She looked at Judge Narragansett. "You quit over the same case, didn't you?"

"Yes," said Judge Narragansett. "I quit when the court of appeals reversed my ruling. The purpose for which I had chosen my work was my resolve to be a guardian of justice. But the laws they asked me to enforce made me the executor of the vilest injustice conceivable. I was asked to use force to violate the rights of disarmed men, who came before me to seek my protection for their rights. Litigants obey the verdict of a tribunal solely on the premise that there is an objective rule of conduct, which they both accept. Now I saw that one man was to be bound by it, but the other was not, one was to obey a rule, the other was to assert an arbitrary wish - his need - and the law was to stand on the side of the wish. Justice was to consist of upholding the unjustifiable. I quit - because I could not have borne to hear the words 'Your Honor' addressed to me by an honest man." 
[Atlas Shrugged, 35th Anniversary Edition, Ayn Rand, p. 651]

Some federal courts have suggested in their rulings on tax-related issues subsequent to the We The People Truth in Taxation Hearings that they are the best and only proper organization within the state and federal governments that is qualified to investigate and rule on the facts and evidence revealed in these IRS Deposition questions.  They say that it is frivolous for groups like We The People to petition Congress using this evidence and that the Congress or the Executive branch are not adequately empowered to directly address the issues raised in a way that will influence the situation meaningfully.  To these arguments we say "humbug" and we will now proceed to explain why.

Whatever the federal courts may think they can and cannot do, the following facts are certain:

1. Federal jurisdictional limitations:
   • Under our constitutional form of government, the federal government has no "police powers" within states of the union.  See Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100 (1890) and Great IRS Hoax, section 4.9.
   • "police powers" are equivalent to legislative jurisdiction.  The Infernal Revenue Code found in Title 26 is federal "legislation." and therefore is limited to federal territory and property unless explicitly and unambiguously specified otherwise.
   • 40 U.S.C. §255 and the caselaw addressing it abundantly confirms that the only way that the federal government may acquire exclusive territorial jurisdiction within a union state is by state cession in writing and that this cession must occur by the authority of an act of the state legislature.  Otherwise, the federal government has no jurisdiction within states unless specifically granted by the federal Constitution.
   • In personam federal jurisdiction is conveyed upon a person independently of territorial jurisdiction if the person is a "citizen of the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
   • In order to be a "citizen of the United States" under federal law and under 8 U.S.C. §1401, one must have been born inside the federal United States on territory of the United States.  Being born within the borders of a state of the Union and not on federal property excludes a person from being a "citizen of the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §1401.  Click here for further details.  See also Section 14 of the IRS Deposition Questions for evidence supporting this conclusion.
   • The only other type of jurisdiction the federal government can have is subject matter jurisdiction, and nowhere does the Constitution confer the right to regulate or tax transactions relating to other than foreign and interstate commerce.  See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution and Federalist paper #45.  The Sixteenth Amendment did not extend subject matter jurisdiction into states of the union for income taxes because 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of the Constitution were not repealed by the Sixteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new powers of taxation".  See Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 204 U.S. 103 (1916).
   • As confirmation of the above facts, there are NO IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS authorizing any kind of enforcement of subtitle A income taxes under Part 1 of 26 C.F.R. as required by the Federal Register Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 15 or by 26 C.F.R. § 601.702(ii).  No Act of Congress can have any affect on the public at large unless and until the enforcement provisions have been published in the Federal Register.
   • Therefore, the Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A income tax is "special law" that applies ONLY to elected or appointed officers of the United States government and corporations involved in foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Jury problems:
   • The only persons who can serve as federal jurists or grand jurists are "citizens of the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §1401, where "United States" means the federal zone.  See 28 U.S.C. §1865(b).  This excludes the majority of people born in states of the Union, most of whom are either state citizens only or "non-citizen nationals" under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and the Law of Nations.  Click here for further details.
   • Any attempt by a federal court to use a jury trial to prosecute an issue affecting a person who is a state only citizen or a "non-citizen National", which most Americans living in the states are, is a violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury composed of one's peers.  A person who is not a "citizen of the United States" cannot and should not be judged by a jury composed of persons who are only "citizens of the United States".
   • The Sixth Amendment also requires an impartial jury.  Such an impartial jury cannot therefore be composed of any person who might have a conflict of interest.  Such persons who might have a conflict of interest include any "citizens of the United States" sitting on the jury who is now in receipt of the proceeds of income tax revenues or who could at any time in the future also be in receipt of such monies.  This rules out everyone who draws a government paycheck, social security, welfare, Medicare, etc, including every politician, every judge, etc.  This explains the basis for the following two Supreme Court Rulings:

   "A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another." 
   [U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

   "To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals.. is none the less robbery because it is.. called taxation."
   [Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874)]

   • No person sitting on a jury can be a person in receipt of the proceeds of robbery undertaken in the name of socialism and taxation without having a conflict of interest.  See 18 U.S.C. §597 entitled "Expenditures to influence voting".  You will note that the jury process is a voting process.

