Federal District Court Rules on Hansen Injunction
Table of Contents:
  1. Introduction
  2. Unlawful Tactics and Dirty Tricks the Government Used During The Litigation
  3. Default Judgment Against Government
  4. The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment
  5. Effect on Family Guardian: Very Positive.  Thanks DOJ!
  6. The DOJ Propaganda Press Release
  7. The Court's Response to the Request to Amend Pleadings
  8. Conclusions

Related references:

"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 lawIt 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.
[Psalm 119:69-72, Bible, NKJV]

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness [both in the government and in their personal lives], 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]

1.  INTRODUCTION

As many of you know, the Dept. of Justice 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:

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 Justice, 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:

http://sedm.org/AboutUs.htm#10.__Relationship_to_Government

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 and ministry that focuses on and always has focused exclusively 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:

  1. 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)]

  2. 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 criminal and financial conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. 208.  The criminal 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 but not "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(b)(6) 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 PDF 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, Form #01.001, 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)]

  3. 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 PDF 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.
  4. 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 tacitly admitted that no private party who is not the government but who is proceeding against 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 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.  PDF Click here for an article proving this.  This also means that the PseudoJudge had no standing to pursue this injunction and that he was proceeding with "unclean hands" in contempt of the law and the Constitution, which is Supreme Law of the Land.   This was made very clear to him in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and yet he conveniently and self-servingly ignored everything having to do with this matter and illegally proceeded to issue an injunction based on perjured information that he himself introduced into the record and which was based entirely and only upon false "opinions" of an IRS agent that are inadmissible under F.R.E. 610.  Hansen said he cannot cooperate with the result of such illegal activities by the PseudoJudge, and to do so would constitute misprision of felony on his part.  What they did was the equivalent of spanking a child's bottom before the parent even tells him what he did wrong.  Would you raise your kids that way?  Somebody needs to call Child Protective Services on these tyrants.  In addition to the above, there were many other serious omissions by the PseudoJudge and the U.S. attorney in satisfying the requirements for obtaining injunctions, including:

    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 identified themselves as 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 but not "alien" not engaged in a "trade or business" with no earnings from the "United States" (government) similiar to that defined in 26 CFR 1.871-1(b)(1)(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(b)(6), 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 criminal 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)]

  5. 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 the de facto "United States" government, a private corporation masquerading as a "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)]

  6. 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."
    [Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]
  7. 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 PDF Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 (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.
  8. The PseudoJudge applied different, unequal standards to the alleged 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 the IRS  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.
  9. 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 PDF 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.'

     [ Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1868)]

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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!
  14. 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 Justice.  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.  The United States 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
    0.85   General functions.

    (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 group whose views it doesn't like.  Shoemaker is either dangerously ignorant or dangerously evil in pursuing this injunction, and either way, he ought to be behind bars for even trying.

  15. At the Deposition of Hansen held on 30NOV3005, the Magistrate illegally ordered him to appear in violation of 28 U.S.C. 636 and said he couldn't bring any witnesses and yet they brought one.  That deprived him of the equal protection of the law in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  16. U.S. Attorney Shoemaker conducted a deposition of one of the witnesses on Nov. 9, 2005 in Los Angeles.  During that deposition, he maliciously and openly destroyed evidence submitted by the witness.  Martin Shoemaker, the DOJ attorney, didn't like the witnesses testimony at all, so he probably called the IRS afterward so they could "work him over" and get some bargaining power.  Immediately after that deposition, IRS Agent Adelina Weber unlawfully tampered with the witness by instituting unlawful collection of over $80,000 against the witness, in order to discredit him as a witness and get leverage to coerce him into testifying against Hansen.  This is highly illegal and a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 18 U.S.C. 1512 that could land both Weber and Martin Shoemaker in jail for about ten years each.
  17. Hansen filed a Cross Complaint against the PseudoJudge and the U.S. Attorney.  The PseudoJudge wouldn't allow it to be filed and rejected it.  The excuse he used was the order of a Magistrate who had no authority to preside under 28 U.S.C. 636.  This is a violation of California Code of Civil Procedure 428.50(b), which says that Cross Complaints can be filed at any time without leave of Court.  Since this was a diversity of citizenship case under Constitution Article III but NOT 28 U.S.C. 1332, they have to follow the state's rules and the PseudoCourt didn't, so the PseudoJudge is a CRIMINAL.
  18. The financial information they obtained was illegally obtained and excludible.  26 U.S.C. 7602 indicates that the IRS, and by implication the DOJ, only have enforcement authority in "internal revenue districts".  Hansen stated under penalty of perjury that he does not reside in an internal revenue district, and Treasury Order 150-02 says that the only remaining internal revenue district is the District of Columbia.  Their discovery was illegal because it did not confine itself to the "United States", which 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) defines as the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States and no part of the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.
  19. The PseudoJudge knew he had to grant the summary judgment, because if IRS Agent Gordon, THE LIAR ever got up there and had to answer specific questions about his malicious and self-serving LIES, he would have disintegrated on the witness stand.  As long as he didn't have to answer for his lies or explain them, the government could slip their dirty little stiletto into Hansen in the dark and outside of the light of a jury scrutiny or public inquiry and scurry off with only a few whimpers and no larger consequences.  This, ladies and gentlemen, is the cut and run behavior of COWARDS and TYRANTS.  This is TREACHERY, not JUSTICE.
    "Getting treasures by a lying tongue Is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death." 
    [Prov. 21:6, Bible, NKJV]
  20. Hansen asked for a jury trial and the PseudoJudge refused, so the PseudoJudge was the only jurist, and he certainly wasn't a peer of Hansen as required by the Seventh Amendment.  He was a a federal franchisee called a "taxpayer" and a government henchman, and not the sovereign Article III judge contemplated by the founders who was outside of influence by the other branches of government.  He doesn't reside on federal territory within the district and for that, he is guilty of a high misdemeanor.  The only thing it would take to unconstitutionally reduce his salary is getting the Secretary of the Treasury of the IRS pissed at him and levy his pay if they didn't like the way he ruled.

    “In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.”
    [Alexander Hamilton , The Federalist, No. 79]

3.  DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST GOVERNMENT

What is more important than the words in the ruling is what they DID and what they DIDN'T SAY AND DO.  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), a party faced with evidence of his own wrongdoing who fails to controvert it admits it and defaults to it.  The only exception to this rule is if the party against whom the allegation is rendered is protected by the Constitution, in which case he cannot be punished for asserting a Fifth Amendment right of freedom from self incrimination.  You will note that the government as an artificial entity is NOT protected by this prohibition and therefore is amenable to an equitable estoppel, whereas this is NOT true of Hansen.  Hansen's voluminous pleadings ensured that there were plenty of things the government admitted by their failure to deny.

  1. Most of the pleadings and petitions and responsive documents submitted to the PseudoCourt had the Federal Pleading Attachment (OFFSITE LINK) attached.  That document specifically asks the PseudoCourt and the Plaintiff to remain silent on all facts and legal conclusions that they agree with.  Since they were silent on nearly every issue raised by Hansen, then they agreed to everything.  It doesn't matter what the ruling says, but what it doesn't say.  What it doesn't say must be consistent with what it does say in order to be realistically enforceable.  Therefore, it is a void judgment and all statements made by Hansen are therefore admitted by the PseudoCourt and the Plaintiff and there is no controversy in this case at all.
  2. At least two times, Hansen told the government to be very specific about identifying exactly what is both factual and false in the information they sought to enjoin.

    Neither the PseudoCourt nor the DOJ ever pointed to even one thing anywhere on either Family Guardian or SEDM that they could prove specifically with evidence was both factual and false.  All they ever did was throw accusations and slander at Hansen that they had no physical evidence to support.  They abused the court as a political rather than legal vehicle, and the PseudoJudge, as a willing accomplice, became a priest of the Civil Religion of Socialism (OFFSITE LINK) wearing a black robe and chanting in Latin or with words that few people but the priests know.  Instead of waiving an incense bowl like the Catholic church does, he waived his gavel.  Instead of an altar or a cross, he uses his bench.  Instead of a Bible, he uses the Internal Revenue Code, which, like the bible, is private law that only applies to those who BELIEVE they are subject to it and therefore consent to it.  The U.S. Attorney was the deacon who helped him conduct his worship service.  They wanted to "shoot the messenger", but they couldn't shoot the message, because it's right out of their own mouth!  They'd have to call themselves liars if they discredited the message, and enjoin their own behavior and activities.  The Disclaimer specifically states that you aren't allowed to trust anything we say, and that the only thing you can trust is documented in the Reasonable Belief pamphlet (OFFSITE LINK), which is the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt, the Statutes at Large after January 2, 1939, and the Constitution.  The fact that people relied on these exclusive sources of belief and were injured by them is an admission that the de facto corporate "United States" government is violating the law.  By their universal silence, the tyrants who handled this case admitted that everything on Family Guardian and SEDM, which were the two websites they sought to enjoin, is accurate and truthful.  You can bet that if they could have found something, they most certainly would have pointed it out after a year of litigation and putting us under the microscope of their best minds and strategists, but they couldn't.   Therefore, these websites are exonerated and now have the government's stamp of approval.  Thank you, District PseudoCourt and Department of Justice for confirming what we always knew, which is that everything on these websites is accurate, but of course not factual or actionable.

  3. Not once did either the PseudoCourt or the DOJ ever call anything on this website or anything in any of Hansen's pleadings "frivolous".  That's probably because he defined the word in his Answer as "truthful, accurate".  They didn't want to tell him he was right!! Hee...heeee.....heeee!!  The case file is probably five huge boxes and over 5,000 files and not once did they call one thing that Hansen ever said or wrote as "frivolous" or even wrong.
  4. When Hansen used arguments about jurisdiction that they didn't want to deal with, the PseudoCourt consistently responded with silence, which under Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), means agreement and a default judgment/equitable estoppel against the party.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for exhaustive proof of this.  This was true of the following arguments on jurisdiction:
    • The term "person", for the purposes of tax injunctions, is defined in 26 U.S.C. 6700(b) is defined as "an officer or an employee of a corporation".  That corporation is a public corporation called the United States government.  Hansen pointed this out several times, and raised it in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.  The PseudoCourt was silent and therefore agreed with him.  The US Attorney did not come back with what was asked for, which was a statute expressly including him in the group of people who are "persons".  Instead, he quoted a bunch of irrelevant caselaw, as though alleging that judges had the authority to legislative and thereby extend the definition, which they certainly don't.
    • 4 U.S.C. 72 requires that all "public offices" be in the District of Columbia for the purposes of federal jurisdiction, and that anyplace else requires that Congress "expressly extend" those offices with enacted law.  Well, they never did this in the case of states of the Union so they can't operate there.  On two occasions, Hansen raised this issue and demanded the enactment of Congress that "expressly extends" enforcement of the I.R.C. to states of the Union.  The PseudoCourt was completely silent and the US Attorney could not produce the statute either, so he agreed with Hansen that he had no jurisdiction to proceed.  The Second time Hansen raised this argument in the Petition to Dismiss, the PseudoCourt dismissed the Petition to Dismiss, Docket #81 and 82, because they knew they didn't have an answer for this quagmire.  The third time he raised it was in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which the PseudoCourt again refused to deal with or even mention in their order.
  5. The last petition filed in the case was the Petition to Amend the Pleadings, Docket #92 filed by Hansen.  That Petition:
    • Contains a Default Judgment, attached as Exhibit 3.  That default judgment contains a summary of all the things the PseudoCourt and the USDOJ were silent on, and therefore agreed to pursuant to Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6).  You are encouraged to read that judgment.  You are also encouraged to read the memorandum of law entitled "Silence as a Weapon and a Defense in Legal Discovery" (OFFSITE LINK), section 7, which proves why equitable estoppel may be lawfully asserted against "public officers" such as the Judge who, through silence, omission, and nonfeasance, refuse the affirmative Constitutional duties imposed by their oath of office.
    • Reveals that the PseudoCourt's "Opinion" (not "ruling", but "political opinion") is "void for vagueness" and must be amended to define the terms it is using and to answer several important questions that leave the Defendant in a state of "cognitive dissonance" and unable to reasonably comply.

