several States give the appearance
that everything changed, and that the American people are no longer the sovereign. That is the exact
image that those in charge of the trust would like to portray to you; however, the truth is quite
different. The Supreme Court, in Julliard V. Greenman, 110 U.S. 121, said, There is no such thing
as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country
sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their

constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld. In Yick Wo V.Hopkins and Woo Lee V. Hopkins,
118 U.S. 356, the Supreme Court said, Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law for it is the
author and source of law. What these two cases tell us is that with the American lies sovereignty;
and, therefore, his power is the source of law. That law cannot, then, be used to undermine and
control the one whose power supports it. Numerous other cases support this fact. What it all
comes down to is the simple fact that the United States IS NOT the sovereign with regard to the
American, as those who control it would have you believe. What also becomes clear is that the
United States has become the sovereign to the trust members i.e. citizens of the United States, and
their power over those citizens is almost absolute. In fact, their power greatly resembles that of
King George III of England at the time of the American Revolution. Many, if not most, Americans
have contracted themselves into a state of voluntary servitude by becoming members of the trust,
much like the subjects of the King in old England. Here, the good thing is that they can reverse this
situation by canceling the contract, thereby becoming the sovereign once again. The bad thing is,
not very many of them will.
By the way, this corporate United States even has its own flag, which many of you honor regularly.
It looks like the American flag with a yellow fringe around it. It is military in nature, and is the
symbol of the trust. It should not be honored by an American, because it represents that which
would destroy America. Officials will tell you that the flag with the yellow fringe is the ceremonial
American flag. Dont believe its true. If that were true, there would be a testimony to that fact in
writing. The truth is that such a flag does not even appear in a flag book of nations. Thats because
the flag is a commercial flag of the trust; and, as such, it has no place in a book of national flags. Go
to any flag book or authority, and they will tell you that everything on a flag has a specific reason and
meaning. Then try to find any situation where the American flag has any yellow fringe around it.
The yellow represents the color of the character of those who honor and support it. Remember that
any change in a flag changes the meaning of the flag.
Americans have become weak, pitiful excuses of men, without the courage to follow in the footsteps
of their brave forefathers. Apathy controls unless it is our ox that is getting gored at the particular
moment. What no one seems to understand is that the goring of any Americans ox is the goring of
every Americans ox. Our strength is in our unity, and in the wonderful Supreme Law left to us by

our forefathers called the Constitution. Within that document lies all of the power and authority that
we need to remain free, independent people. The problem is that the United States has tempted our
people with the easy life, with few worries, and a master who will take care of most of the worries
that might bother us. It seems that none of us want to take responsibility for ourselves anymore.
We would rather have a master to solve our problems, tell us what to do and how to live our lives,
care for us when we get old, take care of our family members when they cant provide for
themselves; and, in general, make or approve every decision before us. If you want someone else to
do that for you, stop reading now and return this book for a refund. That is not what being an
American, and being free, is about. It is about making your own decisions and living with the
consequences or rewards of those decisions. Its about deciding for yourself whether or not you
need to wear that seatbelt, and then living (or dying) with the decision. Its about providing for your
own old age, and helping your family members through theirs without help or interference from any
master. Its about earning your own living, and keeping what you earn without someone coming
and telling you that you should be paying your fair share of somebody elses bill. Its about doing
anything you want to do as long as you do not damage someone elses life, liberty, or property. Its
about accepting fair and just punishment when you do intentionally damage someone elses life,
liberty, or property. If that sounds like you, keep reading. If not, stop reading now and just
continue being a slave. Thats all youre good for, and you dont deserve your birthright!
American or member of the trust, its your choice.

CHAPTER 5 - THE COURTS
The court system of today is geared strictly for citizens of the United States i.e. members of the trust.
Thats right, if you are an American with full Constitutional powers, the courts have virtually no
jurisdiction over you, and nothing to offer you. Its true that they will take jurisdiction, or attempt to
take it under the presumption that you are a member of the trust; but the facts are clear in that no
authority exists for the trust courts of today to take jurisdiction over an American, unless by contract.
Thats because all courts as you know them today are commercial in nature. Yes, even matters
considered criminal are commercial matters in the courts of today. Ever wonder about the term
charge in relation to an offense? The courts are commercial because they operate by contract
under the national bankruptcy. So how did you get there?
Since the courts operate commercially under contract, there is an overriding presumption that anyone
who enters the court is a member of the trust; therefore, under contract for the court to adjudicate the
problem being presented. Silence is consent, so when you come forward and answer to the court, the
presumption that you are a trust member contracted to the court is verified, and the court has gained
jurisdiction. If you successfully rebut the presumption that you re a trust member, the court cannot
gain jurisdiction, and it must rid itself of you in the fastest possible way. None of these courts are
authorized to hear Article III cases, because the States have fallen because there is no real money to
back them [Article I Section 10 of the Constitution]. Therefore, if you are an American who has not
waived his constitutional rights by contract, you are immune from the jurisdiction of these court
unless you have intentionally damaged the life or property of someone else.
The courts are all trust courts, and their main function and duty is to protect the interests of the trust
at all costs. They enforce the statutes and codes, and statutes and codes are intended for use by the
trust and its members; in other words, special and private in nature. I realize that this is a big bite to
swallow, so I will attempt to break this down into a simpler form.
Remember that all power flowed (and flows) from the American (American) down to the State, and
then further down to the United States. The powers given are specific, and they have changed very

little in the 200 plus years since they were established. The jurisdictional authority passed down
was very limited as it applied to Americans, and almost unlimited as it applied to anyone else with
whom the United States might be dealing. This was all well thought out, and it was exactly what the
founding fathers intended. They wanted the United States to deal with the foreign countries with
full authority, because that would be the best way of providing for the safety and convenience of the
individual Republics which it represented. They wanted very little authority passed to the United
States over the Americans, because they had full intentions of remaining the sovereign. Remember,
the main purpose of the Federal Court System; and, therefore, the Federal Laws, was to adjudicate
problems between the States, settle controversies in which the United States was a party, settle
matters between Americans and foreign states or its citizens, and to govern in the very limited areas
of jurisdiction for which authority was given over the American. The other purpose of the Federal
Laws was to govern federal citizens.
So what is a federal citizen? In essence, there is no difference between a federal citizen and a citizen
of the United States. Simply, it is that person who resides within the trust and its possessions, who
cannot or does not claim Sovereignty in one of the 50 Republics of the Union. A prime example of
a federal citizen of today who has no choice would be the Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rico is a territory
of the United States. In plain language, that means that the United States owns Puerto Rico. As
such, it became a part of the trust as a result of the 1933 bankruptcy. Its citizens are citizens of the
United States (trust members), but they are not Americans. They do not have Constitutional Rights,
but they do have civil rights under the terms of trust membership. In other words, they have the
privileges and immunities provided by the Fourteenth Amendment, but not the true Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution for Americans.
The United States had to have laws with which to govern the growing numbers of federal citizens.
These citizens increase every time a new immigrant applies for and is granted admission into the
United States. No state allows these new immigrants passage into this country, so they all come as a
result of Federal authority. Therefore, the citizenship which they seek, and many eventually are
granted, is federal citizenship, i.e. citizen of the United States. It is warded by first granting limited
membership into the trust by the issuance of a social security number, and later by bestowing full
trust benefits. They can never become Americans, and they will never have full Constitutional

powers, because you either are an American from your birthright, or you will never be. Virtually all
of the federal laws are written to govern the federal citizens.
Only the laws which specifically address issues for which jurisdiction was specifically given in the
Constitution affect Americans. Those issues all are known as Common Law issues. In other
words, actual intentional damage has to be inflicted upon another persons life, liberty, or property in
order for jurisdiction to be taken over an American. But federal laws, using plenary authority, have
no Constitutional limits other than due process placed on them, can grant jurisdiction to the
government for any reason that the government wishes. Those laws can be changed at will with
very little effort (many times by nothing more than a bureaucrat writing a new regulation), and the
intention of the perpetrator is not an issue; so that a person can commit a crime without intending
to do so, or knowing that he has done so. Laws such as these give the government almost total
control over the people. Unfortunately, because there is no limit as to the legislative authority of
Congress over its possessions, the power to govern was easily transferred to the trust with regards to
its members. That is why most who are reading this book are currently bound by the private law of
the trust, which is being administered and enforced by someone other than the de jure federal
government.
Common laws do not require an elaborate court system because they could easily be decided in the
local communities by the people, as they are clear and virtually indisputable. But the rules and
regulations of the trust are anything but clear, and disputes are what make the system work. They are
aptly named codes, meaning that some special action to unlock the secrets contained therein is
necessary to understand the meanings. The trust operates totally in commerce, and it operates under
bankruptcy. Therefore, everything it does is aimed at protecting the creditors collateral. Thus, the
primary thrust of the codes is to give creditors an unfair advantage over the debtor, and to protect the
collateral.
Here, we must remember that people are the primary collateral; therefore, the first duty of the trust is
to protect the people in a manner consistent with the needs of the trust. Thats why a number of
codes that tend to limit the individual freedoms that most of you believe you have are constantly
enacted. As an example, lets take the seat belt law. Clearly, there is no purpose for the seat belt law

as it refers to common law, because there is no greater or lesser danger to another party whether you
are wearing a seat belt or not. However, the trust is depending upon your continued contributions to
the maintenance of the trust, and wearing a seat belt could easily extend the period of time in which
you could remain a productive member of the trust. Not wearing a seat belt could cause you to
become an instant drain on the trust. Therefore, you are assessed a penalty if you are caught not
wearing a seat belt. Its just a little insurance premium to protect the trusts collateral.
Criminal matters work in almost the same manner. Charges are brought against an accused. Note
term charges is actually commercial in nature. Under the commercial trust code, what appears to
be a clear-cut case of murder can be twisted around to make the killer appear to be the victim; and
what would otherwise be the Right to act in your own best interest can be taken away for the good
of the many. Actually, its all for the good of the trust.
The original courts knew that two different classes of authority were present in the Union; and, they
knew that each class had to be treated differently. One had to be given Constitutional Rights, and
the other did not. After 1933, with the trust assuming virtually all of the duties previously handled
by the de jure government, the courts were handling trust cases under the codes almost exclusively.
Trust members were much easier and safer for the courts to handle, because they were subject to the
trust membership rules, and had no real power or rights other than those passed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Therefore, the consequences of ruling improperly were very minimal.
It became clear that it would be in everyones best interest if the government could classify all
people as members of the trust, thereby not having the worry about changing procedures and rules on
a case-by-case method. Obviously, it would be much preferred if all could be treated as citizens of
the United States. But, how could that be possible? The answer came about in the actual
paperwork required for the courts records. At the top of each document filed in a court case, there
appears what is called the styling of the cause. This includes the exact names of the parties, and
their respective position of plaintiff and defendant. In the names came the answer that the
government was looking for. An individual Americans name (sometimes referred to as his
Christian Name) is written in proper English with a capital letter at the beginning of each name,
and lower case letters for the remainder of the name (i.e. Jimmy Wayne Smith); and, initials are not

used for first or middle names. A corporations name is spelled using all capital letters (i.e.
GENERAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF TEXAS). (In case you did not already know,
corporations are artificial entities, and are creatures created by, and therefore subject to, the code).
Because an American has the unlimited power to contract, he can easily enter into a contract to
become, or act as, an artificial entity for a specific reason. In the court system being applied today,
we all become an artificial entity (corporation) by contractual agreement as soon as we respond in
any fashion to the court using the name of our artificial (corporate) entity (i.e. JIMMY WAYNE
SMITH). In doing so, we state to the court that we are there acting on behalf of our corporate entity
instead of as a living man. In all cases, the styling will be in all capitals, and responding with
anything other than a jurisdictional challenge by Special Appearance will give jurisdiction to the
court, because it will be stating that you wish to be treated as a citizen of the United States under the
trust rules (code) for the duration of the proceedings. In a criminal case, when the charges are read,
you can be assured that the styling of the cause is in all capitals; therefore, if you make a pleading,
you are asking the court to take jurisdiction under a contractual agreement for the duration of the
cause, and the court will rule by commercial law (trust code). You will also note that, in most cases,
there will be a corporate United States flag (with the yellow fringe) hanging in the courtroom,
indicating that you are in a commercial tribunal to be governed by trust law. Here, there are some
things which you need to be aware of. First, many of the offenses for which you may be criminally
charged are not laws for which an American can be held liable. For instance, Willful Failure to File
(an income tax return). But lets say that the government has indicted you for willful failure to file,
and you are brought before a federal judge for arraignment. He will read (or have read) the charges
which the government is bringing against you. At the end of the reading, he should ask you if you
understand the charges. You should always immediately challenge both the jurisdiction of the court
and the jurisdiction of the agency making the charge. Before a court can hear a case, it must have
jurisdiction over both the person and the subject matter. Personal jurisdiction is a geographical
district over which the court has jurisdiction. If you are an American and you do not live in the
United States, or you did not commit the alleged offense in the United States, then the court does not
have personal jurisdiction over you. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of charge and the
issues involved. For instance, a Federal court only has subject matter jurisdiction over an American
in the area of those specific powers delegated to it by the Constitution, all of which are common
law in nature. You have a fair chance of the case being dismissed immediately if you properly

