Thompson News

Thursday, January 29, 2004

I came across this article over the net. I did not right this, but I don't take much issue with it either. My experience in
studying these issuse tells me that this article is right on point. This may upset a few people, but after seeing
the nonsense that comes from courts, I believe that this article really gets to the root of the problem.

After taking a look at the problem, it seems to me the solution, at least for Christians is to avoid the taking of any
oaths. It seems that the oath is the glue that hold the new world disorder together. Althought I wrote about
this earlier, it bears repeating.

In Matthew 5:33-37 the Scripture says:

33: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36: Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

And in James 5:12

12: But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

As one who had done some extensive studies on religious issues brought up in this article, I see this material as fairly

I have read the Book of Enoch, and I find the read incredible, and something that I never expected. I suggest that
everyone take the time to read it.

While the problem seems insurmountable, the fact is that the simple act of not taking oaths will go a long way
to solving our problems.


Bar Association History & Who Owns the U.S.

Subject: History of "BAR ASSOCIATIONS" The Crown Temple - Secret Society of the Third Way Order [14 Pages] {THE REAL AMERICAN HISTORY NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS ON THE 227th ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST 4th Of July 1776}

History of "BAR ASSOCIATIONS" The Crown Temple Secret Society of the Third Way Order by Rule of Mystery Babylon. The Templars of the Crown. The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the "Crown," which is a private foreign power.

Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different "Crown" and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the "Crown."

From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous. First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row.

This Temple "Church" is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution. All licensed Bar Attorneys - Attorners (see definitions below) ­ in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London.

Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown. The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called in the 1800's, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the American people.

These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for legal and lawful below). They are known collectively as the "Crown." Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers. The present Queen of England is not the "Crown," as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple.

The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery. The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies.
The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent "legal" - but totally unlawful - contracts on the American people.

The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim's judiciary. Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta.

This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as Code. Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." -Matthew 23:27

By what authority has the "Crown" usurped the natural sovereignty of the American people? Is it acceptable that the U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues in the U.S.A? How can it be considered in any manner as being "constitutional" when this same Supreme Court is appointed by (not elected) and paid by the Federal U.S. Government? Is it any wonder the states and her people have no justice as they dwell upon the land? As you will soon see, the land called North America belongs to the Crown Temple. The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London.

The private Federal Reserve System, which issues fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland.

The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world. Definitions You Never Knew:

ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESQUIRE, n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

RULE, n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary RULE n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.

REGULATION n. 1 [C] a rule, statement about what can be done and what cannot. 2 [U] the general condition of controlling any part of human life. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999. CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from all except those people who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules of behavior. 3 [C] a formal group of principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to encode.

ENCODE v. 1 to change written material into secret symbols. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

CURTAIN n. [OE. cortin, curtin, fr. OF. cortine, curtine, F. courtine, LL. cortina, also, small court, small inclosure surrounded by walls, from cortis court. See Court.] 4. A flag; an ensign; -- in contempt. [Obs.] Shak. Behind the curtain, in concealment; in secret. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COURT, n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary. COURT n. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. -The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.

TEMPLAR, n. [from the Temple, a house near the Thames, which originally belonged to the knights Templars. The latter took their denomination from an apartment of the palace of Baldwin II in Jerusalem, near the temple.] 1. A student of the law. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

TEMPLE, n. [L. templum.] 1. A public edifice erected in honor of some deity. Among pagans, a building erected to some pretended deity, and in which the people assembled to worship. Originally, temples were open places, as the Stonehenge in England. 4. In England, the Temples are two inns of court, thus called because anciently the dwellings of the knights Templars. They are called the Inner and the Middle Temple. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

CAPITOL, n. 1. The temple of Jupiter in Rome, and a fort or castle, on the Mons Capitolinus. In this, the Senate of Rome anciently assembled; and on the same place, is still the city hall or town-house, where the conservators of the Romans hold their meetings. The same name was given to the principal temples of the Romans in their colonies.

INN, n. [Hebrew, To dwell or to pitch a tent.] 2. In England, a college of municipal or common law professors and students; formerly, the town-house of a nobleman, bishop or other distinguished personage, in which he resided when he attended the court. Inns of court, colleges in which students of law reside and are instructed. The principal are the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. Inns of chancery, colleges in which young students formerly began their law studies. These are now occupied chiefly by attorneys, solicitors, etc.

INNER, a. [from in.] Interior; farther inward than something else, as an inner chamber; the inner court of a temple or palace. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary. CROWN, n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself.

Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. -- Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. -- Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. -- Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

COLONY, n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

ESTATE, n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1.In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ESTATE, v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

PATENT, a. [L. patens, from pateo, to open.] 3. Appropriated by letters patent. 4. Apparent; conspicuous. PATENT, n. A writing given by the proper authority and duly authenticated, granting a privilege to some person or persons. By patent, or letters patent, that is, open letters, the king of Great Britain grants lands, honors and franchises. PATENT, v.t. To grant by patent. 1. To secure the exclusive right of a thing to a person.

LAWFUL. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. ­ A Dictionary of Law 1893.

LEGAL. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". - 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).

STATUS IN QUO, STATUS QUO. [L., state in which.] The state in which anything is already. The phrase is also used retrospectively, as when, on a treaty of place, matters return to the status quo ante bellum, or are left in statu quo ante bellum, i.e., the state (or, in the state) before the war. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

The Four Inns of Court to the unholy Temple Globally, all the legalistic scams promoted by the exclusive monopoly of the Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. These Inns/Temples are exclusive and private country clubs; secret societies of world power in commerce. They are well established, some having been founded in the early 1200's.

The Queen and Queen Mother of England are current members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray's Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln's Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300). Just like all U.S. based franchise Bar Associations, none of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated - for a definite and purposeful reason: You can't make claim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, and their so-called constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation. In other words, they exist as secret societies without a public "front door" unless you're a private member called to their Bar.

While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license to steal from Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to steal from America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple. From THE HISTORY OF THE INN, Later Centuries, [p.6], written by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, we can see a direct tie to the Bar Association franchises and its Crown signatories in America: "Call to the Bar or keeping terms in one of the four Inns a pre-requisite to Call at King's Inns until late in the 19th century.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, students came from the American colonies and from many of the West Indian islands. The Inn's records would lead one to suppose that for a time there was hardly a young gentleman in Charleston who had not studied here. Five of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Middle Templars, and notwithstanding it and its consequences, Americans continued to come here until the War of 1812". All Bar Association licensed Attorneys must keep the terms of their oath to the Crown Temple in order to be accepted or "called to Bar" at any of the King's Inns.

Their oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance are made to the Crown Temple. It's a real eye opener to know that the Middle Inn of the Crown Temple has publicly acknowledged there were at least five Templar Bar Attornies, under solemn oath only to the Crown, who signed what was alleged to be an American Declaration of Independence. This simply means that both parties to the Declaration agreement were of the same origin, the Crown Temple. In case you don't understand the importance of this, there is no international agreement or treaty that will ever be honored, or will ever have lawful effect, when the same party signs as both the first and second parties. It's merely a worthless piece of paper with no lawful authority when both sides to any agreement are actually the same. In reality, the American Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an internal memo of the Crown Temple made among its private members.