Based on the above and based on the dishonorable behavior of the PseudoJudge in this case, the Court of Public Opinion finds and declares the following facts:

  1. That the government has enjoined itself from publishing law, because the only thing people reading the websites in question are told they can rely upon is the printed law.  This is confirmed by section 9 of the SEDM Member Agreement.  You will note that this agreement also says that Members may not trust or believe anything that anyone in the website says or does.  If the law is an inadequate source of belief that deceives people into being injured to the point where an injunction is considered necessary, then the injunction can only be directed at those who write and publish the United States code.
  2. That employee Lorenz was acting in an Article IV territorial capacity while deceiving and lying to the public by implying that he is an Article III judge.  The original Answer demanded an Article III judge and the PseudoJudge made no attempt to prove that he was an Article III judge.  Click here for details.
  3. That Article IV Legislative (and NOT Judicial) Branch federal employee and franchise administrator (but not constitutional "judge") Lorenz knew or should have known that he was engaged in a conspiracy against rights based on omission, presumption, and breach of fiduciary duty.  Very few among the many issues or controversies addressed in the Answer or the subsequent Petitions to Dismiss were addressed, and therefore the de facto PseudoJudge shirked his fiduciary duties and thereby denied justice to Hansen.
  4. That this entire proceeding amounts to a Bill of Attainder, because the Pseudojudge and the Pseudocourt are an Article IV tribunal in the Executive Branch that was not exercising Article III Judicial Power .  A Bill of Attainder is any penalty imposed by the Legislative or Executive Branch rather than an Article III tribunal.
  5. That because de facto PseudoJudge/employee Lorenz disallowed the admission of ALL evidence submitted by Hansen from the very beginning of the case because of the lawful assertion of Constitutional privileges by Hansen, then Hansen is equally entitled to exclude all statements and all evidence provided by employee Lorenz of the Kangaroo PseudoCourt for asserting the SAME privilege.  You will note that Hansen submitted at least three Petitions to dismiss and a very long list of questions and issues (in the Answer, the Petitions to Dismiss, and the Petition to Amend) the PseudoCourt had to answer and deal with in its "opinion" to properly address all the issues before it, and that it responded with silence, which was a "Fifth Amendment" response that produced a default judgment against employee Lorenz and the Kangaroo PseudoCourt.  If employee Lorenz can punish Hansen for silence for lawfully asserting First And Fifth Amendment in answer to questions, then Hansen is entitled to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 by removing from evidence EVERYTHING that employee Lorenz  said about his conduct as a basis for reasonable belief about what he said, did, or should do.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  6. That Executive Branch employee Lorenz (Article IV "justice") unlawfully issued the injunction by completely ignoring all of the requirements documented above in section 2, thus producing a void judgment that cannot and will not be obeyed or honored, even if it was directed at the correct party, which it was not.
  7. That  the U.S. Attorney was engaged in a pattern of fraud, malicious prosecution, involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 1589(3), and conspiracy against rights of Hansen in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
  8. That by ignoring the requirements of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine, the domicile and citizenship of Hansen, and his status as a nonresident but not alien nontaxpayer not engaged in a "trade or business", de facto PseudoJudge (but not "judge") Lorenz is guilty of:

    8.1  Making a false and prejudicial and unlawful presumption that Hansen is a "U.S. person" with a domicile in the District of Columbia/federal territory, which amounts to kidnapping and identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1201, 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 654, and 26 U.S.C. 7408(d) & 7701(a)(39).  When confronted with this accusation, he was silent and therefore admitted his own wrongdoing and breached his fiduciary duty as a "public officer".
    8.2  Violating due process and rendering a void judgment because engaging in presumption.

  9. That the content of the Criminal Complaint attached to the Petition to Amend the Pleadings documents the infractions of he, the IRS agent, and U.S. Attorney Shoemaker, for which the Court of Public Opinion demand a grand jury be convened to prosecute and terminate the perpetrators of this criminal conspiracy.
  10. That every issue of fact or law raised by Hansen to which PseudoJudge Lorenz and the Plaintiff were silent on constitutes a default judgment, equitable estoppel, estoppel by laches, retraxit by tacit procuration, and breach of fiduciary duty by these public officers for which they are guilty of Subornation of Perjury and become accessories after the fact to conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3 and 4.
  11. That the IRS and the federal government knows or should know that they have no lawful authority to enforce any provision of the Internal Revenue Code within any state of the Union because:

    11.1  That the federal government may not lawfully establish or enforce federal franchises or public offices within states of the Union on OTHER than federal territory.  The I.R.C. Subtitles A and C are franchise taxes upon such public offices and all "taxpayers" are public officers within the government.  See:
    PDF Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a "Public Officer" For Federal Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 (OFFSITE LINK)
    PDF Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030 (OFFSITE LINK)

    11.2  There are no implementing regulations published in the Federal Register as required in order to enforce the Internal Revenue Code, in the case of a person domiciled in a state of the Union who is not a "public officer" or federal instrumentality.  PDF Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for details.

    11.3  The I.R.C. is only enforceable against domiciliaries of the District of Columbia or against federal "public officers" and instrumentalities.  The tax is a tax upon a "trade or business", which is defined as "the functions of a public office" in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26).  4 U.S.C. 72 says that all "public offices" can ONLY be situated in the District of Columbia except as expressly provided by law.  When the PseudoCourt and the U.S. Attorney were asked for the positive law enactment of Congress expressly extending to states of the Union the "public offices" that are the subject of the I.R.C. Subtitle A tax, they were silent, thus admitting that the tax cannot be enforced in states of the Union.  See the PDF Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment for details.

    11.4  The IRS can only enforce the I.R.C. in internal revenue districts, and Treasury Order 150-02 abolished all internal revenue districts except the District of Columbia.  See:
    PDF Federal Jurisidiction, Form #05.018 (OFFSITE LINK)

In short, the government's silence constitutes an equitable estoppel and a default judgment against the government for all the above findings of fact by the Court of Public Opinion.  In this regard:

"What you DO or DON'T DO speaks so loudly we can't hear and don't believe a word you say."

“Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question , and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel.”
[Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)]

What the PseudoCourt has demonstrated, by their very deliberate silence, omission, and careful choice of words, is that they are JUST as careful in their use of the words "taxpayer" and "tax shelter" (an INVESTMENT offered ONLY to "taxpayers") as President Clinton is about his use of the word "sex".  Do you know what the meaning of the word "is" is?

HAAAA....HAAAA....HAAAA!

The SNAKE and SERPENT that has infiltrated the de jure United States government and turned it into an atheistic, for profit private corporation and SHAM TRUST speaketh with forked tongue:

"For false christs and false prophets [of the NEW AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION OF SOCIALISM, which is the NEW PAGAN FALSE GOD] will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." 
[Mark 13:22, Bible, NKJV]

"The coming of the lawless one [Satan, who has infiltrated the de jure government to make it into a de facto instrument of injustice and PLUNDER that is a SHAM TRUST] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

[2 Thess. 2:9-12, Bible, NKJV]

4.  THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Towards the end of the lawsuit, the DOJ launched a "one-two punch" in apparent hopes of throwing Hansen off guard. Discovery ended at the beginning of February so they launched a wave of motions to end the case quickly.  First they filed a Motion for Default Judgment, Docket #64 and 65 on Feb. 13 (just before Valentine's day") to distract him, and then four days after that, a Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #67 and 68 on Feb. 17.  The Motion for Summary Judgment they do in all their tax injunction cases, but the Default Judgment was a new tactic for this case that we hadn't observed before.

Hansen timely responded with a barrage of Opposition briefs.  When it came time to rule on these motions, the PseudoCourt dragged its feet for almost two months after the scheduled hearing date.  PseudoJudge Lorenz was supposed to rule on the Summary and Default motions on March 27, and it took them until June 1 to rule: 65 days late.  Part of that delay may have been giving the U.S. Attorney time to write the PseudoCourt's order.  This is highly illegal, but it happens all the time and it sure looks like it was done in this case, based on the style and format of writing in the Ruling, Docket #91.

As you read the Article IV Kangaroo PseudoCourt's "Political Opinion", keep the following in mind:

  1. The "Gordon Dec." means the affidavit of the IRS agent attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #68.  This is the same IRS Agent who:
    • Who has no personal knowledge about Hansen and therefore is unsuitable as a witness.
    • Who met with Hansen only once on July 10, 2003, during which time the materials he sought to enjoin didn't even exist.  This is a violation of stare decisis on the subject of injunctions, which says that agencies must exhaust their administrative remedies completely before they can pursue an injunction.
    • Whose statements in the affidavit are opinions and not facts inadmissible under Fed.Rule.Evidence 610 and who provided no physical or third party witnesses who could confirm even one of the presumptuous, prejudicial, and false things that he said in his affidavit.  In that capacity, he's acting as a "priest" for the government church called District PseudoCourt, not an unbiased purveyor of truth or justice.  In this church, they practice witchcraft and human sacrifices.  The "Bailiff" supervises the altar of Baal where the sacrifices are conducted to the false god called the PseudoJudge, whose every word becomes "law".
  2. The ruling directs disclosure of "customer lists".  Well, the only thing that "customer" can mean in the context of "tax shelters" is "taxpayers".