challenge jurisdiction. However, because of the structure in place today, the court will make the
presumption that you are a member of the trust, and will attempt to rule accordingly. The problem
you will face is that the court you are in, and the judge you are before, does not have the authority to
hear causes or make rulings under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, and that is where your
remedy lies. He can only adjudicate Fourteenth Amendment issues i.e. trust issues. He actually
serves as an adjudicator of the facts under the trust for its members. If you are there, the presumption
is that you are a member of the trust, thus you name in all upper caps and the presumption that you
are required to follow the trust rules. The overriding presumption also assumes guilt, and proof can
be established by the existence of passive acts. (In common law, innocence is presumed and proof
must be established by a willful affirmative act). For example, under the trust codes proof of a crime
can be established by the fact that you failed to file a tax return. That lack of action could never lead
to a conviction of a common law crime; however, under the rules of the trust, that failure is a crime
and can result in prison time. Once again, the focus of the codes is to protect the creditors of the
trust, while the focus of the common law is to protect the rights of the real man.
In the trust courts, if the judge moves past your jurisdictional challenge, you still have a Right to
understand the exact law that you are being charged with violating under the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of Willful Failure to File, if you are an American,
wouldnt it be a little hard to understand how your servant (the government or the trust that replaced
it) can bring a charge against you for something that you never gave it jurisdiction over? A Bill of
Particulars (which you have a Right to demand) giving the exact law that you are charged with
violating may lead to a quick ending of the action against you. If you truly are not a member of the
trust, an action of a commercial nature against you is like the owner of a company being brought into
court and sued by one of his low ranking employees for not following a rule which that employee
made up without any authority to do so. (I do hope no one reading this finds that to be okay!) Here is
this de facto government which gets its power from you coming to you and charging you criminally
with failure to follow a rule that it set up without your approval or authority. Remember, all of this
governments power flows down from you. Since the trust gets its authority from the government,
the same holds true for it. The truth is that, by the terms (due process) of the Fourteenth Amendment
from which their power is derived, they must tell you the exact law which you are accused of
violating. If you understand the issues, it will be impossible for them to give you a law that says you

are required to file anything, and the case should be dismissed. But, if you plead, Not Guilty, then
you have not only given jurisdiction for the duration of this cause to the court, you have also
admitted that there is a law which applies to you. Basically, youve admitted that you are a member
of the trust. After that, it is purely a question of fact - did you file of did you not file? You are no
longer innocent until proven guilty, you are now a slave asking for your masters understanding and
mercy. Remember, under commercial law, the presumption is guilt.
To help you find the trees in the forest, imagine that you were brought before a judge and charged
with reading a book entitled, Capitalism, the Right Way. Imagine that after the charge is read to
you, you are told that the penalty if found guilty of this crime is 20 years hard labor. Now, imagine
that you are in a Dallas County, Texas, courtroom with a United States Federal Judge in front of you
and he says, How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?. How would you answer the question?
What you might want to do is ask, So whats the problem, even if I did read the book?. What if
the judge then told you, You are accused of breaking a law under the laws of the Red Chinese
government. We have a treaty with them, and I need for you to plead, guilty or not guilty? What
would you say? If you plead not guilty, and you had read the book, you would be committing
perjury (a crime punishable under American law), as well as admitting that this was a law which
applied to you. If you plead guilty (because you had read the book), then sentencing would be all
thats left to settle. This seems ridiculous, but this is exactly what the court system today does to
Americans. It charges them with a crime from the laws of a foreign state, the trust, which does not
apply to them; and does it in such a way that it is very difficult for the unwary to escape the
consequences that were never meant to apply to them. What you should do is to refuse to plead
until jurisdiction has been fully proven, and you understand what specific law it is that you have
broken and how it applies to you (you have a Right to know and understand this); and, you should
object strenuously, and continue to do so, if the judge tries to enter a plea for you. Once the plea is
entered, it becomes much harder to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. If the judge still enters a
plea on your behalf, you should immediately file an interlocutory appeal by special appearance.
This appeal may have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, but it should be ruled in your favor;
because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue several times. Once, in Hagans V. Lavine,
415 US 528, 533, N5, the Court said, Where jurisdiction is denied and squarely challenged,
jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist sub silento but must be proven. In any event, you have no

other choice, because they dont treat disobedient slaves very well; and, to do anything else is
admitting to being a slave.
Lets further examine the courts which you are likely to be brought before. It is common that most
of the lower level judges dont even realize what they are doing in regard to the jurisdictional issue.
They almost all believe that, if you live in their precinct or geographical area (or what they assume is
their geographical area), they automatically gain total jurisdiction over you. Take for example a
common traffic ticket. There are so many flaws in that instrument that its unbelievable. First, it is
the enforcement of a code, so the first presumption is that everyone who gets a traffic ticket is a
member of the trust. For the most part, that is correct, because in most states you now have to give
your social security number in order to get a drivers license. This practice is blatantly illegal, even
by the Federal Code. In the U.S. Code Title 42, section 408(a)(8), it states, Whoeverdiscloses,
uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number in violation of the laws of the United
States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under Title 18 or
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. So we must find a place in the Code which
makes forcing the disclosure of the social security number in order to receive a drivers license
unlawful. For that, we go to Title 5, section 552(a) under the heading of DISCLOSURE OF
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, where it states, It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State, or
local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law
because of such individuals refusal to disclose his social security account number. These two
statutes right out of the United States Code make the action of refusal to issue a drivers license
because of ones refusal to give his social security number a felony committed by the state and/or its
employees. States rely on Title 42 section 405(C)(i), which states, It is the policy of the United
States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general
public assistance, drivers license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the
social security account numbers issued by the Secretary for the purpose of establishing the
identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears
to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof
having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or
numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Secretary. Note several
things here. First, this is a policy, not a law. Second, it does not override any other law; if it did, it

would use the term notwithstanding such other law. Third, it uses a capital S in the spelling of
the word State, indicating that it is referring to the States of the United States i.e. the Territories.
Next, it clearly says that this applies to any individual who is or appears to be so affected .
Obviously, there must be people applying for drivers licenses who would not be affected by this
law. I wonder who they are. Last, this section comes before the section in the Code making it a
felony to deny a drivers license because of ones failure to disclose his social security number, so
Congress was not intending to end that mandate with this policy. The truth is that Americans do not
even appear to be so affected, if they know theyre Americans. The problem that presents itself here
for the government is that if you do not use your social security number to get the drivers license,
then the contract placing you into a state of voluntary servitude is not reverified, and you probably
dont need a drivers license to travel on the highways while in control of an automobile. Thus, the
presumption is automatically made that anyone applying for a drivers license must be part of the
collateral, or he would not need to ask for the privilege to drive. The problem here is that many of
the so called law enforcement officers dont realize that Americans are not bound by the trust code
unless they are members of the trust, and an American can be constantly harassed if he tries to travel
around the country without a drivers license. Also, no other form of identification is made
available for Americans wishing to use this form of travel. Most of the Law Enforcement Officers
are so ignorant that they actually believe that they are protecting freedom; when, in fact, they are the
front-line tool being used to undermine the freedoms of every true American.
But let us move forward assuming that you have gotten a drivers license by using your social
security number. You then get a traffic ticket. The lower courts call this a criminal offense. The
problem is that, in most of the States, it is a civil statute which is being enforced. In Texas, as an
example, all the traffic laws are found in Vernons Civil Statutes. Yet, THE STATE OF TEXAS
attaches criminal penalties to the violation of same. However, the maximum penalty available to the
courts in Texas for most traffic offenses is a $200.00 fine. Nowhere in the law is any jail time
provided for a traffic offense. Yet the county jails are full of people who have done no more than
failed to pay a traffic fine. Does this amount to debtors prison? The truth is that it does.
However, as a member of the trust, you have submitted to these rules. The courts will tell you that a
fine is not a debt, but they cannot show you any way that they have a legal right to put you in jail for
any traffic offense, even under their ungodly Code. There are even UNITED STATES SUPREME

COURT (the trust court) cases which say that the penalties imposed cannot exceed the maximum
penalty provided by law (which even one hour of imprisonment does), but they continue to lock
people up anyway. Why and how does this happen?
The overriding question is how can the courts get away with these rulings? As I told you earlier,
Americans can only be tried under common law. Under federal common law, the federal courts
only have jurisdiction given them by the Constitution. Blacks defines federal common law as, A
body of decisional law developed by the federal courts. The application of this body of common law
is limited by the Erie doctrine and by the Rules of Decision Act, which provides that except for cases
governed by the Constitution, the treaties of the United States, or acts of Congress, federal courts are
to apply state law. Think about that definition. Common law only applies in cases governed by
the Constitution. But I thought all cases were governed by the Constitution. Not a case involving a
member of the trust with rights only under the Fourteenth Amendment, i.e. a citizen of the United
States. That is why common law is almost lost - virtually every case in the courts today is for a
trust member, or someone who thinks he is and doesnt object to being treated like one.
This system started in 1939 with the supreme Court case of Erie Railroad Co. V. Tompkins, 304 US
64. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that state law (commercial or trust law) would be the
standard of the federal court system from that date forward in all cases except those governed by the
Constitution. That completely changed the course of the federal judiciary, and ushered in the
Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter UCC) as the standard for all future cases. The UCC is an
Admiralty Maritime law which is supposedly reserved for courts outside of America; but through the
deceit and confusion, has become the law of the land. What actually happens is that you leave
America when you step into an Admiralty courtroom which applies the UCC. The UCC is the law
under which all of the statutes, codes, and regulations dwell; but, it is still not applicable to an
American. That is why all courts must get you to agree to be treated as a citizen of the United States
or subject to its jurisdiction i.e. a member of the trust, or they have no jurisdiction. There are many
who believe that simply stepping through the rail gate which separates the viewing area (audience)
from the actual court area gives the court jurisdiction over your person; and, basically admits the
contract. The hiring of a BAR attorney definitely submits to the jurisdiction. Regardless, the UCC
is contract law in its strongest, most evil form, for it strips the American of all his God given,

Constitutionally protected Rights, and judges him as an artificial entity, a corporation, and a slave.
The UCC does not recognize or account for the fact that the sovereignty lies with the people. It only
looks at facts according to Admiralty (Commercial) law. However, it does protect itself, and in so
doing, gives the American the sword he needs in court. At UCC 1-103.6, it states, The Code is
complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A
statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative
intent to abrogate the Common Law. With regard to an American with full Constitutional Rights
in place, there can be no legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law without an act of Treason on
the part of the legislature, because the legislature was never given the authority to abrogate the
Common Law with respect to Americans. So what the UCC attempts to do is trick an American
into giving up his Rights through contract (does that sound familiar?). At UCC 1-207.9, it states,
When a waivawble right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a
loss of right, and bars its assertion at a later date. As we have already learned, almost any right is
waivable by contract, so this is a very encompassing and damaging section. In reality, it means that
anything which is claimed against you becomes a real liability to you which cannot be refuted after
the initial claim has passed. YOU MUST CLAIM YOUR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UNDER
THE FSIA AT FIRST INSTANCE. That principal was restated in a Supreme Court decision
earlier this year [2012] when a person who had been indicted and arraigned for the illegal filing of a
1099 OID attempted to reverse his position and claim sovereign immunity after he had entered a not
guilty plea. The Supreme Court ruled that sovereign immunity must be claimed at first instance.
You must get prepared before they come after you.
As a matter of reality, you cannot use the code [the UCC is part of the code] for any reason other
than to exclude yourself from it without taking a benefit from it; thereby tying yourself deeper into
the system. The only two sections of the code that I have found that is acceptable for a sovereign to
use is 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611 et al [the Foreign Sovereign immunities Act]; and 26 U.S.C. 508 (D), a
church. Both of these section were codified to be exculpatory of the code. In other words, they take
you out of the code, so yo cannot receive a benefit from the code.
When you are brought into court for any reason, the court will take silent judicial notice of the fact
that you have entered into one or more of these contracts which bind you in your corporate self to the

jurisdiction of the trust court i.e. that you are under the jurisdiction of the United States. It will be
very difficult to deny jurisdiction. There is, however, still a way to deny the court jurisdiction.
You8 must immediately declare immunity pursuant to the FSIA, and demand a jurisdictional
hearing. You should enter a certified copy of the public record of your Affidavit of Sovereign
Authority into the record immediately. Remember, in code, the public record is always right and can
never be ruled wrong. If the court refuses to let you enter it into the courts record, take the stand and
give testimony. Read your document into the record from the stand. The court will then have no
choice but to admit the document into the record.
Once the document is entered into the record, the question as to who you are is a settled issue you
are the sovereign. The public record says so, After that, you must only prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that you are not in contract that would cover your sovereignty. Any contract that could
cover your sovereignty necessarily must be under the authority of a social security number.
Therefore, you ask yourself two questions under oath: 1) Do you have a social security number?; and
2) Have you ever had a social security number? The answer o both question being no, you have
made you case. Stick to it through cross-examination and you will walk out of the courthouse in a
short period of time a Free Man. They will never bother you again unless you use the number again.
If you do, heaven help you because nobody else can.
There is one other great asset provided to you by this ungodly code that is intended to strip away
your freedoms, and it is the main tool which is used against you. Remember that an unrebutted
Claim stands as truth in this system. You can use that to your advantage, because it works both
ways. Basically, you are what you say you are. You can claim to be almost anything you want to
be; and, if you do so by sworn affidavit filed in the public record, it stands as unquestioned truth
unless rebutted by a sworn affidavit challenging it. Since no one on the other side is going to swear
to anything, you can claim virtually anything you wish. A black man from South Africa who has
been in this country one day can claim by sworn affidavit to be a white, native born American; and,
absent an opposing affidavit, that statement would stand as a proven fact in these trust courts.
Therefore, if you understand the system, you can turn it around to fit your needs. So, it is very easy
to prove in court that you are a fully Constitutionally empowered American. You simply put it in
sworn affidavit form, file it in the public record, submit it to the court, and dare anybody to

challenge it. Dont worry, no one will. I do not say, nor even suggest, that you should lie in a
sworn affidavit. I simply use the example above to show the power of the public record. Anything
can be proven.
But, you ask, if these are truly facts, how could it have ever come to pass that these Banksters have
been able to gain and keep all this undeserved power. The American people have become mice that
are either too scared, too ignorant, or too apathetic to do anything about the theft of their Rights and
their country. For the most part, they have sold their liberty and freedom for a loaf of bread (or a six
pack of beer). How sad, but some are beginning to wake up and realize what was given them, and
they want it back. For those, the years ahead will be challenging, but very rewarding. For the
others, they should remember that slave owners are not always benevolent, and they can change at
their own will. These would-be slaves should take a look back in time at the hundreds of societies,
including our own, in which the people gave their hearts, souls, and lives trying to free themselves
from tyrannical, totalitarian rule. What they fought and died for moreover, what our founding
fathers fought for, died for, and left us as our birthright we now hand back to the masters without
so much as a whimper. What a disgrace! Our founding fathers must be tossing wildly in their
graves.

