Understanding Jurisdiction | Tir Na Saor - Land of the Free

Here’s something so incredible and yet SO SIMPLE..it boggles the
mind…….. This is a bit of a read BUT WELL WORTH IT……..
All to do with how you HAVE BEEN SIGNING  your Income Tax form,,,,
not knowing the TRUTH

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, then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once
signed. You certified and declared that it was correct (“true”)
and that you agreed that it was a serious offence to make a false
return …..so….basically you  were under an oath and 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.

=======================================================================

Understanding Jurisdiction

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 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.” Sound familiar? 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 [that]
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 [Amendment] 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 or Canadian 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.

via tirnasaor.com

Posted via email from DailyDDoSe