By example, Alexander Hamilton was one of those numerous Crown Templars who was called to their Bar. In 1774, he entered King's College in New York City, which was funded by members of the London King's Inns, now named Columbia University. In 1777, he became a personal aide and private secretary to George Washington during the American Revolution. In May of 1782, Hamilton began studying law in Albany, New York, and within six months had completed a three year course of studies, passed his examinations, and was admitted to the New York Bar.

Of course, the New York Bar Association was/is a franchise of the Crown Temple through the Middle Inn. After a year's service in Congress during the 1782-1783 session, he settled down to legal practice in New York City as Alexander Hamilton, Esqr. In February of 1784, he wrote the charter for, and became a founding member of, the Bank of New York, the State's first bank. He secured a place on the New York delegation to the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia. In a five hour speech on June 18th, he stated "an Executive for life will be an elective Monarch". When all his anti-Federalist New York colleagues withdrew from the Convention in protest, he alone signed the Constitution for the United States of America representing New York State, one of the legal Crown States (Colonies).

One should particularly notice that a lawful state is made up of the people, but a State is a legal entity of the Crown - a Crown Colony. This is an example of the deceptive ways the Crown Temple - Middle Templars - have taken control of America since the beginning of our settlements. This is explained in further detail below.

Later, as President Washington's U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton alone laid the foundation of the first Federal U.S. Central Bank, secured credit loans through Crown banks in France and the Netherlands, and increased the power of the Federal Government over the hoodwinked nation-states of the Union. Hamilton had never made a secret of the fact that he admired the government and fiscal policies of Great Britain. Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony. Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America.

The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attornies Rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but
"legal" Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts, our This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate also-called "judiciary" in America deeds to all of North America.

The biggest lie is what the Crown and its agents refer to as "the rule of law". In reality, it is not about law at all, but solely about the Crown Rule of all nations. For example, just read what President Bush stated on November 13, 2001, regarding the "rule of law:" "Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of law." - Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on 11/13/01, spoken from the White House, Washington D.C.

What happened in 1776? "Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the depths of the earth." - Old Latin maxim and Roman expression. 1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called "States" as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the definitions above to understand the legal trickery that was done).

The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word "State" to signify a "legal estate of possession." Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word "states". By the use of "State," the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

All "Constitutional Rights" in America are simply those dictated by the Crown Temple and enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their franchise and corporate government entity, the federal United States Government. When a "State Citizen" attempts to invoke his "constitutional", natural, or common law "rights" in Chancery (equity courts), he is told they don't apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown "law".

Only a state citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of God's Law. The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only within natural and common law as is already established by God's Law. Only a State Citizen can be a party to an action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be recognized in that court because he doesn't legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts. In order to be recognized in their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a corporate or legal entity (a legal fiction).

Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters within Birth Certificates issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of God into a fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders and Codes (there is no "law" within any Rule or Code). Of course, Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted into a legal "Person" of fictional "status" (another legal term) in order for their legal - but completely unlawful ­ State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over him. Chancery Courts are tribunal courts where the decisions of "justice" are decided by 3 "judges". This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked their Rule and Code over all judicial courts. "It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent." -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.

The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and Charters (definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is now). Since the people were giving the patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time, especially concerning Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe they were being granted "independence." Remember, the Crown Templars represented both parties to the 1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the latter 1787 U.S. Constitution.

To have this "Declaration" recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, "between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States". The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate "United States", the new Crown Temple States (Colonies).

Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation "Esqr." following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies "Officers of the King's Courts", which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above).

The Crown was represented in signature by "David Hartley, Esqr.", a Middle Templar of the King's Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was "John Adams, Esqr", "Benjamin Franklin, Esqr." and "John Jay, Esqr." The signatories for the "United States" were also Middle Templars of the King's Court through Bar Association membership.

What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and elaborate scam the people of North America had pulled on them! It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in part, "to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects."

The Crown Colonies were granted to "persons" and corporations of the Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American Colonial land was owned by the Crown. Since 1883, the Crown has been receiving "restitution" from the United States, their incorporated Crown franchisee, because the Crown owns the land through paramount and allodial title as a possessory estate. Now, here's a real catch-all in Article 4: "It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted."

Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as the debtors, and the Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American people by owning all debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This sounds too good to be true, but these are the facts. The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can't begin to describe what had taken place.

So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states, "It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit." That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton's U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire. An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans.

The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It's very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the Roman Church. This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213. This charter was sworn in fealty by England's King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same, "I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars."

Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:
We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances. We perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms. The Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and his senses, he shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.

Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly.

To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope. The following definitions are all taken from Webster's 1828 Dictionary since the meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:

FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands; loyalty.Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their landlords. The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and the superior, liege lord.

FEE, n. [In English, is loan]. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe. See Feud.] Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan.

A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.

FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or he reditaments held in trust, or on the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or tenant has to the lands or other immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits thereof hereditarily, rendering to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure, &c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior.

By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the British- English Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future possessions, estates, trusts, charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and the Roman Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England Colonies in America became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the "United States."

ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and fealty to the purchaser of an estate.

Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the Temple Church, by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new lord of the land. Because King John defaulted on the 1213 contract, the new Crown (the Crown Temple) had a new lord: The Pope and his Roman Church.

CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as evidence of a grant, contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual sense, it is the instrument of a grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or other sovereign power, or from a private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be empanelled on a jury, a charter of pardon, &c.
The charters under which most of the colonies in America were settled, were given by the king of England, and incorporated certain persons, with powers to hold the lands granted, to establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These were called charter- governments. By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms of his fealty with Rome and the Pope. What that means is that he lost all rights to the kingdom, and the royal English Crown was turned over by default to the Pope and the Roman Church. The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his Knights established it under his Orders. So also the Temple Banks, the Templar Attorneys, the corporate United States, the corporate British Commonwealth, the chartered Federal Reserve Bank and Bank of England; the list is nearly endless. He who controls the gold controls the world. The Crown Temple Today The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is more so obvious, yet somewhat hidden.

The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify their private and unholy Temple. Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private Federal Reserve System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note. Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is written in Roman numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention to the words CAPITOL, CROWN and TEMPLE.

1776 signifies the birth of the New World Order under the Crown Temple. That's when their American Crown Colonies became the chartered government called the United States, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Since that date, the United Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to every nation as a State member. Note also that there are 13 layers for the pyramid denoting the 13 chartered Colony-States and that the eye of Osirus, one of many Templar signs used the Temple Illuminati or their Order of the Rose and Order of the Cross.

The Wizard of Oz = the Crown Temple This is not a mere child's story written by L. Frank Baum. What symbol does "Oz" stand for? Ounces. What is measured in ounces? Gold. What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.

The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious ALL CAPS legal fiction - a PERSON - the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your Christian birth name. Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A brain! No legal fiction has a brain because they have no breath of life! What did he get in place of a brain? A Certificate. A Birth Certificate for a new legal creation. He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the true epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a Certificate in place of a brain of common sense.

