Gary Null Speaking Out Against vaccines at the NYS Assembly Hearing | 10-13-2009

The Income Tax Trial of the Century

THE INCOME TAX CASE OF THE CENTURY -- DO YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT?

On Tuesday, October 20th, Pete Hendrickson, author of the bestselling book "Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America" will be tried at the Theodore Levin Courthouse before Judge Gerald Rosen and a Detroit, Michigan jury. Word of the trial has not reached most Americans -- even those who are aware of the so-called fraud of "income" tax.

The charge against Pete is that he didn't believe what he wrote on his tax returns filed between 2002 and 2007. [ Yes, you read it correctly, Pete is charged with NOT BELIEVING WHAT HE WROTE ON HIS RETURNS! ] This is a matter of philosophy -- did he or didn't he? If you or I were asked to answer that question, we would consider the decade Pete has spent researching the 6-plus million words of Internal Revenue Code and statutory law, the ground-breaking book he published about his findings, and the enormous website he has built and maintains, at which one can view the results of hundreds of individual filings made by those who have read Pete's book. What are these results? A total of $10.2 million to date in collective "victories" -- including complete annual refunds of wage withholdings and dismissals of 1099s. (And these are only the victories of those who have reported their successes back to Pete.)

The case against Pete was brought in November 2008 -- a last-ditch massive PR effort on the part of the IRS to blacken Pete's book and frighten people off from reading it. If the writer himself is on trial ... Yet the proof in the pudding is that the whole time Pete has been preparing his defense, the IRS has continued to refund filers applying the liberating truth they are learning from Cracking the Code.

Why is the income-tax community not up in arms about this trial? Why do we not even know about it? Possibly because the "real deal" in any of the issues whirling around us is given the least attention -- by deliberate design.

In my own journey down the road of alternative thinking, I have come to learn (and it only dawned on me very recently) that a certain kind of paradigm is systematically constructed around all of our favorite "conspiracy" topics. I will use the familiar terms thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Pick a topic -- vaccines, for instance. Thesis is what most people believe: "Vaccines are good for you. They protect your health and prevent disease. Vaccinate your child and get your flu shot now." Antithesis is what most conspiracy theorists or mainline skeptics believe, and it is also predominantly false. The antithesis for vaccines is: "Vaccines will kill you! They give you the disease they're supposed to protect against. The swine flu shot will give you swine flu!" The synthesis that nearly everyone misses is quite different -- and the reason no one gets to it is because of all the noise around the other stuff. Synthesis: "Vaccines are likely to cause immune dysfunction and impair your general health. They create chronic ailments, neurological disorders ranging from learning disabilities to full-blown autism, as well as auto-immune disorders. Their net effect is limited functionality."

Look at any subject people are exposing and you will find this spectrum. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The beauty of peddling a false antithesis is that the day will come when its believers will be wrong. And the more dis-believers you can draw to the antithesis, the yet-more-people you can fool!

Income tax. Most Americans believe it's unavoidable -- if you make money, you have to pay the government a portion of your earnings. Thesis. It's the law. Antithesis: Income tax is unlawful -- it's unconstitutional! Just don't file, just don't pay! The synthesis is what Pete Hendrickson's research brings us: Income tax is lawful, it's constitutional. It's just a very narrow, benign tax that doesn't apply to the money most people bring in. It's a federal excise tax, not a direct tax -- payable only on money that is federally connected. Why do most people end up paying tax on their "income"? Because of a fraudulent nationwide reporting system, whereby Americans use forms intended only for federally connected payments to advise the IRS of amounts they have paid to each other. The W-2 and 1099 "information returns" subject those whose names appear on them to a tax on their "income," as this word is a LEGAL TERM applying to money that comes from a federal nexus.

Pete's research discloses ways that Americans themselves can rectify the reports made about them, and the IRS accepts these corrections. Thus those employing what Pete calls "Congress's own method" of restitution are consistently succeeding in obtaining a RETURN of their withheld earnings -- which is the intended meaning of the "1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return."

It's a beautiful, liberating discovery. The government expanded its "revenue" by imposing a broad income tax upon the people in the early 1940s -- even on those who did not qualify as "taxpayers." Why? We were at war and they needed the funds. They felt it was okay to borrow from our paychecks throughout the year, and we could turn around and ask for the withholdings back by April 15th of the next year. Small increments taken from us on a temporary basis, and then a "return" of our money if we did not qualify as a true "employee," earning "wages." (These, again, are specific legal terms! Read Cracking the Code to educate yourself.)

And for this gift to the American people, Pete Hendrickson is being put into the fire. He may be sentenced to a prison term if he is not able to convince the jury on the correctness and fairness of the law. The real law, the way it was originally and perfectly designed. Which design has been completely drowned out by the noise around the ill-defined thesis (we have to pay) and the equally ill-defined antithesis (we certainly do not).

I ask you to visit www.NotIncome.com and www.LostHorizons.com to learn much, much more. Read Pete's newsletter here (http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter.htm) ... and this may be the time to buy Cracking the Code: The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America. Donate to Pete's enormous cost of legal defense, as he has had to hire the best and brightest to work with him. A victory in this trial could mean a turning point for you and every other American alive today.

Why didn't you know this was going on? Because it's Synthesis -- one of the gems kept hidden from us so we never really know what is at our disposal to help our deep, true, freedom-deserving selves.

Become a Free Man { SUI JURIS }

It’s rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It’s all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can’t abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We can’t serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain.

Be free, tell the government your sui juris, a free man.








NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
PUBLIC NOTICE RESCISSION AFFIDAVIT
OF NAME
New York State §
§ Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
Onondaga County §
PREAMBLE
I, State Citizen NAME , being a free Sovereign adult, natural born in New York State, living and working as a State Citizen domiciled in New York State since and I, as such status, hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law, with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of New York and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all Constitutional limitations respectively on all government agencies when dealing with them. Wherefore, the undersigned Affiant, named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and evidences the following:
I, NAME , am of lawful age and competent. I am a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen domiciled in New York State (see 2:1:5 in the U.S. Constitution), and thereby in the united States of America, in fact, by right of heritage, a Sovereign State Citizen inhabiting and domiciled in New York State, protected via hereditary succession by my predecessors' previous contracts with government as found in the original Constitution of New York, the Articles of Confederation of 1777, the Constitution for the united States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the Bill of Rights (1791) including its Preamble; and, as such, I retain all my unalienable rights granted by God in positive law, embodied in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and binding rights upon myself and my parentage, on this day and for all time now and hereafter. And further,
I, NAME , a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, with Assistance, Special, receiving mail c/o //// cottnwood Rd., town, New York /////, being duly sworn and affixing my signature to this document, do hereby make the following statement of fact and affirm: the so-called "Social Security" number XXX-XX-XXXX is rescinded in application, in body and in signature, for I affirm that this agreement was imposed upon me by usage of threat, coercion, withholding of material facts, and uninformed consent, and that I was not at age of majority; therefore, this aforementioned government action constitutes constructive fraud and placed me under duress of mind and therefore deprived me of giving any meaningful consent to the original "Social Security" application and agreement. This agreement is null and void, ab initio (from its inception), due to the aforementioned fraud. And further,
AFFIDAVIT AMENDMENT PROTECTION CLAUSE
I, the undersigned, in order to protect my unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, inclusive of my right to the proper in rem and in personam State Citizenship status, have been forced to amend certain legal documents and statements, due to the continued revelation and increased discovery of the continuous acts of fraud upon me by the de facto governments, both State and Federal, and therefore I declare that I am now and fully intend to remain free to amend any and all such documents and statements, as a matter of substantive right, for I cannot be held liable for either the acts or the omissions by governments which are out of my control, which acts and omissions constitute fraud in one form or another. Therefore, I proceed at all times "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS", inclusive of my personal right to substantive and procedural due process proceedings under the Judicial Power of both my State and my Nation. And further,
I, NAME , do state and affirm the following:
1. That material facts were withheld, such as Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1746, Subsections 1 & 2 (being within or without the "United States"), which caused me to be unaware that a completed, signed and submitted "Form 1040" or "income tax return" and other Internal Revenue Service forms and documents are voluntarily executed instruments which could be used as prima facie evidence against me in criminal trials and civil proceedings to show that I had voluntarily waived my Constitutionally secured rights and that I had voluntarily subjected myself to the federal income/excise tax, to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the IRC), and to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter referred to as the IRS) by signing and thereby affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"), that I was, in effect, a "person" subject to the tax; that the above induced and/or forced action, via State and Federal governments, clearly indicates a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (1:9:3), to wit: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" and also Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 (1:9:4), to wit: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken" in the United States Constitution. These above same injunctions are found in the New York Constitution. And further,
2. That material facts were withheld, which caused me to be unaware of the legal effects of signing and filing income tax returns, as shown by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the 1974 ruling in the case of Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876, 880, wherein the Court explained how a State Citizen became a "taxpayer" by stating: "Accordingly, when returns were filed in Mrs. Morse's name declaring income to her for 1944 and 1945, making her potentially liable for the tax due on that income, she became a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code." [emphasis added] And further,
3. That material facts were withheld, which caused me to be unaware that the signing and filing of an income tax return and other IRS forms are acts of voluntary compliance for a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen inhabiting the united States of America, when executed and submitted by said Sovereign living and working within the States of the Union; that I was unaware that, in a legislative court such as a United States District Court, the completed IRS documents can become prima facie evidence, sufficient to sustain a legal conclusion by a judge, that the signer has voluntarily changed his lawful status/state FROM that of a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen who is not subject to any federal income tax and who possesses all of his God-given, Constitutionally secured rights when dealing with government, TO the legal status of a "taxpayer" (any individual, trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation subject to federal excise tax), that is, a "person" who is subject to the federal excise tax and is, therefore, subject to the authority, jurisdiction and control of the federal government under Title 26 of the United States Code, to the statutes governing federal taxation and to the regulations of the IRS, thereby imposing the tax on himself, waiving his God-given Constitutionally secured rights to property and labor in respect to the federal income/excise tax statutes and their administration by the IRS, and establishing himself as one who has privileges only, but no rights, in dealings with the IRS, the same as a corporation; that it is my understanding that the change of status/state resulting from the signed IRS documents is very similar to the change of status that occurs when one enlists in the military service and voluntarily takes an oath that subjects him to the authority, jurisdiction and control of the federal government under Title 10 of the United States Code, the statutes governing the armed forces and the regulations of the military service, thereby waiving his Constitutionally guaranteed rights in relation to dealings with the military services. And further,
4. That I, as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and inhabitant in the united States of America, domiciled in New York State, and as a Free Man, am endowed by my Creator with numerous unalienable/inalienable rights which include but are not limited to my rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property)", which rights are specifically identified in the Magna Carta (1215) and the Declaration of Independence (1776), and protected and secured by the Constitution for the united States of America (1789) and the subsequent Bill of Rights, Articles in Amendment 1 thru 10 (1791); that my birthright to the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has been interpreted by both the Framers of the Constitution and by the U.S. Supreme Court to include my unalienable right to contract, to acquire, to deal in, to sell, rent, and exchange properties of various kinds, real and personal, without requesting or exercising any privilege or franchise from government; that I have learned that these unalienable property rights also include my right to contract for the exchange of my labor-property for other properties and remuneration, such as wages, salaries, and other earnings; that I have never knowingly, intentionally or voluntarily waived any of these unalienable rights, nor can I, NAME, be forced to waive any of these rights granted to me by God the Father, my Creator (see Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970)), because I am endowed with these rights by my Creator and by nobody else and nothing else. And further,
5. That I understand that, if the exercise of my rights were subjected to taxation, these same rights could be destroyed by increasing the tax rates to unaffordable levels; therefore, courts have repeatedly ruled that government has no power whatsoever to tax or otherwise "lien" against the exercise of any rights, particularly the rights of Sovereign State Citizens, as shown by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), which stated: "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution."; that unalienable rights are rights against which no lien can be established precisely because they are un-a-lien-able; that America's founding documents enumerate some of my unalienable rights, none of which rights I have ever waived knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally; that I freely choose to obey all American Law and to pay all Lawful taxes in jurisdictions which are applicable to me for the common good; that I stand in Propria Persona with Assistance, Special; that my status and unalienable rights, as stated hereinafter and in the foregoing, are not negotiable. And further,
6. That, for years past and at least since the year 19//, I have been influenced by numerous cases of people going to jail and being punished, and also by numerous and repeated public warnings made by the IRS, via radio, television, the printed press and other forms of public communication media, warning of the "deadline" for filing Federal forms, such as a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" and/or other IRS forms and documents; this therefore caused me to file said forms under threat, duress and coercion. And further,
7. That, in addition to the aforesaid warnings, I have also been influenced by the misleading and deceptive wording of IRS publications and IRS-generated news articles, by the pressure of widespread rumors and misinformed public opinion, and by the advice and assurances of lawyers, C.P.A.'s and income tax preparers which misled me to believe incorrectly that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America abolished the Fifth Amendment of that same Constitution and authorized Congress to impose a direct tax on me, my property, my exchanges of property and/or property received as a result of exercising my Constitutionally secured right to contract; that I was further misled into believing that I had a legal duty and obligation to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" and other IRS forms, schedules and documents, and that I was unaware of 28 U.S.C. 1746, wherein there are two perjury clauses, one stating that you are within the "United States" and one stating that you are without the "United States". The perjury clauses on Federal tax forms stipulate, under penalty of perjury, that I was stating unknowingly, involuntarily and unintentionally that I was within the "United States". This is an act of fraud by Federal taxing agencies. And further,
8. That I have also been further influenced, misled and alarmed by rumors, by misinformed public opinion and by the advice and assurances of lawyers, C.P.A.'s and income tax preparers to the effect that "the IRS will get you", and that it would be a crime punishable by fines and/or imprisonment if I did not fill out, sign and file with the IRS a "Form 1040"; that, in point of fact, the only person actually named within the IRC as a person required to collect an income tax, to file an income tax return and to pay an income tax is a "Withholding Agent"; and that, to the best of my knowledge, I am not now, nor have I ever been a "Withholding Agent". And further,
9. That, in addition to all of the reasons stated in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above, I was influenced by the common and widespread practice of employers who, either knowingly or unknowingly, without Power of Attorney, misled me and their employees to believe that they and I must have a Social Security Number and that all are subject to the withholding of "income taxes" from their earnings, either with or without their permission, based upon the employers' possibly mistaken assumption that they, as employers, are required by law to withhold "income taxes" from the paychecks of their employees, which is contrary to the Sections 3402(n), 7343 and 7701(a)(16) of the IRC, absent a voluntary execution of Form W-4, the "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate". And further,
10. That I have also been mistakenly influenced and mistakenly impressed by annual public displays and indiscriminate public offerings by the IRS of large quantities of the Forms 1040 and 540 in banks, in post offices and through the U.S. mail, which public displays and indiscriminate public offerings also had the effect of reminding me of, and inducing me to respond mistakenly by filling out, signing and sending "Form 1040" to the IRS. And further,
11. That said "Forms 1040" contained no reference to any law or laws which would explain just exactly who is and who is not subject to, or liable for, the income tax, nor did it contain any notice or warning to anyone that merely sending said completed "Form 1040" to the IRS would waive my right to privacy, as secured by the 4th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, and also waive my right to not be a witness against myself, as secured by the 5th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, and that a completed "Form 1040" would, in itself, constitute legal evidence, admissible in a court of law, that the filer is subject to and liable for the income/excise tax, even though and regardless of the fact that I, as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, am actually and legally not subject to the statutory jurisdiction of Title 26, nor liable for any income/excise tax, and regardless of the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, I have no legal duty or obligation whatsoever to complete and file any "Form 1040" forms, nor did they ever evidence 28 U.S.C. 1746. And further,
12. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS or by the State of New York, nor by any of their agents or employees, nor by any lawyer, C.P.A., or tax preparer, of the fact that the so-called 16th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, as correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), identified the income tax as an indirect excise tax in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 (1:8:1) of the United States Constitution; that the so-called 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not authorize a tax on all individuals but is applicable to nonresident aliens (e.g., Frank R. Brushaber) who involve themselves in activities, events or occupations which come under, or are within, the taxing authority of the "United States", as explained in Treasury Decision 2313, dated March 21, 1916; that the so-called 16th Amendment was never actually ratified nor could it have been enacted into positive law because the requisite number of States (i.e., 36) did not meet the lawful requirements for amending the Constitution at that time; and that a mass of incontrovertible material evidence available since the year 1985 proves that the act of "declaring" the so-called 16th Amendment "ratified" was an act of outright fraud by Philander C. Knox in the year 1913. And further,
13. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the IRS, their agents or employees, nor by any lawyer, C.P.A. or tax preparer, of the fact that, because of various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), and Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 492 (1895), the indirect excise tax on incomes identified by the so-called 16th Amendment is also a tax upon corporate privileges granted by government, which tax is measured by the amount of corporate income (see Corporations Tax Act, Statutes at Large, 1909, vol. XXXVI, section 38, page 112); that this indirect excise tax is also imposed on the taxable income of foreign corporations, and on the taxable income of nonresident aliens to the extent this (latter) income is either effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", or derived from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States" although not effectively connected with the conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", according to Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC. And further,
14. That my attention has been called to Report No. 80-19A, entitled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws" published by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, updated January 17, 1980; that this publication describes the tax on "income" identified in the so-called 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an indirect excise tax; that this report stated: "The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the 16th Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the United States Constitution, quoted above."; and this report further stated: "Therefore, it can clearly be determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax ....", thus proving in my mind that the "income tax" is not a tax on me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, but is, rather, an indirect excise tax as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), wherein the high Court defined excise taxes as "... taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges ....", none of which aforesaid classifications apply to me. And further,
15. That I was unaware of the truth of the rarely publicized statement by the IRS that the "income" tax system is based upon "voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax"; that I was unaware before June of 1990 of a posted notice in the main lobby of the Federal Building, outside the offices of the IRS, which notice reads, in pertinent part, "The purpose of the Internal Revenue Service is to ... encourage and achieve the highest degree of voluntary compliance in accordance with the tax laws and regulations."; that I was unaware before June of 1990 that Mr. Roger M. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., made the following statement to an assemblage of tax lawyers on May 9, 1987: "We encourage voluntary compliance by scaring the heck out of you."; that it has never been either my intention nor my desire to voluntarily self-assess an excise tax upon myself, nor to give up my right to property, nor to voluntarily subject myself to such an excise tax; that I had always thought that compliance was required by law. And further,
16. That I have examined Sections 871 thru 878, 1441, 1442, 1443, 3401(c), 6001, 6011, 6012(a), 6331(a), 7203, 7205 and 7343 of the IRC (Title 26, U.S.C.), and I am entirely convinced and completely satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever, any such "person" or individual referred to by these sections. And further,
17. That, after careful study of the IRC, and after consultations on the provisions of that Code with informed lawyers, tax accountants and tax preparers concerning the provisions of the IRC, I have never found or been shown any sections of the IRC that imposed any requirement on me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and unprivileged inhabitant, living and working within a County within a State of the Union, to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return", or that imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on "income", or that would classify me as a "person liable", as a "person made liable", or as a "taxpayer" as the term "taxpayer" is defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(14), which states: "The term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax." And further,
18. That, after the study and consultations mentioned in paragraph 17, the only mention of any possible requirement upon me, as an individual, to pay a tax on "income", that I could find, or was shown in 26 U.S.C., was the title of Part I under Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A (which is deceptively titled "Tax on Individuals") and Section 6012(a), Subtitle F, Chapter 61-A, Part II-B, Subpart B, and the New York State Tax Statutes; that a careful study and earnest examination of these parts of the IRC revealed that the "individuals" to whom these sections refer are, in fact, either individuals who work within a foreign nation like France and are taxed according to a tax treaty, or they are nonresident aliens who receive income which is either effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", or derived from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", although not effectively connected with the conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", according to Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC; and that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never conducted any trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", nor have I ever derived income from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States". And further,
19. That, after the study and consultations mentioned in paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to the IRC, Chapter 21, entitled "Federal Insurance Contributions Act" (Social Security), and my attention was also called to Subchapter A of Chapter 21 entitled "Tax on Employees", which includes Section 3101, wherein the Social Security tax is identified as a tax on "income", not as an "Insurance Contribution", not as a "Tax on Employees", and not as a tax on wages or earnings; that my attention was further called to these facts: there is no provision in the IRC that imposes the tax on employees or requires them to pay the tax; a voluntarily signed and completed Form W-4, "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate", allows an employer to withhold money from a worker's pay for Social Security "income" tax, even though the worker has claimed on that form to be "exempt" from the graduated "income" tax; and an employer has no authority to withhold money from a worker's pay for the Social Security "income" tax, for the graduated "income" tax, nor for any IRS-imposed penalty or assessment, if there is no voluntarily signed "Form W-4" in force and no "Form 2678" in force Granting Power of Attorney. And further,
20. That, after the study and consultations described in paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to Section 61(a) of the IRC, which lists items that are sources of "income", and to the following facts: that IRS Collections Summons Form 6638 (12-82) confirms that these items are sources, not "income", by stating that the following items are "sources": "wages, salaries, tips, fees, commissions, interest, rents, royalties, alimony, state or local tax refunds, pensions, business income, gains from dealings in property, and any other compensations for services (including receipt of property other than money)."; that sources are not "income", but sources become "income" if they are entered as "income" on a signed "Form 1040", because the signer affirms, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"), that the items entered in the "income" section of the "Form 1040" are "income" to the signer; that Section 61(b) clearly indicates which sections of the IRC identify and list items that are included in "income" by stating: "For items specifically included in gross income, see Part II (sec. 71 and following)". And further,
21. That my attention was then called to the said Part II entitled: "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income"; that I studied sections 71 thru 87 and noticed that wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, pensions, rents, royalties, etc., are not listed as being included in "income" in those Sections of the IRC; and that, in fact, those items are not mentioned anywhere in any of these sections of the IRC. And further,
22. That, after further diligent study, it appears entirely clear to me that the only way that property received by me as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, living and working within the States of the Union, in the form of wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest, dividends, rents, royalties and/or pensions could be, or could have been legally considered to be "income", is if I voluntarily completed and signed a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return", thereby affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"), that the information on such "Form 1040" was true and correct, and that any amounts listed on the "Form 1040" in the "income" block were "income", and thereby acknowledging under oath or affirmation, that I am, or was, a taxpayer subject to the tax and have, or had, a duty to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" and/or other IRS forms, documents and schedules, none of which instruments I have ever signed with the understanding that I signed them knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally and by means of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of all the relevant circumstances and consequences (see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970)); and that, when I have sent in Federal tax forms purposely not signed, they were returned to me with a letter instructing and stipulating that I must sign the forms under the penalty of perjury, thereby claiming that I was a "United States citizen" due to the wording of the perjury clause (28 U.S.C. 1746). And further,
23. That, with good faith, with an honest reliance upon the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court rulings and with reliance upon my constitutionally protected Natural Common Law Bill of Rights, Amendments 1 thru 10 (1791), to lawfully contract, to lawfully work and to lawfully acquire and possess property, I am convinced and satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever subject to, liable for, or required to pay an income/excise tax; that I am not now, nor have I ever been a "taxpayer", and there has never been a Judicial Power proceeding in which it was ruled that I was a "taxpayer" as that term is defined and used in the IRC; and that I have never had any legal duties or obligations whatsoever to file any "Form 1040" or to make any "income tax return", or to sign or submit any other IRS "individual" forms or documents or schedules, to pay any "individual" income tax, to keep any personal financial records, or to supply any personal information to the IRS. And further,
24. That the U.S. Congress, the International Monetary Fund, the Federal Reserve Banks and the Internal Revenue Service, by means of vague, deceptive and misleading words and statements in the IRC, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in official statements by IRS Commissioners in the Federal Register, in IRS publications and in IRS-generated news articles, committed constructive fraud and misrepresentation by misleading and deceiving me, as well as the general public, into believing that I was required to file "Form 1040 Income Tax Returns" and other IRS forms, documents and schedules and that I was also required to keep records, to supply information and to pay income taxes. And further,
25. That, by reason of the aforementioned facts, I do hereby exercise my rights as a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen, upheld by various court decisions, to rescind, to cancel and to render null and void, Nunc Pro Tunc, both currently and retroactively to the time of signing, based upon the constructive fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated upon me by the Federal government, the U.S. Congress, the IRS, the "State of New York, and the “State of Illinois", all IRS forms, statements, documents, returns, schedules, contracts, licenses, applications, articles, certificates and/or commercial agreements ever signed and/or submitted by me, or on my behalf by third parties (including but not limited to Forms 1040 and attached schedules, Forms W-2, Forms W-4, and Forms 1099) on the accounts bearing the account numbers XXX-XX-XXXX and all my signatures on any and all of the aforementioned items, including the original "Social Security" application, which caused the account bearing the account number XXX-XX-XXXX to be established; that this notice of rescission is based upon my rights with respect to constructive fraud and misrepresentation as established in, but not limited to, the cases of Tyler v. Secretary of State, 184 F.2d 101 (1962) and also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979), which stated: "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an instrument." And further,
