- Introduction
- Unlawful Tactics and Dirty Tricks the Government Used During The Litigation
- Default Judgment Against Government
- The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment
- Affect on Family Guardian: Very Positive. Thanks DOJ!
- The DOJ Propaganda Press Release
- The Court's Response to the Request to Amend Pleadings
- Conclusions
Related references:
- Case History of C. Hansen-details database of Court pleadings for this case
- What Happened to Justice? (OFFSITE LINK)-why you can't get justice in federal court and what you can do about it. This book was coauthored by Hansen following the judgment issued in this case as a way to remedy the illegal activities and injustice on the part of the presiding PseudoJudge.
-
Presumption:
Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction (OFFSITE LINK)-explains
why all presumption which prejudices constitutionally guaranteed rights
is unconstitutional and unlawful. Presumptino was the main weapon
illegally abused by the PseudoJudge and the Plaintiff in this case. -
Government
Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers (OFFSITE LINK)-describes
the extraordinary, illegal, and unconstitutional efforts the PseudoJudge, the
U.S. attorney, and the government in general took to destroy the
separation of powers in this case, thereby maliciously and
conspiratorially depriving Hansen of rights protected by the
Constitution.
-
Reasonable
Belief About Liability (OFFSITE LINK)-shows that the court was involved in
"religion" when it said "Hansen knew or should have known". When
presented with this pamphlet, they were silent and therefore agreed with
it under F.R.C.P. 8(d), and yet refused to account for it in their
order.
-
Requirement
for Reasonable Notice (OFFSITE LINK)-explains the legal requirement for them to
give C. Hansen legal notice about what was expected of him.
They didn't follow this, and therefore their order is unenforceable.
-
Silence as a Weapon
and a Defense in Legal Discovery (OFFSITE LINK)- shows why the
silence of the PseudoJudge and the DOJ attorney in this case, who are "public
officers" and fiduciaries, is actionable and provides sufficient legal
standing to make adverse inferences against the interests of the
Plaintiff in this case.
-
Commercial
Speech (OFFSITE LINK)- excellent paper on the nature of "commercial
speech". Explains why speech on this website and the SEDM website
cannot be classified as "commercial speech", since it is strictly
political and religious speech and beliefs that are not factual.
"The proud have forged a lie against me, but I will keep Your precepts with my whole heart. Their heart is as fat as grease, but I delight in Your law. It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn Your [God's] statutes. The law of Your mouth is better to me than thousands of coins of gold and silver."
[Psalms 119:69-72, Bible, NKJV]"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled."
[Jesus in Matt. 5:6, Bible, NKJV]"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of [government tyrant] wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues [government "churches" called District Court]. You will be brought before governors and kings [and "priests" of the PAGAN, state-sponsored Civil Religion of Socialism called "judges"] for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak: for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you [and THROUGH you]. Now brother will deliver brother to death, and a father his child [using SLAVE SURVEILLANCE NUMBERS]; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for My [God's] name's sake. But he who endures to the end [and fights against corruption in government and for justice] will be saved."
[Matt. 10:16-22, Bible, NKJV]
As many of you know, the Dept. of INjustice filed a Civil Complaint against C. Hansen in the U.S. District PseudoCourt in San Diego on March 11, 2005 asking for a permanent injunction stopping him from doing things that he continues to insist, under penalty of perjury on the record, that he has never done and never will do, such as preparing or assisting in the preparation of tax returns, giving legal advice, offering tax shelters to franchisees called "taxpayers", etc. The articles documenting the persecution and malicious prosecution appear below:
-
C. Hansen Under Attack Again by Federal Government, 5/3/2005
-
C. Hansen Under Attack by IRS, 7/10/2003
Well, the Federal District PseudoCourt in San Diego, which is clearly under hostile control by de facto communist officers, has finally spoken with their forked tongue through their propaganda mouthpiece, the U.S. Dept. of INjustice, and this article will review what they said, why it was fraudulent, and why the order is irrelevant and doesn't affect not only Hansen, but Family Guardian either. The Bible says not to circulate a "false report", and therefore we cannot provide the PseudoJudge's clearly "false report", "false advertising", and "false commercial speech" about Hansen without clarifying why it is false and all the evidence supporting why it is false.
"You shall not circulate a false report [or false Court Ruling]. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
[Exodus 23:1, Bible, NKJV]
Even though the order named SEDM, we aren't authorized to speak for SEDM at all and won't be addressing the impact on them in this article. You will have to visit their website for that. Our guess is that they probably won't even mention the order, based on what they told us via email. After posting this article, we searched their website about a week later with one of the internet search engines and found a link to this article below, at the beginning of section 10:
Hansen does not own the website domain for Family Guardian or SEDM and this article was not written by him. It is provided for informational purposes only mainly to illustrate just how corrupt the government, the Courts, and the DOJ have become, and not to comply with any external requirement. It is precisely this kind of corruption and the desire to expose and oppose it, in fact, that explains why this website exists in the first place.
The injunction was pursued under the guise of "protecting the public" so your public dis-servants would at least LOOK noble in their pursuit, but everyone knows the real goal of the government from the beginning appears to have been mainly political. This has always been and always will be a free speech website that is physically outside the "United States" and for which all of the contributors and participants have no domicile within the forum or consensual contractual relationship with the government which might bring them within the jurisdiction of the government. Consequently, it has always been and will always be outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Mafia. Even if it were in the "United States", it would STILL be outside their jurisdiction because this website doesn't do anything commercial, has no customers, and does not do any business of any kind within the forum that might result in a surrender of sovereign immunity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2) . This is a religious fellowship that focuses on religious and political beliefs and opinions, and not facts. The government knows this, and since they couldn't stop the message without a commercial nexus, they took the usual approach of trying to "slander and shoot the messenger" so people wouldn't want to read the message. The trouble is, that doesn't work either because Hansen isn't the messenger. He's just one of several contributors to the Family Guardian fellowship who have provided some of the content posted on this website and he doesn't own the website domain or the copyright or act as the website administrator. We wouldn't be naive enough to reveal who those people are, because the focus of EVERYTHING on this website is "anonymous pamphleteering", which is a protected Constitutional right:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. 4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. 5 Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60 . Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that "[persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. 6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.