What about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) mean anything to you? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul. He's the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as if he was already dead. He's the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotions or heart he may get a hold of. The pitiful Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he was. Did you ever notice how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as if they have great courage, but they really have none at all. All roar with no teeth of authority to back them up. When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of "official" recognition. Now, regardless of how much of a coward he still was, his official status made him a bully with officially recognized authority. He's just like the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.

What about the trip through the field of poppies? Notice how it never affected the Straw Man (no brain) or the TIN Man (no heart or soul)? They weren't real people, so drugs had no effect on them. The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged? The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries. Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?

Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was? Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means "in total, all together; Latin in toto." Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard's theatrics, yet he was so small in size compared to the Wizard, no-one seemed to notice him. The smoke, flames and hologram images were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard of Oz commanded. Toto simply went over, looked behind the curtain ­ the court - (see the definition for curtain above), saw it was a scam, and started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about.

Who was behind the curtain? Just an ordinary person controlling the levers that created the illusions of the Great Wizard's power and authority. When Toto pulled back the curtain to completely expose him, the charade was over. The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed. The Wizard's game was up. It's too bad that people don't realize how loud a bark from a little dog is. How about your bark?

Do you just remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, your legal master gives you? Let's not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What a perfect mythical creature to symbolize the Bar Association Attorners who attack and control all the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz - Gold. What is it going to take to expose the Wizard and tear down the court veil for what they really are? Each of us needs only a brain, a heart and soul, and courage. Then, and most importantly, we all need to learn how to work together. Only "in toto," working together as one Body of the King of Kings, can we ever be free or have the freedom given under God's Law.

Mystery Babylon Revealed. There is no mystery behind the current abomination of Babylon for those who discern His Truth: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. -Revelation 17:5 God has reserved His judgment for the great idolatress, Rome, the chief seat of all idolatry, that rules over many nations with whom the kings have committed to the worship of her idols (see Revelation 17:1-4). The Pope and His purported Church; sitting on the Temple throne at the Vatican; ruling the nations of the earth through the Crown Temple of ungodly deities are the Rule and Order of Babylon; the Crown of godlessness and the Code of commerce.

One may call the Rule of the world today by many names: The New World Order (a Bush family favourite), the Third Way (spoken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), the Illuminati, Triad, Triangle, Trinity, Masonry, the United Nations, the EU, the US, or many dozens of other names. However, they all point to one origin and one beginning.

We have traced this in history to the Crown Temple, the Temple Church circa 1200. All world banking, judiciary, and rule of "law" has been under the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple since that time. Because the Pope created the Order of the Temple Knights (the Grand Wizards of deception) and established their mighty Temple Church in the sovereign City of London, it is the Pope and his Roman Capitols who control the world. "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" -Revelation 17:4 This verse appears to be an accurate description of the Pope and His Bishops for the past 1,700 years. The idolatries of commerce in the world: all the gold and silver; the iron and soft metals; the money and coins and riches of the world: All of these are under the control of the Crown Temple; the Roman King and his false Church; the throne of Babylon; attended to by his Templar Knights, the Wizards of abomination and idolatry. "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman [mother of harlots] sitteth" - Revelation 17:9 The only mention of "seven mountains" within our present-day Bible is at Revelation 17:9, so it's no wonder this has been a mystery to the current Body of Christ.

The 1611 King James (who was a Crown Templar) Bible is not the entire canon of the early church ("church" in Latin ecclesia; in Greek ekklesia). There were other gospels and books that have been forbidden by the Papal Throne at Rome since the third century. Greek and Aramaic copies of the "unapproved writings" were sought after and destroyed by Rome. This in itself is no mystery as history records the existence and destruction of these early church writings; just as history has now proven their genuine authenticity with the appearance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the coptic library at Nag Hagmadi in Egypt, among many other recent Greek language discoveries within the past 100 years.

The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times: By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. - Hebrews 11:5 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." - Jude 1:14-15.

The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria, all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church included the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. However, this and many other books became discredited after the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal authorities, afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.

At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's, rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were later found to be forgeries. The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The now famous R.H. Charles edition was first published by Oxford Press in 1912. In the following years, several portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of cave number four of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.

Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been added): [CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that shall be; a mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain of gold, a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead. 6 These [6] mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron, the mountain of copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of soft metal, and the mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as wax: Before the fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains, and they shall become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days that none shall be saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There shall be no iron for war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, tin shall be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be desired. 9 All these things shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.' [CHAPTER 24] 3 The seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne; and fragrant trees encircled the throne. [CHAPTER 25] 3 And he answered saying: 'This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. 4 As for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch it until the great judgement when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever. 5 It shall then be given to the righteous and Holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: It shall be transplanted to the Holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King. 6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the Holy place shall they enter; its fragrance shall be in their bones and they shall live a long life on earth, such as thy fathers lived: In their days shall no sorrow, or plague, or torment, or calamity touch them.'

The present wealth and power of all the world's gold, silver, tin, bronze, pearls, diamonds, gemstones, iron, and copper belonging the Babylon whore, and held in the treasuries of her Crown Templar banks and deep stony vaults, will not be able to save them at the time of the Lord's judgment. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. ­ Matthew 23:13

Where do we go from here? Now that their false Temple has been exposed, how does this apply to the Kingdom of Heaven? To reach the end, you must know the beginning. For everything ordained of God, there is an imitation ordained of evil that looks like the genuine thing. There is the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil. The problem is, most believe they have the knowledge of God when what they really have is knowledge of world deceptions operating as gods. Where there is the true Tabernacle or Temple of God, there are also the false Temples of unholy gods. The only way to discern and begin to understand the Kingdom of Heaven is to seek the Knowledge that comes only from God, not the knowledge of men who take their legal claim as earthly rulers and gods.

The false Crown Temple and its Grand Wizard Knights have led the world to believe that they are of the Lord God and hold the knowledge and keys to His Kingdom. What they hold within their Temples are the opposite. They claim to be the "Holy Church," but which holy church? The real one or the false one? Are the Pope and his Roman Church the Temple of God, or is this the unholy Temple of Babylon sitting upon the seven mountains? They use the same words, but alter them to show the true meaning they have applied: The State is not a state; a Certificate is not a certification. The Roman Church is not the church (ekklesia). There is the Crown of the Lord; and a Crown of that which is not of the Lord. There is the mark and seal of the Lord God; and there are the Marks and Seals of the false gods. All imitations appear to be the genuine article, but they are fakes.

Those who are truly seeking the genuine Kingdom of God must allow the Lord to show them the discernment between the genuine and the imitation. Without this discernment by the Holy Spirit, all will remain fooled by the illusions of false deity emanating from the unholy spirits of the Wizards. Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom of God is within you. - Luke 17:21 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the FATHER'S kingdom is within you and it is outside you. ­ Gospel of Thomas 3 Don't you know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God lives in you? ­ 1 Corinthians 3:16 Jesus said, 'Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."] ­ Gospel of Thomas 5

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

So You Want to Hire an Attorney

This isn't going to be a piece critical of attorneys, but it is essential that people
know what kind of value they might get for the money spent.