26. That I do hereby declare that I am not and never was a "taxpayer" as that term is defined in the IRC, a "person liable" for any internal revenue tax, or a "person" subject to the provisions of the IRC, and I do hereby declare that I am, and have always been, a "nontaxpayer"; that courts have recognized and acknowledged that individuals can be nontaxpayers, "... for with them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither the subject nor the object of revenue laws ....", as stated in the cases of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179, and Gerth v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955). And further,
27. That evidence now available to me proves that the Internal Revenue Service has to date failed to comply with the clear and unambiguous requirements imposed on all federal government agencies by the following Congressional statutes: the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); that the IRS failure to comply with the requirements of these statutes constitutes further constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary trust between Sovereign State Citizens and public servants, and violations of the solemn oaths of office required of federal government officials, thereby relieving me of any and all legal duties which could or might otherwise exist for me to file any returns, schedules, or other documents with the IRS; and that, after having read these three statutes and summaries of related case law, I thereby conclude that there is no reason why the IRS would be exempt from any of the clear and unambiguous requirements imposed upon federal government agencies by these three statutes, notwithstanding any and all allegations to the contrary that heretofore may have been published by the IRS or the Treasury Department in the Federal Register without also citing the proper legal authorities, if any, for such allegations. And further,
28. That recent diligent studies have convinced me of the above, and that as such I am not "subject to" the territorially limited "exclusive legislation" nor to the foreign jurisdiction mandated for the District of Columbia, federal enclaves, federal territories, and federal possessions by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, including its "internal" governmental organizations therein (hereinafter referred to as the "Federal Legislative Democracy" and elsewhere referred to in this Affidavit as the "corporate jurisdiction of the United States"); that I am not "subject to" this foreign jurisdiction by reason of any valid contract or any valid commercial agreement resulting in adhesion thereto across America, nor are millions of other Sovereign State Citizens, unless they have provided "waivers of rights guaranteed by the Constitution" by means of "knowingly intelligent acts", such as contracts or commercial agreements with such government(s) "with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences", as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady vs. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); and that I myself have given no such "waivers". And further,
29. That these same diligent studies have also proved to me that misrepresentation and a shrewd and criminal constructive fraud have been perpetrated upon Sovereign State Citizens by government, under counterfeit "color of law", through the apparent entrapments of "certain activities (monopoly occupations) and privileges (other benefits)" allowed by statutory acts or otherwise; that, by reason of American Law which has never been repealed, such sources of past and present criminal element in and behind government should be brought to justice in a Constitutional Court of Law for aiding and abetting this misrepresentation and constructive fraud as willing accomplices; that it is for such a Court, with a 12-member jury of peers, to decide who is and who is not guilty among personnel of government, media, schools, lawyers, accountants, clergy and other purveyors of misinformation and other mind-set propaganda, in this and related regards. And further,
30. That, due to such shrewd entrapments over many years, I have unwittingly signed many related documents, contracts and commercial agreements, some even under the "perjury" jurat (within the "United States") as was supposedly required; with American Law on my side, I hereby rescind and cancel any and all such signatures and render them null and void, nunc pro tunc, except for those which I may choose to have considered as being under "TDC" (Threat, Duress and/or Coercion), past and present; that this is also my lawful notice that all such signatures of mine in the future on instruments of government or other entities, including banks, which might otherwise result in contract adhesion, are to be considered as being under "TDC", whether appearing therewith or otherwise; that my Constitutional "Privileges and Immunities" (per Article 4, Section 2) are apart from those mandated for the Federal Legislative Democracy by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, and shall not by Law be violated ever; and that my status, in accord, is stated for all to see and know in 2:1:5, 1:2:3, 4:2:1 and 3:2:1 of the Constitution for the united States of America. And further,
31. That, with this accurate knowledge and with "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6, Section 2) again on my side, I do Lawfully and "squarely challenge" the fraudulent, usurping, octopus-like authority and jurisdiction cited above in paragraph 28, which authority and jurisdiction do not apply to me (see Hagans vs. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533); it is, therefore, now mandatory for any personnel of the Federal Legislative Democracy or its agents to FIRST PROVE its "jurisdiction", if any, over me before any further procedures can take place in my regard, per Title 5, United States Code, "Government Organization and Employees", Section 556(d), specifically by disclosing in writing any and all contracts or other commercial agreements whereby the Federal Legislative Democracy and its agents claim to have obtained controlling interest in me such that my specific performance to any third party debt or obligation can be compelled; OR ELSE any of its personnel and accomplices who willfully violate this statute can and shall be personally charged as citizens under Title 18, United States Criminal Code, Sections 241, 242, 1001 and/or otherwise; and, in fairness, it must be added that, to my knowledge, IRS agents have NO written lawful "Delegation of Authority" within the 50 States of the Union and their so-called "Form 1040" appears to be a bogus and bootleg document on its face. And further,
32. That, with all of the above in mind, it appears that this Sovereign natural born free State Citizen is, by Law, as "foreign" and as much a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the Federal Legislative Democracy as he is to France, and thus shall be free to use related Forms of the Federal Legislative Democracy if and when they might be needed, required and/or appropriate at various future times and places yet to be determined (see paragraphs 12, 13 and 18 above), including but not limited to Form W-8 ("Certificate of Foreign Status") or its equivalent for banks and/or other financial institutions, Forms 1040X ("Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return") and 1040NR ("U.S. Nonresident Alien Income Tax Return") for refunds and for correcting the administrative record, and IRC Section 3402(n) which authorizes certificates of exemption from withholding. And further,
33. That, since my birthday on August //, 19//, I have always been a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the Federal Legislative Democracy of the "United States", never having resided, worked, nor having any income, to the best of my recollection, from any sources within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or any other territory or possession within the "United States", which entity obtains its exclusive legislative authority and jurisdiction from Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution; that I have always been a non-taxpayer outside the venue and jurisdiction of Title 26, United States Code; that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never had any "U.S. trade or business" as defined in Title 26, in 26 C.F.R. or in 27 C.F.R.; that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never had any "gross income" from any U.S. sources, as the term "gross income" is defined in 26 U.S.C. 872(a). And further,
34. That my use of IRS Forms 1040X and 1040NR shall be presumed to mean that they were filed solely to correct the administrative record permanently, retroactively to August //, 19//, so as to claim any lawful refunds that may be due, to rebut any erroneous presumptions and/or terminate any erroneous elections of U.S. "residence" which may have been established in error by the filing of any prior IRS forms, schedules and other statements by mistakes resulting in part from the demonstrable vagueness that is evident in Title 26 and its regulations, and by mistakes resulting also from the constructive fraud and misrepresentation mentioned throughout this Affidavit; that I was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States", I have never been subject to its jurisdiction, and I have never been a "United States citizen" as defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) and as defined in the so-called 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And further,
35. That I am not now, nor have I ever knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily, with informed consent, entered into any personal, internal, public or private agreement, contract, stipulation, account or similar contrivance with the "United States", the "Federal Government" or the "District of Columbia", its territories, its agencies or other property appurtenant thereto, which would have altered or waived my de jure, Sui Juris status, or my unalienable God-given natural rights; that any such agreements or contracts, expressed or implied, such as a Social Security number and application, or Driver's License, or Bank Signature Card, or the use of Federal Reserve Notes (which are not lawful Specie) etc., have all been hereby rescinded ab initio, due to the fraudulent withholding of material facts, which became a snare and a trap and, as such, are a Bill of Attainder on this Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and inhabitant in the united States of America, for I cannot become a nexus by the effect of a fraudulent nexum, because my status and unalienable natural rights are not negotiable, and the government, both State and Federal, has not proved that they ever had jurisdiction to change my status, as required by Title 5 U.S.C. Section 556(d), or as defined and set out as a Constitutional requirement in Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 533 (see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970)); that any change of status would lawfully have to take place in a Common Law (judicial power) court under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And further,
36. That this is to certify that I, NAME, am a Sovereign natural born free State Citizen and inhabitant in the united States of America, domiciled in New York State, living and working in Onondaga County, living under the Common Law, having assumed, among the powers of the Earth, the Separate and Equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitles me, in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Myself and my Posterity, and in order to re-acquire the Birthright that was taken from me by fraud, do hereby asseverate nunc pro tunc and rescind, ab initio, all feudatory contracts with the Federal government and its agencies, and with the corporate State of New York and its agencies; for I, NAME, being of sound mind and body, do not choose, nor have I ever chosen, to give up, relinquish or otherwise waive any of my God-given, natural, fundamental, Constitutionally secured rights. And further,
37. That my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)" above my signature on this document indicates: that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of government, whether international, national, state or local, that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of its provisions, whether cited herein or not; that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy" they must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally; that my explicit reservation of rights has served notice upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law and that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements; and that my valid reservation of rights has preserved all my rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel. And further,
38. That I reserve my unalienable right to amend this Affidavit at times and places of my own choosing, according as new facts and revelations are made available to me at various future times and places as yet unknown, and as yet to be determined, given the massive fiscal fraud which has now been sufficiently revealed to me by means of material and other reliable evidence which constitutes satisfactory and incontrovertible proof of the fraud to which I refer in this paragraph and elsewhere in this Affidavit. And further,
39. That I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America, without the "United States", that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge; and
Further This Affiant saith not.
Subscribed and affirmed to Nunc Pro Tunc on the date of my majority, which day was August //, 19// plus 21 years.
Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this ________________ day of
___________________________, 2009.
I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207:
_________________________________________________________________
NAME, State Citizen and Principal, by special Appearance, in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special, with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
NAME
1111 Cottonwood Rd.
town, New York /////
Acknowledgement
New York State §
§ Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
/////////// County §
On this ______ day of ______________________________, 2009, NAME did personally appear before me, and is known to be the one described in, and who executed, the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed as a Sovereign State Citizen in this above named said State of the Union. Purpose of notary is for identification only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
_____________________________________
Notary Public, New York State