Chapter 6 A Remedy Still Exists
As mentioned earlier, the courts today are run by the trust, for the trust, and with the
primary duty to protect the trust at all costs. There are no Article III Courts left. An
Article III Court simply cannot exist in a debt system. It is impossible. The Supreme
Court in, Ex Parte Bakelite Corpn 279 U.S. 438, distinguishes between the nature of
Article III Courts and other courts in that opinion with the following statements:
While Article III of the Constitution declares, in section 1, that the judicial power
of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, and prescribes, in section 2,
that this power shall extend to cases and controversies of certain enumerated classes, it
long has been settled that Article III does not express the full authority of Congress to
create courts, and that other Articles invest Congress with powers in the exertion of
which it may create inferior courts and clothe them with functions deemed essential or
helpful in carrying those powers into execution. But there is a difference between the two
classes of courts. Those established under the specific power given in section 2 of Article
III are called constitutional courts. They share in the exercise of the judicial power
defined in that section, can be invested with no other jurisdiction, and have judges who
hold office during good behavior, with no power in Congress to provide otherwise. On
the other hand, those created by Congress in the exertion of other powers are called
legislative courts. Their functions always are directed to the execution of one or more of
such powers and are prescribed by Congress independently of section 2 of Article III; and
their judges hold for such term as Congress prescribes, whether it be a fixed period of
years or during good behavior.
These Courts, then are not constitutional Courts which the judicial power conferred by
the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of
receiving it. They are legislative Courts created in virtue of the general right of
sovereignty which exists in the government or in virtue of that clause which enables
Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to
the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that
judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by
Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possess over the
territories of the United States. These Courts, , are legislative rather than
constitutional courts, which are not cases or controversies within the meaning of
Article III, but are merely in aid of legislative or executive action, and therefore outside
the admissible jurisdiction of courts established under that Article. [at page
452]The Court of Claims is such a court. It was created and has been maintained, as a
special tribunal to examine and determine claims for money against the United States.
Clearly, the Supreme Court draws the differences between constitutional and
legislative [code] courts in this opinion. Other opinions, such as the one found in

National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc., reiterate and support this
opinion. In ODonoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 the Supreme Court of the
United States held that the district courts are territorial legislative courts, created by
virtue of Article I, or under Article IV, Section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court stated:
This court has repeatedly held that the territorial courts are legislative courts, created in
virtue of the national sovereignty or under Art. IV, Section 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution,
vesting in Congress the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and that they are
not invested with any part of the judicial power defined in the third article of the
Constitution. And this rule, as it affects the territories, is no longer open to question. Do
the courts of the District of Columbia occupy a like situation in virtue of the plenary
power of Congress, under Art. I, Sec 8, cl. 17, To exercise exclusive legislation in all
cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession
of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of
the United States . . .? This inquiry requires a consideration, first, of the reasons upon
which rest the decisions in respect of the territorial courts.
The FSIA was passed to provide remedy for those whom have a Right to an Article III
hearing. Under its grant of authority, Congress was required to provide for remedy for
the sovereign American People under threat of Treason. After some 40 year in the
wilderness, Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 as revised in
1996 [FSIA]. For the first time since the bankruptcy of 1933, one of the sovereign
American People was provided with a reasonable vehicle through which he could receive
remedy from the trust; and, the remedy could be achieved in a court close to his place of
abode. In essence, the FSIA is a codification of Article III Section 2 of the
Constitution; and, was passed by Congress so that judges in courts of code could
hear the immunity bestowed under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, thereby
keeping said code judges out of Treason to the Constitution. I realize that it is hard to
understand how the FSIA could provide any remedy against the trust to an American,
because it, like most other laws and codes, was written in a manner intended to hide its
true purpose [to protect the Congress from a charge of Treason].
The reason that the FSIA can be used without taking a benefit from the code, thereby
owing consideration, is that it is exculpatory in nature. Use of it takes one out of the

code entirely. It simply states that there is no authority to bind this sovereign to the code
or its jurisdiction.
Many of you will have difficulty with the terms used in the FSIA with relation to
yourself. For instance, to take advantage of this FSIA, you must first be a foreign state.
How many that reading this book believe that they are a foreign state? I know I didnt.
Here again, we must visit the Act itself to figure out exactly what the term foreign state
means in relation to the FSIA. The FSIA is codified at Title 28, Sections 1602-1611.
First, we need to understand Title 28 Section 1603, which states:
For purposes of this chapter
(e) A foreign state, except as used in section 1608 of this
title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in
subsection (b).
(b) An agency or instrumentality of a foreign state means any
entity
(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,
and
(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other
ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof, and
(3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United
States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title,
nor created under the laws of any third country.
(c) The United States includes all territory and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States.
(d) A commercial activity means either a regular course of
commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or
act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined
by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular
transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.
(e) A commercial activity carried on in the United States by a
foreign state means commercial activity carried on by such state
and having substantial contact with the United States.
Now, lets break down what a foreign state is in relation to the FSIA. Here, you must
understand that the statutes are subject to strict construction, meaning that they mean

exactly what they say, and nothing else [otherwise, there would be constitutional
confusion]. Section 1603 (a) says that a foreign state includes a political subdivision , or
an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state. Therefore, under strict construction of the
statute, the definition of a foreign state does not include the state itself, only a political
subdivision, or an agency or instrumentality thereof. Tricky, huh?
Section 1603 (b) defines what constitutes an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state
with relation to the FSIA. It say that one must be a separate legal person, corporate or
otherwise. Do you fit that description? I know I do.
Next, one must be an organ of the foreign state. An organ is defined as, of or having
to do with an organ; inherent; inborn, constitutional; organized, systematically arranged;
in law, fundamental; as the organic law of the United States is the Constitution. Sounds
like the people who organized and formed the organic law (Constitution) of the United
States. Do you fit that? If you are the descendant of one of those people, and you claim
your inheritance, you do.
Last, it states that you must be neither a citizen of a State of the United States as defined
in 1332 (c) and (d) of Title 28, nor created under the laws of any third country. When we
look at Section 1332, it defines states as the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Once again, strict construction applies. Are you a
citizen of any of the Territories, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico? [If you have a social security number, you are] Next, were you created
under the laws of any third country? [this is the part that eliminates Frenchmen or
Englishmen or anybody except Americans] If not, and you answered yes to the first two
questions, then you qualify under the definition of a foreign state as defined in the
FSIA.
What does that mean to you? It means you can claim sovereign immunity from the courts
of the United States and of the States pursuant to Title 28 Section 1604, which states:
Subject to existing international agreements to which the United

States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign
state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the
United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605
to 1607 of this chapter.
Note that there is an exception to that sovereign immunity if you act in a fashion that
would activate Section 1605-1607 of Title 28. Without going into the exact details of the
exception, it can be summarized by simply saying that if you participate in commercial
activities within the United States, or if you damage another parties life or property, you
loose your immunity. Any form of business with the aid or use of a social security
number will activate this exception, and your sovereign immunity will be gone. For your
convenience, Title 28, Section 1605:
Sec. 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a
foreign state
-STATUTE-
(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of
courts of the United States or of the States in any case -
(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either
explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of
the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except
in accordance with the terms of the waiver;
(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity
carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an
act performed in the United States in connection with a
commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an
act outside the territory of the United States in connection with
a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act
causes a direct effect in the United States;
(3) in which rights in property taken in violation of
international law are in issue and that property or any property
exchanged for such property is present in the United States in
connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United
States by the foreign state; or that property or any property
exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or
instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or
instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United
States;
(4) in which rights in property in the United States acquired
by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in
the United States are in issue;
(5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which

money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal
injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in
the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of
that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign
state while acting within the scope of his office or employment;
except this paragraph shall not apply to -
(A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the
failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function
regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or
(B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or
interference with contract rights; or
(6) in which the action is brought, either to enforce an
agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a
private party to submit to arbitration all or any differences
which have arisen or which may arise between the parties with
respect to a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by
arbitration under the laws of the United States, or to confirm an
award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate, if (A) the
arbitration takes place or is intended to take place in the
United States, (B) the agreement or award is or may be governed
by a treaty or other international agreement in force for the
United States calling for the recognition and enforcement of
arbitral awards, (C) the underlying claim, save for the agreement
to arbitrate, could have been brought in a United States court
under this section or section 1607, or (D) paragraph (1) of this
subsection is otherwise applicable.
(b) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of
the courts of the United States in any case in which a suit in
admiralty is brought to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or
cargo of the foreign state, which maritime lien is based upon a
commercial activity of the foreign state: Provided, That -
(1) notice of the suit is given by delivery of a copy of the
summons and of the complaint to the person, or his agent, having
possession of the vessel or cargo against which the maritime lien
is asserted; and if the vessel or cargo is arrested pursuant to
process obtained on behalf of the party bringing the suit, the
service of process of arrest shall be deemed to constitute valid
delivery of such notice, but the party bringing the suit shall be
liable for any damages sustained by the foreign state as a result
of the arrest if the party bringing the suit had actual or
constructive knowledge that the vessel or cargo of a foreign
state was involved; and
(2) notice to the foreign state of the commencement of suit as
provided in section 1608 of this title is initiated within ten

days either of the delivery of notice as provided in paragraph
(1) of this subsection or, in the case of a party who was unaware
that the vessel or cargo of a foreign state was involved, of the
date such party determined the existence of the foreign state's
interest.
(c) Whenever notice is delivered under subsection (b)(1), the
suit to enforce a maritime lien shall thereafter proceed and shall
be heard and determined according to the principles of law and
rules of practice of suits in rem whenever it appears that, had the
vessel been privately owned and possessed, a suit in rem might have
been maintained. A decree against the foreign state may include
costs of the suit and, if the decree is for a money judgment,
interest as ordered by the court, except that the court may not
award judgment against the foreign state in an amount greater than
the value of the vessel or cargo upon which the maritime lien
arose. Such value shall be determined as of the time notice is
served under subsection (b)(1). Decrees shall be subject to appeal
and revision as provided in other cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction. Nothing shall preclude the plaintiff in any proper
case from seeking relief in personam in the same action brought to
enforce a maritime lien as provided in this section.
(d) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of
the courts of the United States in any action brought to foreclose
a preferred mortgage, as defined in the Ship Mortgage Act, 1920 (46
U.S.C. 911 and following). Such action shall be brought, heard,
and determined in accordance with the provisions of that Act and in
accordance with the principles of law and rules of practice of
suits in rem, whenever it appears that had the vessel been
privately owned and possessed a suit in rem might have been
maintained.
Now, just exactly what does the FSIA do? First, it does not provide an Article III Court
for your use. There are simply none of those left. What it does do is provide remedy
parallel and equal to Article III. Lets face it, since the sovereign American People never
transferred authority over them to the government except in an instance where they
damaged the life, liberty, or property of another, the courts of the United States could
have no jurisdiction over them except where a contract activated the authority [by
consent], or where damage to anothers property was involved. Thats exactly what the
FSIA provides immunity except in those cases.

The FSIA has actually codified the era prior to 1940, so that a statutory remedy equal to
the Article III remedy available before the trust took over can be provided to one of the
sovereign American People [who are the only ones entitled to such remedy]. While it is
not exactly Article III remedy, it serves the purpose very well. If you are drawn into the
commercial system where you had no commercial involvement, you can invoke the FSIA,
claim sovereign immunity, and the court will have no jurisdiction.
WARNING!!! Follow these steps ONLY if you are one of the sovereign
American People. Otherwise, you will land in jail, or worse.