I received a call from an attorney back East, (I live in the California Repubic) and he told
me that he now fears that if he continues to practice "law" in any of his tax cases, that
he will be sanctioned by the courts. He told me that he has very few wins for his efforts,
in spite of the overwhelming evidence that the statutes(they don't exist), codes, and
regulations show that people don't owe the income tax.

This attorney pointed out that another "patriot" attorney was sanctioned by the
United States District because of is exuberant defense of his client regarding a tax
issue. So this attorney, hires another one to help in his defense, and the attorney
he hired got sanctioned $50,000.00 for trying to help. I'm not going to disclose the
names of the attorneys as to not embarrass them.

And here is the problem for people who wish to use attorneys. If your attorney is in
fear of being sanctioned or losing his bar card by submitting compelling motions, you
the client cannot possibly receive effective assistance of counsel. The attorneys are
in fear of the judges, and the above example clearly illustrates the problem.

Those of us in the "tax honesty" movement are severly compromised in making any
meaningful defense in these "nisi prius" courts, and having an attorney is not
going to help when challenging the lawfulness of the income tax.

I told the attorney, that if he wanted to be effective, he should drop his bar card, and
become a counselor at law. Apparently, there is a big difference between a counselor
at law and an attorney.

All of these corporate "courts" tell us that we have a right to an attorney. However,
there is no such right stated in the Bill of Rights. We do have a right to assistance
of counsel
, which means that we can have anyone we want help us make
legal and lawful determinations in regards to our case. However, as assistance of counsel,
the counselor doesn't take over your case, he simply advises and helps you make an
argument. An attorney, takes total control over the case, and the client is almost
at the complete mercy of the attorney. This can be a very compromising position
to be in, especially if the attorney is in fear of the judge inflicting sanctions on him
for effectively doing his job.

So the goal of this website is to point out some of the legal difficulties one can get into,
and offer some solutions that can be had, by being more independent.

We all should be somewhat "learned" in the law. Make no mistake about it, if you don't
know how to exercise your sovereignty and rights, you cannot have any effective defense
against any kind of court action. But we all have to learn how to defend ourselves,
and we should not have to be in a position of relying on an attorney who cannot,
even if he wanted to, make a strong defense on your behalf.

The sad part about this is that if the attorneys are shut down in the court for making
strong defenses, and the court doesn't like people defending themselves, it appears
that there is no lawful remedy. The "state" is in complete control, and it appears
that we're are living in a dictatorship with the delusion of living in a constitutional republic.

However, if we the people start to exercise our sovereignty, then it seems to me
that we can poffer some meaningful solutions that are effective and that will get the government
to once again respect our rights.

Monday, January 19, 2004

Law or Contract

As I continue my studies, I am finding out some really amazing things regarding how the "law" works, or doesn't work regarding the income tax. There are some principles in the operation of law that many people don't understand, and I don't think I fully understood all of the implications until I had a chance to sit down quietly and think this all through. After watching the Schiff and the Simkanin cases, the process that the government uses is something completely different than what I had originally thought.

My view was that if one could properly identify what the law did or didn't say, that it would be a no-brainer to figure out what one's responsibilities were in relationship to the government. Normal people would simply attempt to look up the law and see if it applied to them. If it did, then of course, one would expect to comply with it. On the government's own website at:
It states the following and please pay attention to this. "One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are to be bound by it. There would be no justice if the state were to hold its people responsible for their conduct before it made known to them the unlawfulness of such behavior. In practice, our laws are published immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them." To paraphrase what this statement just said is that any valid law must be
published so that it can be made know to those who are bound by it." Gee, that's wal many of us have been saying when it comes to the issue of "show me the law."

However, when confronted with this question, the IRS or "government" routinely avoids answering this question, and it enrages most of us, because as people who expect to know what the law is, should be able to look it up, and determine if we are subject to it or not. That shouldn't be so hard, yet time after time, people are put in jail, like Dick Simkanin, because he allegedly violated a law that either does not exist or it is never disclosed.

As many of you know, I believe that the internal revenue laws were repealed in 1939. So we know that there were no internal revenue laws after 1939 with the exception of those that were saved for reference for issues that occurred before the repeal.

There are those people who believe that the U.S. Code in Title 26 is law. It isn't, but for those who believe that it is, the codes themselves bear out the conclusion that there is no liability for anyone for any tax. I also believe that the reason is that there are no statutes underlying the code. Without the underlying statute, there is no law.

So it would follow that if there is no law, then what is the government attempting to rely upon to show that people have any liability for a tax?


It appears that all the government agencies are using some kind of contract, albeit presumed, to show that we may have a liability for a tax. The obvious problem here is how did we enter into contracts without the terms being disclosed to us? Some people call these "adhesion" contracts, which are really no contracts at all. No man or woman
can enter into any lawful contract without the following conditions: a. Offer, b. Disclosure of the terms, c. Acceptance, and d. at least two signatures.

There are many other kinds of contracts, but for purposes for this article, I'm limiting this to income tax. For instance, a contract could be when someone goes into a restaurant and looks at the menu, notes the prices, places an order, and then eats the food. He is expected to pay for the food before he leaves. But that's not what we're talking
about here.

However, when asked for any contract that might make us liable the government is silent about that also. However, after seeing what has been going on, it is my opinion that this IRS beast is running under law merchant under presumed contract, and of course, one that they wil not reveal. Why? Because there is no contract. It is simply a protection racket, and if you don't pay, they'll steal your property.

When we have any dealings with government agencies, start thinking contract instead of law. That's not to say forget about the law, but if you can't find the law that makes you liable for anything, then the only other operation would be of contract.

When the government makes a presentment to you, it is an offer, and you have the right to refuse it. Or, you may accept it under certain conditions. The main point here, is that it is up to you to make that determination. Even criminal law operates under law merchant since around 1939.

My next article will be about how to effectively reject or accept offers of contract, and how to do abatements of defective process.

Saturday, January 17, 2004

Al Thompson Fresno Seminar 2 Follow-Up

On SATURDAY January 24, 2004

From: 9AM-6PM

Requested Donation: $50.00

(Please purchase your own lunch at Brooks Ranch)
Highway 99 and Ashlan
Fresno, California Republic

A Note From Al: A lot has happened since we last met. We're going to examine the Dick Simkanin case, as I was privy to some of the earlier research that was going on while Dick was in jail. This was a classic example of what not to do when confronted with trouble. Although, his defense attorney had all the evidence he needed to shut down the prosecution, he was not able to be effective in the "nisi prius" courts. We'll be going over the trial by jury, what it is and what it isn't.

I'm still developing some excellent material, and I'm learning new things to share
at quite a rapid pace. All I can tell you is that some of the information is
mind boggling.

This should be a great opportunity to learn what we need to know to help us
be more effective in being able to defend ourselves when, and if trouble comes
our way.

There will be a lot of sharing of information. My mission with this is to get
people to use the good things we have learned and try to put it all together.
I'm going to try to keep it from being another "talking head" seminar with no
solutions. We're going to work on the solution to the problem.