TAVISTOCK - THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN AMERICA

Formed in 1947, the Tavistock Institute is an independent not-for-profit organization which seeks to combine research in the social sciences with professional practice. Problems of institution-building and organizational design and change are being tackled in all sectors - government, industry and commerce, health and welfare, education, etc. - nationally and internationally, and clients range from multinationals to small community groups. A growth area has been the use of a developmental approach to evaluation of new and experimental programs, particularly in health, education and community development. This has also produced new training events alongside the regular program of group relations conferences. The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.

Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organizational behavior, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.

The ideology of American foundations was created by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. In 1921, the Duke of Bedford, Marquess of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shellshock on British soldiers who survived World War I. Its purpose was to establish the "breaking point" of men under stress, under the direction of the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare, commanded by Sir John Rawlings-Reese.

Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of "controlling" humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.

[Editor, Tim Aho's note: See Watch Unto Prayer report on The Heritage Foundation founded by Paul Weyrich with funding from Joseph Coors, who also founded and financed respectively the Moral Majority and Council for National Policy.]

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea. Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a "refugee", the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve us in World War II.

In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.

[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report on The John Birch Society & Council for National Policy for information regarding CIA operations on the Christian Right.]

Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill purely as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions". All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal---to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.

The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to "establish new rituals of personal interaction", that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives, destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family. Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.

Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF. Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the U.S. solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing program administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at Annapolis. The "experiment" in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert, of the OSS and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations. The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.

Such is the power of Tavistock that our entire space program was scrapped for nine years so that the Soviets could catch up. The hiatus was demanded in an article written by Dr. Anatol Rapport, and was promptly granted by the government, to the complete mystification of everyone connected with NASA. Another prominent Tavistock operation is the Wharton School of Finance, at the University of Pennsylvania. A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy---the use of drugs. The infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like "guinea pigs", resulted in several deaths.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt's advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD "counter-culture" of the 1960s, the "student revolution", which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

One victim, the wife of a member of the Canadian Parliament, is now suing the U.S. companies who provided the drug for the CIA. All the records of the CIA's drug testing program were ordered destroyed by the head of MK Ultra. Because all efforts of the Tavistock Institute are directed toward producing cyclical collapse, the effect of the CIA programs are tragically apparent. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., writing in the Washington Post August 20, 1984, cites the "squalid consequences of the 60s radicals in SDS" as resulting in "the growing rate of illegitimacy, petty lawlessness, drug addiction, welfare, VD, and mental illness".