    "Tax shelter A device used by a taxpayer to reduce or defer payment of taxes.  Common forms of tax shelters include:  limited partnership interests, real estate investments which have deductions such as depreciation, interest, taxes, etc.  The Tax Reform Act of 1986 limited the benefits of tax shelters significantly by classifying losses from such shelters as passive and ruling that passive losses can only offset passive income in arriving at taxable income (with a few exceptions).  Any excess losses are suspended and may be deducted in the year the investment is sold or otherwise disposed of. "

    [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1462-1463]

    “Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers .  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.  With them[non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”

    [Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]

    The PseudoCourt knew or should have known that they only have jurisdiction over franchisees called "taxpayers", that the Disclaimer on all the affected websites excludes "taxpayers" from the authorized audience, and that Hansen does not talk or associate with or educate franchisees and public officers called "taxpayers", because this was made clear to them in the Answer, Docket #05 repeatedly.  They didn't use the word, in hopes that Hansen would wrongfully interpret the word "customers" to include "nontaxpayers".  All of the tax injunction orders we have ever read require disclosure of lists of "taxpayers", but the PseudoCourt deviated in this case from their "MO" because they knew that "nontaxpayers" were the only audience in this case.  You will note that the Family Guardian Disclaimer and the SEDM Disclaimer, Section 1, both say that "taxpayers" aren't even allowed to visit those websites and that they should go to http://www.irs.gov for information.  The PseudoCourt refused to define the term "customers" in their "void for vagueness" ruling, but it is very clear what they meant by that word:  "taxpayers".  The only real "taxpayers" who could possibly be affected by the order are therefore Barbara Cantrell, the DOJ secretary, and IRS Agent David Gordon, who both perjured themselves in obtaining the materials on the websites in question by obtaining and reading them as "taxpayers", while fraudulently and knowingly portraying themselves as "nontaxpayers".  Apparently, the only "taxpayers" naive or presumptuous enough to use this website that we are aware of all work for the government.  Does that surprise you?  Therefore, the government already knows who the real "customers" are, and all of them are listed in the Motion for Summary Judgment as witnesses.  Church or religious fellowship members who engage in sharing religious beliefs and opinions that are not factual and not actionable, even if they make donations to the ministry that they are part of, cannot lawfully be classified as "customers" without disestablishing a church in violation of the First Amendment.  Neither can the soliciting of donations to such a ministry lawfully be classified as "selling" or "advertising".  The fact that donations to a religious ministry are made, does not change the nature of the speech that the ministry engages in.  Any attempt by the USDOJ or the PseudoCourt to reclassify the strictly religious and political speech and opinions of the ministry as "factual" and actionable therefore:

    • Is an unlawful attempt by the government to disestablish a Church or religious group and bring it under government regulation as a presumed "business".
    • Is a violation of the First Amendment.
    • If effected universally, would authorize the federal government to invade and regulate every church and political party, and political group in the country in violation of the First Amendment.

    What the PseudoCourt did to skirt this issue was use the vague and undefined word "customers" to describe what actually are members of a church or religious group, and then essentially issue a vague ruling that obtusely petitions the Defendant, under "color" but without the actual authority of law, to help them to convert the religious ministry or fellowship into a business engaged in "factual" and "actionable" speech that they could regulate.  Hell will freeze over before that would ever happen and before Hansen would ever help the government destroy churches and regulate religious groups or churches as though they are government corporations!  They ought to burn in hell for even obtusely suggesting that.  It is also worth noting that the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt has also said that the government may not compel the disclosure of "membership lists" of purely political and religious fellowships such as Family Guardian and SEDM:

    Like freedom of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at the foundation of a government [361 U.S. 516, 523]   based upon the consent of an informed citizenry - a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and the preservation of liberty. U.S. Const., Amend. I. And it is now beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment  from invasion by the States. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 ; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 460 .

    Freedoms such as these are protected not only against heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233  ;Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 ; American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 402 ; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, supra; Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 . "It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute [an] effective . . . restraint on freedom of association. . . . This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations. . . . Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S., at 462 .

    On this record it sufficiently appears that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists of the local branches of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People would work a significant interference with the freedom of association of their members. 9 There was [361 U.S. 516, 524]   substantial uncontroverted evidence that public identification of persons in the community as members of the organizations had been followed by harassment and threats of bodily harm. There was also evidence that fear of community hostility and economic reprisals that would follow public disclosure of the membership lists had discouraged new members from joining the organizations and induced former members to withdraw. This repressive effect, while in part the result of private attitudes and pressures, was brought to bear only after the exercise of governmental power had threatened to force disclosure of the members' names. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S., at 463 . Thus, the threat of substantial government encroachment upon important and traditional aspects of individual freedom is neither speculative nor remote.

    [Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)]

  3. There isn't a single truthful thing they said about Hansen in the PseudoCourt's Opinion, Docket #91, and they had no physical evidence to back anything up or anything admitted that was said by anything other than a biased government witness with a financial conflict of interest.  He was convicted on presumption, not evidence.  That's witchcraft and state-sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment, not justice.  In the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Hansen in fact accused Attorney Shoemaker, the U.S. Attorney, of practicing religion rather than law, in his pleadings.  If you would like to know why presumption may not be used to convict a person, see Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Expanding Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 (OFFSITE LINK).  You can see a detailed list of all the false statements in the Opposition Brief, Docket #72, Aff. of Material Facts, Section 3.1, p. 7.  The Petition to Amend the Pleadings, Docket #92, demands evidence that backs up each of the PseudoCourt's presumptuous statements, and that the Ruling be modified to point out either the evidence, or lack thereof.  Without evidence to back up EVERYTHING in the Ruling, then the PseudoCourt is really just functioning as a political body that is part of the Executive Branch, which is a violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine and a tortious usurpation by the PseudoJudge for which he could be held personally liable.
  4. The PseudoJudge perjured himself in his Ruling, Docket #91.  He knew that he couldn't get past square one on the injunction unless factual speech existed.  The very first element he has to prove is that the speech is factual in order to get an injunction, because it can't be false and therefore enjoinable without being factual.  The Family Guardian Disclaimer and the SEDM Disclaimer both say that nothing on either website, and no communication between readers and those associated with the websites, is factual other than the disclaimers themselves.  This was the case long before the Complaint was even filed and the government knew this or should have known this at the time they filed the Complaint.  This knowledge creates a perception that U.S. Attorney Shoemaker is guilty of malicious prosecution.  Copies of these disclaimers were included with the Opposition Brief, Docket #71 and 72.  Therefore, the speech not only can't be enjoined, but it's also not even admissible as evidence in PseudoCourt under Federal Rule of Evidence 610.  That's why the government couldn't lawfully even quote anything off any of the websites it sought to enjoin in order to prove that there was false speech on these websites.  The reason it took the PseudoJudge 60 days after the hearing to publish a ruling is because he had to invent a way around this HUGE problem.  The best he could come up with is to perjure himself on the PseudoCourt record by attributing statements to Hansen in the Opposition Brief, Docket #71 and 72, that in fact were NEVER made, and thus commit perjury as a "public officer".  For doing that, he is now a felon and could be removed from the bench.  Hansen has filed a Criminal Complaint against the PseudoJudge and the U.S. Attorney that will hopefully accomplish that.  The PseudoJudge accused Hansen of claiming that the statements at issue are "factual" and then at least appears to quote Hansen's Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #72.

    Defendant contends his speech is "exclusively religious" and comprised of "political statements that are factual, not actionable.57"

    [Judgment, Docket #91, p. 17]

    Then there is a footnote that says the following

    57.  Opp’n Br. At 9 [p. 9]

    Then you look at the portion of the Hansen Opposition Brief, Docket #72 that it refers to, and here is what it says:

    5  None of the third party depositions revealed any evidence of any activity, much less illegal activity, by the Alleged Defendant.  This includes:

    A.  Preparing or advising in the preparation of tax returns by Alleged Defendant.

    B.  Alleged Defendant corresponding with the government on behalf of any third party.

    C.  Giving of any advice.

    D.  Making any assurances about the effectiveness of any of the information in question.

    E.  Factual speech on the part of the Alleged Defendant.  Everything on all the websites and all speech connected with them is identified in the Disclaimers, Exhibits 1 and 2, as exclusively religious and political statements that are not factual, not actionable, and which are therefore protected by the First Amendment  to the United States Constitution.
    [Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #72, Mem. Law, p. 9, para. 5]

Can you see how the PseudoJudge LIED and how it is easy to prove this using the PseudoCourt's own record, which is a public record?  If you read through the above Hansen Opposition Brief, Docket #71 and 72 which is over 300 pages, you will see that over 30 times, Hansen emphasizes that none of the speech in question is factual or actionable, that it is religious and political statements and beliefs that are not actionable.  Search it electronically yourself and prove this to yourself.  Use the "Ctrl-F" key inside your Adobe Acrobat reader to do the search.  Show us even one place where Hansen said the speech in question was factual.  IT DOESN'T EXIST.  THE PseudoJudge, WHO IS YOUR PUBLIC SERVANT, IS A CRIMINAL AND MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH!  As a matter of fact, you might want to file a Criminal complaint against him using the free materials available on SEDM:

Criminal Complaint Against Public Officers, Litigation Tool #08.002

http://sedm.org/Litigation/LitIndex.htm

Now, without further adieu, here are is the Motion for Summary Judgment, Hansen's Opposition, the PseudoCourt's final ruling, and the Petition for Reconsideration that was filed immediately after Judgment was entered.

The last item above, the Petition to Amend the Pleadings, functions as a "Jury Entertainment Package", in case the USDOJ decides to get cute and pursue a criminal contempt order against Hansen.  F.R.Crim.Proc. 23(a) and the Sixth Amendment allow any defendant in a Contempt proceeding to Demand a Jury.  The Petition to Amend the Judgment is a Court Record and therefore a Public Record.  Therefore, it may not be excluded from evidence under the Hearsay Rule, F.R.E. 802, in any trial involving the PseudoCourt's Political Opinion.  The Petition To Amend declares that the PseudoCourt's Political Opinion is "void for vagueness", and, like all the government's behavior up to this time, fails to give Constitutionally required "reasonable notice" of exactly what behavior was both factual AND false and therefore injurious, proves that the PseudoCourts basis for "reasonable belief" is arbitrary and unreasonable, and provides a long list of questions to be answered by the Plaintiff and the PseudoJudge in order to clarify the impact of the ruling.  It warns that if the PseudoJudge does not answer the questions so that the implications of the Order can be fully understood, then the PseudoJudge will have a future opportunity to explain why he didn't to the Jury who will soon be assembled in a contempt hearing, in which the Government is going to have to prove why the "void for vagueness" order was not obeyed.

Lastly, we note that the above Ruling:

  1. Is not an "Order" for Hansen, because he isn't the "person" defined in 26 U.S.C. 6671(b). When statutory proof AND evidence was demanded from the government, both the PseudoCourt and the USDOJ were silent, and therefore agreed that he wasn't this "person".  It is only an order that pertains to those acting as "public officers" of the federal corporation called the "United States", and therefore the "person" described in 26 U.S.C. 6671(b).  Since Hansen is a "private person" and not a "public official", the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt says Congress has no jurisdiction over such a person:

    “The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action [of "public officers"], was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' 5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”

    [City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

    For details, see the pamphlet "Meaning of the words 'includes' and 'including'" and answer the questions at the end if you feel like arguing about this point.

  2. Is directed at the government witnesses as the Substitute Defendants.  The Family Guardian Disclaimer and the SEDM Disclaimer and the SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001 all say that the government's witnesses, and NOT Hansen, are the proper defendants to this case.  These agreements make anyone who uses the licensed information available on the website into Substitute Defendant's if they testify against any other Member or reader of the materials.  Consequently, the proper audience for the PseudoCourt's Order are the exclusively government witnesses who became Members of SEDM and therefore Substitute Defendants in connection with the privileged, copyrighted, and licensed materials available on that website.  This would include IRS Agent David Gordon,  and Barbara Cantrell.  You will note, for instance, that the fellowship bookstore checkout process at SEDM is structured such that the person obtaining information from the fellowship bookstore is forewarned at least three times in big red letters that by proceeding further, they consent unconditionally and perpetually to be bound by the SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001.
  3. Is not directed at Hansen Personally.  You will note that the Hansen Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Dockets 71 and 72, identifies Hansen on the first page as "Fiduciary for Substitute Defendant", which we just showed in the previous step is the government's witnesses.  Since neither the PseudoCourt nor the Plaintiff disagreed with this, then they agree under Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6).
  4. Is irrelevant to Hansen, even if it did refer to him personally.  Hansen can't obey an order that pertains to SEDM, because he has no authority as an officer of that religious fellowship in which to obey.