CHAPTER 7 - WORDS AND TERMS
This chapter is really more for those who choose to not claim their sovereignty and
remain in the system. In other words, for those who choose not to give up their
social security number. However, there are things of value here for the sovereign as
well.
To start this chapter, you should understand one principal because it applies to everything you do.
Remember, you cannot mix Law and CODE. You cannot use code case law to prove Law, nor can
you use Law to make demands in a court of code.
For example, many patriots file a Title 42 Section 1983 lawsuit [or other lawsuits under the code]
in which they claim Rights under the 4th or 5th Amendments, or other parts of the Constitution and
Bill of Rights. When they do that, the judge simply takes silent judicial notice that an idiot is
appearing before him, rules against the patriot, and leaves the patriot to run around yelling
unconstitutional. It was totally constitutional because it was handled totally outside the Constitution
by the patriots consent. Hes the one who asked the court to take jurisdiction. The patriot made a
basic mistake that he never realizes, the judge is not required to educate him, and the gap between
what is and what we think it is grows wider.
That leads us to the use of other words and terms, which can also have the same effect. We have
touched very slightly on the use of terms by the trust to create the impression that a falsehood is
actually true. Since this is one of the most frequently used and most effective methods of getting
Americans to say and do things which they would not ordinarily say and do, we will devote this
entire chapter to a few of the most widely used terms which few Americans know the meaning of.
We will revisit the terms already explained in previous chapters just to emphasize the importance of
understanding the exact legal meaning of every word and term that is used in the Code and
Regulations. Keep in mind that the United States Government still operates under the authority of
the Constitution, and it operates in a Constitutional manner with Americans. Its codes and
regulations say exactly what they mean, even though you may think they are saying something totally
different. You have heard the saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It isnt; and, if you want
your Rights as an American, you must understand what the law says, and how it applies to you. If

you dont know what the laws (Code and Regulations) say, you cannot possibly avoid their traps, and
you will find yourself bound as a member of the trust, and subject to its rules.
First, lets look at one of the most damaging terms, and one which even most of the so-called Patriots
do not understand - that being the word/term of. I have read numerous Patriot type books in
which the author claims to be a Citizen of America or a Sovereign Citizen of the 50 Sovereign
states under the Constitution and the laws of the united States of America. These writers are really
trying, I hope, to set themselves apart from the United States, and that is to be admired.
Unfortunately, they are steering many would-be Patriots down the wrong path. They are so close,
but closeness only counts in horseshoes and grenades (more in grenades), and this totalitarian trust
called the UNITED STATES, and the courts that rule with commercial law, are non-forgiving. In
Blacks, the definition of of is very clear. It says, A term denoting that from which anything
proceeds; indicating origin, source, descent, and the like; as, he is of noble blood. Associated with or
connected with, usually in some casual relation, efficient, material, formal, or final. The word has
been held equivalent to after; at, or belonging to; in possession of, manufactured by; residing at;
from. Therefore, a citizen of the United States has as his origin and source the United States, and
he actually belongs to the United States (as a subject belongs to a King). Likewise, a Citizen of
America, or a Citizen of the 50 Sovereign states would have his origin and source founded in the
50 sovereign States. But as we have already learned, the 50 sovereign States have as their origin and
source the American i.e. the American. Remember, a sovereign Citizen could not be of a
sovereign State, because only one can own the land, and the first sovereign owns everything;
therefore, the one who is of the other could not own anything within that relationship.
Now, lets examine the word Citizen. In Blacks, the following definition is given: One who,
under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the
political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of all civil rights. Do
you still want to be a Citizen? First, to whom does a sovereign owe anything, much less
allegiance? Do you want to have rights, or be entitled to civil rights? Remember, civil rights
are not rights at all. That is simply the name given the privileges and immunities granted the citizen
of the United states in the 14th Amendment. In other words, a Citizen is a subject belonging to the
United States.

The American is the real sovereign from which all power flows, and the state (and the United States)
is actually of the American. Remember, our forefathers created a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people. That little phrase truly describes the de jure government for Americans.
The American is of his God and his parents, and nothing or nobody else. God gave the Rights, and
his forefathers guaranteed them through the Constitution which his parents passed on to him. They
were not civil rights, just plain old Rights. Please do not believe that this is unimportant nit-
picking. It is anything but. This trust, and those running it, will do anything to keep you under
their control. The use of words is one of their chief weapons.
In the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the legal definitions are intentionally changed from their
commonly used meanings in order to confuse the American into believing that he is required to do
things that, in fact, he is only required to do if he has first become a member of the trust. First, the
use of the word person in the technical, legal sense created by the government is very misleading.
If someone asked the average American if he is a person, he would probably answer yes. If he did,
he would be tying the knot on his slavery that much tighter. Blacks defines person as, In general
usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute the term may include labor
organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees in bankruptcy,
or receivers. Notice that by statute, person never means a human being, and that the word is a
term. These are all artificial entities. What this definition means is that when the IRS refers to
you as a person, and you reply, you are agreeing to being treated as a trust member, a corporate entity
(artificial person) for the proceeding in question, and the overall contract with the trust is reverified.
Thats because their only connection to you is through the trust membership, and the statutes (codes)
are for use only in regards to trust members, and they do not affect an American.
Go straight to the portion of the IRC that refers to a person made liable as someone who is required
to file an income tax return. At no place in the IRC is there a definition of person made liable, and
the IRC never tells you how a person can be made liable. The person is obviously your artificial
being (when it applies to you), and you make it liable by filing a return under penalty of perjury
stating that this artificial contractual entity owes the IRS money. By signing that return under
penalty of perjury, your corporate entity became a person made liable, and you accepted the

responsibility of seeing that it follows the Code. Failure to do so can result in criminal charges
against you under commercial law, because you accepted responsibility for this artificial entitys
actions. This would equate very closely to a bookkeeper for a large corporation being held
criminally liable for juggling the books to make the corporation look better or avoid certain
responsibilities. In other words, you have just claimed to be a corporate entity as a member of the
trust, and the trust has accepted your claim as true; therefore, you are now subject to commercial law,
and the income tax.
Now lets look at the definition of income. The Supreme Court said, in Eisner V. Macomber,
252 US 189, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not income,
according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it may
adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which it derives
its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, alone, that power can be lawfully exercised.
Here, it becomes clear why the IRC does not give a clear definition of income - it cant! It would be
unconstitutional to call payment for an Americans labor income, and then place a tax upon it. In
numerous court cases, income is defined as a profit or gain of a corporation, or a capital gain. Never
is it defined as payment for an Americans labor.
It becomes very clear through both the codes and the implementing regulations that the only
income in the form of wages or compensation for personal services that is taxable is that of a
federal employee. To be more specific, the taxing statutes refer to gross income, or wages, or
compensation for personal services. To examine the text of how these taxes came about, we must
go back to 1939; and there, we examine an act which is today obscure in that most Americans have
never even heard of it. Here, we must understand that every statute which has been enacted relating
to income tax since the 1939 Internal Revenue Code is still effective and in force today unless it has
been specifically repealed by a later statute. This system is used by the trust to make it much more
difficult for an American to discover what the law actually requires of him. The government prints
the codes that it does not want you to fully understand only one time, usually very vaguely, and then
relies upon the fact that it was never repealed to hold you accountable for it. By not including all of
the codes, regulations, and definitions in each new rendition of the Internal Revenue Code (or for
that matter, many other codes), the perception can easily be left that the code says something, which,

in truth, it does not say. Remember that the IRS will never tell you whether or not you are a person
made liable. Thats because only you can determine that you are a person made liable. They
know that, in truth, you are not such a person unless you choose to be a trust member through
voluntary actions, but they want you to believe that you are manditorily made liable without any
action on your part. Shortly after the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, Congress
passed a bill known as the Public Salary Act. Within this bill, we can find the exact way that the
trust has deceived the American people into believing that the income tax was intended for them.
Within this unrepealed (and, therefore, in effect today) Act, the definition of wages and
compensation for personal services is given. At Title 1, Section 1, of the Public Salary Act of
1939, it states, Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the definition of gross
income is amended after the words compensation for personal services the following: including
personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or an
agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. Remember that the word
including in the codes means that only what follows in the list is a part of the definition. Taking
all these facts into consideration, it becomes clear that wages or compensation for personal
services are terms which relate only to money paid to federal government (trust) employees for their
services rendered thereunder. That is why the IRS will never give you an answer if you ask for a
precise definition of what is income, or how one can be made liable. If they told you, you would
immediately know that you do not owe them a return or any taxes, unless you are a federal employee
or trust member. By never including the definition of income in any statutes after 1939, the IRS can
be reasonably sure that the average American will never truly know its meaning.
Next, lets examine exactly what a nonresident alien individual is. Blacks defines alien as, A
foreign born person who has not qualified as a citizen of the country. Blacks defines non-
resident as, One who does not reside within jurisdiction in question; not an inhabitant of the state
of the forum. Special rules govern service of process on non-residents. Now, remember that Texas
and California and the other 48 states of the Union are not in the United States - so were you born in
the United States? Do you live in the United States? If not, you may be a nonresident alien to the
United States and the IRS. If you are an American, you most likely are a nonresident alien to both
the United States and the IRS, unless you have gained residency as a member of the trust. Doesnt it
make you wonder what those special rules that govern service of process on these nonresident

aliens might be? I wonder if that could have anything to do with jurisdiction, or the lack thereof,
over an American. After all, the American is only subject to very limited jurisdiction, and any
service of legal papers would necessarily have to fit under that limited jurisdiction. That is in direct
contrast to the citizen of the United States who is subject to whatever jurisdiction that the trust places
on him. This persons source is from within the United States, and his duty is to the trust and its set
of codes and regulations, including the filing of a tax return.
About that penalty of perjury thing, the United States Code, at 28 USC 1746, gives the proper
wording to be used for unsworn statements under penalty of perjury as follows: (1) If executed
without the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (Date)
(Signature). (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on (Date) (Signature). Do you find it to be a bit strange that if
executed within the United States, the laws of the United States of America do not apply? And
who would execute something outside of the United States using the laws of the United States of
America if it were not an American in America? Now look at the penalty of perjury declaration on
any IRS form, such as the 1040. It says, Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have examined
this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and
belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Which of the declarations does this form fit? It fits
number two, if executed within the United States, because it does not account for the laws of the
United States of America. In other words, it is not governed by the Constitution; and, therefore,
anyone signing this document cannot be protected by the Constitution. By signing this form (or any
form with this declaration) you tell the world that your principal citizenship resides within the United
States because of your membership in the trust, and that you place yourself as a subject under the
jurisdiction of the trust, i.e. a citizen or resident of the United States. Remember that an
unchallenged claim or statement becomes proven under commercial law; and since no one is going
to challenge who you say you are, the signing of this document alone makes you a citizen of the
United States and a member of the trust by contract, and thereby subject to and of its codes and
regulations.

To refresh your memory, the words shall and must have been ruled by the supreme Court to have
the same meaning as the word may when used in the statutes to avoid any Constitutional
misunderstandings or misapplication. The word required is always used if the action is something
that the code makes mandatory. In Blacks, several court cases are used to give the definition of
may, shall, and must. That definition states, MAY. An auxiliary verb qualifying the meaning
of another verb by expressing ability, competency, liberty, permission, possibility, probability, or
contingency. US V. Lexington Mill & E. Co., 232 U.S. 399, 34 S.Ct. 337, 340, 58 L.Ed. 658.
Word may usually is employed to imply permissive, optional, or discretional, and not mandatory
action or conduct. Shea V. Shea, Okl. 537 P2d 417, 418. Regardless of the instrument, however,
whether constitution, code, deed contract or whatever, courts not infrequently construe may as
shall or must to the end that justice not be the slave of grammar. However, as a general rule, the
word may will not be treated as a word of command unless there is something in the context or
subject matter to act or indicate that it was used in such a sense. Bloom V. Texas State Bd. of
Examiners of Psychologists, Tex.Civ.App. 475 S.W.2d. 374, 377. In another supreme Court
ruling, Cairo and Fulton R.R. Co. V. Hecht, the Court said, As against the government, the word
shall when used in the statutes is to be construed as may, unless a contrary meaning is manifest.
Similar language can be found in many lower court rulings, such as George Williams College V.
Village of Williams Bay, NW 2nd 891, where the court stated, Shall in a statute may be
construed to mean may to avoid constitutional doubt. Just think how easy it would be for the
code to simply use the word required each time it used the word shall in the codes; if, in fact, the
action was required. The writers of the code knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote
them, and they knew that there was no way to require an American to do any of the things that are
implied to be required; so, they simply used convoluted language to make you believe that you are
required to do something that, as an American, you could never be required to do.
To really understand exactly how the legal language is being used to deceive the average American,
lets look at the definitions for these three words, may, shall, and must in Websters
Dictionary. The definition for may is, expressing possibility, permission, contingency,
uncertainty, hope. The definition of shall is, used to make compound tenses or moods to express
futurity, obligation, command, condition, or intention. The definition for must is, to be