This is the legacy of the Warburgs and the CIA. Their principal agency, the Institute for Policy Studies, was funded by James Paul Warburg; its co-founder was Marcus Raskin, protege of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy had Raskin appointed to the post of President Kennedy's personal representative on the National Security Council, and in 1963 funded Students for Democratic Society, through which the CIA operated the drug culture.

Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences.

One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is the Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State, and director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Editor, Tim Aho's note: The wife of Winston Lord (CFR, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones), Bette Bao Lord (CFR, Bilderberg), is Chairman of the Board of Freedom House whose manipulation of the Christian Right via the Religious Persecution issue is documented in our report Freedom House: A CFR Front.]

One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for controlling world agriculture. Its director, Kenneth Wernimont, set up Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America. The independent farmer is a great threat to the World Order, because he produces for himself, and because his produce can be converted into capital, which gives him independence. In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks believed they had attained total control over the people; they were dismayed to find their plans threatened by the stubborn independence of the small farmers, the Kulaks.

Stalin ordered the OGPU to seize all food and animals of the Kulaks, and to starve them out. The Chicago American, February 25, 1935 carried a front page headline, SIX MILLION PERISH IN SOVIET FAMINE; Peasants' Crops Seized, They and their Animals Starve. To draw attention from this atrocity, it was later alleged that the Germans, not the Soviets, had killed six million people, the number taken from the Chicago American headline by a Chicago publicist.

The Communist Party, the Party of the Peasants and Workers, exterminated the peasants and enslaved the workers. Many totalitarian regimes have found the small farmer to be their biggest stumbling block. The French Reign of Terror was directed, not against the aristocrats, many of whom were sympathetic to it, but against the small farmers who refused to turn over their grain to the revolutionary tribunals in exchange for the worthless assignats. In the United States, the foundations are presently engaged in the same type of war of extermination against the American farmer.

The traditional formula of land plus labor for the farmer has been altered due to the farmer's need for purchasing power, to buy industrial goods needed in his farming operations. Because of this need for capital, the farmer is especially vulnerable to the World Order's manipulation of interest rates, which is bankrupting him. Just as in the Soviet Union, in the early 1930s, when Stalin ordered the Kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural trusts. The Brookings Institution and other foundations originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy the American farmer, a replay of the Soviet tragedy in Russia, with one proviso that the farmer will be allowed to survive if he becomes a slave worker of the giant trusts.

Once the citizen becomes aware of the true role of the foundations, he can understand the high interest rates, high taxes, the destruction of the family, the degradation of the churches into forums for revolution, the subversion of the universities into CIA cesspools of drug addiction, and the halls of government into sewers of international espionage and intrigue. The American citizen can now understand why every agent of the federal government is against him; the alphabet agencies, the FBI, IRS, CIA and BATF must make war on the citizen in order to carry out the programs of the foundations.

The foundations are in direct violation of their charters, which commit them to do "charitable" work, because they make no grants which are not part of a political goal. The charge has been made, and never denied, that the Heritage-AEI network has at least two KGB moles on its staff. The employment of professional intelligence operatives as "charitable" workers, as was done in the Red Cross Mission to Russia in 1917, exposes the sinister political economic and social goals which the World Order requires the foundations to achieve through their " bequests ".

Not only is this tax fraud, because the foundations are granted tax exemption solely to do charitable work, but it is criminal syndicalism, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States of America, Constitutional Law 213, Corpus Juris Secundum 16. For the first time, the close interlocking of the foundation "syndicate" has been revealed by the names of its principle incorporators---Daniel Coit Gilman, who incorporated the Peabody Fund and the John Slater Fund, and became an incorporator of the General Education Board (now the Rockefeller Foundation); Gilman, who also incorporated the Russell Trust in 1856, later became an incorporator of the Carnegie Institution with Andrew Dickson White (Russell Trust) and Frederic A. Delano. Delano also was an original incorporator of the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Daniel Coit Gilman incorporated the Russell Sage Foundation with Cleveland H. Dodge of the National City Bank. These foundations incorporators have been closely linked with the Federal Reserve System, the War Industries Board of World War I, the OSS of World War II and the CIA. They have also been closely linked with the American International Corporation, which was formed to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Delano, an uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914. His brother-in-law founded the influential Washington law firm of Covington and Burling. The Delanos and other ruling families of the World Order trace their lineage directly back to William of Orange and the regime which granted the charter of the Bank of England.


Tavistock Institutions In The United States

Flow Laboratories Gets contracts from the National Institutes of Health.

Merle Thomas Corporation Gets contracts from the U.S. Navy, analyzes data from satellites.

Walden Research Does work in the field of pollution control.

Planning Research Corporation, Arthur D. Little, G.E. "TEMPO", Operations Research Inc. Part of approximately 350 firms who conduct research and conduct surveys, make recommendations to government. They are part of what President Eisenhower called "a possible danger to public policy that could itself become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Brookings Institution Dedicates its work to what it calls a "national agenda." Wrote President Hoover's program, President Roosevelt's "New Deal", the Kennedy Administration's "New Frontiers" program (deviation from it may have cost John F. Kennedy his life), and President Johnson's "Great Society." Brookings has been telling the United States Government how to conduct its affairs for the past 70 years and is still doing so.

Hudson Institute This institution has done more to shape the way Americans react to political and social events, think, vote and generally conduct themselves than perhaps any except the BIG FIVE. Hudson specializes in defense policy research and relations with the USSR. Most of its military work is classified as SECRET. (One idea during the Vietnam War was to build a moat around Saigon.) Hudson may be properly classified as one of the Committee of 300's BRAINWASHING establishments. One of its largest clients is the U.S. Department of Defense which includes matters of civil defense, national security, military policy and arms control.

[Editor, Tim Aho: This is the same Hudson Institute which gave us GOALS 2000 and authored the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, which became the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This law required the creation of a federal commission to monitor religion chaired by a presidentially-appointed Ambassador-at-Large on International Religious Freedom under the mandates of the United Nations' covenants and authority of the International Criminal Court.]

National Training Laboratories One of the key institutions established for this purpose in the United States was the National Training Laboratories (NTL). Founded in 1947 by members of the Tavistock network in the United States and located originally on an estate in Bethel, Maine, NTL had as its explicit purpose the brainwashing of leaders of the government, educational institutions, and corporate bureaucracies in the Tavistock method, and then using these "leaders" to either themselves run Tavistock group sessions in their organizations or to hire other similarly trained group leaders to do the job. The "nuts and bolts" of the NTL operation revolves around the particular form of Tavistock degenerate psychology known as "group dynamics," developed by German Tavistock operative Kurt Lewin, who emigrated to the United States in the 1930s and whose students founded NTL.

In a Lewinite brainwashing group, a number of individuals from varying backgrounds and personalities, are manipulated by a "group leader" to form a "consensus" of opinion, achieving a new "group identity." The key to the process is the creation of a controlled environment, in which stress is introduced (sometimes called dissonance) to crack an individual's belief structure. Using the peer pressure of other group members, the individual is "cracked," and a new personality emerges with new values. The degrading experience causes the person to deny that any change has taken place. In that way, an individual is brainwashed without the victim knowing what has taken place.