For all the foregoing reasons, the PseudoCourt's Political Opinion is really just an injunction against IRS Agent Gordon, who is the substitute defendant by private contract found in the SEDM Member Agreement, to stop lying to people.  Now THAT'S MY KIND OF COURT ORDER:  An order that tells the IRS to QUIT LYING!!  Haa....haaaa....haaaa!!  Thank you DOJ!

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'” 
[1 Cor. 3:19, Bible, NKJV]

"For it is written: ' I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'”
[1 Cor. 1:19, Bible, NKJV]

"This is the way of those who are foolish, And of their posterity who approve their sayings." 
[Psalm 49:13, Bible, NKJV]

"The wise shall inherit glory, But shame shall be the legacy of fools." 
[Prov. 3:35, Bible, NKJV]

"He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind, And the fool will be servant to the wise of heart."
[Prov. 11:29, Bible, NKJV]

"He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them." 
[Job 5:13, Bible, NKJV]

5.  EFFECT ON FAMILY GUARDIAN:  VERY POSITIVE.  THANKS DOJ!

The media publicity and the lessons learned in the litigation have been very positive for the Family Guardian website.  Below is a summary of the effects.

  1. Family Guardian website traffic has doubled over the last year of litigation.  This is because of the DOJ media publicity and because the materials here have been improved to make them more useful to all of you in the litigation process such as this one.
  2. Our Website Disclaimer has been Considerably Strengthened, Based on the Way DOJ Attacked It

    2.1  Now it better emphasizes and explains the issue of factual speech to identify everything on this website as "not factual and not actionable".  Speech must be factual before it can be enjoined or become actionable in court.  Otherwise, it is a religious and a political belief that is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 610.  Therefore, the government's ability to pursue any future injunction is completely destroyed.  This website has always been exclusively non-factual and non-actionable religious opinions and beliefs, but now we have the words and the authorities to properly describe what we are doing and properly and timely invoke the requisite First Amendment protections upon it so that we don't end up in anyone's cross-hairs.

    2.2  The Disclaimer page now better describes the intended audience.  This helps steer away those who might bring reproach upon us and helps show, consistent with the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), that we do not target anyone within the jurisdiction of the "United States".  Below are the requirements that a party must meet in order to become subject to federal jurisdiction as a nonresident defendant, such as the nonresidents but not aliens who are the only proper audience of this website and who run this website.

    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)]

  3. We have added a free Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid pamphlet.  This helps keep our readers out of trouble.  It was previously part of the now defunct Tax Freedom Solutions Manual and now has been considerably expanded and improved and made available for free.  This pamphlet has also been considerably improved to specifically address all of the arguments frequently accused of being "frivolous" by the IRS and all the arguments used against Hansen in the litigation described here.  Complying with the pamphlet is now listed as a MANDATORY requirement of being within the INTENDED/AUTHORIZED AUDIENCE found in the Disclaimer.
  4. The Citizenship Records Amendment forms have been completely revised.  This form is the one used by the DOJ as a basis to prosecute Hansen and may be found by clicking here.  They were falsely claiming that Hansen offered an Administrative Repudiation Process through SEDM, and they assumed falsely that this process was based on the original Citizenship Amendment form available on Family Guardian.  The IRS prosecution referral package sent to the DOJ included several people's submissions of the form appearing on this website, but none of them were completed or submitted by Hansen and Hansen declared under penalty of perjury during the Deposition on 30NOV2006 that the alleged Citizenship Administrative Repudiation was a dumb idea and that he was never involved in it and never received any compensation for.  Our citizenship amendment form page now points to a free form available on SEDM and there is no similar form on Family Guardian.  The FREE SEDM version of the form is MUCH better than the original posted here and it, like our now defunct version of the form, is also entirely free.  Therefore, the government has no evidence upon which to assert that anyone is charging for it because no citizenship services have ever been offered by either Hansen, Family Guardian, or SEDM (we are TOLD).  We are told by officers of SEDM that the original Citizenship Administrative Repudiation page on SEDM was not offered by SEDM, but was a third party referral for which SEDM never derived any revenues.  This is also confirmed by the SEDM Articles of Mission (OFFSITE LINK)  which state at the beginning of section 3 that:

    "Any items not listed in the subsequent subsections shall be provided by an independent third party who provides no support of any kind to the ministry.  The purpose for listing items on the ministry website that are not identified in this chapter is to refer individuals to other providers, but no donations, commissions, or other financial considerations may be generated by such referrals, as this would compromise the integrity of our message."
    [SEDM Articles of Mission, Form #01.004, Chapter 3, p. 83, version 1.34]

    You will note that Citizenship Administrative Repudiation is not listed anywhere in Chapter 3 of the Articles of Mission and never has been.  Therefore, the only thing one can reasonably conclude is that SEDM does not offer and never has offered this service and that it was offered by third parties who provided no compensation to SEDM by virtue of making said referrals.  Consequently, SEDM cannot be a proper party to any proceedings involving this defunct process.

  5. The Example Tax Return on this website has been eliminated and now points to a free form on SEDM.  The page can be accessed by clicking here.  This is the only place on this website dealing with how to file returns and it is FREE, so that it is protected by the First Amendment.  The free SEDM Federal Nonresident Tax Statement is much better than our original form and the package it is submitted with is much shorter than our original form.  Hats off to SEDM for a wonderful job.  Like our original example tax return, this form is free and therefore protected by the First Amendment.
  6. We have made our writings less emotional and more spiritual and informational.  This maintains more of a religious and educational rather than political flavor to our writings.
  7. The Anti-Propaganda Sections of the Website have been Considerably Strengthened.  Now there is a rebutted version of Dan Evans Tax Resister FAQ, and the rebutted version of the IRS Friv. Arguments Pamphlet has been considerably improved to take into account all aspects of the Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid Pamphlet.  This leaves no room in the future for the government to attack any of the arguments on this website.
  8. We have renamed the Tax Freedom page to "Taxation".  This is appropriate because our goal has always been an honest and accountable government that respects our rights and property, not saving money on taxes.  This has also had the positive side affect of attracting more people who are doing things for the right reason:  Love of God and justice, and not "commerce" as our goal has served to repel "patriot for profit" types who will just give us a bad name anyway.  There is not to be found the phrase "tax freedom" anywhere on this website, based on a Google website search, because that is not and never has been our goal and it attracts the wrong kind of audience anyway.  We want people who put God and justice first, not profit or commerce.  Same thing for SEDM, we are told.
  9. The FREE Tax Freedom Forms and Instructions Area has been refocused on a different goal.  Now it is called the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online.  This is more in tune with our historical goals, which have always been to help people disconnect completely from the government matrix so they can become sovereign.  It turns out that sovereignty is a MUCH more popular subject as well, and this has contributed significantly to increasing our traffic and the interest in other areas of our website.
  10. The Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online has many new references under "Cites by Topic", which were submitted as a result of lessons learned during the litigation.
  11. Our Sovereignty and Freedom page has been considerably expanded based on the government's behavior during the litigation process.  We have expanded discussion of all the things the government agreed with Hansen on by their silence and failure to rebut.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for why silence on the part of the government proves that Hansen was right.
  12. Hansen donated his litigation materials to SEDM and they have been published and made available for free.  SEDM has been watching this case and they have added a whole new area called "Litigation Tools" that contains some of these materials.  Every one of our their readers can therefore learn from and use these materials and be blessed from lessons learning fighting a corrupted government BEAST.
  13. All of our white papers have been reformatted and improved to make them useful during litigation.  Now, the title is on the bottom of the page and there is a little area in the lower right corner for writing the exhibit number.  This is consistent with the way pleadings are, in which everything has to go in the footer based on the way they are bound with the two hole punch at the top of each page.
  14. Our "Why You are a 'national', 'state national', and Constitutional but not Statutory 'Citizen'" pamphlet has been considerably improved and questions have been added to the end.  Now, our readers have even more potent proof that they are "nationals" but not "citizens" and therefore "nonresidents but not aliens".  Discussion of the differences between "statutory" and "constitutional" citizens has been added so that people don't falsely presume that a "citizen" under 8 U.S.C. 1401 is the same as the "citizen" mentioned in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  15. Legal Arguments Used on this Website Have Been Considerably Strengthened.  Being put under the microscope by the Courts has improved the potency of the arguments used in Family Guardian publications and made them much better.  For instance, the "Positive Law" and "Implementing Regulations" arguments have been completely repackaged and now both of them have been focused onto the need of publication in the Federal Register not only of enforcement regulations, but all laws "having general applicability and legal affect".  You can read about this revised approach in Great IRS Hoax, Sections 5.4 through 5.4.5.5.
  16. The website has been depersonalized and transferred to third parties.  None of the pages indicate the names of individual authors.  Family Guardian Fellowship, as a religious fellowship group, is the author.  The website domain owner, the administrator, and the authors are three or more different people who operate anonymously so that none of them can become the target of any future persecution.  You will not see any of their names mentioned anywhere on this website.
  17. The Contact Us Page has been improved.  Now readers wishing to contact any of the website authors must unconditionally agree to all of the terms of the Copyright/Software/User License Agreement found on the Disclaimer page.  This ensures that government moles who attempt to contact us will become Substitute Defendants under the agreement if they later try to testify against us.
  18. All of the free books available on Family Guardian that contain tax information now have an expanded Disclaimer.  The new disclaimer now identifies the entire content of the book as religious and political beliefs and speech that are not factual and not actionable and not admissible as evidence pursuant to Fed.Rul.Ev. 610.

In short: Thanks DOJ for helping us improve this website based on your comments.  We like what it has become and so do the members of this religious and political fellowship, because the use of the website has doubled.  It is so much more relevant than it was before.  You could have achieved the same result administratively and avoided the fraud, waste, and abuse of probably $200K in taxpayer dollars by simply approaching us administratively with your suggestions for improvement and rebuttals to the materials here.  You will note that our About Us page section 19 has always invited you to approach us administratively, and you arrogantly refused this, so you paid for it dearly.  Now you need to apologize to all the people you will have to steal from in order to pay for the extravagant, unnecessary, and wasteful use of government funds resulting from your bungling of this case and the needless, malicious, and presumptuous prosecution you wrongfully undertook against Hansen.  We encourage our readers to call the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline of the U.S. DOJ to complain about this abuse of taxpayer dollars.