[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)]
2. UNLAWFUL TACTICS AND DIRTY TRICKS THE GOVERNMENT USED DURING THE LITIGATION
Below is a long list of the many underhanded, dirty, and/or illegal tricks they used throughout the litigation that many of you should be on the lookout for in your own litigation:
-
No foundation for any of the evidence was provided and therefore everything cited as authority by the PseudoCourt was simply inadmissible Hearsay excludible under the Hearsay Rule, F.R.E. 802. No personal knowledge was demonstrated, there was no oath or affirmation. The witnesses also used IRS or DOJ "pseudonames", and no state ID was ever used to verify their true identity. This made them the equivalent of "anonymous witnesses" and "absentee witnesses" not accountable for ANY of their statements, and here is what one court said about the travesty and injustice of this approach:
“From the scant information available it may tentatively be concluded that the Confrontation Clause was meant to constitutionalize a barrier against flagrant abuses, trials by anonymous accusers, and absentee witnesses. That the Clause was intended to ordain common law rules of evidence with constitutional sanction is doubtful, notwithstanding English decisions that equate confrontation and hearsay. Rather, having established a broad principle, it is far more likely that the Framers anticipated it would be supplemented, as a matter of judge-made common law, by prevailing rules of evidence."
[California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970)]
“No nation can remain true to the ideal of liberty under law and at the same time permit people to have their homes destroyed and their lives blasted by the slurs of unseen and unsworn informers. There is no possible way to contest the truthfulness of anonymous accusations. The supposed accuser can neither be identified nor interrogated. He may be the most worthless and irresponsible character in the community. What he said may be wholly malicious, untrue, unreliable, or inaccurately reported. In a court of law, the triers of fact could not even listen to such gossip, must less decide the most trifling issue on it.”
[Jay v. Boy, 351 U.S. 345 (1956)]
-
The Pseudojudge and the witnesses made hundreds of unsubstantiated, prejudicial, and false presumptions which resulted in a violation of due process and rendered a void judgment. All of these presumptions were based on nothing more than an opinion poll of LYING IRS agents and DOJ employees with a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest springs from them being a beneficiary of the very tax that was at issue in this proceeding. Some of these presumptions include:
2.1 That Hansen maintained a domicile or residence within the United States Judicial District where the court is. He declared under penalty of perjury in the Answer, Docket #05, that he did not. The PseudoCourt was reminded in the Answer, Docket #05 that Hansen was a nonresident alien and a national but not a citizen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452. 26 U.S.C. §7408(d) can only lawfully be applied to "kidnap" a person's legal identity and move it to the District of Criminals, a foreign jurisdiction, against "citizens and residents" of the "United States" (federal zone), which Hansen does not satisfy. All such persons are federal instrumentalities and employees, pursuant to 20 CFR §422.104 and 26 U.S.C. §6331(a) and Hansen does not fit this criteria either. Click here for details.
2.2 That Hansen maintained a domicile or residence within an internal revenue district subject to the jurisdiction of the court hearing the matter. He declared under penalty of perjury in the Answer, Docket #05, that he did not. Pursuant to Treasury Order 150-02, Executive Order 10289, and 26 U.S.C. §7621, the only remaining internal revenue district is the District of Columbia and 26 U.S.C. §7601 says that the only place the IRS can enforce is in internal revenue districts.
2.3 That Hansen was the author of the specific materials that contained allegedly false information. He denied this during the 25NOV2005 deposition.
2.4 That all of the speech sought to be enjoined was "factual", when the speech itself specifically says that it its not factual in the applicable Disclaimers. See Family Guardian Disclaimer and SEDM Disclaimer. The PseudoJudge committed perjury on this subject in his order by claiming that Hansen stated that the speech in question was factual. This was pointed out to him in the Petition to Amend and the Criminal Complaint filed against him and he refused to address it.
2.5 That the intended audience for the speech was OTHER than the speaker or author himself or herself. The Family Guardian Disclaimer and SEDM Disclaimer both say that the ONLY authorized audience for the speech is the speaker or author, and not any third party. Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to presume that he intended to give advice or direction to any third party, even if he were the author, which he is not.
2.6 That the speech injured a specific person, even though not a single injured party was ever identified.
2.7 That the specific person or persons injured maintained a domicile within the United States Judicial District and Internal Revenue district which was subject to the jurisdiction of the court and therefore was a "protected person". This requirement was not only never proved, but never even suggested by the Plaintiff.
2.8 That the alleged injured parties suffered the injury directly because of reliance upon the specific speech alleged to be false and that all the specific statements alleged to be false were directly and individually connected to the specific injury.
2.9 That alleged injured parties had a basis to believe that the speech upon which they were relying was "factual", which is simply not true. The Family Guardian Disclaimer and SEDM Disclaimer both say that all the speech on the websites and all communications to, from, or about the authors is NOT factual.
2.10 That Hansen knew or should have known that the alleged factual speech was false. Hansen presented the
Reasonable Belief about Income Tax Liability to
the Court and asked them to find something wrong with it, because
that was the basis for his belief. They ignored the document,
leaving him with nothing more than the political opinion of an
Article IV de facto judge as his only basis for COMPELLED belief,
with an implied threat that if he didn't go along with what the
judge believes, then he would be penalized, harassed, and destroyed.
They also ignored many different questions that Hansen had about why
the speech in question was allegedly false, leaving Hansen in a
state of "cognitive dissonance" about whether or how or why to
comply with the Pseudocourt's Opinion.2.11 That there was "commerce" directly connected to the specific speech in question. This is false. Donations to a religious ministry that are connected with religious and political speech and beliefs cannot lawfully be classified as "commerce" within the meaning of federal jurisdiction. Click here for details.
2.12 That Hansen "purposefully availed" himself of "commerce" within the federal zone and the legislative jurisdiction of the "United States" by targeting specific persons who were residents, domiciliaries, or "U.S. persons" within the federal zone. This is a requirement of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine. The SEDM Member Agreement, Family Guardian Disclaimer, and SEDM Disclaimer all specific forbid such persons from reading or using the materials or becoming Members.
2.13 That Hansen was the "beneficial owner" of the alleged commerce. Only franchisees called "taxpayers" can be "beneficial owners" and Hansen indicated in the Answer, Docket #05, that he was a "nontaxpayer". Since the government never rebutted this, then they agree that they have no standing to proceed.
2.14 That Hansen was the "person" defined in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b).
2.15 That the Court had jurisdiction to enforce the I.R.C. within states of the Union against persons who are not federal instrumentalities, agents, or officials such as Hansen. Click here and read section 6 for details.
2.16 That there was any basis whatsoever for the statements contained in the affidavits submitted by the government's witnesses.
2.17 That Hansen advised and participated in the activities alleged by the false opinion testimony of the government's biased witnesses. No neutral, disinterested third parties ever confirmed that they were advised or personally assisted by Hansen.
2.18 That the persons revealed in the Paypal summons were Members of SEDM. The SEDM FAQs page specifically recommends that those who don't have credit cards, which is probably most of the members, should use the cards of others, who in many if not most cases are franchisees called "taxpayers" and who are NOT Members.