I just started my website at and I suggest that you carefully review the material there.

Al Thompson Videos are Now Available

For the past four years, I have learned an enourmous amount of information
regarding law and procedure. However, we find that there are many things
that we just don't understand and we really need to internalize some basic concepts
in order to keep ourselves safe.

My first video covers swearing oaths, the repeal of internal revenue laws, and
basic procedure on how to establish a court of record. We also covered the
writ of habeas corpus.

This meeting was done in Fresno, December 20th, 2004 and it is about six hours
long. The content is very substantial, and should be a good learning guide
for those who are interested.

For ordering information, please contact me by e-mail at:

New York Times: David Cay Johnston

One of the most frustrating experiences I've had is trying to reason with David Cay
Johnston, a tax reporter for the New York Times. In October of 2000, he visited my
company and witnessed a meeting with my workers where Joe Banister and I
tried to explain to them why I had stopped withholding in July of the same year.

One of the most memorable comments by David Cay Johnston was the term he
used for people who work from paycheck to paycheck, week to week, as
WAGE SLAVES. That's right, those nice people who work for
fast food chains, such as Taco Bell and McDonalds are WAGE SLAVES.
Joe Banister and I were appalled at the use of this term, and to this day, I have never
forgotten Johnston's remarks.

I was offended upon hearing those remarks, but Johnston really told the truth, in the
sense that all of us are wage slaves and we now are positioned under the thumb
of the corporate socialists who are attempting to destroy what's left of the middle class.

The income tax is intended to do just that, and it is designed to control every part of
our lives from birth to death. The income tax is the second plank of the Communist
, and it is intended to secure the position of the corporate elite by keeping fairness and competition out of the economy. Its goal is for total world domination for just a few people.

Mr. Johnston has come out with a new book, and this morning he sent me an e-mail
which said in the heading: "Al, opinions vary: See below." So I'm going to paste the
article, and then comment on it.

>>Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else will debut at # 9 on The New York Times bestseller list on Jan. 25.

The book lashes both political parties for turning the tax system into a socialist redistribution program that stealthily takes from the middle class and upper middle class to subsidize the super rich. <<

The income tax, in and of itself is socialist and it is not the law in this country.
Most reporters don't understand this simple concept. The internal revenue laws
were repealed in 1939. See article on this site.

>> Yet Perfectly Legal drew extended praise from tax policy experts from both political parties at a Jan. 9 symposium in Washington. The panelists described the book as evenhanded, full of new facts and written in an engaging style that allows readers to understand how the tax system actually operates.<<

Notice the words, "tax policy" experts. It didn't say tax law experts. If the internal
revenue laws were repealed in 1939, then the only other thing it could be is POLICY and not law. That's why when people say, "Show me the
law", we are met with silence and confusion.

>> From early reviews:

"The most important book in the last several years..."
Ken Mondschein,

"Again and again, Johnston shows the power of the tax system's inequities to shock and anger. He illustrates this with stories about the unfairness of the existing law - how the poor are audited more often than the rich, how the middle class is likely to be squeezed by an alternative minimum tax that few are aware of and how the campaign to eliminate the "death tax" on family farms was really designed to benefit a handful of wealthy families."
Larry Williams, The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 4<<

A progressive income tax is always destructive and unequal, as it is a foreign philosophy
to what was intended at the foundation of our country. But again, notice the use
of the term, "existing law". There is no existing law, it is only policy.

>>"...makes a powerful case that since 1980, Congress and successive Presidents -- politicians of every stripe -- have deliberately undermined the fairness of the tax system. It is biased to favor big companies and a few superrich individuals..."
Thane Peterson, Business Week Online, Jan. 13<<

Socialist policy is intended to benefit the "superrich" individuals, however, socialism/communism achieves its goals by telling the people that it is going to benefit the "masses." And that is the lie we've been told. I know a lot about
socialism and communism, as that was what I was being taught in college. It turned
my stomach so much, that I quit and went to work to do something more productive
than to sit in class to be indoctrinated into the marxist professors.

"Johnston does a wonderful job of burrowing into today's laws.<<

Johnston doesn't know the difference between a code and a statute, and to
whom it applies. So Johnston's book is based upon a totally false premise. I haven't
read the book yet, and I intend to, but for the most part, the whole foundation of
Mr. Johnston's knowledge is faulty and bogus, because he doesn't understand that the underlying
premise for an income tax is foreign to our republic.

>> Want to know how business execs get nearly free personal trips on their corporate jets? Johnston is your man."
Howard Gleckman, Business Week, Jan. 19<<

Here we see more socialist double-speak. The writer is trying to get the people all
worked up about trips on business jets, by causing more conflict between the "classes."
This kind of nonsense perpetuates socialism. This is a classic example of working
the issues from both sides to preserve the marxist agenda.

>> "...a thoroughgoing examination of another way in which the rich differ from low-income, middle-income and merely affluent people. Johnston shows in his new book, Perfectly Legal, that Americans who have the most money pay less of it in taxes than other Americans. 'The tax system is being used by the rich, through their allies in Congress, to shift risks off themselves and onto everyone else,' Johnston writes. 'And perhaps worst of all, our tax system now forces most Americans to subsidize the lifestyles of the very rich, who enjoy the benefits of our democracy without paying their fair share of its price.' " <<

Socialism is always unjust, and there will never be any "fairness" until it is completely
removed from this nation. But again, notice how class envy is used to show the
inequity, when that is the very intent of establishing an income tax.

>> Cecil Johnson, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Jan. 12

"...Tax cheating by companies and rich individuals, illuminated in shocking detail by David Cay Johnston's new book, Perfectly Legal."
Jon Talton, Arizona Republic, Jan. 15<<

How can anyone "cheat" when there is no law on the books. Whether one is
rich, somewhere in the middle, or poor, they don't owe the tax.

>> David Cay Johnston and Perfectly Legal have been featured since Jan. 6 on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, C-SPAN, the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CNBC, CNNfn.<<

Apparently, David's book is getting a lot of press, but it is still built on the concept
of a class struggle, which in and of itself is marxist to the core.

The truth of this system is unfolding at a rapid pace, and the socialist economy and
economic "policy" will collapse under the weight of its own destructive predisposition.

However, Mr. Johnston will continue to turn a blind eye to the honest truth and the tradegy of the destruction
of the lives of people who have been seriously injured by this evil income tax system.

Written by Al Thompson
Copyright under the common law Jan. 17th, 2004

Friday, January 16, 2004

Solutions: Part I

One of the readers of my website suggested that I speak about some of the possible
solutions. And that really is a tall order. I'm going to take a stab at it and try to explain some of the ways one can protect his rights and re-establish his God-given rights.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that fact that we don't really know who we
are and to whom is our responsibility. As a Christian, this is not a difficult one to
answer, but this also would apply to others, as all of us are creations of God. While
I don't want to preach, I'll do it from time to time, but it is essential that we know who we are and from whence we came.