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;"
[1 Cor. 1:27, Bible, NKJV]

"The ear that hears the rebukes of life Will abide among the wise."
[Prov. 15:31, Bible, NKJV]

"When the scoffer is punished, the simple is made wise; But when the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge."
[Prov. 21:11, Bible, NKJV]

"Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you." 
[Prov. 9:8, Bible, NKJV]

"Rebuke is more effective for a wise man than a hundred blows on a [ignorant and presumptuous] fool.]
[Prov. 17:10, Bible, NKJV]

"A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,"
[Prov. 1:5, Bible, NKJV]

"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning."
[Prov. 9:9, Bible, NKJV]

"A wise man scales the city of the mighty, And brings down the trusted stronghold."
[Prov. 21:22, Bible, NKJV]

"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe [the lawyer]? Where is the disputer [SATAN] of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
[1 Cor. 1:20, Bible, NKJV]

6. THE DOJ PROPAGANDA PRESS RELEASE

Subsequent to the ruling, the DOJ issued a false and fraudulent press release:

Click here to view

The content of the propaganda press release reads as follows:

WASHINGTON  [DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS]- The [IN]Justice Department announced today that a federal court has permanently barred San Diego resident ________  Hansen from promoting a tax evasion scheme. Hansen promotes a number of tax-fraud schemes using the business names of the Family Guardian and the Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry. The civil injunction order bans Hansen from making fraudulent statements in connection with his scheme, including the false statements that only federal workers are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, workers need not submit accurate withholding forms, and that United States citizens are not subject to federal income taxes.

The court’s opinion states that Hansen sells products to help customers evade paying federal taxes and obstruct IRS examinations. According to the opinion, Hansen assists customers in preparing false or fraudulent tax returns or tells them not to file at all. Hansen also markets a “Citizenship Administrative Repudiation” program in which his customers purportedly give up their “U.S. citizenship” in favor of “American National citizenship,” which Hansen claims makes customers no longer liable for federal income taxes. The court found that Hansen knew or should know that the theories he uses to urge persons to avoid paying taxes are false or fraudulent. The injunction was filed on June 1, 2006.

The court’s order requires Hansen to remove from his Web sites all advertising for his fraudulent tax programs and to post the permanent injunction order on the Web sites. Hansen must also provide the government the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of those persons who have purchased his products.

All of the following statements within the press release are absolutely false.  The DOJ, not Hansen, should be enjoined for "false commercial speech" because their press releases are designed to maximize the flow of unlawful commerce to the federal government:

  1. FALSE STATEMENT:  "The Justice Department announced today that a federal court has permanently barred San Diego resident _________________ Hansen from promoting a tax evasion scheme."

    REBUTTAL:  The government never proved that Hansen was a "resident of San Diego" and he denied that assertion in his Answer under penalty of perjury.  Since they never argued against that affidavit, they agree and further stipulate that they are LYING.  That statement is an unlawful presumption at best and a LIE at worst, not a fact that was ever established.  A "resident" is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(A) as an "alien" with a domicile in the District of Columbia and he specifically denied in the Answer being a "U.S. person", which includes "residents".  The federal PseudoCourt banned the person who Hansen was representing, which is IRS Agent David Gordon.  He was under private contract with Gordon to represent Gordon, who was the substitute Defendant pursuant to the SEDM Member Agreement.  The government may not lawfully interfere with the private right to contract or the enforcement of all the provisions of the contract.  Gordon made himself personally subject to the agreement by virtue of ordering and downloading the privileged materials on the website.  He never denied that he wasn't, and his affidavit that he downloaded the materials attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment is proof that he made himself into a Member subject to the agreement

    As a foreign sovereign protected by the Foreign Immunities Act and a "nonresident but not alien", Hansen never made a personal appearance before the PseudoCourt, never consented to the jurisdiction of either the PseudoCourt or the magistrate.  He provided all the evidence to support this in his Answer, and neither the PseudoCourt nor the Plaintiff disproved it with evidence or even denied it.  Therefore, he is protected, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).  This is confirmed below by the Annotated Constitution, Article III:

    Once a foreign government avails itself of the privilege of suing in the courts of the United States [by making a voluntary "appearance"], it subjects itself to the procedure and rules of decision governing those courts and accepts whatever liabilities the court may decide to be a reasonable incident of bringing the suit.1033
    [Constitution Annotated, Article III, Congressional Research Service]

    Since the PseudoCourt never explained what provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was satisfied that might make Hansen subject, they agreed that he wasn't subject, pursuant to the Federal Pleading Attachment attached to nearly every pleading he submitted.  Therefore, their ruling was a political ruling applying to federal territory or franchises, neither of which Hansen has any involvement in within the context of these proceedings.

  2. FALSE STATEMENT:  "The civil injunction order bans Hansen from making fraudulent statements in connection with his scheme, including the false statements that only federal workers are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, workers need not submit accurate withholding forms, and that United States citizens are not subject to federal income taxes."

    REBUTTAL:  The only party making fraudulent statements is the Dept. of Justice, because there is nothing on any of the websites in question or in the communications about them that is factual and therefore susceptible of being false or fraudulent.  See the Family Guardian Disclaimer and the SEDM Disclaimer.  It has been this way since long before the complaint was filed.  The real injunction should be and is against the DOJ, based on the SEDM Member Agreement, who made many fraudulent statements about Hansen.  The "opinion" never identified any physical evidence upon which to identify false statements.  Without specific statements being identified, the "Strict Scrutiny" standard for constitutional review was not properly invoked and the order is void because it violates due process of law.  None of the alleged evidence upon which the PseudoCourt relied was admissible as evidence upon which to make an injunction.  Federal Rule of Evidence 610 says that religious beliefs and opinions are not admissible as evidence, and the Family Guardian Disclaimer and SEDM Disclaimer both identify EVERYTHING on each of the respective websites as "religious and political beliefs that are not factual or actionable".  A ruling issued without any admissible evidence of the actual speech to be enjoined, or proving that it was factual is nothing but a presumption or an opinion that can have not binding force or effect because it violates due process of law.  Courts are not allowed to engage in either "presumption" or "political questions" because it violates the separation of powers doctrine and essentially makes the PseudoCourt into a "political church" and the PseudoJudge into a "priest".  You will also note that as an Article IV court, the PseudoCourt was acting in this case as an extension of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch. Rebut the overwhelming evidence for yourself if you disagree.

    Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the Executive in the context of military action, it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government simply because the Executive [the Judge in this case, by prejudicially and illegally refusing to admit ANY evidence provided by Hansen] opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

    Because we conclude that due process demands some system for a citizen detainee to refute his classification, the proposed "some evidence" standard is inadequate. Any process in which the Executive's factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally short.
    [Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)]

    The government never proved any of the following necessary to even issue such an injunction, all of which are MANDATORY methods of satisfying the government's burden of proof in moving forward:

    1. That Hansen is a "taxpayer" subject to the Internal Revenue Code.  Click here for an article on this subject.
    2. That the sections of the Internal Revenue Code cited as authority in this case, being 6700, 6701, 7408, were enacted into positive law and are therefore admissible as evidence in this case.  Right now, they are only "prima facie" evidence, meaning "presumed" evidence, which is inadmissible as evidence if it violates the Constitutionally protected rights of Hansen.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
    3. That Hansen owned the website domains in question.
    4. That the above three statements were made on any of the websites in question.
    5. That they were factual, and that the speaker, whoever that is, intended for them to be factual.
    6. That anyone paid money to Hansen personally to obtain the factual speech in question.
    7. That the money paid constituted "commerce" within the meaning of federal jurisdiction, which means that it involved interstate commerce, where the "States" referred to are ONLY federal territories.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
    8. That Hansen was the originator of said speech.
    9. That the speech was not religious and political statements or beliefs that are NOT factual and instead are identified by the speaker as actionable.
    10. That based on paying to obtain the factual speech and relying upon it as fact, the party was injured personally and materially by said reliance.
    11. That the party who paid the money did so within the territorial jurisdiction of the protecting court, which means on federal territory within the judicial district where the case was tried.
    12. That Hansen maintained a domicile on federal territory within the exterior limits of the district.
    13. That Hansen maintained a domicile within an internal revenue district such that the I.R.C. could be applied against him.  The only remaining internal revenue district is in the District of Columbia.

    The government satisfied NONE of the above criteria for issuing the injunction.  In fact, Hansen specifically pointed out in the Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and the Petition to Amend the Pleadings that all of the statements or positions falsely attributed to him above were in fact specifically rebutted in the Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid pamphlet.  This pamphlet says it supersedes everything else on any website it is posted on and it was posted at the time the Answer was filed and the time the Summary Judgment was granted.  Therefore, there is no basis to believe that he ever advocated these positions at the time the Complaint was filed or at the time the Summary Judgment was issued.  The Kangaroo PseudoCourt and the Plaintiff are practicing religion based on presumption, not law, and this is a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.  The government is LYING, and this ought to be quite evident to any reasonably intelligent person.

  3. FALSE STATEMENT:  "According to the opinion [not RULING, but OPINION, because the PseudoCourt is in the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.  Click here for details], Hansen assists customers in preparing false or fraudulent tax returns or tells them not to file at all. Hansen also markets a “Citizenship Administrative Repudiation” program in which his customers purportedly give up their “U.S. citizenship” in favor of “American National citizenship,” which Hansen claims makes customers no longer liable for federal income taxes."

    REBUTTAL:  Hansen stated many times in the pleadings and in Deposition Transcript under penalty of perjury that he has never and will never prepare tax returns for any third party.  The DOJ never disagreed with this and therefore pursuant to Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), agrees that it is committing perjury and making fraudulent statements in the above statement.  The DOJ has the word "opinion" right.  F.R.E. 610 says opinions are not admissible as evidence.  Because the PseudoJudge's ruling is not based on any physical evidence, it is simply a "religious belief and opinion" and he is practicing religion.  The Church is the "District Court", he is the Priest, who wears the black robe, the attorneys are his "Deacons", who are licensed by the Chief Priests of the state supreme PseudoCourt to conduct the "worship services".  The Bench is the Altar of Baal, and the people who come before him bow down and worship him by making an "appearance", and thereby voluntarily consenting to jurisdiction that he does not have and conferring god-like authority over those before him.  Everything that proceeds out of his mouth, if permitted to go unchallenged or if his superiors refuse to hold him accountable to the rule of law, becomes "law".  This describes the practice of witchcraft and pagan religion, not justice.

    "Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.

    Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept,"
    [Why All Man-Made Law is Religious in Nature]

    Furthermore, if they really were "tax evasion schemes", then the IRS would have a remedy at law and would not need to seek an injunction in the first place.  26 U.S.C.  7201 makes "tax evasion" illegal, and that is a legal remedy.  Injunctions are only appropriate where there is no remedy at law.  By calling it an unlawful "tax evasion schemes" out of one side of their mouth, and proceeding to get an injunction that cannot involve violations of law, then the DOJ just admitted it is LYING because both things cannot be simultaneously true. The DOJ also lied by saying "Hansen claims...".  Hansen never claimed anything of the sort and the government never produced any physical evidence linking Hansen to any of the statements found on any of the websites.  This is a presumption, not a fact.  Presumptions may not be used as a substitute for evidence without violating due process of law and producing a void judgment.  Click here for details.  Until physical evidence is produced from a neutral, disinterested third party that Hansen made the alleged statements, that they were not religious or political beliefs and opinions that are not admissible, then it is presumptuous, prejudicial and it constitutes a serious libel to claim or allege that Hansen made such statements when he specifically said during the deposition under penalty of perjury that he didn't.