2.19 That Hansen was personally responsible for every use of the materials appearing on any of the websites in question by third parties. Hansen was never proven to be the author of anything and the only thing supporting a contrary conclusion is biased opinion testimony that is inadmissible pursuant to F.R.E. 610. Furthermore, none of the websites in question have ANY control over how the materials posted therein are used. Hansen pointed out in the Deposition, 25NOV2005, that he doesn't control what 280 million people do with the materials on the websites in question. Those who download the information from our website can and usually do modify them in unauthorized ways that are in violation with prevailing law, the Disclaimers, the Copyright License Agreement, and the Member Agreements. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that EVERYTHING that a third party submits to the government originates from, is entirely authorized by, and is consistent with our Disclaimers. That is why the Disclaimers specifically say that users and readers MUST assume complete, exclusive, and personal responsibility for whatever they decide to do with the materials they obtain from the websites in question.
All of the above constitute false presumptions from biased witnesses that are not evidence. A presumption is not evidence, but simply a device used to establish the burden of proof. None of the above presumptions can be used to prejudice constitutionally guaranteed rights. Click here for details. In short, the PsuedoJudge abused the evils of democracy to destroy the rights of the accused in what amounts to a religious inquisition:"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials [including IRS officials and federal judges] and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections [including opinion polls of IRS agents with a conflict of interest who are money launderers for the SHAM trust de facto government]."
[West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v Barnett, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)] -
They illegally rammed a Magistrate judge down the throat of Hansen in violation of 28 U.S.C. §636. That section requires that Magistrate judges preside ONLY by mutual consent of the parties. Hansen repeatedly pointed out to the PseudoCourt that he did not consent, and even filed a Petition to have the Magistrate dismissed from the case, which the tyrant PseudoJudge refused. He also attached the
Federal Pleading Attachment (OFFSITE LINK) documenting his
complete lack of consent to the magistrate to most of his pleadings.
Since both the judge and the magistrate ignored these attachments,
then the attachments say they agree with their content that Hansen
doesn't have to obey the orders of the PseudoJudge or PseudoCourt. Hansen wouldn't obey the magistrate and demanded that the PseudoJudge
place the orders AFTER he demonstrated his
Article III authority. -
The PseudoJudge completely ignored all the requirements for issuing injunctions. For instance, the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt has ruled that no one may ask for an injunction without FIRST exhausting their administrative remedies. By doing so, they also declared that no private party who is not the government needs to honor these requirements EITHER. The courts must provide equal protection to ALL, which means apply the SAME criteria for issuing injunctions to ALL.
The corporation contends that, since it denies that interstate or foreign commerce is involved and claims that a hearing would subject it to irreparable damage, rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution will be denied unless it be held that the District Court has jurisdiction to enjoin the holding of a hearing by the Board.[1] So to hold would, as the government insists, in effect substitute the District Court for the Board as the tribunal to hear and determine what Congress declared the Board exclusively should hear and determine in the first instance. The contention is at war with the long-settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the pre- [303 U.S. 41, 51] scribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.[2] That rule has been repeatedly acted on in cases where, as here, the contention is made that the administrative body lacked power over the subject matter.[3]
Obviously, the rules requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy cannot be circumvented by asserting that the charge on which the complaint rests is groundless and that the mere holding of the prescribed administrative hearing would result in irreparable damage.[4] Lawsuits also often prove to have been ground- [303 U.S. 41, 52] less; but no way has been discovered of relieving a defendant from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact.
[Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41 (1938)]
[1] In support of that contention the following cases were cited: Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287, 289 , 40 S.Ct. 527, 528; Bluefield Water Works Co. v. Public Service Commission, 262 U.S. 679, 683 , 43 S.Ct. 675; Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 600 , 51 S.Ct. 608, 612; Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 60 , 64 S., 52 S.Ct. 285, 296, 297; State Corporation Commission v. Wichita Gas Co., 290 U.S. 561, 569 , 54 S.Ct. 321, 324; St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 51 , 52 S., 56 S.Ct. 720, 725, 726.
[2] The rule has been most frequently applied in equity where relief by injunction was sought. Pittsburgh &c. Ry. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U.S. 32, 44 , 45 S., 19 S.Ct. 90; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210, 230 , 29 S.Ct. 67; Dalton adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 699, 701 , 35 S.Ct. 480; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. State Tax Commission, 266 U.S. 265, 269 , 270 S., 45 S.Ct. 80, 81; Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160, 174 , 47 S.Ct. 553, 556; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588, 592 , 593 S., 47 S.Ct. 720, 722; Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R.R. Co. v. Risty, 276 U.S. 567, 575 , 48 S.Ct. 396, 399; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 279 U.S. 560, 563 , 49 S.Ct. 383, 384; Porter v. Investors' Syndicate, 286 U.S. 461, 468 , 471 S., 52 S. Ct. 617, 619, 620; United States v. Illinois Central Ry. Co ., 291 U.S. 457, 463 , 464 S., 54 S.Ct. 471, 473, 474; Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 163, 172 , 55 S.Ct. 7, 10; compare Red 'C' Oil Mfg. Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U.S. 380, 394 , 32 S.Ct. 152; Farncomb v. Denver, 252 U.S. 7, 12 , 40 S.Ct. 271, 273; Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel District, 262 U.S. 710, 723 , 43 S. Ct. 694, 698; McGregor v. Hogan, 263 U.S. 234, 238 , 44 S.Ct. 50, 51; White v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 367, 374 , 51 S.Ct. 115, 118; Petersen Baking Co. v. Bryan, 290 U.S. 570, 575 , 54 S. Ct. 277, 278; Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Seattle, 291 U.S. 300, 304 , 54 S.Ct. 383, 384. But because the rule is one of judicial administration-not merely a rule governing the exercise of discretion-it is applicable to proceedings at law as well as suits in equity. Compare First National Bank of Fargo v. Board of County Commissioners, 264 U.S. 450, 455 , 44 S.Ct. 385, 387; Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 337, 343 , 57 S.Ct. 816, 819.
[3] Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 699 , 35 S.Ct. 480; Federal Trade Commission v. Claire Furnace Co., 274 U.S. 160 , 47 S.Ct. 553; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588 , 47 S.Ct. 720; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission, 279 U.S. 560 , 49 S.Ct. 383. Compare Western & Atlantic R.R. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 267 U.S. 493, 496 , 45 S.Ct. 409, 410, and case sited in note 1, supra.