This method is the same, with some minor modification, used in all so-called "sensitivity groups" or "T-groups," or in the more extreme rock-drug-sex counterculture form, "touchy-feely groups," such as the kind popularized from the 1960s onward by the Esalen Institute, which was set up with the help of NTL.

From the mid-1950s onward, NTL put the majority of the nation's corporate leaderships through such brainwashing programs, while running similar programs for the State Department, the Navy, the Department of Education, and other sections of the federal bureaucracy. There is no firm estimate of the number of Americans who have been put through this process in last 40 years at either NTL, or as it is now known the NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences, which is based in Rosslyn, Virginia, or its West Coast base of operations, the Western Training Laboratories in Group Development, or in various satellite institutions. The most reliable estimate is in the several millions.

One of the groups that went through the NTL mill in the 1950s was the leadership of the National Education Association, the largest organization of teachers in the United States. Thus, the NEA's outlook has been "shaped" by Tavistock, through the NTL. In 1964, the NTL Institute became a direct part of the NEA, with the NTL setting up "group sessions" for all its affiliates. With funding from the Department of Education, the NTL Institute drafted the programs for the training of the nation's primary and secondary school teachers, and has a hand as well in developing the content of educational "reforms," including OBE.

Also known as the International Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences. This institute is a brainwashing center in artificial stress training whereby participants suddenly find themselves immersed in defending themselves against vicious accusations. NTL takes in the National Education Association, the largest teacher group in the United States. While officially decrying "racism", it is interesting to note that NTL, working with NEA, produced a paper proposing education vouchers which would separate the hard-to-teach children from the brighter ones, and funding would be allocated according to the number of difficult children who would be separated from those who progressed at a normal rate. The proposal was not taken up.

University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance & Commerce Founded by Eric Trist One of the "brain trusts" of Tavistock, Wharton has become one of the more important Tavistock in so far as "Behavioral Research" is concerned. Wharton attracts clients such as the U.S. Department of Labor---which teaches how to produce "cooked" statistics at the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates Incorporated. This method was very much in demand as we came to the close of 1991 with millions more out of work than was reflected in USDL statistics. Wharton's ECONOMETRIC MODELING is used by every major Committee of 300 company in the United States, Western Europe, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Bank. Institute for Social Research Among its clients are The Ford Foundation, U.S.Department of Defense, U.S.Postal Service and the U.S. Department of Justice. Among its studies are "The Human Meaning Of Social Change", "Youth in Transition" and "How Americans View Their Mental Health".

Institute For The Future This is not a typical Tavistock institution in that it is funded by the Ford Foundation, yet it draws its long-range forecasting from the mother of all think tanks. Institute for the Future projects what it believes to be changes that will be taking place in time frames of fifty years. So called "DELPHI PANELS" decide what is normal and what is not, and prepare position papers to "steer" government in the right direction to head off such groups as "people creating civil disorder." (This could be patriotic groups demanding abolition of graduated taxes, or demanding that their right to bear arms is not infringed.) This institute recommends action such as liberalizing abortion laws, drug usage and that cars entering an urban area pay tolls, teaching birth control in public schools, requiring registration of firearms, making use of drugs a non-criminal offense, legalizing homosexuality, paying students for scholastic achievements, making zoning controls a preserve of the state, offering bonuses for family planning and last, but most frightening, a Pol Pot Cambodia-style proposal that new communities be established in rural areas, (concentration camp compounds). As can be observed, many of their goals have already been more than fully realized.


INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES (IPS)

One of the "Big Three", IPS has shaped and reshaped United States policies, foreign and domestic, since it was founded by James P. Warburg and the Rothschild entities in the United States. Its networks in America include the League for Industrial Democracy. Lead players in the League for Industrial Democracy have included Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Irwin Suall of the ADL, Eugene Rostow, Arms control negotiator, Lane Kirkland, Labor Leader, and Albert Shanker. IPS was incorporated in 1963 by Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnett, both highly trained Tavistock Institute graduates. The objectives of IPS came from an agenda laid down for it by the Tavistock Institute, one of the most notable being to create the "New Left" as a grass roots movement in the U.S. Its been said that Barnett and Raskin controlled such diverse elements as the Black Panthers, Daniel Ellsberg, National Security Council staff member Halprin, The Weathermen Underground, the Venceramos and the campaign staff of candidate George McGovern. No scheme was too big for IFS and its controllers to take on and manage.

Through its many powerful lobbing groups on Capitol Hill, IPS relentlessly used its "Big Stick" to beat Congress. IPS has a network of lobbyists, all supposedly operating independently but in actual fact acting cohesively, so that Congressmen are pummeled from all sides by seemingly different and varied lobbyists, In this way, IPS was, and is still, able to successfully sway individual Representatives and Senators to vote for "the trend, the way things are going." By using key pointmen on Capitol Hill, IPS was able to break into the very infrastructure of our legislative system and the way it works.

IPS became, and remains to this day, one of the most prestigious "think tanks" controlling foreign policy decisions, which we, the people, foolishly believe are those of our law makers. By sponsoring militant activism at home and with links to revolutionaries abroad, by engineering such victories as "The Pentagon Papers," besieging the corporate structure, bridging the credibility gap between underground movements and acceptable political activism, by penetrating religious organizations and using them to sow discord in America, such as radical racial policies under the guise of religion, using establishment media to spread IPS ideas, and then supporting them, IPS has lived up to the role which it was founded to play.

[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report on Freedom House: "Grants (for the IPS) came from the Samuel Rubin Foundation and the Stern Family Fund. Samuel Rubin was himself a member of the elite Comintern of the Communist Party, founded by none other than Lenin himself. Billionaire Armand Hammer assisted Rubin in making the fortunes which helped launch IPS. Philip Stern, an IPS trustee, was the president of Stern Fund. The executive director of the Stern Fund, David R. Hunter, was previously an official of The National Council and the World Council Of Churches. (Dr. James W. Wardner, Unholy Alliances, p.125)]


STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Jesse Hobson, the first president of Stanford Research Institute, in a 1952 speech made it clear what lines the institute was to follow. Stanford can be described as one of the "jewels" in Tavistock's Crown in its rule over the United States. Founded in 1946 immediately after the close of WWII, it was presided over by Charles A. Anderson, with emphasis on mind control research and "future sciences." Included under the Stanford umbrella was Charles F. Kettering Foundation which developed the "Changing Images of Man" upon which the Aquarian Conspiracy rests.

Some of Stanford's major clients and contracts were at first centered around the defense establishment but, as Stanford grew, so, did the diversity of its services:

Applications of Behavioral Sciences to Research Management Office of Science and Technology

SRI Business Intelligence Program

U.S. Department of Defense Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense Office of Aerospace Research

Among corporations seeking Stanford's services were Wells Fargo Bank, Bechtel Corporation, Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Blyth, Eastman Dillon and TRW Company. One of Stanford's more secret projects was extensive work on chemical and bacteriological warfare (CAB) weapons.

Stanford Research is plugged into at least 200 smaller "think tanks" doing research into every facet of life in America. This is ARPA networking and represents the emergence of probably the most far reaching effort to control the environment of every individual in the country. At present Stanford's computers are linked with 2500 "sister" research consoles which include the CIA, Bell Telephone Laboratories, U.S. Army Intelligence, The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), Rand, MIT, Harvard and UCLA. Stanford plays a key role in that it is the "library", cataloging all ARPA documentation.