obligated, by physical or moral necessityto express compulsion, obligation, probability,
certainty. These definitions (with the possible exception of may) express totally different
meanings than the courts have ruled the legal meaning to be. How many Americans own and
regularly use a legal dictionary when deciding what their obligations and duties are to the United
States Government? If you want to retain (or regain) your Rights as an American, you might want
to consider buying regularly using a good legal dictionary, so that youll know what the government
is telling you to do, and whether its mandatory or optional. In fact, if yu never claim your
sovereignty, you need to know what the government is saying to you.
The word individual is used repeatedly in the Code and Regulations. Blacks gives the definition
of individual as, As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or
class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership,
corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent
in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons. Surprise! When the Code
refers to an individual, its really talking about an artificial person, not an American.
The IRS will tell you that the sections of the IRC which makes you liable to file a tax return and pay
the resultant tax are 6011 and 6012. IRC Section 6011, titled as GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF
RETURN, STATEMENT, OR LIST, states, GENERAL RULE. When required by regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect
to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms or regulations
prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include
therein the information required by such forms and regulations. IRC Section 6012, titled as
PERSONS REQUIRED TO MAKE RETURNS OF INCOME, states, GENERAL RULE. -
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every
individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption
amount. Now, lets examine these two sections more closely. First, this refers to a person.
We now know that, in the statutes, this term refers to a corporate or other artificial entity. It uses the
term, when required by regulations. Notice that it does not tell you of whom it is required, or
even that it is required at all. Then it states, Every person required to make a return or statement
shall include therein the information required by such forms and regulations. It does not require

anything. It then says that if such person has gross income for the taxable year. We now know
that gross income refers only to wages of federal employees, and the profit or gain of a corporation.
The only command given is where it says, Every personshall include therein the information
required by such forms and regulations. Clearly, knowing what we know about the word shall,
this command simply says that we may include this information if we want to, even if we are a
person made liable.
So lets rewrite this statue in everyday language that we all understand. It would look something
like this to an American.
Sec. 6011 GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF RETURN, STATEMENT, OR LIST
GENERAL RULE. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any
corporation made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof,
may make a return or statement, according to the forms or regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Every corporation required to make a return or statement may include therein the information
required by such forms and regulations.
Sec. 6012 CORPORATIONS OR ARTIFICIAL PERSONS REQUIRED TO MAKE RETURNS
OF INCOME
GENERAL RULE. - Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A may be made by the
following: (1)(A) Every artificial person having for the taxable year wages from the Federal
Government which equals or exceeds the exemption amount.
Now that we understand these few terms, lets re-examine the section of the Regulations that the IRS
says makes us liable for the income tax. First, at CFR 1.1-1, we find, Income tax on individuals. -
(a) General rule. Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on every individual who is a citizen
or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by 871(b) and 877(b), on the income of a
nonresident alien individual. Under (b) of the same section, it states, Citizens or residents of the
United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all
resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is
received from sources within or without the United States. Under (c) of that section, Who is a
citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a

citizen. (Does that sound like the 14th Amendment to you?). Now lets rewrite this regulation with
our new knowledge of the meanings of words and terms.
CFR 1.1-1
Income tax on Artificial Persons . - (a) General rule. Section 1 of the Code imposes an income
tax on every artificial person who is a subject of the United States and, to the extent provided by
871(b) and 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien artificial person.
(b) Subjects of the United States liable to tax. In general, all subjects of the United States,
wherever resident, and all resident alien artificial persons are liable to the income taxes imposed
by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
(c) Who is a subject. Every child of a subject born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to its jurisdiction is a subject.
The truth is that an American could have a child born within the United States, and that childs
primary standing would still be that of an American, not a citizen of the United States. Just as a
citizen of England could have a child born in another country, and that childs primary citizenship
would still be that of an English subject.
At CFR 1.871-7 (a), it states, Imposition of tax. This section applies for purposes of determining the
tax on a nonresident individual who at no time during the taxable year is engaged in a trade or
business in the United Statesa nonresident alien individual to whom this section applies is not
subject to the tax imposed by section 1 or section 1201(b) but, pursuant to the provisions of 871(a),
is liable to a flat tax of 30 percent upon the aggregate of the amounts determined under paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of this section which are received during the taxable year from sources within the
United States. At CFR 1.1402(b)-1(d), it states, Nonresident aliens. A nonresident alien
individual never has self employment incomesuch nonresident alien individual will not be subject
to the tax on self-employment income, since any net earnings which he may have from self-
employment do not constitute self-employment income. Wow! This looks like a pretty lucky guy
here - he owes the government (trust) nothing, regardless of how much he makes. It goes on to say,
For the purpose of tax on self-employment income, an individual who is not a citizen of the United
States, but who is a resident of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or, for the
taxable years beginning after 1960, of Guam or America Samoa is not considered to be a nonresident
alien individual. Think about that statement. If you are not a citizen of the United States, but you

are just a resident of any of the territories, you are subject to the income tax. But note that it does
not even mention what happens if you are not a citizen of the United States, but you are one of the
sovereign American people. That person obviously is a nonresident alien to the United States; and,
therefore, to the IRC. Are you beginning not to be so intimidated by the IRS yet?
Another point which needs to be emphasized here is the use of capitalization of letters as a means of
indicating to whom a code or regulation is referring. Although this is not exactly a use of terms, it
falls into the same general category. Please understand that the capitalization of letters is used
precisely by the trust to indicate to whom or what the codes are referring. First, take the word (c)
Citizen as used in legal and lawful writings. If you will look at any accurate copy of the
Constitution, you will see that the word Citizen is used many times in the original Constitution and
the first Ten Amendments. The word Citizen was used here well before the 14th Amendment, or
even the Statutes at Large were written; and, the word had a different meaning than that of today, see
Bouviers law Dictionary, First American Edition, 1838, for the original meaning of the word
Citizen: One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for
representatives in Congress and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of
the people Notice that a Citizen did not owe allegiance to the United States; whereas, it the
current definition, that has changed. Each time that word is used, it starts with a capital C. The
reason is that it is referring to the sovereign, the owner of all land within the jurisdiction of the
Constitution. This is a real man, a natural person, the landowner, the sovereign. However, when
we get to the Fourteenth Amendment, the word citizen begins with a lower case c. This is because
the person referred to here is a subject, not a proper, natural person with Rights given by God and
guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, note that every time the word citizen is used in the Code
and/or Regulations, it is spelled with a lower case c (with the possible exception of when it is the
first word in a sentence). Thats because the Code and/or Regulations affect only members of the
rust in their artificial capacity; and, with the use of this single tool, the United States Government, on
behalf of the trust, clearly tells you whom it is talking to. If you want to assume the words are meant
for you, they will let you, and then hold you responsible for following the Code and Regulations
correctly. Anytime that the word of is used before the word citizen, it would be correctly spelled
with a lower case c; because a subject of anything (except God) could not be the sovereign.

Just as important is the capitalization of the names of the (S)states involved in and under the
Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence of the united States of America, the founding
fathers used a lower case u in the word united. That is because the united States of America was
not a title, but simply a statement of the states (Republics) which were united in the Union. As
such, united is only used as an adjective for the states which were united under the Constitution.
When the Federal Government enters the picture, the names United States and United States of
America are changed to UNITED STATES and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and are
used to identify the trust which is exercising its authority. Therefore, anytime in the codes where the
word State is used, it identifies a corporate name or entity. Anytime the word state is used, it
refers to one of the 50 sovereign Republics, and since it does not refer to a particular State, or the
entire group of States, it is not a proper name; and, therefore, it is not capitalized. Anytime the
word State is used in the codes, it is referring to a corporation i.e. one of the Territories; and,
therefore, is a proper name and is capitalized.
In a different, but just as invasive, arena, the corporate (trust) STATES set up under the corporate
UNITED STATES, take almost as much undeserved power as the Federal Government. Their power
flows directly from the UNITED STATES or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The entity which
refers to itself as THE STATE OF TEXAS, or the THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, etc. is the
trust exercising its commercial activity within the external boundaries of the sovereign states. They,
too, use words and terms to rob the American of his Rights. For example, if most people were asked
if they owned property, they would answer yes. If you pressed for details of the kind of property that
they owned, most would break it down into two types of property - personal and real.
Unfortunately, THE STATE OF TEXAS (or any of the fifty names) operates under the same
commercial law as, and under the authority of, the UNITED STATES. Therefore, the designation
itself of personal property tells you that the corporation owns that property. Take a car for
example. If you buy a car, and pay for it in full, you get a title of ownership for that car - right?
WRONG! You get a certificate of title, stating basically that there is a title, but you dont have it.
The one who has the title owns the car. That would be THE STATE OF TEXAS (or any of the fifty
names). The licensing fee that you pay each year on that car is actually a fee for the use of someone
elses car. You can never own the car, because THE STATE OF TEXAS has claimed sovereignty

over you as a trust member, and only the sovereign can actually own property. What you actually
own is the use of the car, and you continue to pay a fee for that use.
Real property works the same way. The term real property actually means owned by the STATE.
Think about it - if you actually own the home in which you live; and, therefore, you are the
sovereign, how could anyone assess you a rent each year (property tax) and then take your home
away from you if you dont pay it? Obviously, whoever does that has taken the role of sovereign,
and that means that you are not the sovereign. But your forefathers left you a birthright in which
you are the sovereign. This loss of sovereignty can only happen to you if you have contracted to
have your standing as an American set aside in favor of a membership in the trust. Ill bet you
didnt know when you did that. Basically, anything for which you are taxed in a mandatory fashion
does not belong to you, i.e. with you as the sovereign; but, rather the STATE is the sovereign and
supreme owner, giving it the right to tax in order to be compensated for the use of its property.
Otherwise, you would be receiving unjust enrichment (the use of somebody elses property for which
you have no right). Can you imagine someone trying to tax a king in his own kingdom? It would be
a good way to commit suicide!
From the two examples above, numerous other Rights have been seized from you by the trust that
would own everything. For instance, the Right to travel. The STATE (trust) has turned that into a
privilege called driving or operating a motor vehicle for which a STATE license and fee is
required. They now are trying to also require that you be a citizen or subject of the United States
before you can attain one of these licenses, and to prove it by providing your trust membership
number, as referred to as a social security number. In truth, an American does not need a license
to travel on the highways and byways of his own land in an automobile, but because of the corrupt
and/or ignorant law enforcement (trust enforcement) departments and officers around the country,
it can become very stressful and even dangerous for an American to claim his Right to travel freely.
Its hard to believe, but they actually let these trust enforcement officers run around with guns
shooting and arresting people. Their authority is restricted to members of the trust, but most are too
ignorant to understand their limitations as to their jurisdiction. Although the law and the
Constitution are both on the side of the American, the bad guys have the bullets, and they will use
them to enforce the code which doesnt even apply to Americans. The problem is that they, like

most other people in this land, don't even know what the law is, and they may kill you to prove a
point. If you make it into court, and there make the right argument, you will eventually prevail; but
do not be confrontational with the officer on the road.
One last term that really puts an exclamation mark on this whole subject matter is the term dual
citizenship. This term applies to someone who holds citizenship in two different countries. So,
are you a dual citizen? Most people in America would answer that question, No, but if they also
claimed to be a citizen of the United States, their answer would be incorrect. Blacks defines dual
citizenship as, Citizenship in two different countries. Status of citizens of the United States who
reside within a state; i.e. persons who are born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens of the U.S. and
the state wherein they reside. Note that the word state is spelled with a lower case s; and
therefore, refers to one of the 50 Sovereign states of the Union. This one definition tells you,
without a doubt, that Texas (or any of the other 49 states of the Union), is a different country than the
United States. If you remain a dual citizen, you are subject to the laws of both countries. The United
States is a foreign country to any of the 50 sovereign States; and its laws are necessarily foreign to an
American who is not also a citizen of the United States. . Case closed!
CHAPTER 7 - THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CHURCH
This chapter may not be for everybody reading this material who is interested in retaining or
regaining his/her Rights as an American. I want to make it very clear that you do not have to be a
Christian in order to be an American. Being one, however, can make it much easier to live and
operate in the trust world without a social security number. I would strongly suggest that it would
be a mistake of monumental proportions to try to fake being a Christian in order to receive the
benefits that come as a result of that belief pattern, much in the same magnitude as choosing to be a
citizen of the United States instead of an American; and, thats only the consequences in this worldly
lifetime. So, if you are not a Christian, you may want to skip this chapter.