[4] Such contentions were specifically rejected in Bradley Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 97; Clark v. Lindemann & Hoverson Co., 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 59; Chamber of Commerce v. Federal Trade Commission, 8 Cir., 280 F. 45; Heller Bros. Co. v. Lind, 66 App.D.C. 306, 86 F.2d 862; and Pittsburgh & W. Va. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 52 App.D.C. 40, 280 F. 1014. Compare United States v. Los Angeles & S.L.R.R. Co., 273 U.S. 299, 314 , 47 S.Ct. 413, 416; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588 , 47 S.Ct. 720; Dalton Adding Machine Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 236 U.S. 699 , 35 S.Ct. 480; McChord v. Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co., 183 U.S. 483 , 22 S.Ct. 165; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp, 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 200, 201.
The government sought to enjoin the activities of SEDM. Not once did the government: 1. Prove with evidence that Hansen was the person responsible for SEDM; 2. Contact Hansen about the content of the SEDM website; 3. Administratively inform him of any false information contained thereon and offer him an opportunity to correct it; 4. Meet with the Hansen and show him what they thought was false and injurious and offer him an opportunity to fix it; 5. Prove with evidence that there were any activities by SEDM other than speech which is not enjoinable. Instead, the only meeting they ever had with Hansen was on July 10, 2003. At that meeting, SEDM didn't even exist so they couldn't even have talked about it at that time or handled the problem administratively before pursuing litigation. He emphasized this in his Answer, Docket #05 and in the Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, which the PseudoJudge completely and prejudicially and illegally ignored. Furthermore, at that meeting, Hansen offered in good faith to spend a week in the office of IRS Attorney Nicolas Richards going over everything he thought was false with the Family Guardian website so that it could be corrected by the appropriate parties. All of the IRS employees in the room refused that opportunity and thereby were estopped from complaining later. As "public officers" who have a fiduciary duty to the public, their silence and omission on such an important occasion was incompatible with their fiduciary duty of good faith, fair dealing, and full disclosure and therefore must be counted as an estoppel in default and a nihil dicit judgment against them.
4.1 Demonstrate that their request satisfies the Strict Scrutiny Standard. The "strict scrutiny" standard of constitutional review applies where the violated interest is a fundamental personal right or civil liberty, such as the right to interstate travel.
“In Marrujo v. New Mexico State Highway Transportation Department, 118 N.M. 753, 756-58, 887 P.2d 747, 750-52 (1994), we explained the traditional three-tiered standard of review adopted by most U.S. courts in assessing facial constitutional challenges: "strict scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny (also known as substantial, heightened, or high review); and minimal scrutiny (also known as the rational[-]basis test)." Id. at 757, 887 P.2d at 751. Cummings urges that we evaluate this statute under a strict-scrutiny standard of constitutional review.
Strict scrutiny applies when the violated interest is a fundamental personal right or civil liberty--such as first amendment rights, freedom of association, voting, interstate travel, privacy, and fairness in the deprivation of life, liberty or property--which the Constitution explicitly or implicitly guarantees. Strict scrutiny also applies under an equal protection analysis if the statute focuses upon inherently suspect classifications such as race, national origin, religion, or status as a resident alien.”
[Cummings v. X-Ray Associates of New Mexico, P.C., 121 N.M. 821, 918 P.2d 1321 (N.M. 05/31/1996)]
_________________________________________________________________________________
“The second reason speech-restricting injunctions are at least as deserving of strict scrutiny is obvious enough: they are the product of individual judges, rather than of legislatures -- and often of judges who have been chagrined by prior disobedience of their orders. The right to free speech should not lightly be placed within the control of a single man or woman. And the third reason is that the injunction is a much more powerful weapon than a statute, and so should be subjected to greater safeguards. Normally, when injunctions are enforced through contempt proceedings, only the defense of factual innocence is available. The collateral bar rule of Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967), eliminates the defense that the injunction itself was unconstitutional. Accord, Dade County Classroom Teachers' Assn. v. Rubin, 238 So. 2d 284, 288 (Fla. 1970). Thus, persons subject to a speech-restricting injunction who have not the money or not the time to lodge an immediate appeal face a Hobson's choice: they must remain silent, since if they speak their First Amendment rights are no defense in subsequent [512 U.S. 794] contempt proceedings. This is good reason to require the strictest standard for issuance of such orders.”
[Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994)]
4.2. Demonstrate that there is no remedy at law, and that equity is the only remedy. Injunctions may only be pursued as a last resort when there is no remedy at law:
“Since in a true libel situation, an action at law for money damages will lie, the petitioner must sustain the burden of proving that the legal remedy is inadequate. See Murphy v. Daytona Beach Humane Society, 176 S.2d 922 (Fla.App.1965). In this area, however, it is generally not difficult to establish that inadequacy, since it is the highly unusual case in which the amount of damages from a libel can be calculated.”
[Injunctions in a Nutshell, John F. Dobbyn, p. 77; West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-28423-0]
4.3. Must show the specific statements or behavior that are false, prove who the speaker is, and prove that the speaker intended the statements to be factual. The plaintiff never proved that Hansen was the speaker and Hansen never admitted being the speaker. They never proved that the speaker intended for the speech to be factual, and therefore susceptible to being true or false. The only alleged "evidence" before the court was political beliefs and opinions that are not factual or admissible under Fed.Rul.Ev. 610.
“6. Equity will not issue an injunction which cannot be reduced to terms specific enough to inform the respondent of what is required.
Because an injunction carries with it the threat of the criminal contempt sanctions of fine or imprisonment for its violation, equity courts have adopted a principle analogous to the rule that one cannot be convicted of a crime unless the statute defines clearly and definitely what the defendant can and cannot do. In certain cases, because of the nature of the fact situation, it is impossible for the court to frame an injunction that will accomplish the purpose of the order and at the same time adequately inform the respondent of the specific acts that are commanded or forbidden.
[. . .]
In this area, discretion meets and overlaps constitutional limitation. If the order is so vague or uncertain that it would be a denial of due process to enforce it through contempt sanctions, it is beyond the power of the court to enter the order, and if entered it is completely void.”
[Injunctions in a Nutshell, John F. Dobbyn, p. 95; West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-28423-0]
4.4. Demonstrate that the target of the injunction is subject to the statute cited as authority. Some statutes are positive law while others are not. Those statutes which are not positive law become “private law” or “special law”. If the government wishes to cite “private law” or “special law” as its authority for instituting an injunction, it has the burden of proving, as the moving party, that the target of the injunction is subject to said statute based on consent voluntarily procured and proven by a writing of some kind. The government never proved, using statutes from the statutes at large, that the sections they cited as authority, IRC 6700, 6702, 7402, and 7408, were enacted into positive law. If they weren't enacted into positive law, 1 U.S.C. §204 says they are merely "prima facie law", which is a fancy way to say they were "presumed" to be law. The U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt said that all presumptions that prejudice constitutionally protected rights are impermissible.