  4. FALSE STATEMENT:  "The court found that Hansen knew or should know that the theories he uses to urge persons to avoid paying taxes are false or fraudulent. The injunction was filed on June 1, 2006."

    REBUTTAL:  The PseudoCourt didn't find any such thing.  You can't lawfully convict a person entirely upon presumption and absent any physical evidence, and doing so is an act of tyranny, slavery, and injustice.  Presumption and belief are neither evidence nor a substitute for evidence according to Federal Rule of Evidence 610, and that is all the Kangaroo PseudoCourt and "PseudoJudge" was operating upon.  The de facto PseudoJudge was practicing religion, not law, so he could duck out of having a trial or even a hearing and avoid REAL embarrassment for the government when all of its LIES are exposed on the public record in plain view.

    "A presumption is not evidence."
    [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1185]

    The Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment contained Exhibit 11 attached to the Memorandum of Law, in which the government's own claims about the basis for "reasonable belief" were explained and quoted from the law and the Supreme PseudoCourt.  That pamphlet showed that the only basis for reasonable belief was the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt and not lower PseudoCourts, the Constitution, and the Statutes at Large after January 2, 1939.  The PseudoCourt and the Plaintiff were asked to refute the government's own statements on what forms a basis for reasonable belief and it could not and did not.  Pursuant to the Federal Pleading Attachment attached to the Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) and pursuant to the fiduciary duty of the U.S. Attorney and the PseudoJudge handling this case, silence on this important subject is a breach of fiduciary duty that is unlawful and not permissible and they had a duty to speak and risked default judgment if they didn't.  Click here for details.  Therefore, they defaulted and agreed with the Reasonable Belief pamphlet that:

    • The only basis for reasonable belief is the rulings of the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt, the Statutes at Large after January 2, 1939, and the Constitution.
    • The Internal Revenue Code is not a basis for reasonable belief, because it is only "presumed" to be law ("prima facie") and the Plaintiff did not prove with evidence that it was in fact "law" in this case using the sources of reasonable belief identified.
    • That the government has rendered it impossible for Hansen to know what a reasonable basis for belief is, because it contradicted the prominent government authorities on this subject and the government's own words, producing a ambiguous order that is impossible to know or follow and in which the Rule of Lenity protects Hansen if criminal contempt follows.

      This expansive construction of 666(b) is, at the very least, inconsistent with the rule of lenity -- which the Court does not discuss. This principle requires that, to the extent that there is any ambiguity in the term "benefits," we should resolve that ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971) ("In various ways over the years, we have stated that, when choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
      [Fischer v. United States, 529 U.S. 667 (2000)]

  5. FALSE STATEMENT:  "The court’s order requires Hansen to remove from his Web sites all advertising for his fraudulent tax programs and to post the permanent injunction order on the Web sites. Hansen must also provide the government the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and social security numbers of those persons who have purchased his products."

REBUTTAL:  The PseudoCourt did not issue an order.  It issued an "opinion", by its own admission, and opinions are not admissible as evidence pursuant to F.R.E. 610.  It is a legislative, Article IV, political court that is in the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.  Click here for details.  Consequently, it knows that it can't order anyone to do anything who does not reside on federal territory and who is not engaged in federal contracts, agency, employment, or the management of federal property.   The "customers" it is talking about only include "taxpayers" who are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, and the Family Guardian Disclaimer and SEDM Disclaimer and SEDM Member Agreement exclude "taxpayers", "U.S. Persons", "U.S. citizens", "U.S. residents", and those engaged in any federal franchise from reading or using the materials. This was the case at the time the complaint was filed and continues to be the case now.   Consequently, the "customers" the Executive Branch corporate arbitration board masquerading as a "court"  demanded information about don't exist and never have existed, with the possible exception of the government's own "taxpayer" witnesses, who are federal "employees" and who had to commit criminal fraud about their status to even obtain any of the information they submitted as evidence.  The government therefore already has all the information available about "customers", because it's own "employees" are the ONLY customers.  Members of a church or religious fellowship who have to sign under penalty of perjury that they are in full compliance with the Member Agreement cannot possibly satisfy the requirement to be a "customer".  This was discussed in the Certificate of Compliance attached to the Petition to Amend.  When the government proves that it has jurisdiction in this case over persons not subject to the Internal Revenue Code or any federal law as "nontaxpayers", and who are the only persons authorized to view or read the materials in question, then it will have standing to proceed further.  The only proper audience for "tax shelters" are "taxpayers", because a tax shelter is defined as an investment which reduces the existing liability of a "taxpayer".

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
[Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]

“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers .  The latter are without their scope.  No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law.  With them [non-taxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws [and by implication, any judicial proceeding].”

[Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]

Also notice that the DOJ Press Release did not provide the addresses for the websites allegedly enjoined.  It's obvious that they did this because they wanted to avoid giving "free advertising" to these websites and draw yet more attention to the unlawful nature of this malicious prosecution and their criminal actions to illegally enforce the Internal Revenue Code against persons outside their jurisdiction.

7.  THE COURT'S RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST TO AMEND PLEADINGS

Following issue of the PDF PseudoCourt's opinion issued on June 1, 2006, Hansen filed a PDF Petition to Amend the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).  The PseudoCourt issued its opinion on this request on December 15, 2006.  That opinion

  1. Refused to address the issue of the perjury contained in their order relating to the nature of the speech as being "factual".
  2. Ignored all issues raised in the Petition to Amend except for the exclusion of ALL evidence submitted by the Alleged Defendant from the record.

You can view the PseudoCourt's amended opinion below:

  1. PDF Court's Response to Petition to Amend Pleadings (12-13-06)
  2. PDF Amended Opinion: Rebutted (12-15-06)
  3. PDF Amended Opinion (12-13-06)
  4. PDF Certificate of Unlawfully Compelled Compliance by Alleged Defendant (1-1-07)

Based on the PseudoCourt's amended opinion and the rebuttals above, it's obvious that the PseudoCourt:

  1. Has no interest in obeying the Constitution, which protects religious and political statements and beliefs from persecution by the government and from being taken out of the category of religious speech and being put into the category of factual commercial speech, over the objections of the speakers and contrary to the speaker's intent.
  2. Isn't the slightest bit concerned about committing criminal perjury under penalty of perjury in reclassifying speech that specifically identifies itself as not factual and not actionable into factual speech that can be regulated.  After having exhaustive evidence presented to the PseudoCourt of its own wrongdoing ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, it didn't even bother to comment on its own wrongdoing, much less remedy it.
  3. Is the only REAL source of "PDF false commercial speech" in this case.  Its perjury on the record is obviously false and the falsity obviously has the commercial purpose of aiding the deceiving of Americans into becoming "taxpayers" by covering up the truth.   It ought to cite itself for contempt of the the Constitution, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Truth.
  4. Isn't the slightest bit concerned about obeying the Internal Revenue Code.  The various Petitions to Dismiss and the Petition to Amend contained a long list of jurisdictional defects that the Court remained silent on when confronted with the truth, and thereby admitted their own wrongdoing pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6).  For instance, the Alleged Defendant contended the following and the court agreed, by its failure to deal with these issues:

    4.1  Hansen does not fit the definition of "person" found in 26 U.S.C. 6671(b).  That "person" is an officer of a corporation or partnership, which Alleged Defendant is not.  The rules of statutory construction do not allow that definition to be extended by presumption to include anything else, and neither the Plaintiff nor the PseudoCourt proved otherwise.

    4.2  There are not implementing regulations authorizing enforcement, and that they are required in the case of persons who are not part of the groups specifically exempted from the requirement found in 5 U.S.C. 553(a) and 44 U.S.C. 1505(a), of which Hansen was not a part.

8. CONCLUSIONS

It is clear to us that the main reason the government pursued this injunction was not to protect the public, but to protect it's own unlawful activities against prosecution and exposure.    No one who uses this information has ever complained to us about injuries sustained as a result from simply reading it, which is the only thing they are allowed to do with it.  The government never produced even one third party witness who complained about any of the materials available here or connected them with interstate commerce subject to federal regulation.  What is happening is that people in large numbers are sending the information on this website into the government as PDF political petitions protected by the First Amendment, and this massive political effort is causing IRS and DOJ employees to quit in droves and to lose in court, which is creating a PDF retention and morale problem among agency personnel.  That result is one of many political goals this website has, described in our About Us page.  The government is simply trying to stop the hemorrhaging of its own personnel caused by their exposure to the truths contained on this website.  That is why they filter this website from access at their workplace:  They don't want their employees knowing or following the law, but instead following "procedures" that violate the law.  Like former IRS agents John Turner, Sherry Jackson, and Joe Banister, informed government employees are beginning to study the law for themselves privately and asking some very embarrassing questions of their supervisors and are resigning in disgust when they find out that they are being used essentially as ignorant pawns in a grand scheme to defraud the very people whose job it is for them to protect.  They are beginning to realize that the ignorance carefully "manufactured" in them by their duplicitous and criminal supervisors is being exploited to cause them to engage in unlawful activity, criminal racketeering, and fraud on a scale that boggles the mind, and that no one but them personally are responsible for these abuses, should they be prosecuted.  Click here to see an admission of this fact by three former IRS agents.

The government is chopping off the hand that feeds them and undermining their own livelihood by continuing to harass Hansen or any of the websites it seeks to enjoin in this proceeding.  The goal of this website is to prevent violations of law and tax fraud.  This is the very SAME mission that the Department of Justice at least SAYS they have and it is the embodiment of the "police powers" of an independent "foreign state" called the Kingdom of Heaven.  How dumb and malicious can you get!  By trying to enjoin the speech found on this website and the police powers it enables, the government is trying to enjoin people from:

  1. Learning about the law.

    "Every man is supposed to know the law. A party who makes a contract with an officer [of the government] without having it reduced to writing is knowingly accessory to a violation of duty on his part. Such a party aids in the violation of the law."
    [Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877)]

    “One who turns his ear from hearing the law [God's law or man's law], even his prayer is an abomination.”
    [Prov. 28:9, Bible, NKJV]

    "But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow and use] the law is accursed.”
    [John 7:49, Bible, NKJV]

    "Salvation is far from the wicked, For they do not seek Your statutes."
    [Psalm 119:155, Bible, NKJV]

  2. Volunteering to help the DOJ and IRS do their job by preventing Americans from violating the law and encouraging and helping them to obey it.
  3. Governing their own lives.  The purpose of the Constitution is to enable and protect as much self-government as the Sovereign people wish to have and to enable them to manage and control their SERVANTS in government, who are their "contractors", where the Constitution is the contract.  Implicit in their sovereignty is the right to divorce the state and find a more cost-effective and just source of protection.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
  4. Helping to avoid clogging the federal courts with STUPID legal arguments of people who haven't done their homework.  What judge wouldn't want to aid such a cause?
  5. Having an accountable, law-abiding government that is the servant of the people rather than their tyrannical master, in fulfillment of the legislative intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What the government is attempting to establish with this proceeding is the equivalent of a "thought crime", in violation of the First Amendment.  The information and/or activities it seeks to enjoin are the dissemination of exclusively religious and political beliefs and opinions that specifically identify themselves as not factual and not actionable.  The "punishment" for the politically incorrect "thought" and speech is having to endure malicious prosecution and an unconstitutional "bill of pains and penalties" in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution at the hands of a PseudoJudge who has a financial conflict of interest and who is under the influence of the very unlawful extortion that the speech seeks to expose and oppose.