The church has been referred to as a sanctuary for hundreds of years. Even today, many refer to
the church as a sanctuary. But the truth is that there are two types (formations) of the Christian
Church. Both types are recognized within the United States Code; more specifically, within the
Internal Revenue Code. That likeness is about all the two have in common except that they both
claim to worship Christ. The first of the two types of churches is found at Section 501(c)(3) of the
IRC, where it states, List of exempt organizations.Corporations, and any community chest,
fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing
for public safety, literary or educational purposes, or to foster national or international sports
competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or
equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earning of
which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the
activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation
(except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in
(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public office. I printed this entire subsection so that you might
better understand who or what this/these church(es) is/are in relevance to the rest of society, and
what the rules this/these church(es) must abide by in order to keep status as an exempt organization.
First, please take note that this church is a corporation. Thats right, each church wishing to be tax
exempt under 501 (c)(3) of the IRC is incorporated. What that actually means is that their origin
and source is of the government i.e. the UNITED STATES; therefore, there is a list of rules which
must be obeyed in order to maintain that status. The UNITED STATES is actually the grantor of
this churchs being. So, where does God fit in? Very carefully, if at all, is the correct answer. As
you will note from the code itself, this church is very limited in its ability to do certain things. For
instance, it cannot become political in any way. That seems a little ridiculous to most people.
After all, dont most religious people want to consult their religious leaders about possible
candidates for public office? And, dont most Christians want to have a say in who represents
them? Well, if the churchs leaders are discovered making political statements or giving assessments
on who would be a good representative and why, the church can lose its exemption. This very thing
happened to a Baptist Church in Massachusetts in 1992. The minister said from the pulpit that a
vote for Bill Clinton would be a mortal sin, and the IRS pulled his churchs tax exempt status as a

result. Any of you who watch the 700 Club on TV probably followed that story; but that church still
has not gotten its exemption back. But what if God did in fact direct this minister to tell his flock to
vote for a particular person, or not to vote for a particular person? In a real Christian Church, would
the government be able to tell the minister not to obey what he believes God told him to do? Well,
if he does not disobey God in this case, his church looses its tax exemption.
Now, you ask, why would any church obligate itself to such ungodly rules? That answer, too, is
simply - MONEY! The church gets a large portion of its income from people who wish to deduct
their gift (tithes, offerings, donations, etc.) from their own personal tax return at the end of the year.
Many other major contributions are made for the explicit reason that they can be deducted directly
off the giver's tax return; and, many times, can throw that person into a lower tax bracket in the
process. That means that such a contribution can very well wind up actually making the giver
money as a result of the lower bracket. If the church could not accept tax deductible contributions,
their revenues would fall sharply. Consequently, the churches actually prostitute many of their
principles just to maintain this exemption. But, you say, Not my church. We follow God, and the
government has nothing to do with the way we run our churchs affairs. There is a way that you
can know for sure if that is true. Simply ask your church for a receipt so that you can deduct your
contributions from your tax return; and, if you are given one, your church has its foundation based
upon the trust, not upon God.
In the Bob Jones University case, the Supreme Court ruled that a contribution to a 501 (c)(3) church
was always tax deductible because it was, in fact, a government subsidy. Could that mean that your
money that is given to the church is actually going to the government? Well, as a matter of fact, yes
it could mean exactly that. You see, that church [that offers tax deductions to its contributors] is
actually a corporation, and it has as its origin and source, the trust doing business as the UNITED
STATES. Therefore, anything going to the church is really going directly into the trust account;
and, is therefore, tax deductible. Its tax deductible because its being paid directly into the trust
system at its origin.
Now, you ask, just which church is this that were talking about? Its just about every church that
you have ever thought of as being a church. Its the Baptist, the Methodist, the Catholic (as we

know it in this country), the Church of God, and most of the others which you can think of with a
very few notable exceptions that we will cover later. If you belong to one of these churches, and
you dont believe what Im telling you, go to your pastor or church accountant and ask to see the
form that is filled out and sent to the IRS every three months. Its 13 pages long! It covers
everything from who gave contributions to exactly what is done with the contributions. It probably
says something about you in there. Then ask to see a list of the corporate rules that the church is
required to follow in order to keep its tax exempt status. If you are told that there is no such thing,
you are being lied to [call the IRS and get a copy of the regulations]. Remember, there are always
rules that must be kept in order to maintain a corporation. If you dont believe that, file a
corporation and see. Also, remember that your church leaders are not going to want you to know the
whole truth about what they are being forced to do in order to keep the tax exempt status.
What all this means is that the church that you thought was independent and of God, is actually very
dependent and of the trust. This church actually represents the equivalent of what the Church of
England represented to our forefathers. It is the church of, by, and for the government. It is also
represented in the New Testament by the Pharisees. Remember those guys who were always trying
to collect taxes from Jesus. Its the same people in a new costume.
There is another church, but few even know of its existence. It is found in the IRC at 508 (c), where
it states, (c) Exceptions (1) Mandatory exceptions: Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to, (A)
churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches. This section
is referring to the filing requirements for 501 (c)(3) organizations, and it clearly says that churches
are an exception (not an exemption) to the law. Note that in 501 (c)(3), the church there is a
corporation. If your church files a tax return, it is a corporation, and it is not the church referred to in
508 (c). The church referred to in 508 (c) is obviously unorganized and definitely not a corporation;
and, as such, it is outside of the jurisdiction of the IRS and the UNITED STATES. No filing is or
can be required of it, because it stands alone outside of the trust jurisdiction. It can truly be Gods
Church, and it is formed on the very basis that Jesus set out while on Earth. It is the sanctuary that
we have always heard that the church is supposed to be, and it is a resting place and safe shelter for
those who seek refuge from the tyrannical government now in place.

You may wonder what churches fall under this umbrella. There are, in fact, many; but probably
only a few that you have heard of. The most noted church or group that you would recognize is the
Amish. Most of you know that the Amish are well known for not partaking of the system or its
ways. What many dont know is that they dont pay taxes of any kind [they wont take social
security numbers, so they cannot pay taxes], and they are only subject to the jurisdiction of the
government if they break one of the common laws for which jurisdiction was surrendered by our
forefathers. The fact that they dont use modern tools or equipment has nothing to do with the
sovereignty they enjoy in their everyday lives. In fact, there are many churches which are a product
of Americans who have been studying the law as it applies to them and their freedoms. Those
Americans have found a refuge in the unincorporated 508 (c) church where they can live their lives,
both spiritually and literally, without the trusts interference. For those people, the 23rd Psalms will
take on a whole new meaning. Matthew 23 can also be read with a whole new meaning and
understanding. Once you understand what a 508 (c) church is, go back and read these verses, and
you will receive a new and wonderful understanding.
The proof of the above is abundant. A 508 (c) church can open a bank account that nobody, not
even the IRS, can even look at. Remember, the 508 (c) is an exception to the law (in other words,
its outside the law), not an exemption that the code gives as a privilege. Anything the 508 (c)
church owns cannot be taxed or seized by the government. It resides in a different jurisdiction.
CHAPTER 8 THE BEST KEPT SECRET
In 1933, this country was thrown into bankruptcy, as detailed in an earlier chapter. At
that point, there were only two things left that had value the land and the people. This
government, fearing for its very existence, decided to use its people to bail it out of the
jam. So it took the good names of the people themselves and created instruments of
worth through pledging those people into a state of servitude to the trust. As such, the
citizens of the United States became nothing more than collateral for the debt owed by the
United States to the Banksters. On its face, such an act would violate the Constitution
and leave the actors subject to charges of Treason, so these deceivers came up with a

clever solution to the problem. They took all the birth certificates of the people (the birth
certificates belong to the STATE which created them), and formed corporations using the
names found on those certificates (and the persons to whom they attach) as the basis and
worth of the corporations. When the corporations were formed, the names of the living
men and women, and the new corporations were exact except that the corporation names
were spelled with all capital letters, indicating the difference between the corporation and
the living man who was supplying the true worth behind the corporation. The trust
accepted the collateral, then set about to systematically insure that all men and women
would cease to use their natural being, and would instead use the new, artificial being
created and owned by the STATE. The trust then attached its number [the social security
number] to its collateral for easy identification.
If you have trouble believing the facts in the preceding paragraphs, think about when the
last time was that you received any formal letter, document, contract, IRS statement or
billing, court papers, or anything of any official capacity from any governmental agency
or body, or from any corporation, which did not have your name spelled with all capital
letters. If you want to really be convinced, ask your bank, credit card company, the IRS,
any court, or any other official corporation or government agency to use your name
properly spelled (capitals and lower case letters) on any official documents referring to
you. They will refuse. They will probably tell you that the computer will not let them use
lower case letters in a name [which is probably true]. After you have proven this to
yourself, ask yourself why. Surely the spelling of your name in all capitals could not be
that important. The truth is that it is all important.
Through the use of this system, the STATE has created corporations which it, in fact,
owns. If you use you proper name (capitals and lower case spelling), the STATE does
not own that, because it was never given power over the flesh and blood man. By owning
all of the corporations which do business within the STATE, the STATE can write
whatever rules and regulations it desires, and there is no Constitutional conflict, because a
corporation is not protected by the Constitution. He trust is a paper state, in which the
public record is everything and cannot be wrong. The Rights guaranteed by the

Constitution to the Americans can never be realized, because everyone is acting through
his corporation by consent [contract]. Therefore, those who would otherwise be
Americans having Constitutional protections and guarantees, become nothing more than
corporations owned by the STATE. Moreover, the American who has become a citizen
of the United States can do so only as an artificial entity [corporation]. Thus, he becomes
property owned by the STATE when he declares himself (or allows the STATE to declare
him) a citizen of the United States or subject to its jurisdiction.
What really occurs when an American becomes a corporation i.e. citizen of the United
States, is that two parallel entities exist simultaneously with each other. One, the nom de
guerre, goes about performing all the business functions. The other, the living man, sits
idly back believing he is in control. The STATE deals only with the nom de guerre over
which it has total domain, because it is the creator and owner of that property. The
STATE never gains jurisdiction over the living Man i.e. American.
The courts are now all commercial in nature, as discussed earlier. That means that
everything is related directly to the equity in property which is at issue in the cause before
the court. Knowing that the courts are commercial, we can easily see why they must
require that the name be in all capitals in the styling. The courts can deal only in equity,
and there is no definable equity in a living man. Therefore, the courts can have no
jurisdiction over a living man. Unfortunately, citizens of the United States are artificial
entities, not living men, so the courts can assume unquestioned jurisdiction over citizens
of the United States. Remember, the overriding presumption in every court is that you
are a citizen of the United States or subject to its jurisdiction [with a social security
number to prove it] any time you enter the court.
As in all of the tyrannical actions taken by this de facto government, the remedy for the
ruthless and deceitful actions taken by it can be found only through a proper Claim of
sovereign authority, and the invoking of the FSIA. Any other remedy within the code
only moves you deeper into the grasp of the code.

When you become a party to any action which draws you into a court, your first act
should be to file a certified copy of the public record that identifies you as a sovereign.
To do that, you need to file an Affidavit of Sovereign Authority in which you Claim
your Birthright as one of the sovereign American people i.e. a direct descendant of those
people in the original Thirteen Colonies who declared their Independence from King
George III of England, took up arms against him in defense of their Claim, forced the
Paris Treaty of Peace I 1783 in which King George III recognized those specific people as
sovereigns equal to him; and, pledged that his heirs and the international sovereign
community would forever honor their sovereignty.
That Claim makes you a foreign state within the definition and meaning of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, as revised 1996.
Once you have established your capacity as one of the sovereign American People,
therefore a foreign state under the FSIA, the court loses all jurisdiction over you [unless
your action falls under the exceptions given in Section 1605 of Title 28]. If you have
filed a counterclaim [which you are fully authorized to do], then only the counterclaim
will be heard, because the action brought against you must be dismissed.
It is important that you understand that the authority and capacity that you must rely upon
comes only from the Thirteen Original States, and your Claim must be that you are a
descendant of one of the original We the People, or you will be ignored, and you will
be ignored.

Chapter 8 Americas Royal Family
This chapter is dedicated to putting what you have already learned into perspective. It is
being added to the original book over a year after the release of the book, so there will be
many copies in the hands of people that do not contain this section. Therefore, I wish to
stress that this addendum is only an attempt to help you better understand what you have
already learned.
Im sure that many of you are already convinced that Im a real nut. Now I start talking
about a Royal Family in America. Everybody knows that, in America, everyone is
equal, and no royalty exists right? Once again, not so fast. Lets examine the facts.
Most of us understand the general concept of the Royal Family of England from our high
school and college history classes. There, the members of the Royal Family are the
sovereigns. As we have already discussed, that means that they are the only people
who can own land (or anything else). What you may not know is that in virtually every
country in the world, there exists a sovereign class similar to the British Royal Family.
In every case, the sovereign people of the culture got their sovereignty in one of only two
ways. Most were born to it, meaning it was part of the birthright pasted to them from
their parents. The others claimed and seized it through war or insurrection, or the
willingness to defend the claim. There are no other ways to obtain sovereignty. Nobody
gives it away freely.
To better understand sovereignty, imagine that you move your family to England today,
and you and your family live in England for the rest of your lives. Then your childrens
children, and their children, continue to live there. How long will it be before your family
becomes part of the Royal Family? What form or application would you have to fill out
to be granted entry into the Royal Family? What test would you have to take in order to
gain entry? The answer: there is no form, application or test for entry into the Royal
Family. They are not looking for new members.