(1) [8:4993] Conclusive presumptions affecting protected interests: A conclusive presumption may be defeated where its application would impair a party's constitutionally-protected liberty or property interests. In such cases, conclusive presumptions have been held to violate a party's due process and equal protection rights. [Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct 2230, 2235; Cleveland Bed. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974) 414 US 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-presumption under Illinois law that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process]
[Rutter Group Practice Guide-Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, paragraph 8:4993, page 8K-34]
4.5. Must satisfy the minimum contacts doctrine and one aspect of the diversity of citizenship statute. Hansen was a nonresident alien not engaged in a "trade or business" as defined in 26 CFR §1.871-1(b)(i) in the context of these proceedings. As such, he was a "stateless person" as described by the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt in Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989). Since neither the PseudoCourt nor the Plaintiff argued against this, then pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 8(d), they agree that he is not a "U.S. Person" and is not subject to any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, they could not lawfully apply any part of the I.R.C., which is "foreign law" not from his domicile as required by Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 17(b), to Hansen and had to satisfy the Minimum Contacts Doctrine below, as well as one of the provisions for Diversity of Citizenship found in Constitution Article III and NOT 28 U.S.C. §1332. Neither the PseudoJudge nor the plaintiff ever did this, which meant they were making a false and unsubstantiated presumption that Hansen was a "U.S. person" which adversely impacted the constitutional rights of Hansen and therefore amounted essentially to Treason. They were essentially conspiring to undermine the Separation of Powers by "presuming" that Hansen was a "public official" engaging in commerce with the government. This conspiracy is thoroughly documented in the pamphlet "Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers". You will note that according to the provisions of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine, the defendant must "purposefully avail" himself of commerce within the forum and that the Disclaimer for this website and the SEDM Disclaimer both specifically prohibit anyone domiciled or "resident" within the "United States" as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) from reading or using these websites, thereby making the "purposeful availment" element impossible for the Plaintiff to satisfy and rendering Hansen judgment proof.
In this circuit, we analyze specific jurisdiction according to a three-prong test:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). The first prong is determinative in this case. We have sometimes referred to it, in shorthand fashion, as the "purposeful availment" prong. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. Despite its label, this prong includes both purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some combination thereof.
[Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006)]
-
There wasn't a single in-person hearing in over a year of litigation. The entire case was conducted by correspondence. Hansen never once was given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hansen insisted that the 30NOV2005 deposition include an alternating opportunity to ask questions in BOTH directions and the Magistrate PseudoJudge (imposter of the SHAM trust that is our de facto government) refused him this opportunity and thereby interfered with discovery and criminally obstructed justice. This is a violation of "due process of law", which requires a "hearing" where the accused may face his accusers, ask and get answers to questions.
"Due process. [. . .] An orderly proceeding wherein a person with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having the power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259 N.E.2d 282, 290. Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial proceedings, and it forbids condemnation without a hearing. Pettit v. Penn, LaApp., 180 So.2d 66, 69."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 500]
We have never doubted, therefore, that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. See Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 748 , 749-750 (1987) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). For example, in Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55 (1899), which concerned the admissibility of prior convictions of codefendants to prove an element of the offense [487 U.S. 1012, 1017] of receiving stolen Government property, we described the operation of the Clause as follows: "[A] fact which can be primarily established only by witnesses cannot be proved against an accused . . . except by witnesses who confront him at the trial, upon whom he can look while being tried, whom he is entitled to cross-examine, and whose testimony he may impeach in every mode authorized by the established rules governing the trial or conduct of criminal cases." Similarly, in Dowdell v. United States, 221 U.S. 325, 330 (1911), we described a provision of the Philippine Bill of Rights as substantially the same as the Sixth Amendment, and proceeded to interpret it as intended "to secure the accused the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination." More recently, we have described the "literal right to `confront' the witness at the time of trial" as forming "the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause." California v. Green, supra, at 157. Last Term, the plurality opinion in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987), stated that "[the Confrontation Clause provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant: the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination."
[Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)]
"The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of his property [418 U.S. 539, 558] interests. "
[Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539; 94 S.Ct. 2963; 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)]
"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard". Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385,394 (1914). The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552(1965). In the present context these principles require…timely and adequate notice detailing reasons…, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting arguments and evidence… These rights are important in cases...challenged…as resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises or on misapplication of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases."
"In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. E.g., ICC v. Lousiville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94 (1913) 503 US L.Ed 2nd 391(1992), Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 474,496-497 (1959)"
[Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (emphasis added)]
-
The PseudoJudge illegally and prejudicially excluded ALL evidence, all affidavits of Hansen from his Final Ruling, and cited irrelevant caselaw as his authority for doing so. Below is what the TYRANT said:
“This evidence is not properly before the Court.”
[Judgment, Docket #91, p. 9]
To justify the above, the PseudoJudge used three obscure cases:
“Cf Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters. Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Under our 'sham' affidavit rule, 'a party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony."') (quoting Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262,266 (9th Cir.1991)); Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410,419 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) ("A party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment by contradicting his earlier version of the facts.").”
[Judgment, Docket #91, p. 10]
The PseudoJudge HAD to do this, because if he hadn't, his ruling would have been COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL and COMPLETELY inconsistent with the evidence before the PseudoCourt and completely incompatible with the requirements for issuing a Summary Judgment. Since he was ruling on a Summary Judgment under FRCP Rule 56, which can only be invoked where the parties agree on ALL the facts, and since they didn't agree on ANYTHING, he had to throw out evidence from one of the two parties, and of course that would have to be Hansen, because they can't allow a lowly little peon without a law degree to win against the biggest and meanest and most dishonest and underhanded law firm in the Country with the deepest pockets without spending a dime or participating in their corporate monopoly by hiring one of their lawyer hitmen. There is a HUGE problem with using these cases cited by the PseudoJudge, however, because they all relate to the situation where a witness CONTRADICTED earlier testimony, and the only case in which it was invoked was to exclude not ALL testimony of a witness, but only the specific statements that contradicted themselves. In effect, the Court invokes an equitable estoppel that excludes evidence which contradicts itself, and this makes sense. However, the PseudoCourt: 1. Never properly applied this provision of law by proving that any of the statements made by Hansen ever contradicted themselves, and even the U.S. Attorney never suggested that throughout the proceeding; 2. The principle CANNOT be invoked against a party who validly asserts a Constitutional privilege such as Fifth Amendment or First Amendment, in answering questions posed to it.