“. . .it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment  . . . to subject [a person's] liberty or [475 U.S. 822] property to the judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case.”
[Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)]

"A judge should disqualify himself . . . where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party"
[ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(1)(a) (1980)]

The PseudoCourt's "Political Opinion" recommends (but not "orders") that false advertising be removed from websites owned by Hansen.  Well, the problem is:

  1. Hansen doesn't own any of the websites sought to be enjoined.
  2. Nothing on this website can be "false" until it is factual.  The Disclaimer page says nothing on this website is "factual". The PseudoCourt refused to identify upon what basis contained on this website it rationally concluded that anything on this website is "factual".  The PseudoCourt's Political Opinion is therefore completely irrational and makes no sense whatsoever.
  3. Neither this website nor the SEDM website (that we are aware of) has ever contained advertising of any kind and has never made promises or assurances about the effectiveness of any of the opinions and beliefs and information that are the only thing available there.  As a matter of fact, the About Us page Section 12 specifically prohibits advertising or making any promises about the effectiveness of anything available here.  It goes so far as to say that anyone who promises you anything is a "presumptuous fool"!
  4. When asked during the deposition of Hansen on 25NOV2005 and on every subsequent occasion what the definition of "advertising" is, the Plaintiff, U.S. Attorney Shoemaker and the Kangaroo PseudoCourt have both refused to define it.  Since the Internal Revenue Code doesn't define it either, then it is impossible for Hansen to know what they mean.  His understanding is that it is "factual speech" intended to induce someone to spend "money" and since the Disclaimers say there is no "factual speech" on any of the websites in question, "advertising" is clearly impossible in the context of these websites or any communications with, to, or about the authors or ministry members.  Hansen pointed out to the Plaintiff at the 25NOV2005 deposition that the definition of "money" in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition excludes "notes", and that Federal Reserve Notes are "notes" as defined.  Then he asked how it was even possible to induce a monetary or "commercial" transaction under said circumstances.  Plaintiff Shoemaker was silent, so he tacitly concurs and stipulates by laches and retraxit by tacit procuration that there can be no "commerce" or the alleged "advertising" that produces it as legally defined without lawful "money", which the Constitution defines as exclusively gold and silver.
  5. The Kangaroo PseudoCourt couldn't and didn't point out the existence of even one specific "advertisement" that promised anything in connection with any of the websites it sought to enjoin.  Hansen also pointed out in the opposition to the motion for summary judgment that promises are prohibited on both websites by the applicable Disclaimers and Member agreements.  This makes it impossible to know exactly what they were talking about when they referred to "false advertising".  It has to be factual before you can call it advertising, and there is nothing factual on this website or the SEDM website because the Disclaimers say that nothing on this website is either factual or actionable.  The determination of whether it is "factual" is up to the speaker, and not the listener or reader.  Any attempt by the PseudoCourt or the Plaintiff to redefine the significance of what someone said and attach a meaning other than what the speaker himself or herself attributes to it deprives the speaker of ownership or control over his or her creation, in which case the speech becomes the property and responsibility of the listener rather than the speaker for which he or she can no longer be held legally responsible without violating the First Amendment.  The protections of the First Amendment would be unconstitutionally vitiated if the government could arbitrarily redefine the meaning or significance of the speech of others, and thereby make them into political or legal targets.

Therefore, the PseudoCourt's statement was a "political ruling", not a legal ruling and the PseudoCourt illegally involved itself in "political questions" which the Separation of Powers doctrine forbids. The PseudoCourt's own damning, unlawful, and contemptible behavior simply confirms that it is really within the Executive and not Judicial Branch, because it clearly is acting in a "political" rather than "legal" capacity in the context of these Kangaroo proceedings.  It has done nothing but produce "cognitive dissonance" in Hansen and is incapable of being rationally understood or obeyed, even if he were the proper party, which he is not.  The ruling was non-responsive to all the facts and evidence before the PseudoCourt submitted by Hansen, contained perjury by the PseudoJudge, and therefore was an illegal and irresponsible miscarriage of justice that constitutes a void judgment. 

“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)]

Hansen pointed out in the Criminal Complaint filed as Exhibit 1 of the Aff. of Matl. Facts of the Petition to Amend that he would become an accessory after the fact to the commission of felonies by the PseudoJudge and the U.S. Attorney if he were to obey any part of the unlawful ruling, which is therefore moot.  He welcomes the chance to explain to a jury of his peers why the PseudoJudge and the U.S. Attorney are the ones who belong behind bars for contempt of the Constitution, their oaths of office, and the law.  That contempt of the law and the Constitution includes the following and many other infractions described in the Criminal Complaint mentioned above:

  1. Perjuring the PseudoCourt record by attributing to Hansen statements that he never made in the order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 18 U.S.C. 1621.
  2. Violating due process by disregarding the requirements imposed by the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt.  See section 9.2 of the following pamphlet::
    Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020
    http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
  3. Penalizing a litigant for the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights.  This occurred when the PseudoJudge illegally and prejudicially excluded ALL evidence of Hansen from the record in retribution for properly asserting constitutionally protected First and Fifth Amendment rights.  This constitutes a conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 and a violation of due process of law that renders a void judgment.
  4. Involuntary servitude in foisting upon the alleged Defendant the duties of a "public official" and thereby asserting unlawful "eminent domain" over his time and resources in responding to this malicious prosecution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1581, 18 U.S.C. 1589(3), and 42 U.S.C.  1994.  The Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. 1505(a)(1) and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(a), both require that whenever the government imposes a penalty against a person domiciled in a state of the Union, they must publish implementing regulations in the Federal Register.  The only exceptions to this rule which it cites are federal agencies, personnel, federal benefit recipients, and members of the military.  In short, those who are "public officials" or federal contractors or federal benefit recipients are the only ones specifically exempted from the requirement.  Hansen stated under penalty of perjury in the Answer, Docket #05 that he was not part of any of the specifically exempted groups.  Since the government never denied this, then under Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), they admitted it.  In his Petition to Dismiss, Dockets #42 and 43, he demanded proof from the Plaintiff that he was and implementing regulations which authorized enforcement of 26 U.S.C. 6700, 6701, 7402, and 7408.  Since the Plaintiff produced none and the PseudoCourt was silent on this issue, then pursuant to Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), they both agreed that they are proceeding without authority and committing Treason against the Constitution, punishable by death:

    “In another, not unrelated context, Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court “must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” Id., at 404 (emphasis added)
    [U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980)]

If you want to know more about the MANDATORY requirement for implementing regulations when dealing with persons domiciled or resident within states of the Union, see:
 IRS Due Process Meeting Handout, Form #03.008
  http://sedm.org/Forms/03-Discovery/IRSDueProcMtgHandout.pdf

The government would have been much better off to leave Hansen alone.  They obviously haven't figured out who they are messing with yet.  Instead, they:

  1. Basically admitted, just by initiating this injunction action, that nothing on the websites they sought to enjoin is illegal.  You can only lawfully pursue an injunction where there is no remedy at law, and therefore filing such a suit constitutes a formal and official admission that none of the information or activities sought to be enjoined violate any law.  If the government later tries to pursue a remedy against Hansen under statutory law, they will either have to admit that the PseudoJudge in this case was in error or that the I.R.C. sections they are citing as authority are not law in Hansen's case because he is not subject to them.  Either way, we win.  Thank you, DOJ!

    “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]

  2. Have created a huge res judicata barrier to future injunction attempts.  They shot their load and have no bullets left.  If they pursue an injunction again, they will have to prove that there has been a substantial change in the method of operation and the materials contained on the websites they seek to enjoin again.
  3. Are actively promoting this and the SEDM website by maintaining the article about it on the DOJ Press Releases website that the most primitive mind can see contains lies.  Thank you, DOJ!  Could you also please add a link to this website in your article to make it little easier for people to find?  Heee. . . .heeeee. . . .heee!
  4. Put Hansen through law school 101 class for free.
  5. Through Hansen's successes documented here, they are now helping us inform others, through this website about how to defend themselves from the kind of underhanded, unlawful tactics the government uses in tax injunction cases.
  6. Through its massive enforcement efforts against tax shelter promoters, the government has unwittingly shut down all competing sources of information so that the only thing people have left to read is the TRUTH found on this website.  In so doing, they have granted us a virtual monopoly offering information about government corruption relating to taxation.  This will do nothing but grow our "captive audience" of people who have been deprived by you of the ability to read anything else.  Thanks DOJ!
  7. Wasted probably $200K of "taxpayer" dollars on litigation and prosecution, that was fruitless and actually put them in a worse position.
  8. Are no better off discovery wise than when they started.  They have no new leads, witnesses, or persons they can pursue or prosecute or have leverage with.  They still don't even know where Hansen lives.
  9. Showed Hansen where the weak points are in his armor and taught him how to strengthen it for the next battle.
  10. With their telling silence on select issues, showed all of America their weakest and most vulnerable points and the things that they fear most.  That which a man fears most is the thing he least wishes to talk about.  They also confirmed the truth of everything on this website because Hansen asked them in most of his pleadings and motions to remain silent on everything they agree on.  Click here for the attachment he used that totally boxed them in if you want to reuse it yourself in your own litigation.
  11. Have turned the propaganda machine against themselves by showing their true, dastardly colors throughout this proceeding, and did so on the public record for all to watch and see and read about indefinitely into the future.  There was nothing "honorable" about their behavior and especially the PseudoJudge who maliciously mishandled this case. 
  12. Have developed a HUGE exculpatory body of evidence that Hansen can use in the future if they try to illegally prosecute him for tax crimes.  That body of evidence is now a Public Record that cannot be excluded from evidence under the Hearsay Rule or Federal Rule of Evidence 902.  The evidence clearly shows, based on silence and omission, that the only persons who knew or should have known their conduct was illegal was the PseudoJudge and the U.S. attorney.  Thank you, DOJ!
  13. Have a problem thousands of times worse than when they started this malicious prosecution.  Look at all the new research on this website he has donated and shared with everyone that wouldn't have been there if the government hadn't lifted their sword UNJUSTLY against him.  Every time they mess with Hansen, he works ten times harder and shares everything he learns with everyone on the Internet, which makes the government's problem millions of times worse.  When is the government going to figure out that the way to minimize their damage is to just leave him alone.  He is like an Africanized colony of bees: When you attack it, the bees relentlessly follow you out forty miles from the hive and sting you to death!  The key to keeping his productivity low is to leave him alone.  It doesn't take much to keep 3,000 U.S. Attorneys at the DOJ busy fighting some VERY educated and effective freedom fighters who are using this website.
  14. Through the process of litigation, the Plaintiff has repeatedly received "reasonable notice" of the terms and conditions of the Family Guardian Disclaimer, the SEDM Disclaimer, and the SEDM Member Agreements, and thereby made themselves subject to them if they download or use any of the licensed materials or use them as evidence an any future legal proceeding.  That "public notice" is now a "public record" because it part of the court record, which is a public record.  They can no longer claim "plausible deniability" or deny being subject.  They know this, which is why they refused to use the latest evidence off these websites in the litigation.
  15. As a result of criminal behavior demonstrated by PseudoJudge in this case, Hansen, others, and Ed Rivera decided to get together and coauthor a book which exposes the origins of the corruption and gives Americans everywhere some powerful tools for fighting it.  The book is called "What Happened to Justice?, Litigation Tool #08.001 (OFFSITE LINK).  This book will hopefully go a long way in preventing the unlawful pagan idol worship that has been going on in federal state-sponsored churches called "district court" for the last two centuries.