So, how do you become a member of the Royal Family? The answer is simple you
dont. Even if you marry a member of the Royal Family, you dont become a member.
The children of that marriage could be members of the Royal Family, but only if they
claimed the lineage of your spouse. In other words, technically, your children could never
be members of the Royal Family unless they disavowed your lineage and took on the
lineage of the Royal Family.
Instead of becoming a member of the Royal Family, could you become a British subject?
Of course you could. There is an application for that status. Once a British subject,
would your children also be British subjects? If they were born after you became a
British subject, the answer is yes. This status is virtually identical to that of citizen of the
United States in all relevant respects.
You may ask, why would anyone want to become a member of the Royal Family,
anyway. The answer is simple. They are the only people who can own land and
property. They are the sovereigns. Everyone else is a subject of the Master(s), and
gets use of the land as a privilege extended by the Master, for which they pay a fee known
as tax. We have already learned about privileges and how they can be given, and then
taken away.
You may be asking yourself what this has to do with you. Everyone knows that there is
no Royal Family in America. Here, were all equal. Thats what our Founding Fathers
did away with all that royalty stuff. The Founding Fathers intended that every man,
woman, and child would be of equal status, and there would be no Noble Class, in this
great county called America! If thats your thought pattern, you need to go back and
examine the facts and events more closely.
When our Forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, exactly
what did they do? They said to the King of England that he had been controlling that
thing called sovereignty over them, and that they intended to take it for themselves. Pure
and simple. They told him that they would fight him for it. They did, in fact, fight him

for it; and, they won. In the Paris Treaty of 1783, King George III recognized the people
of the Thirteen Colonies/States as sovereigns equal to him. Through war, our Forefathers
gained control of their own sovereignty. The big question is, what did they do with that
sovereignty once they had taken it from the King of England. To understand that, we
must fully understand exactly what they took.
Where was the sovereignty held at the time of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence? It was secured within the Royal Family of England. The King was
simply the head of that family, or the Supreme Sovereign of the time. When the King
died, he was quickly replaced by another sovereign, also a member of the Royal Family of
England; in fact, normally the member in line from birth. Remember, all members of the
Royal Family were/are sovereigns, in that they can all own land. So what our Forefathers
took for themselves was not the Kings power. Rather, it was the power held by the
Royal Family sovereignty itself. On the same line, what our Forefathers did away with
was the Kings power, not sovereignty. Sovereignty was kept for themselves and their
descendents.
Once our Forefathers had seized sovereignty from the Royal Family, what did they do
with it? The popular conception held today is that they passed it out to anyone and
everyone who showed up on these shores. The bureaucrats and power brokers would
have you believe it was vested in the government. The facts simply do not support either
idea. If we go forward some 12 years, to the signing of the Constitution (Declaration) for
the united States of America, we gain great insight into what our Founding Fathers
actually intended, and did.
First, look closely at the Preamble to the Constitution. It begins with the words, We the
People. The question arises, who were We the People. Did this phrase refer to ALL
the people who were living in America at that time? Absolutely, unquestionably, no, it
did not. As an example, there were obviously American Indians living in America at that
time. Were they included in We the People? No, they were not. They were, in fact,
recognized by most at that time, and for the next 100 plus years, as enemies of We the

People. They certainly were not afforded the Rights bestowed by the Constitution, or
they could not have been killed and had their land taken from them without recourse or
remedy. Were the slaves of the time part of We the People? Obviously not, and the
facts that we all know concerning that situation make a discussion of whether or not the
slaves were included totally unnecessary. So, who were We the People? It becomes
obvious that We the People were the Americans of the day. At that point in time, only
Americans could vote, so from there we can conclude who We the People were/are.
They were white male landowners.
The balance of the Preamble gives what basically amounts to a mission statement, or
statement of intent. It lays out what the authors wanted to accomplish; and, last, but not
least, who they intended all these Benefits and Rights for when it states, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Who were they doing this
for? Themselves and their Posterity! Nobody else was included. At no point did they
say that anybody born on these shores would be endowed to receive these Rights and
Benefits. If fact, they obviously did not intend that, because there were many living there
at the time that were not given those Rights and Benefits. Did they say that the
beneficiaries would change with the next generation to include everybody born or
naturalized here? Did they ever give Congress, or anybody else, the authority to add new
members to this very exclusive group called We the People? If not, how were new
People to be added to the group? There was only one way provided by birth with one of
We the People as a parent!
Now go back and look at the Royal Family of England. Do you see any resemblance?
How did/do the Royal Family of England expand its membership? By birth. Where did
our Founding Fathers take their power from? They took what the Royal Family of
England had. Does it now start to make sense to you that our Forefathers actually
changed very little about the system? The main change was simply the beneficiaries.
When you look at citizenship issues in the United States, you see a great many people
coming to these shores from other parts of the world. When they come here, many wish

to become citizens. The United States accommodates great numbers of these people
each year. Millions have applied for, and been granted, citizenship of the United States
based on application, learning certain criteria, and testing. When they become a citizen
of the United States, do they also become an American, a sovereign? If they do, its a
well-kept secret. Have you ever heard any of them referred to a new sovereigns? Isnt
it strange how the term sovereign is never used anymore, and the status of the
American is seldom even mentioned? Do you find this situation to be troubling?
Allow me to advance a few possible questions for your consideration. What if there was
an American Royal Family? What if its power was passed from father to son just like it
is done in virtually every country in the world, and just like it has been done for
thousands of years? What if there was a second status of citizenship for the common
man, just like in every other country in the world, and just like there has been for
thousands of years? What if the Royal Family was very jealous of its birthright, and
didnt want to share it with anyone else? What if the Royal Family turned over the reins
of government to a group of servants sworn to protect the Royal Familys interests above
everything else, much like is the case in England? What if those servants found a way to
deceive the Royal Family into believing that they were nothing more than common men,
and were subjects of the servants instead of vise versa? What if those servants then
tricked the Royal Family into turning over their birthright through a series of contracts
instituted by the use of fraud and deception, without full disclosure and fair
consideration? Do you think that, if these things happened and the Royal Family found
out, there would be a way for the Royal Family to regain its rightful property and status?
Consider the status of a citizen of the United States. He is ruled by codes and regulations
created by bureaucrats who are supposedly public servants. Most of these rules are
never even voted on, but are placed into law by an official who wasnt even elected to
office. The citizen of the United States is not sovereign because he cannot own the land.
Instead, he can negotiate for the use of land for which he pays a large fee (tax) to begin,
and continues to pay a lesser fee (tax) for as long as he wants to use the land. He has the
same set of rules for all his property, even though he probably doesnt realize it. Now,

think about it. How does he differ from the class of freemen that most of our
forefathers were before coming to America from England? I submit that the Kings total
dictatorial power over every issue has been eliminated, or at least reduced somewhat; but,
other than that, there is very little difference.
We know that sovereignty exists somewhere in this country. It has to. Someone owns
the land. Is it We the People who own the land? If not, who? The government would
have you believe that it is the sovereign which owns the land; otherwise, it could not levy
taxes against it. Show me any place where sovereignty was ever taken from We the
People. Show me any place where We the People ever turned over sovereignty to the
government, or anybody else except their Posterity. You cant do either, because neither
happened.
I recently researched a number of Texas Attorney General opinions concerning land

patents. In virtually every opinion, the Attorney General refers to the title going back to
the sovereign. Keep in mind that this is the State of Texas Attorney General, so his
opinion only deals with circumstances and events which took place after the State of
Texas was in power. Yet they refer to the sovereign. That means that there were
recognized sovereigns after the State of Texas became part of the Union. So what
became of these sovereigns? Might I suggest that nothing happened to them; that in fact,
they passed on their sovereignty to their children just like it had been passed to them?
Might I be so bold as to further suggest that their children, or their childrens children,
were deceived into believing that all men are equal in America, and in so doing were
conned out of their rightful inheritance and Birthright? If anything did happen to end
sovereignty by the People, or to take sovereignty from the People, wouldnt it be well-
noted in history? After all, wouldnt that be a pretty important event? It would
completely undo everything that our Forefathers fought and died for. There must be some
record of such an event! What this all leads to is the inevitable conclusion that the
government never really gained sovereignty over the land, at least not where the
American is concerned. What the government has is, at best, colored title.

The truth is that nothing happened to the sovereigns or the sovereignty. It is exactly
where our Forefathers placed it in the hands of their Posterity! Nothing ever happened
to change that. What did happen was that a group of non-productive thieves and con-
artists figured out a way to steal all the power left by birthright to the Posterity of the
Founding Fathers. They found a way to contractually obligate the true sovereigns to a life
of servitude under them. But they have yet to find a way to actually steal that sovereignty
from its rightful owners, the Americans, once the American knows who he is and the
power he possesses.
We see evidence of the governments tactics every day in the news. For example, think
about hate crimes legislation. Does that give you reason to stop and think. The term
hate crimes is a product of the governments attempts to tell us that we are all the same,
and anyone who thinks otherwise should be avoided, ridiculed and punished. He
certainly should not be associated with. And this entire idea relates back to what? Racial
differences. Isnt that the basis for all hate crimes legislation? Hasnt the government
spent the last 40 years, and billions upon billions of dollars trying to convince to
brainwash us all into believing that there are no differences between us? They talk
about the color of ones skin, and try to make you believe that the issue is a pigmentation
in the skin. This tactic keeps most Americans from even looking at the real issues. Hasnt
the government, through its virtual total control of the media, demonized everything and
everybody that even suggested that there might be a difference between people based on
who they are and where they come from?
Make no mistake about it. It is not the Black man, or the Mexican or Spanish man, or any
other race of people that the government is interested in protecting with this hate crimes
legislation. It is the governments hold on the American that it wishes to protect and
solidify. By demonizing everybody that evens mentions that there might be some
differences between people, it keeps the great majority of Americans who have been
defrauded into servitude through contract as a citizen of the United States, from searching
for the truth of their Birthright for fear of being called a bigot, racist, or hate monger.

Anyone who wants to talk about differences between people will immediately be thrown
in one of those categories; even though the issue is status, not race.
We must all understand that all this to do about racism and bigotry has almost nothing to
do with race. It has to do with status. It has to do with inheritance. It has to do with
lineage. But the only thing it has to do with race is that there were no black signers or the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. There were/are no black Americans.
To state that fact makes me no more a racist than to say that my Father was white. Its
simply a fact, but it has been demonized to the point that most dont dare even approach
the issue. Thats by design, and its how weve all been drug into a state of servitude by
those who should be our servants. More incredible, it's how the black man has been kept
in a state of servitude throughout the years.
The real tragedy lies in the fact that the black man, and all other minorities in this
country, have been held down and kept in a state of slavery by those who were claiming
to give them freedom. It was never the plan of this government to free the black man. It
was the plan of this government to use the black man to place the white man in a state of
servitude right along with the black man, and call it "equality". It has done this by
insisting that everybody is equal, and that we must all do our fair share and follow the
rules just like everybody else has to. The underlying idea is that we should readily
accept that the government is all-powerful and benevolent, and believe that it is always
acting in the best interest of the People. If you believe that, youre wasting your time
reading this book.
In all the civil rights marches of the 60s and 70s, did you ever hear one black man
demand to become an American? Did you ever hear one black man demand to become a
sovereign? If you did, I missed it. What I heard was Martin Luther King whining that all
men were equal and should be treated equal. He continually insisted that all men should
walk together as one. What he never said was that all men should be sovereign never
once did I hear that. He either didnt understand the issues, or he wasnt acting in the best
interest of his own people. Because what has already come to pass is almost exactly what

he asked for. Almost all men are now equal they are all slaves to the government! To
this day, I have never heard one black leader demand sovereignty as Americans. The day
that black men march on Washington demanding to be sovereigns, and demanding that
the Constitution be changed to include them thats the day that I will march by their
side. But as long as their main focus is to be my equal by bringing down my status to that
of citizen of the United States just so we can be equal, I will fight with my last breath to
retain my status as sovereign. If that means we cant be equal, so be it!
I find it very amusing that nobody is attacking the British Royal Family about being
equal with all the other people in England. In fact, have you heard such an outcry from
any other country in the world? It seems the only people under attack for being sovereign
are We the People, the American/sovereign. Maybe thats because of the way the
American got his sovereignty. That could throw a real scare into the power mongers of
the world if the American once again understood and seized his sovereignty. Other
people might also get ideas. After all, our guys did throw a powerful King out.
Well, you have my thoughts. You must decide if you believe that there is an American
Royal Family; and, if so, if you are in it. Ive made my decision, and I believe all the
facts are in my corner. Now I must go about reclaiming what is rightfully mine.

CHAPTER 9 - How To Use This Book
What you have just finished reading is not intended to make you all-knowing about the issues
raised herein. Neither is it intended as any kind of legal advise; and, if you do decide to use what
you have learned in the book, it will have to be on your own responsibility and at your own risk
because the road can sometimes be treacherous and hard to follow. What the book is intended to do
is give you a firm basis from which to start. If you will research the material which you have just
read, you will find that it is accurate beyond a reasonable doubt (the same standard used to sentence a
murderer to death). Hopefully, Americans will start to realize how much they have given up in the
name of nationalism, or in order to gain a little security for the short term. Benjamin Franklin said
that any man who would give up a little liberty in order to gain short lived security deserved neither
liberty nor security. I believe that.
Our biggest problem is that we Americans have become complacent about anything the government
does. We were raised to believe that our government would never lie to us, and that the United
States Government always acts in the best interest of America. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. This government acts only in its own best interest. It has now gone so far as to have you
believe that Americans no longer exist, because they have been replaced by citizens of the United
States. It has allowed an oppressive foreign trust to assume the responsibilities of the government.
It has even led you to believe that being a citizen of the United States is a great honor, that it is
equivalent to being an American, and you should be proud of the title. The truth is that the only one
who benefits from getting Americans to become and remain citizens of the United States is the
UNITED STATES (the trust); because, once that transition is accomplished, the trust gains total
control over those who previously had control over the United States. Its like getting the owner of a
company to believe that the supervisor of the night shift is his superior, and that he must abide by
that supervisors orders. If you dont like taking orders from your (public) servants, if you believe
that you can better make the decisions that affect your life and the life of your family than can
anyone else (especially someone in Washington, D.C. who first serves the trust), and/or if you just
want to reclaim the freedom left to you by your forefathers as your birthright, now is the time to start
reversing the damage and regaining your life as a free American.