"It is an unconstitutional deprivation of due process for the government to penalize a person merely because he has exercised a protected statutory or constitutional right. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 , 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2488, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982)."
[People of Territory of Guam v. Fegurgur, 800 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986)]“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.
[Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878)]“Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95] 392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968).”
[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]"Due process of law is violated when the government vindictively attempts to penalize a person for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right."
[United States v. Conkins, 9 F.3d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir. 1993)]
This was a violation of the SEDM Member Agreement which most of the government's witnesses were subject to because they downloaded or obtained privileged and licensed materials that made them subject to the agreement. Section 6, Item 5 of the SEDM Member Agreement says that anyone who uses the materials in litigation against any member of the SEDM ministry stipulates to admit into evidence and admit as truthful and accurate everything on the SEDM website and agrees to be the Substitute Defendant. Even if Hansen's submissions were lawfully excluded from evidence, they would still have to be included based on the Member Agreement. The PseudoCourt interfered with the right to contract of the parties by excluding this evidence. This proceeding, ladies and gentlemen, was therefore an INQUISITION, not a legal proceeding. It was designed to shield Attorney Shoemaker, the U.S. Attorney, from a follow-on lawsuit for malicious prosecution. What the PseudoJudge effectively did is frequently demonstrated by immature and spoiled two year olds, who when confronted with an obligation plug their ears with both hands and contemptuously yell at the top of their voice: "I don't have to listen to you, I can't hear a word you say, and I'm going to do whatever I want. Neener....neener.....neener!" What parents should do with this sort of rebellious spoiled child is spank their bottom, but who can spank a peevish judge's bottom?. We would expect far more out of such a learned person than this kind selfish, immature rebellion.
For rebellion [of the law by the PseudoJudge IMPOSTER] is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
He also has rejected you from being king [or a person who has ANY authority to be telling ANYONE what to do].”
[1 Sam. 15:23, Bible, NKJV]By excluding all evidence of the accused, he denied the accused the right to defend himself or rebut any of the charges against him. This is a violation of due process of law which, like most of the other behavior exhibited by the PseudoJudge and the Plaintiff in this case, once again renders nothing but a VOID JUDGMENT:
"This court has held more than once that a statute [or judge made law as in this case] creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
-
The PseudoJudge's political opinion [not judgment, but political opinion] politically enjoined activity that there was no evidence even existed. There was no evidence before the PseudoCourt of any activity, and no third party ever admitted receiving any kind of "advice or assistance", much less paying for it. The PseudoCourt can only enjoin activity that it has evidence to prove is ACTUALLY HAPPENING at the time the order is issued, and not which it PRESUMES is happening. All presumption which prejudices constitutionally protected rights is a violation of due process of law that renders any judgment resulting from it a VOID JUDGMENT. See the pamphlet
Presumption:
Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction
(OFFSITE LINK) for details on this SCAM. Only the false
PRESUMPTIONS of government
employees who were biased and receiving stolen property, was
illegally used as
evidence, and none of these statements were based on personal
knowledge, but instead only on religious and political beliefs and
speech received by the IRS that are not factual, not actionable, and
not admissible as evidence under
Fed.Rul.Ev. 610. The government's employees who made the
bogus affidavits furthermore never proved that Hansen directly sent any
alleged correspondence to the IRS, or was responsible for sending it in or advising
others to send it in, and he specifically denied that he did at the
30NOV2005 deposition under penalty of perjury. Therefore, the PseudoJudge had no basis
to believe that any of the activities falsely allegedly attributed to Hansen
were initiated by him, that they were done consistent with the
Disclaimers, which specify
that the materials can only be read and not used by any third party.
A declaration of a government witness based on inadmissible evidence
that is based on religious and political beliefs and statements that
are not factual or actionable is simply a
"belief", not
a fact that can lawfully be admitted before any tribunal. Therefore, no activities were or could be
enjoined by the PseudoJudge's false decree. -
The PseudoJudge applied different, unequal standards to the defendant than it applied to the IRS itself. Hansen repeatedly pointed out in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that the Disclaimers applicable to the speech and alleged activities invoke the same protections as the IRS itself enjoys in IRM 4.10.7.2.8, where it says that none of its publications are trustworthy. So on the one hand, the IRS can say and do anything it wants, but when a private person asserts the same right using an even more potent disclaimer that makes their speech equally non-actionable and non-factual, suddenly it is the duty of the TYRANT judge to involuntarily reclassify non-factual speech to make it factual so he can fulfill a personal agenda to maximize his personal retirement, benefits, jurisdiction, and authority. Hypocrite! This is a denial of the equal protection of the law in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Click here for an article on this monumental, hypocritical form of injustice.
-
The PseudoJudge deliberately created a vague opinion that did not completely or unambiguously specify its terms, and which is therefore "void for vagueness". The purpose for this tactic was to effect an act of terrorism by abusing the ignorance of the defendant to manufacture or induce false beliefs and cooperation through omission. For instance:
9.1 The opinion cited sections of a "code" that the PseudoCourt never proved, but only PRESUMED were "law". 1 U.S.C. §204 says that the I.R.C. is only "prima facie" evidence, which means "presumed" evidence. This kind of presumption cannot lawfully be cited against anyone who is party to the Constitution and protected by the Constitution if it would injure their rights. Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for details. Therefore, there was no basis to believe that the code created any obligation against anyone who didn't individually consent to it. In effect, he was quoting from a state-sponsored "Bible" of the
New American Civil Religion called Socialism, and he was acting
as a "Priest" of that religion by refusing to prove with evidence
that the people consented to enact the provisions of the code he was
citing into positive law. The PseudoCourt was challenged to do this
in the Petitions to Dismiss repeatedly and refused its duty, and
therefore agreed that they were practicing RELIGION AND WITCHCRAFT,
not law, by refusing to prove that each section they were citing as
authority was individually enacted into positive law.9.2 The opinion used words that are not defined in the I.R.C. or implementing regulations and which both the judge and the Plaintiff positively and repeatedly refused to define, such as "customers" [who in fact can only lawfully be franchisees called "taxpayers"], "advertising" [which means making factual promises intended ONLY to induce a commercial transaction], "tax". Remember, a lawful tax can only be used to support constitutionally authorized functions of government and what the PseudoCourt currently calls a "tax" does not act as a lawful tax, because it is paid to persons who are not rendering constitutionally authorized services to the government. Click here for details on this SCAM.