God is the ultimate sovereign, who created all of us and we are obviously subject to
Him. However, God gave us a free will to chose which way our lives will unfold, and it
is us who have the ultimate responsibility for our actions.

We, as men and women, are sovereigns in our own right. However, we are sovereigns
without subjects. That freedom comes from God himeslf, and it doesn't come from any man. We have the right to work, marry, trade, own land, breath, fish, hunt, and we are the people who establish the direction of our lives to the extent that we have any control over it.

As men, we know that there is the establishment of government, which, at least in
our country, is supposed to keep people from hurting each other, and to protect the
liberties that come from God. No government or constitution bestows rights unto man.
In our country the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the subordinate Constitution for the United States are the foundational documents that acknowledgeall mens rights. They are intended to put a rein on
government, and at the same time, they are supposed to be used to help protect the
rights of each and every man and woman.

Our problems arise when we don't know who we are. The order of authority is as
follows: 1. God, 2. Man, 3. Government. The current government in our country
has attempted to displace God and His law, with it's own statutes, codes, and policies,
and many of them are repugnant to the Scriptures.

Look as some definitions of sovereignty.
We an see from this that the people are the ones who establish the government. The
government is to be the servant of the people, and not the other way around. Today,
we have the unrelenting problem of government taking over every facet of our lives.

Because of the intense brainwashing and mind control that we all have been subjected
to, and the main thrust of it is that the government is the source of all that is good, and that
it is the source of our rights. Nothing could be farther from the truth. However, the
mind control makes us weak, and we don't understand who really is the boss. We
are the ones to control the destiny of our own lives to the extent that we have the
options. Most of the time, when it comes to government, they must get our consent from us to do things to ourselves, that we normally would not

Let's use the IRS as an example. To receive a letter from the IRS brings terror into
the hearts and minds of most Americans. I don't think the SS in Nazi Germany was
able to inflict that much terror, as does the IRS. This mind control causes people to
commit suicide, break up marriages, destroy business, and bring havoc and chaos
whenever its authority is challenged. But really, who is in control? If we as individual
sovereigns were able to put a stop to this, we wouldn't have this problem. It isn't
only the IRS, but most government agencies are masters of controlling the thinking
of the people through fear, intimidation, and harrassment.

However, if you know who you are, you can then make progress by asserting your
God-given rights, and stand up for in what you believe. The government is supposed
to be your servant, and not your slavemaster. You and I are not chattel or livestock,
but we are real men and women, with unalienable rights, and we must effectivelyexercise them.

Here is an example on how this can be done, without a lot of confrontation. I have a
friend of mine, Chuck, who was speaking with me on the cell phone as he was
driving (traveling) in his truck when he was stopped by the California Highway Patrol.
The officer came up to his window, and Chuch rolled it down about two inches and
said something like, "May I help you officer?" The CHP asked him for his driver's license.
Chuck then said, "If I give it to you, could any of the information be used against me
in a court of law?" The CHP said, "Yes." Chuck said, "Then I don't want to give it
to you." Of course, when this kind of thing happens, such as asserting your rights,
the CHP called for backup. Two other cars came to the scene. And after a few minutes
on the radio, Chuck was allowed to leave and carry on with his business.

I was musing at the fact that if one mentions the Constitution the cops call for backup.

Chuck calls me back a few minutes later, and tells me this story, and after about twenty
minutes, he gets stopped again. It seems that Chuck was going down the Interstate
at 80 MPH and swerved slightly as he was on the cell phone talking to me. So Chuck
did the same routine to the next CHP and this officer said, "Where you the one that
was stopped about twenty minutes ago?" Chuck said, "Yes, I think I'm the one you're
thinking of..." Chuck said, that the officer went back to his truck and he could see
the man shaking his head while watching him in his rear view mirror. The officer came
back to Chuck's truck and said, "Mr. XXXXX, please slow down, you're endangering
the people of California." Notice that Chuck never gave him his name, but they already
knew who he was.

The point of the story here is that you don't have to do anything that compromises your
rights. Chuck wasn't rude or nasty, but he stood on his rights and simply didn't
want to disclose any information that might compromise himself.

We don't have to give our names to anyone that we don't wish to engage, and that
goes for government officials. The government depends upon us to disclose information
that might be damaging.

What Chuck did was to exercise his right to not incriminate himself in any way. This
is a fundamental right, but most of us don't know how to use it.

I'll be posting more possible solutions that will help all of us understand who we are
and how to keep government officials in their place.

Thursday, January 15, 2004

Some Thoughts About Joe Banister

As a former client of Joe Banister, I am here to tell everyone, that as far as I'm concerned,
he is an outstanding man, and has made a great personal sacrifice in standing up
for the truth.

When I first wanted to be involved in this "Tax Honesty" movement, Joe Banister told me,
"They don't play fair, Al." I already knew that by reading the Codes that Joe had
referred me to. Four years later, I come to find out that the internal revenue laws
were repealed in 1939.

Once I knew the truth, I couldn't go back and I'm sure Joe Banister feels the same way.

Here is a letter from one of his clients.

I told Joe recently that being "disbarred" from practicing in front of the IRS is the
intellectual equivalent of a man with high morals and principles being thrown out
of a skid row bar.

When Joe was helping me earlier on, I could see that there was something seriously
wrong with their so-called "collection due process" hearings. I've been off on my
own for awhile, as I approach this problem now differently than Joe. Nevertheless,
the "government's" only argument in favor of themselves is frivolous, meritless,
and unintelligable.

Here is an article from one of Joe's clients, and it speaks for itself. I thought I would
post this here as it really makes some good points.

If the codes were indeed laws, Gilligan's remarks would be on point. The problem
is worse that what he already knows. The code isn't law, and the IRS is shoving down
our throats undisclosed presumptive contracts. It has nothing to do with the law.

Congress passes laws, which are published in the Statutes at Large, and then may
be codified. Without the underlying statutes, the codes are only evidence on their

Anyone who tries to code plead gives life to an otherwise meaningless code. In my
opinion, that where our problem lays. The code is simply corporate policy, put upon
the people by threats, fear, and intimidation.

ATTN: Christine Lias and Brian Bothun, Editor

Thanks for printing the canned "misleading" IRS press release January 13, 2004 without first doing your homework! Now, please do some investigation and get the facts straight, please!!! Attached is an email I just received from Joe Banister. Follow up and get your facts straight.

You can do all your research (reporters call it "investigative reporting") on the internet without ever leaving your cosy office. I am a client of Joe Banister. He is my CPA and he has my power of attorney to deal with the IRS on my behalf. Here is just one reason why the IRS is after his hide. A couple of years ago, Mr. Banister represented me at what is shamefully called a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH), in San Jose. Supposedly, it is your right to contest the IRS's naked assessments and invalidated claims (No! They wouldn't just make up a bunch of numbers, now would they? Congress now says that you can make a written protest and have a friendly sit down (hearing they call it) to discuss you plight and straighten things out. I did this and Mr. Banister, CPA, and a all around good fellow, represented me.