"Other agencies".....one can use one's imagination here, are allowed to search through SRI's "library" for key words, phrases, look through sources and update their own master files with those of Stanford Research Center. The Pentagon uses SRI's master files extensively, and there is little doubt that other U.S. Government agencies do the same. Pentagon "command and control" problems are worked out by Stanford.

While ostensibly these apply only to weapons and soldiers, there is absolutely no guarantee that the same research could not , and will not be turned to civilian applications. Stanford is known to be willing to do anything for anyone.

[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report Lambert Dolphin & the Great Sphinx, which documents the connections of SRI's Lambert Dolphin with the Edgar Cayce Foundation and The Discernment Ministries.]


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT),
ALFRED P. SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

This major institute is not generally recognized as being a part of Tavistock U.S.A. Most people look upon it as being a purely American institution, but that is far from the truth. MIT- Alfred Sloan can be roughly divided into the following groups:

Contemporary Technology Industrial Relations NASA-ERC Computer Research Laboratories Office of Naval Research Group, Psychology Systems Dynamics

Some of MIT's clients are:

American Management Association
Committee for Economic Development
GTE
Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA)
NASA
National Academy of Sciences
National Council of Churches
Sylvania
TRW
U.S. Army
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Navy
U.S. Treasury
Volkswagen Company


RAND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Without a doubt, RAND is THE think tank most beholden to Tavistock Institute and certainly the RIIA's most prestigious vehicle for control of United States policies at every level. Specific RAND policies that became operative include our ICBM program, prime analyses for U.S. foreign policy making, instigator of space programs, U.S. nuclear policies, corporate analyses, hundreds of projects for the military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to the use of mind altering drugs like peyote, LSD (the covert MK-ULTRA operation which lasted for 20 years).

[Editor, Tim Aho's note: The founder of the Rand Corporation, Herman Kahn, also founded the Hudson Institute in 1961. In Educating for the New World Order, B.K. Eakman tells of a training manual for "change agents" developed for the U.S. government by Rand Corporation: ". . . a how-to manual with a 1971 U.S. Office of Education contract number on it entitled 'Training for Change Agents'; seven volumes of 'change agent studies' commissioned by the U.S. Office of Education to the Rand Corporation in 1973-74; scores of other papers submitted by behaviorist researchers who had obtained grants from the U.S. Office of Education for the purpose of exploring ways to 'freeze' and 'unfreeze' values, 'to implement change,' and to turn potentially hostile groups and committees into acquiescent, rubber-stamp bodies by means of such strategies as the 'Delphi Technique.'" (p. 118)]

Some of RAND's clients include:

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)
Chase Manhattan Bank
International Business Machines (IBM)
National Science Foundation
Republican Party
TRW
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Department of Health
U.S. Department of Energy

There are literally THOUSANDS of highly important companies, government institutions and organizations that make use of RANDS's services. To list them all would be impossible. Among RAND's specialities is a study group that predicts the timing and the direction of a thermonuclear war, plus working out the many scenarios based upon its findings. RAND was once accused of being commissioned by the USSR to work out terms of surrender of the United States Government, an accusation that went all the way to the United States Senate, where it was taken up by Senator Symington and subsequently fell victim to scorn poured out by the establishment press. BRAINWASHING remains the primary function of RAND.

These institutions are among those that fund The UNIFORM LAW FOUNDATION, whose function is to ensure that the Uniform Commercial Code remains the instrument for conducting business in the United States.

Glenn Beck interviews Lord Monckton on the Soviet style takeover of America by the NWO & BHO

WARNING! Goodbye U.S Sovereignty... Hello One World Government !

Swear NO Oaths (UNDERSTANDING JURISDICTION)

By Anonymous

In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don’t talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken." The protest obviously didn’t happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here’s what happened.

The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to given to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you’ve been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that’s how the nobility made their wealth. No, they didn’t push a plow. They had servants to do it. The nobility wouldn’t sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn’t have moved out? Then you’d have a feel for what feudalism was all about.

A tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate). That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax." The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."

The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they’d also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d never need to become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen didn’t need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he’d have learned enough to practice the craft. That’s when the contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is "Jur-nee-man." He was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)." He’d then go to work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that’s quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he’d be recognized by the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21! The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice’s father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.

When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he’d only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They’d love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")

Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn’t the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen were the market was that they’d also been taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the priests) nobody else knew how to read.

These men were blown away when they read Jesus’ command against swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a millennia they’d been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener.

Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there’d have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."

In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.

Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say), "None, except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?

The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they couldn’t establish a church, which followed Jesus’ words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those who’d kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one’s hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn’t miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. "Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he’d better "Quake before the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who’d been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn’t just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.

But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can’t go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction,’ at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn’t have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.

That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who’d thought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren’t enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who’d then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They’d always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals?

They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There’s an aspect of a monarchy that Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone jumps.

Why do they jump? Simple. It’s a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail (hey, there’s a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.

Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that wasn’t possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!

A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant’s oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one’s self. He refused to accept the administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren’t filled as you’d envision them. The men who’d refused the oaths weren’t there. Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that. There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of a petty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood- in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to the family earnings.

That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they’d exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus’ words didn’t bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they’d been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!

When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation. That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it’s the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can’t be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he’d evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that’s still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn’t apportioned, and couldn’t be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn’t absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn’t be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn’t apply. Make sense?

Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn’t have come up.

Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.

That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it’s far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That’s a very strange concept at law. Actually, it’s impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn’t say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That’s absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers’ incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don’t have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That’s logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you’re saying, "Man, I’d never be so foolish as to claim that." I’ll betcha $100 I can prove that you did it and that you’ll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed. You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It’s common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you’d need to be under oath, right? Right. There’s no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it’s a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you’re under oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.

You’ve read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can’t even be placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.

The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn’t you just state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There’s a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That’s why you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren’t under oath enabling the commission of perjury. You can’t be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn’t try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.

Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you’ll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!

Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his income from criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he didn’t list it, then swore that the form was "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."

Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer’s oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.

There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.

However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.

The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I’m) under penalties of perjury" and "I’m not a federal official or employee" would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can’t have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren’t federal persons. Unfortunately, they didn’t tell the court that while under oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn’t a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that’s surely what he’d try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath. As he’s not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he’s under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It’s still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn’t changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It’s still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don’t immediately realize it. Yes, it’s a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You’ve wondered who are persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.

The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.

After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn’t vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren’t about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.

It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren’t about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn’t have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!

Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.

Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with a perjury. It’s all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.

You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction" means. You didn’t WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn’t realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual penalties. You just didn’t give those words any thought. What do you do when you discover you’ve made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury of which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you’ve never sworn such an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you’d ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you’ll most certainly not make that mistake again! That’ll be the end of any possibility that you’ll ever be charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it’s only as simple as it’s supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren’t under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can’t be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.

It’s a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you’ve never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.

Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all." That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who’d farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He’d "tear down the temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!

The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence, responding, "You have so said."

He didn’t "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he’d said so. That’s what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn’t get jurisdiction.

Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He’d never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn’t kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How’s that for chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn’t do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.

In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it’s a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.

Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don’t name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus’ followers, suits that they couldn’t answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn’t a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!

It’s rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus’ commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It’s all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can’t abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. We can’t serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That’s certain.

As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly can’t envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I can’t envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus’ command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus’ own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath.

The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.

Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can’t, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won’t see how it will function until it arrives.

Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. It worked 400 years ago. It’ll still work. It’s the only thing that’ll work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that you aren’t the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Then there’d be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That’s only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends. But save a copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell the truth. That will set you free - and it’ll scare the government silly.