9.3 The opinion could only relate to activities occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, which is primarily the federal zone, which as used here includes the District of Columbia (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)), federal areas, maritime jurisdiction and not within any state of the Union. The states enjoin exclusive legislative jurisdiction within their own borders in any areas that are not federal areas. Therefore, the order could only pertain to activities of the defendant within those areas and cannot affect activities within a state of the Union. This is because Subtitle A of the I.R.C. can only apply to these areas and not to a state of the Union. It can be extended through the operation of private law to states of the Union, but only by explicit, informed, consent of Hansen, which the government was challenged to produce and never produced. Therefore, extraterritorial jurisdiction within states of the Union does not apply until said evidence is produced. The federal government cannot act extraterritorially except in the case of its own statutory "U.S. persons" under 8 U.S.C. §1401 situated abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911 and its own instrumentalities wherever located. Even in the case of its own instrumentalities, those instrumentalities MUST be created and maintained extraterritorially pursuant to an EXPRESS congressional authorization found in 4 U.S.C. §72. Since the IRS has no statutory authority to exist outside the District of Columbia, it may not lawfully operate there, as provided by 4 U.S.C. §72.
9.4 The PseudoJudge's opinion could only relate to activities of the defendant with "taxpayers" subject to the I.R.C. The IRC cannot and does not regulate activities of those not subject to it, including "nontaxpayers", who incidentally are the only persons authorized by the applicable Disclaimers to read any of the materials that were the subject of the suit.
9.5 The PseudoJudge's opinion could only relate to specifically identified allegedly false arguments portrayed therein, and not to ALL speech or activities of the defendant. Lawful activities are protected and may not be enjoined, but the PseudoJudge, by not mentioning this, hoped to create the false presumption that ALL activities could be enjoined. The opinion could only authorize a permanent injunction against the specific false arguments in the case of persons who are "taxpayers" subject to and therefore protected by the I.R.C., and not all persons or even "customers". Once the allegedly false speech is eliminated, no activities related to anything else could be enjoined.
9.6 The opinion could not restrain any speech, because none of the speech in question was authorized by the applicable disclaimers to be used for an unlawful purpose.
9.7 The opinion cannot restrain political or religious activity, speech, or beliefs, which are the only types of activities authorized to be accomplished as a result of reading the materials posted on the websites in question. Therefore, the order did not really enjoin ANYTHING, even if Hansen were the proper party, which he is not.
The order did not relate to "commerce" that is within federal jurisdiction, and therefore did not enjoin any kind of commercial activity by any party. The only kind of commerce subject to federal regulation, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, is commerce among the several States and with Foreign Nations. None of the alleged commerce at issue is this type of commerce, because the SEDM Member Agreement section 7 says that Members are required to stipulate the following, which puts them outside of federal jurisdiction.
If questioned about my physical location during the time that I was talking with, emailing, or donating to the ministry, I will specify that all such events were conducted entirely outside of federal jurisdiction in a foreign state and are therefore irrelevant and not discoverable in any federal court. I can lawfully do this regardless of where the actual transaction occurred because this trick is also used in the Internal Revenue Code as well, in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d ) and the ministry is entitled to equal protection of the laws.
Below is the definition of "commerce" in the federal sphere, and note that it does NOT include any activities that are the subject of this proceeding.
As used in the Constitution, the word 'commerce' is the equivalent of the phrase 'intercourse for the purposes of trade,' and includes transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities between the citizens of the different states. And the power to regulate commerce embraces the instruments by which commerce is carried on. Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 , 280; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211, 241 , 20 S.Ct. 96; Hopkins v. United States, 171 U.S. 578, 597 , 19 S.Ct. 40. In Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 177 , 28 S.Ct. 277, 281, 13 Ann. Cas. 764, the phrase 'Commerce among the several states' was defined as comprehending 'traffic, intercourse, trade, navigation, communication, the transit of persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph,-indeed, every species on commercial intercourse among the several states.' In Veazie et al. v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 573, 574, this court, after saying that the phrase could never be applied to transactions wholly internal, significantly added: 'Nor can it be properly concluded, that, because the products of domestic enterprise in agriculture or manufactures, or in the arts, may ultimately become the subjects of foreign commerce, that the control of the means or the encouragements by which enterprise is fostered and protected, is legitimately within the import of the phrase foreign commerce, or fairly im- [298 U.S. 238, 299] plied in any investiture of the power to regulate such commerce. A pretension as far reaching as this, would extend to contracts between citizen and citizen of the same State, would control the pursuits of the planter, the grazier, the manufacturer, the mechanic, the immense operations of the collieries and mines and furnaces of the country; for there is not one of these avocations, the results of which may not become the subjects of foreign commerce, and be borne either by turnpikes, canals, or railroads, from point to point within the several States, towards an ultimate destination, like the one above mentioned.'
-
The PseudoJudge tried to make Hansen look like he wasn't cooperating with discovery as a justification for the foregoing exclusion of evidence. In fact, he LIED about this too by not even addressing Hansen's extensive efforts to cooperate described in the Opposition to the Motion for Default Judgment, Docket #69. He said that Hansen would not respond to questions at the Deposition and therefore was deserving of sanctions, but at the same time he:
-
Never implied that Constitutional privileges of First And Fifth Amendment were not properly asserted at the Deposition.
-
Never explained why the 700 page Amplified Deposition Transcript provided to the USDOJ on Feb. 22, 2006 by Hansen DIDN'T answer all remaining questions the government had. That transcript properly asserted all Constitutional privileges.
-
Didn't explain the points raised in the Opposition to the Motion for Default Judgment, Docket #69, whereby Hansen showed that it wasn't that he didn't want to answer questions that explained why he didn't show up to the second oral deposition, but the fact that he was properly asserting his First Amendment right to choose HOW he communicated with the government by electing to save expense and facilitate a more thorough response to the questions by insisting on a Deposition Upon Written Questions, which is authorized under Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 31. The First Amendment gives us a right to choose HOW we communicate with our government. There is no reason why the PseudoJudge should penalize Hansen for asserting his right to conduct the Second deposition in WRITING only, and he violated the First Amendment by punishing Hansen for asserting the right to answer questions in writing. Even if he had not asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to the government's questions, as long as he asserted the First Amendment right to NOT speak, he cannot be lawfully penalized as the PseudoJudge attempted to do by excluding ALL of his evidence.