We went to the hearing loaded for bear! After all, we had the law on our side, right? He presented the IRS with 23 well researched exhibits all based upon Supreme Court rulings (a frivolous gang if there ever was one), the IRS coded it's self (Title 26 - again, "frivolous" bunch of meaningless jibber-jabber), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR - more "frivolous" stuff) and some quoted sections from the IRS's own "secret" internal manuals. Boy, they hated that! Guess what?

The determination I received from one Robert Spooner of the San Jose IRS office stated that Mr. Gilligan only presented "frivolous" arguments. That's right by golly, the those guys and gals in the long black robes that Joe quoted, sitting up there in the Supreme Court, obviously don't know squat. And, Spooner went on to claimed that Mr. Gilligan did not make any meaningful offer to pay. A lie! Not a fabrication but a "lie"! I offered to pay up and settle on the spot, provide that the kind folks from the IRS would just give me a validated assessment and statement of what they claimed that I owed -- as the law requires them to do! That means that some one at the IRS had to sign their claim as being true and correct and not misleading. Sounds simple enough. You claim I own you some money and I say prove it and I'll pay up. They refused to "validate" their claim and they refused to provide any "signed" assessments, at all, as required by their own tax code! After all, someone made up the numbers and put 'em into the computer next to my SSA number. Don't I have a right to know who did it? Why not? Because nobody at the IRS will sign a darn thing. Oh! I almost forgot. When you ask nicely, in advance, you have the right to tape record these meetings, several court rulings say so. I have done so before with no problem. It is called part of your right to due process. But no! Not this time, Mr. Banister was with me and they certainly did not want anyone who knows the truth telling the truth, not on any recordings. Heck, might make them kind folks down at the local IRS office look a bit foolish when they don't uphold their own codes and procedures! On that point; Larken Rose was persocuted by the IRS for posting what they claimed were "doctored" recordings of CDP hearings on the internet. They claimed that these recordings made the IRS folks sound kinda foolish! Huh! I have these infamous audio clips if you care to hear them.

For your information. Joe Banister worked for the IRS in the Criminal Investigation Division (CID). He was an IRS Criminal Investigator for about six years and before that he was a tax CPA for one of the big-eight accounting firms. Unfortunately, Joe did as did I, we began to actually read that boring darn tax code book and the Code of Federal Regulations and because we can read and recite what we have read, that makes us dangerous. I have been labeled an "Illegal Tax Protestor"! However, Congress says that they cannot call me that any longer. What a shame. I sort of liked it. What made me a tax protester? I studied the tax codes and shoved them back into the IRS' face and they don't like that, not one bit. Joe told me, and it is on his website, that he spent over two years as a trained "investigator", doing his own investigation into the tax laws --- on his own time. He then presented his bosses with a hundred page report on his findings! Guess what? They did not like what his research reported and asked him to leave! Why, again? Because anyone who dares to read the tax code and actually rely upon it, and use it as written, becomes a dangerous person. Apparently, that's me and that is Joe. In the eyes of the IRS, anyone who knows too much is dangerous --- and Joe Banister knows too much --- and that make them feel real uncomfortable. He makes the feel so uncomfortable in fact, that they not only want to discredit him through a sham Star Chamber hearing, they want to get rid of him, permanently.

If you are at all interested, I can provide you with court documents wherein a DOJ attorney stated, for the record, that the Internal Revenue Service is not a branch of the United States Government. Well then, who does the IRS work for? Were they ever authorized by Congress to set up shop to scare the hell out of "the people" and extort little old ladies and senior citizens like myself? Why don't ya'll find out!

Do your home work! Stop being the press agents for the IRS. Look, the people, that's you and me, founded the government, it did not found us. Do "We The People" a favor, and that includes you and all of your readers, and report both sides of the story. For starters, call the local IRS office and ask the to please, proved you with the statutes and their implementing regulations that make you liable for the federal income tax? Just do it! See what kind of reception you get! Oh! I forgot, you are probably afraid! Well, then, call from a pay phone and use someone elses name! To make it a little easier for you, I have attached 537 questions the US Government refuses to answer.


Jim Gilligan

Proud cliend of Joe Banister

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Comment on Paul O'Neill's Remarks

I want to take a moment and comment on the Former Secretary of the Treasury's remarks
describing his experience with President Bush and his Cabinet, something to the effect
that it was like talking to a blind man in a room full of deaf people.

In my 40 years of following politics, I have never heard such a stunning public remark,
from anyone that was that high up in a Presidential administration. These are the remarks
that one might expect in a private conversation, but not in public.

I suspect that Mr. O'Neill felt a lot of the frustration most of us do in trying to deal with
"public officials." Public officials for the most part, act like a bunch of morons, as they are
arrogant, childish, stupid, crooked, and just outright deceitful. If they spent as much time
doing their jobs correctly, they might gain some respect, but seeing Mr. O'Neill come out
with this statement, really got my attention.

Perhaps, Mr. O'Neill should go to an IRS collection due process meeting. Or he should go
with me to the county recorder, and see what a bunch of idiots and crooks who are
eating out the substance of the people. Or he should go fishing and get mugged by a
park ranger. Perhaps, he should hunt for his food and get arrested for killing Bambi.

The fact is that the inmates are in charge of the asylum, and it appears that most anyone withbno talent is in line for government jobs.

For example, I would like to see some government weenies try to manufacture a product,
in the United States, where they have to pay $10-$15 per hour, plus 7.5% for socialist
insecurity, 20-89% workmen's compensation and other garbage charges, and then
compete with .25 cents per hour from places like Communist China. And then after all that,
try to make a profit. I remember when NAFTA came out, idiot Congressmen like CFR member
Neutered Gingrich said things like American factories will need to be more competitive.

Almost, 10 1/2 years later, many factories are gone and the ones that remain are looking
offshore just to survive. But don't worry about that, Bush is going to allow illegal aliens
to take all the remaining jobs, if there are any left.

Trying to do business in a courtroom is like having a root canal without any anesthetic.
Judges are just plain evil and use any kind of deceit to get as much money out of the
public as they can. They fill up prisons so they have a source of cheap labor. Do we see a pattern here? We are all members of the corporate slave state. We are the sheep who are twice fleeced.

Attorneys are a plague upon our nation, and our government is loaded with them. The early colonialists
called them "vermin."

Getting a government job is really an exercise in affirmative action, because without the government, they couldn't find their rear ends with both hands and a flashlight.

The New World Order will arrive "dead on arrival." Because anyone, with their brains left in tact, will have already
jumped off the planet. The New World Order will leave no good deed unpunished. The bad are rewarded, and the
good are punished. The most ignorant amoung us will rule the world. Most public officials will have the morals of
an alley cat. (I don't mean to insult alley cats.) And just like what was stated in the Nueremburg trials, they'll state, "I'm only doing my job."

However, I think that America is waking up to this nonsense, and the people's tolerance for this certainly limited.
And I believe that with such a high official making these kind of public remarks about the highest leaders, gives
me encouragement that the toleration level is reaching its limits.

The blindness that Mr. O'Neill experienced is the intellectual blindness that is absolutely necessary in order to
be a drone for the New World socialist disorder. The intellectual deafness is the result of years of people acting like
lap dogs, instead of being independent thinkers.