God and Truth, and Justice will prevail.  The Lord will not be mocked, and neither will His humble servants.  These tyrants have awakened a sleeping giant and their problem will be ten times worse now that everyone knows where the soft underbelly of the Armadillo is and knows that the Government couldn't point out even one shred of factual and false speech anywhere on Family Guardian or SEDM after putting their best minds in front of the microscope and going over them with a fine-toothed comb.  5,000 pages of legal pleadings in the record now and not one charge of frivolous or false from either the PseudoJudge or the U.S. Attorney.  Quiet as a church mouse.  Thank you, DOJ!!!  And more importantly, thank you God for protecting us throughout all of this ordeal from the robbers and thieves who run the dastardly de facto "United States" government.

"Behold, the wicked brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood [in their pagan, godless Courts and their deceitful publications],
He made a pit and dug it out,
And has fallen into the ditch [this litigation] which he made.
His trouble shall return upon his own head,

And his violent dealing shall come down on his own [deceitful] crown."
[Psalm 7:14-16, Bible, NKJV]

Hansen confided to us that after serving the U.S. government for 26 years, he is ashamed and disgraced to admit how crooked and covetous it has become or that he was ever part of it.  It's no wonder that we Americans are hated around the world by so many, why we need terrorism guards outside of federal buildings, why no one wants our money anymore, why the Arabs are switching over to the Euro, and why America is headed for a HUGE financial train wreck soon: Because our very own government:

  1. Has centralized all power into the hands of a few in what Mark Twain calls "the District of Criminals", just as Thomas Jefferson warned and predicted they would:

    "It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed."
    [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331 ]

    "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
    [Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332 ]

    "I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market."
    [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450 ]

    "What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!"
    [Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168 ]

    "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments."
    [Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341 ]

    "The [federal] judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass."
    [Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307 ]

    "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court."
    [Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421 ]

    Click here for more quotes by Thomas Jefferson like the above.

  2. Has made an entire country of sovereign Americans into "resident alien public officers" in an attempt to enslave them as "public officers" and bring them into federal jurisdiction, thereby DESTROYING the separation of powers doctrine that is the foundation of our rights and liberties.  Click here for the awful truth.
  3. Creates endless mountains of debt and makes the people it serves into involuntary surety to pay for the debt.
  4. Has turned nearly all Americans into "federal personnel" and caused these people to unwittingly act as Kelly Girls (temps) for the federal government on loan to private employers everywhere as part of a giant private corporate monopoly and Ponzi scheme thousands of time worst than Enron.  PDF Click here for details.
  5. Has transformed itself from a protector to a predator that invades other countries on false pretenses, enslaves its own citizens to pay for the LIE that is the war, and then feeds lies to the public with impunity.
  6. Has made Americans into a manufactured commodity who are legally dysfunctional and easy prey for the nearest government-licensed attorney, whose only job is to sell you and your liberty down the river.  PDF Click here for an article on this subject.  They are created in the image of their new "parens patriae":  as drones of the corporate fascist regime who do not question authority and who do exactly and only what they are told who are fired and become IRS targets if they don't.  Click here to hear George Carlin's hilarious but true description of this form of corporate fascism.
  7. Deceives Americans with "words of art" under the disingenuous guise of "public protection".  See:
  8. Has created a racket called the Federal Reserve that:
    • Has been granted legal authority to effectively COUNTERFEIT fiat currency.  If we do it, we end up in jail and it is illegal.  This violates equal protection of the law.
    • Uses its monopolistic power to counterfeit currency as a way to coerce member banks into becoming agents for the federal government.  See 31 CFR 202.2.
    • Abuses its power to counterfeit money to help the government "invisibly tax" the citizens for any amount of revenue it needs.
    • Forces member banks to act essentially as federal employment recruiters.  Those opening new accounts are compelled to apply for government identifying numbers that make them into public officers and franchisees for the government and who also involuntarily become surety to regulate the supply of fiat currency counterfeited by these member banks.  The IRS' real function is to retire excess fiat currency from circulation, not to fund the government.  They regulate the supply of money the government just counterfeits whatever it needs. This was confirmed by Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission Report.

    See the following for exhaustive details on the Federal Reserve SCAM:
    The Money Scam, Form #05.041
    DIRECT LINK: PDF http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
    FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

For proof of this impending financial train wreck, see the following 60 minutes expose in which the Comptroller General predicts a HUGE fiscal meltdown of the government:

U.S. Heading for Financial Trouble?

Public dis-servants within the de facto govenrment will be judged by God for turning the bride of Christ into a WHORE.  Prepare yourselves for judgment unless repentance comes soon, wicked servants in the government:

Alas, sinful nation,
A people laden with iniquity
A brood of evildoers
Children who are corrupters!
They have forsaken the Lord

They have provoked to anger
The Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again?
You will revolt more and more.
The whole head is sick [they are out of their minds!: insane or STUPID or both],
And the whole heart faints....

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor [the IRS and the Federal Reserve and a corrupted judicial system];
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow [and the "nontaxpayer"]....

How the faithful city has become a harlot!
It [the Constitutional Republic] was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in it,
But now murderers [and abortionists, and socialists, and democrats, and liars and corrupted judges].
Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.
Your princes [President, Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious,
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
nor does the cause of the widow [or the “nontaxpayer”] come before them.

Therefore the Lord says,
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
"Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries,
And take vengeance on My enemies.
I will turn My hand against you,
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away your alloy.
I will restore your judges [eliminate the BAD judges] as at the first,
And your counselors [eliminate the BAD lawyers] as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city."
[Isaiah 1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]

The order is moot and doesn't affect Family Guardian at all.  This is a free speech website whose content is and always has been not factual, not actionable, and exclusively religious and political speech and beliefs completely protected by the First Amendment.  That classification of the speech is by the speaker.  No Court or government official has any lawful authority to prejudicially and involuntarily reclassify what amounts to "beliefs and opinions" inadmissible under F.R.E. 610 and make them factual and actionable so as to bring them illegally within the jurisdiction of the court. 

"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person, trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.  ...Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d 18 (1939)]

If they do, and if it ceases to have the meaning imputed by the speaker, it also ceases to be the speech of the speaker, and instead becomes the property and responsibility of the HEARER rather than the speaker.  It ain't our speech and we won't take responsibility for it unless it has the meaning and significance that we and ONLY WE attribute to it.

"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
[Ellrod v. Burns (1976) 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2690]

______________________________________

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty [and INCLUDING FEDERAL JUDGES], can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens by word or act their faith therein.  If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."
[West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624; 63 S.Ct. 1178 (1943)]

______________________________________

"To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship."

[Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96 (1972)]

______________________________________

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth - whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials - and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 -526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 . As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310 , the Court declared:

"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy."

That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression [376 U.S. 254, 272]   are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive," N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433 , was also recognized by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458 (1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 678 . Judge Edgerton spoke for a unanimous court which affirmed the dismissal of a Congressman's libel suit based upon a newspaper article charging him with anti-Semitism in opposing a judicial appointment. He said:

"Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of [IRS or government] officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. . . . The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct and views which some respectable people approve, and others condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes, are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate." 13

Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error. Where judicial officers are involved, this Court has held that concern for the dignity and [376 U.S. 254, 273]   reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment as criminal contempt of criticism of the judge or his decision. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 . This is true even though the utterance contains "half-truths" and "misinformation." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 342 , 343, n. 5, 345. Such repression can be justified, if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice. See also Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 ; Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 . If judges are to be treated as "men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate," Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U.S., at 376 , surely the same must be true of other government officials, such as elected city commissioners. 14 Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations.
[New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]

As always, we continue to extend a red carpet to anyone from the government or private industry who wishes to contact us to point out any of the strictly political and religious beliefs and opinions that are not factual or actionable which appear on this website that might be inconsistent with prevailing law.  We have always encouraged and solicited feedback in improving the materials posted on this website so that no one is hurt or mislead by them. 

"Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness,
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it."
[Psalm 141:5, Bible, NKJV]

However, this invitation is not intended to convey any intention on our part to depart from the Disclaimer, which indicates that everything posted on this website is strictly religious and political statements that are not factual and not actionable and not admissible as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 610, except the Disclaimer itself, of course.  The clear reason why the government has not and WILL NOT accept our invitation is because if they did, they would:

  1. Have to admit that they have been violating the law by illegally enforcing it against parties ("nontaxpayers") who are not subject.
  2. Have to surrender "plausible deniability" about the illegal activities they have been engaging in.  This would make their conduct actionable, fraudulent, and "willful" beyond that point.
  3. Generate a huge body of admissible evidence on the court record that other freedom fighters could use in federal court to put an end to the illegal operations of the federal courts and the IRS in unlawfully enforcing the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A within states of the Union.
  4. Have to acknowledge what constitutes a valid source of "reasonable belief" about one's tax liability based on the PDF Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007  (OFFSITE LINK) pamphlet.  They would thereby have to admit that none of their forms, publications, statements, or telephone advice are admissible as evidence of a "reasonable belief", not only according to their own publications, but according to the courts themselves.  Click here for details.
  5. Be compelled to be personally accountable under penalty of perjury for every accusation or statement they indicate is false on this website consistent with the PDF Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 (OFFSITE LINK) pamphlet.  They would never allow themselves to be just as legally accountable as those who submit forms to the government, whereby all forms require a perjury oath consistent with 26 U.S.C. 6065.  This is HYPOCRISY and a double standard that is abhorrent to the "equal protection of the law" and which federal courts should have ended years ago.

We'll keep updating and improving the materials here using your great feedback.  If you would like to research the details of this case for yourself, see the following resources and references:

  1. Case History of C. Hansen-administrative and litigation record
  2. CM/ECF-complete PseudoCourt record.  Documents cost 8 cents per page, but everything is available in electronic format.
  3. SEDM Litigation Tools Page (OFFSITE LINK)-some of the templates that Hansen used during his litigation, available in editable Microsoft Word format.

Lastly, don't thank or praise either Hansen or Family Guardian for this victory.  To Jesus Christ be all praise and all glory, forever, and ever, and ever.  AMEN!!!

"For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; He will save [and protect] us."
[Isaiah 33:22, Bible, NKJV]

Thus says the LORD: “ Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;"
[Jer. 9:23, Bible, NKJV]