Just as there is freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so there is freedom [RIGHT] not to speak, associate, or believe. “The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’” Wooley v. Maynard (1977). Freedom of conscience dictates that no individual be forced to espouse idealogical causes with which he disagrees: “[A]t the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that the individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one’s beliefs should be shaped by his mind and by his conscience, rather than coerced by the State.” Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ. (1977)
[First Amendment Law in a Nutshell, Second Edition, pp. 266-267, Jerome A Barron, West Group, 2000; ISBN 0-314-22677-X]
__________________________________________________
Moreover, freedom of thought and expression “includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 1435, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (BURGER, C.J.). We do not suggest this right not to speak would sanction abuse of the copyright owner's monopoly as an instrument to suppress facts. But in the words of New York's Chief Judge Fuld:
“The essential thrust of the First Amendment is to prohibit improper restraints on the voluntary public expression of ideas; it shields the man who wants to speak or publish when others wish him to be quiet. There is necessarily, and within suitably defined areas, a concomitant freedom not to speak publicly, one which serves the same ultimate end as freedom of speech in its affirmative aspect.” Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc., 23 N.Y.2d 341, 348, 296 N.Y.S.2d 771, 776, 244 N.E.2d 250, 255 (1968).
[Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 559, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985)]
Certainly, "public expression" as described above includes a public event such as litigation. The court proceeding is a public record, all the officers who conduct the litigation are public officers, the alleged offense that the government was prosecuting Hansen for could only pertain to "public officers" engaged in a "trade or business", etc. Therefore, the First Amendment can and should be invoked by the Alleged Defendant to prevent being wrongfully associated with the duties of a public office and to prevent the government from wrongfully asserting eminent domain over his private property and labor without compensation by servicing the needs of this meritless suit in violation of 18 U.S.C. §654.
-
-
The only witnesses the government had were all government employees whose checking accounts were receiving the proceeds of extortion and unlawful activity. They were acting as money launderers for the government, and yet the government used them as their ONLY witnesses. All of the witnesses and even the PseudoJudge were "taxpayers" and in receipt of money from the very tax that was at issue in the proceeding. This is a violation of 18 U.S.C. §208 and 28 U.S.C. §455. The most basic element of due process, impartial decision makers, impartial witnesses, and an impartial judge, was therefore violated. There were no disinterested third party, non-government witnesses who had anything adverse to say about Hansen. The government's case was about protecting the flow of plunder, not protecting innocent Americans they exist ONLY to serve, because there were no third parties at all who ever complained about anything on any of the websites in question or about being injured by it.
-
Throughout the proceeding, Hansen submitted a number of petitions to the PseudoCourt. Not a single thing he ever asked for was granted, and EVERYTHING the U.S. Attorney asked for was granted. In fact, in the case of the petition for sanctions, the PseudoMagistrate granted the U.S. Attorney further discovery that he never even asked for. Is THIS what you call EQUAL PROTECTION and JUSTICE? This is hypocrisy and favoritism towards those who worship the Civil Religion of Socialism and the PseudoJudge "Priest", not JUSTICE. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Attorney was granted things he never specifically asked for or proved were even necessary, in the case of further discovery against Hansen and at Hansen's expense, as a punishment for properly and timely asserting constitutionally guarantees rights and privileges. This was prejudicial and without justification and a violation of the oath of the judges to support and defend the Constitution.
-
After a year of discovery and after deposing three non-governmental witnesses, the government never found even one witness who ever said that Hansen had prepared or advised in the preparation of tax returns for them, given them any legal advice, made any promises or assurances about any of the information or services allegedly available on the websites it sought to enjoin, or did anything unlawful, false, or even commercial. They also never obtained affidavits from any private, non-governmental witness attesting that this had ever happened. They knew they had no evidence, so they got the IRS agent Gordon to make up an affidavit, which was nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion from a person with no personal knowledge of Hansen, and who HATED Hansen based on the last meeting they had together. That affidavit was inadmissible as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 610, and yet the PseudoCourt based nearly the entire final judgment on that one inadmissible "opinion". That's what you call "establishing a religion" in violation of the First Amendment. The PseudoCourt became a "Church" and proceeded upon belief and opinion rather than fact. Unbelievable!
-
The government used as proposed evidence information downloaded from the websites that was over a year old and which was irrelevant. Most of it was not in existence at the time the Answer, Docket #05, was filed. Hansen kept pointing out to them, in the Judicial Notice, Docket #44, at the Deposition on 30NOV2005, and in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Dockets 71 and 72 that they HAD to use the very latest copy of the evidence in order to grant an injunction because injunctions are based on ONGOING activity that refuses to stop, and they refused to do this without any explanation or justification at all. They also maliciously refused to acknowledge or recognize any efforts or cooperation at all on the part of either Hansen or Family Guardian, because the only thing they were interested in was SLANDER, not justice. That's why we call them the Dept. of INjustice. Maybe we need to change that name to "Dept. of Terrorism and Injustice". Their presumptuous, malicious, self-serving, hypocritical, arrogant behavior constitutes terrorism. Instead, they insisted on using old, outdated, prejudicial evidence that did not represent what was actually available on the websites in question, either at the time the Answer was filed or presently. Since they wouldn't at any time tell Hansen exactly what was either factual or wrong, in effect they were prosecuting him for committing things that they refused to tell him about. How could the materials ever be improved if not only the DOJ, but the IRS consistently refused their Constitutional duty to provide "reasonable notice" of exactly what conduct they expected at the administrative level, BEFORE pursuing a legal remedy. Earth calling DOJ! Saying that a person is "under investigation" but not allowing for even one Court hearing, any opportunity to ask and get answers to even the most basic questions, and being unwilling to show him the evidence or offering him a chance to fix it is what COMMUNISTS do. They call you in and tell you "we're watching you and you better shape up!", but don't tell you why. That's terrorism, not justice. Saying you are "under investigation" is about as helpful as telling you your position is "frivolous", and then not bothering to explain why or respond to any of your correspondence. It's TERRORISM, plain and simple. Our government is a terrorist organization! This is the same thing the PseudoCourt did: accusing Hansen of putting out false information, while not naming even one thing within over 5,000 pages of case files and 11,000 pages on the websites in question that is both factual and false.
Title 28: Judicial Administration
PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(l) Exercise Lead Agency responsibility in investigating all crimes for which it has primary or concurrent jurisdiction and which involve terrorist activities or acts in preparation of terrorist activities within the statutory jurisdiction of the United States. Within the United States, this would include the collection, coordination, analysis, management and dissemination of intelligence and criminal information as appropriate. If another Federal agency identifies an individual who is engaged in terrorist activities or in acts in preparation of terrorist activities, that agency is requested to promptly notify the FBI. Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or socialist] objectives.
They tried to disestablish a church or religious fellowship, in violation of the First Amendment, by calling its members "customers" and then trying to reclassify the exclusively religious and political beliefs and activity and speech it engages which specifically identifies itself as not factual or actionable into "factual" speech and therefore subject to government regulation. If Hansen were to cooperate with such communist nonsense, then he would afford precedent for the federal judiciary to invade, destroy, and persecute any religious or political