Written by:
Al Thompson
Common Law Copyright
Janurary 13th, 2004

Sunday, January 11, 2004

The Simkanin Trial: Was it a Lawful Trial by Jury?

As a friend of Dick Simkanin, I am distressed at the actions of both the attorneys
and trial judge, regarding Dick being found guilty of all the charges regarding
federal withholding.

There is a big difference between a "court of record", which is a proceeding according
to the course of the common law and the magistrate is independent of the court,
to what is called a nisi prius court, or a court of no record, of which the parties consent to the action.

Under the common law, the line of authority comes first from God's law. Then comes the common law, the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the subordinate Constitution for the United States. The Bill of Rights applies to the limitations of government which is established by the people.

God created man, man then creates the government, and the government is subject
to the people, and not the other way around.

Simkanin was tried as an artificial entity RICHARD MICHAEL SIMKANIN, or another term
for this is a fiction at law. A fiction has no rights, whereas the man, Richard Michael Simkanin,
as a sovereign man, does have rights, however, they don't help if the man doesn't
secure them.

So if the Constitution was not operative in the United States District Court, then what
actually happened in this case? Was it really a criminal case, or was it a civil case,
disguised as criminal? I believe it was the latter and I'll explain my reasons for saying

First of all, the so-called grand jury indictement didn't comport to the requirements
of a real grand jury composed of 25 sovereigns. No attorneys would be present,
but in Simkanin's case, the prosecuting attorney was present on all three indictment
hearings. On the last grand jury, the opposing attorney refused to let Dick testify,
although he was ready with his paperwork and evidence.

How can this happen? It's really quite simple. People are hoodwinked into "contracting" into
these courts by inadvertently appearing or participating in the court proceedings. In Dick's
case, there appeared to be no Constitutional violation, nor was there ever a statute presented
that would have put a taxing liability on him. However, it is my belief that these courts
are not judicial in nature, but that they are administrative, and that one isn't obligated
to appear without his or her consent.

Here in California we have a very telling section in the Constitution of the State of California
1849 Article VI, Section 13 which states:

Sec. 13. Tribunals for conciliation may be established, with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law; but such tribunals shall have no power to render judgment to be obligatory on the parties, except they voluntarily submit their matters in difference, and agree to abide the judgment, or assent thereto in the presence of such tribunal, in such cases as shall be prescribed by law.

So we know that these tribunals are discretionary for anyone who wants to use them.

Now let's look at the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a moment, and take a look at Rule 39 Trial by Jury or by the Court

"(a) By Jury. When trial by jury has been demanded as provided in Rule 38, the actin shall be designated upon the docket as a jury action. The trial off all issues so demanded shall by by jury, unless (1) the parties or their attorneys of record, by written stipulation filed with the court or by an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in the record, consent to trial by the court sitting without a jury, or (2)the court upon motion or of its own initiative finds that a right of trial by jury of some or all of those issues does not exist under the Constitution or statutes of the United States."

The only way Dick Simkanin could have had a lawful trial by jury is if he had violated the Constitution, such as treason, piracy, counterfeiting, or treaty law. In his indictment he was charged with codes and not statutes. His attorney, to his credit, entered a motion to get to the taxing statutes, but the judge denied his motions as the nature of the court wouldn't allow it, because it is not a Constitutional court with judicial officers.

Now let's look at Rule 39 (c)
"Advisory Jury and Trial by Consent In all actions triable of right by a jury the court upon motion or of its own initiative may try any issue with an advisory jury or, except in actions against the United States when a statute of the United States provides for trial without a jury, the court, with the consent of both parties, may order a trial with a jury whose verdict has the same effect as if trial by jury had been a matter of right.

I believe that the Simkanin trial was under Rule 39(c), however, I don't believe that Mr. Simkanin was ever informed about the consentual nature of the trial. Go back again and look at 39(a) and you'll see that there would have to be a violation of the Constitution or statute, and of course, Dick wasn't charged with a statute violation. Dick Simkanin did NOT have a Constitutional or lawful trial by jury. He was on the receiving end of a JUDICIAL LYNCHING and the whole premise is that Mr. Simkanin, according to the "court", agreed to it by implied "consent."

Although the jury verdict would have the "same effect" as a jury trial by right, the problem is that the advisory jury is just that, it is advisory in nature and this suggests that a judge could reverse the jury's decision if he wished.

Although some might say, yes, but that's in the Civil Procedure, and not Criminal, I submit that the two are essentially the same. Without the taxing statute or a Constitutional violation, Dick Simkanin could not possibly be charged or indicted and maintain his rights, which are protected from government infringement by the Constitution for the United States.

So remember, in a court of record, it is a common law proceeding and the magistrate is independent of the court. In this kind of court, all rights of all parties are preserved. However, in a court of no record (nisi prius), the parties consent to the tribunal, and the magistrate has complete discretion. The latter, is what Dick Simkanin ran into, and he was completely run over.

In conclusion, Dick had an advisory jury in a court of no record, and the worst of it is that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, as his counsel should have known this information. Dick inadvertently entered into an unconscionable contract which has destroyed his business, family, and himself.

And the most evil part of this is that the "judge" is the gatekeeper of the evidence, and that's exactly what happened to Dick. If it was a real trial by jury, the jury would be the judges and the jury could examine all the evidence and the law. It is absolute tyranny to allow a judge to be the "gatekeeper" of the evidence.

These courts of no record depend upon the man to tie the noose, stand up on the chair, and then jump off and hang himself. Unfortunately, with the help of his attorney, this is exactly what happened. And it makes me physically ill that this has happened to my good friend, Richard Michael Simkanin.

For additional information on how a jury trial is supposed to work, got to

Copyright under the Common Law by Al Thompson
(Permission is granted for use as long as it is not edited in any way.)

Special Update Jan. 13th, 2004

I received the following update from Ed Fyffe, which supports this article I wrote
a few days ago.


The following is sited as [27CFR72.11](Definitions) for the

COMMERCIAL CRIMES. Any of the following types of crimes(Federal or
State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting;
forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of
deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring,
pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like
offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting
to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing
crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be
treated as if such were commercial crime.

The significance being recognition by the BATF that said crimes are
all Commercial in nature. One would conclude that if these type
crimes are commercial then all others are as well excepting the crime
of murder or any crime for which the possible penalty is death, which
is always tried at the Common Law. This means that all commercial
crimes are to be tried in Commerce/Contract. Therefore ANY and ALL
statements propounded to any one at any time during the pendency of
an action in commerce MUST be considered a mere offer of contract
enabling response thereto one for Acceptance or Rejection. This also
includes ANY instructions given to the juries/advisory panel by the
judge/administarative assistant. In commerce nothing is made
mandatory or becomes so upon a party until after the 72 hour rule
pursuant to the rule of commerce (UCC Code). It is important to note
that in order for two parties to make vaid contract they MUST be of
equal status. "Equallity under Law is PARAMOUNT and MANDATORY by
Law" Texas Probate Code (site N/A at this writing)