Just exactly how do you start to reverse the damage? To start with, you should purchase a Blacks
Law Dictionary (you can purchase one at any good bookstore for around $65.00). You must always
remember that words have a precise meaning, they mean exactly what they say, and those in the trust
who would steal your Rights know and use their exact meaning in a way they hope you will not
understand. The problem is that the legal meaning is usually not the meaning that you have always
assumed attached to most of the key words that they use. When you look up a word in Blacks, look
up the same word in Websters, and youll find that many times a totally different meaning will be
manifest. Perhaps more important, Blacks gives the meaning of many legal terms, and cites
decisional cases that defined many words and phrases. But, whatever you do, NEVER, NEVER,
NEVER assume you know the meaning of any legal word, term, or direction. Thats exactly what
the trust depends on and expects you to do, and thats how those in the trust fool you into believing
things that just are not true, thereby controlling you without any authority whatsoever over you
except that which you give them.
After you have your Blacks, start reading the instructions of any and all government forms that you
are asked to fill out in full. Do a little research before you fill out the form to find out what law or
code that you are complying with. I think you will be shocked to learn that none of the forms that
you have always believed were required are, in fact, required. I think that, if you read and understand
the underlying code and regulation for which you are complying, you will learn that (a) it does not
apply to you (if you are not a member of the trust), or (b) it is not mandatory. Use your Blacks to
look up all words of command, i.e. must , shall, required, etc., and then apply the meanings of those
words exactly as they are used in the context of what youre reading. You will find that none of the
instructions require you to do anything if you are an American. Each instruction will be conditioned
so that it will appear to give you a mandatory order, but none will when you apply the proper
meaning to the words used therein. If these instructions did, in fact, require an American to do
anything prior to having been arrested, indicted, and/or convicted of one of the common law crimes
for which jurisdiction was passed, they would be unconstitutional on their face. Remember, there is
no longer any common law courts in the United States; rather, they ae all courts of code. Since these
masters of the language who write these codes, regulations, and instructions never do anything that
could be even remotely unconstitutional, you can be sure that nothing they put in writing will order

an American to do anything. Therefore, when you read these instructions, do not assume that you
know what they are telling you to do; in fact, do not assume that they are even talking to you.
Instead, read for the meaning that would be constitutional, and you will easily discover the true
statement made in each writing that you receive from the government, or any agency or would be
agency thereof.
To claim your sovereignty/Freedom, there is only one filing necessary. That is your Affidavit of
Sovereign Authority, your Claim of Birthright. That document should make your Claim as one of
the sovereign American People i.e. a direct descendant of one of those people in the Thirteen
Original Colonies who claimed their Independence, took up arms against England and King George
III, were victorious, and were recognized as sovereigns equal to King George III in the Paris Treaty
of Peace, A.D. 1783. That document should be filed in the Public Record by filing in the county
records of your county; and, you should get a certified copy of that page of the Public Record to
present as proof of your sovereignty in any future encounters or conflicts.
Once you are recognized as a sovereign, nothing need be filed ever again. The King has no
requirements placed upon him for his actions. So, the process of making your authority known is the
only procedure that needs to be followed; and, that should be followed ONLY to avoid
misunderstanding.
Lets look at the idea that most of us, including myself, developed while trying to free ourselves.
The single most prevalent force [enemy] that drove most of us where we are today is the IRS. After
we started looking for ways to avoid their unwanted invasion into our lives, we started finding other
problems in the system in which we had lived that were so onerous as to require that we at least
contemplate action to correct what we all saw as a problem. Many of us were driven by our
religious/spiritual beliefs, while others simply craved freedom. Since valid information on the issue
of the system that actually controlled our everyday life is very well hidden by the use of words
[specifically the definitions given to words]; and, we all were desperately searching for truth, those
eager to take advantage of the situation rapidly appeared with the silver bullet, usually for a price.
Others wrote books that proclaimed to reveal the secret way to become Free. Most, if not all of
those teachers knew nothing of what they spoke or wrote about; but, they did learn that holding

themselves out to have special knowledge made them popular, caused people to respect them, and,
most of the time, was very lucrative. It became a money fueled industry.
Meanwhile, newcomers to the movement were immediately pushed to these so-called gurus. They
were told, first by current followers, and later by the guru himself that, in order to survive the journey
to Freedom, they must follow a certain path. Of course, only this guru knew what that path was. In
the early going, these paths were very simple. Wrong, but very simple. But as more and more gurus
popped up, it became necessary for each to develop a method that set him apart. So came the tidal
wave of this is the only way to be Free, this is the Silver Bullet. The methods got more and
more complicated, and included numerous filings that needed to be made to everybody from the
Queen of England to Ambassadors in foreign countries to the Post Master. We were told that you
could declare debts void unilaterally, that you could cancel mortgages and keep the property, that you
could claim refunds from the IRS when you had paid nothing in, that you could Accept for Value
and Exempt from Levy unilaterally, and the list goes on and on. In each case, there was a certain
procedure that had to be followed to the letter, and only one guy knew it; but, for a small price, he
would tell you. He would also supply you with everything you needed to file, and an extensive list
of people or offices to file it with. What needed to be done became more and more exotic and
complicated, because once we started understanding what was actually being attempted, it became
clear that we were being taken for a ride. But if it was complicated enough, the average person could
not figure out how badly he had been taken.
Even a larger scam [which I personally bought into completely] was the idea that because you were
born in a certain place you were sovereign [a premise for which there is absolutely no authority].
Following that was the ridiculous idea that being a American of Illinois, Texas, Florida, or any
other State made you sovereign; and even more ridiculous, made you an American. Lets examine
this idea. First, the people of the original Thirteen Colonies rose up against King George III,
declared their sovereignty, defended that sovereignty, and were recognized as sovereigns equal to
King George III in the Paris Treaty of Peace in 1783. Sovereignty was vested in those people,
nowhere else. Those people, the sovereign American People, created the states and the United
States. They passed very limited powers to the United States over themselves in the Constitution.
They did not pass their sovereignty to anybody except their kids [see Preamble to the Constitution].

So how did Congress create a new state, Texas lets say, and pass to the citizens of that State the
sovereignty of the sovereign American People. If you think that happened, show me how. While the
new states entered on equal footing with the original Thirteen, sovereignty did not lie with the states.
It was vested in those people single out in the Paris Peace Treaty, and they never surrendered it or
passed it out in any fashion save for their children.
Now, lets examine what was happening. Charlatans [or idiots as the case may be] saw a chance to
capitalize on a situation nobody understood. They would pick a particular area, research it, and come
up with a theory somewhat different from anybody else. Remember, the best lie is 99% true. Then
they would write a book, go on talk shows, give seminars, and most wound up selling the
templates that were necessary to file in order to defeat the system and be Free. Of course, they all
told you that you could keep you social security number and enjoy the benefits even after you had
reclaimed your Freedom. They did that not because it was true, but because nobody would pay them
for their advice if thy told them the truth that you must give up the social security number, thus the
benefits, if you ever want to be Free. Most of the gurus wound up in prison [where they belong],
along with many of their followers.
But these gurus, much like the system they purportedly tried to escape, were successful in doing one
thing -- they convinced most people that the path to Freedom was long and hard, required special
knowledge, and many, many filings [which, of course, they would furnish for a price]; but, that you
would not have to give up the benefits you enjoy from the system. That premise, in and of itself,
cannot be achieved; thus, it is a self-defeating proposition. If you accept the benefits of the system,
you are simply required under criminal penalty to pay the consideration. The consideration is
voluntary compliance with the system. Once you have agreed to voluntary compliance, nothing
else is voluntary. Your voluntary compliance is memorialized when you take a social security
number.
Now think about how illogical it is to believe that you must make numerous filings stating that you
dont have a number, or that you are not in contract, or that you have no duty to file a tax return, and
on and on. What does a King have to prove to rule? In England, what does the Royal Family have
to prove in order to be recognized as sovereign? The answer is the same for both questions their

Birthright. How would either do that? By the public record. That what its there for. Do you
believe the King/Queen or the Royal Family need to send a notice to the IRS [or whatever they call it
in England] stating that they are not required to file? Do they need to go outside the country to an
Embassy and file a form with the Ambassador stating that they have not become a British subject?
See how ridiculous that sounds just saying it. All they need to do is point to the public record
showing who they are in any case of mistaken identity. What makes you believe you need to do
more? You are either sovereign or you are not. If you are sovereign, you should not act like a
subject. Subjects file notices, excuses and requests for permission to their superiors. Exactly who
do you believe your superiors are if you are sovereign? God, nobody else. Go pray.
Think about it before you run out and file that zero return, or a lien in the code, or a document that
purports to act as your authority within the code, or make a claim that you have a Strawman who is
acting on your behalf. Those are all simply cleverly disguised methods of relieving you of your
money, and they are ridiculous. THEY WILL NOT WORK except to entangle you deeper into the
system; or, in some cases, send you to prison.
The only reasons not to reclaim that which is properly yours are fear, apathy, and/or you like being a
slave. If those are your reasons for not acting, then I have nothing to offer you, and I dont have time
to worry about you. If, on the other hand, you are moved to reclaim what our forefathers left to you,
I will do everything in my power to help. I promise you that your actions, trials, and tribulations will
be well rewarded if you complete the task at hand.
A side note, here, is the fact that I know that many of you who are reading this book are currently (or
you have in the past) used off-shore bank accounts in an attempt to hide your finances from the
IRS. That can be a very risky proposition. First, hiding your money can easily be construed as
conspiracy to defraud the United States Government. Again, that falls under Title 18 of the United
States Code, and that Title has been enacted as positive law. If you are sovereign, there is no need to
hide anything. Also, sending your money out of the country is very, very risky, and many of you
have probably already lost large sums of money doing exactly that. There are numerous con-games
out there just waiting to rip you off. However, if you utilize the information in this book properly,
you can have an off-shore bank account right in your own hometown bank. Thats because the

term off-shore, when used in this sense, simply means outside the jurisdiction of the UNITED
STATES and the IRS. If you are sovereign, everything you have is outside the jurisdiction of the
United States. Better still, no treaty can give the IRS access to your money, which can happen when
youre dealing with governments from around the world. I have such an account presently, and I
have had the accounts from around the world in the past which you may currently be pursuing; and I
can say without fear of contradiction that my local bank is far superior to any situation you will find
in other countries. You have daily control of your money, and you are protected by all the same
insurance and safeguards that you have grown accustomed to. By the way, theres nothing wrong
with accepting those protections because our forefathers set up this government to serve our needs.
This is one way that it can fulfill its purpose.
For those who choose to remain a slave, I have no sympathy, because it is outside my ability to
understand why anyone would choose slavery over freedom. You may feel safe and warm today, but
you are leaving a terrible legacy for your descendants, and your own future will not be so bright if
those of us who are currently fighting this battle ever decide that its just too much trouble for us.
The only reason that you still have as many rights as you have today is because there are a lot of us
that are fighting to keep those Rights, and you are the unworthy beneficiary of both your forefathers
and our sacrifices. So if you like the welfare system, youre right where you belong. If you dont
like the welfare system, you should be aware that you are the main recipient.
I pledge to do my utmost to help any American reclaim what is his. As for the slaves among you, go
pick the Masters cotton. You dont deserve the gifts left to you.
I invite criticism, and I ask that you share with me anything which you consider, or find to be,
inaccurate in this book. I have thoroughly researched all the material contained herein over the last
20 years, but the other side continues to make changes on a regular basis. While those changes
cannot affect the base idea contained in this book, some do affect the way that we must attack
different problems. Any and all true help will be appreciated.

The Greatest Story Never Told - UNTIL NOW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Greatest Story Never Told - UNTIL NOW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Greatest Story Never Told - UNTIL NOW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What does the author claim he has achieved?

What does the author claim he has achieved?

Written by Albert Lynn Barcroft

Edited by His Many Friends and Fellow Americans

COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT OCTOBER, 1999

The Greatest Story Never Told 1

The Greatest Story Never Told 2

The Greatest Story Never Told 3

The Greatest Story Never Told 4

The Greatest Story Never Told 5

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO DISPROVE ANY OF THE BASE CONTENTIONS, FACTS, OR

The Greatest Story Never Told 6

This Confederacy further declared in Article I:

The Greatest Story Never Told 7

The Greatest Story Never Told 8

The Greatest Story Never Told 9

The Greatest Story Never Told 10

The Greatest Story Never Told 11

The Greatest Story Never Told 12

state - Second with limited power delegated by the People

United States Limited power delegated by states

The Greatest Story Never Told 13

The Greatest Story Never Told 14

The Greatest Story Never Told 15

American - most powerful

state - Second in power

United States - Less powerful than the state

citizen of the United States - No Constitutional Rights

The Greatest Story Never Told 16

The Greatest Story Never Told 17

The Greatest Story Never Told 18

The Greatest Story Never Told 19

The Greatest Story Never Told 20

The Greatest Story Never Told 21

The Greatest Story Never Told 22

The Greatest Story Never Told 23

The Greatest Story Never Told 24

The Greatest Story Never Told 25

The Greatest Story Never Told 26

The Greatest Story Never Told 27

The Greatest Story Never Told 28

The Greatest Story Never Told 29

The Greatest Story Never Told 30

The Greatest Story Never Told 31

The Greatest Story Never Told 32

The Greatest Story Never Told 33

The Greatest Story Never Told 34

Chapter 3 - The Trust

The Greatest Story Never Told 35

The Greatest Story Never Told 36

The Greatest Story Never Told 37

The Greatest Story Never Told 38

The Greatest Story Never Told 39

The Greatest Story Never Told 40

The Greatest Story Never Told 41

The Greatest Story Never Told 42