     “Do not follow the crowd [majority] in doing wrong.  When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.” 
     [Exodus 23:2, Bible, NIV]

3. Conflict of interest of federal judges:
   • Federal judges presently are paid by the income tax under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  This was not always the case.  In fact, before we had the income tax starting in 1945 (the Victory Tax), nearly all federal revenues were derived from other than income taxes and mainly occurred on excise taxes from foreign trade.  These types of taxes have always been authorized by the Constitution.
   • Conflicts of interest of federal judges are prohibited by both 28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144.
   • Personal financial conflicts of interest of federal employees are also prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §208(a).  Any judge who is either paid by internal revenue taxes or who is beholden to IRS extortion is subject to such a personal financial conflict of interest.
   • The only kind of judge who could properly rule on a matter concerning the income tax without having a blatant conflict of interest is a judge whose salary does not come from Congress or who is a volunteer, because 41% of federal revenues now come from income taxes according to the Treasury Financial Management Service.  Click here for our report on the federal budget derived directly from government sources.
   • Any judge suffering from a conflict of interest is most certain to try to keep out of evidence any evidence which might be prejudicial against an income tax that pays his paycheck and his retirement.
   • Any judge who pays the Subtitle A income tax and who is beholden to the extortion of the IRS is likely to be affected by a conflict of interest in the event he rules against the IRS or the Department of INjustice in any tax-related proceeding.
   • The above types of judicial corruption are the very same injustice complained of in our very own Declaration of Independence.  Now we have the same problem all over again and maybe its time for another revolution, this time against federal tyranny by our own government:

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

. . .

"He has made Judges dependent on his [the IRS' and the legislature's] Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries." 
[Declaration of Independence]

4. Conflict of interest among those who supervise Federal Judges:
   • 28 U.S.C. §134(a) and 28 U.S.C. §144(b) also say that federal judges may hold office only during "good behavior".  The Congress may remove a judge who is not demonstrating good behavior.
   • Because Congress are the only ones who can remove judges, and because Congress are the ones who benefit most directly by illegal enforcement of income taxes, then there is a built-in incentive for them to look the other way if a federal judge rules improperly on an income tax issue and in such a way that favors the government by maximizing illegal revenues from income taxes.
5. Federal courts are prohibited from ruling on rights in the context of federal income taxes:
   • Any person you talk to about the legality of the federal income tax will tell you that the main problem is its oppression of their Constitutional rights.  And yet, the federal courts are precluded from ruling on the subject of rights or status under 28 U.S.C. §2201.
   • There is only ONE place inside the country called United States where Congress has the legislative jurisdiction to suspend the enforcement of Constitutional rights.  The only place they are permitted to do so is on federal territory in which the Bill of Rights does not apply.  See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
   • Consequently, there is only one place where federal income taxes upon natural persons under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code can therefore be authorized and still be consistent with the constitution.  That place is in the territories and possessions of the United States, all of which are listed under Title 48 of the United States Code.
   • Any attempt by any judge to enforce or impose an income tax in any area other than federal territories or abroad is utterly without jurisdiction and amounts to criminal extortion and treason against the rights of sovereign Americans under the Constitution punishable by Death under the Constitution.

If you want even more reasons why trying these issues in federal court won't work, see section 8 of the questions entitled "Courts are closed". Additionally:

"And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous." 
[Exodus 23:8, Bible, NKJV]

"Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason.
And a bribe debases the heart." 
[Ecclesiastes 7:7, Bible, NKJV]

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." 
[Jesus in Matt. 6:21, Bible, NKJV]

The important thing to remember is that ALL of the above conflicts of interest would be eliminated if only four changes were made in the enforcement of the federal income tax that everyone falsely believes that they owe:

1. The law very clearly stated in 26 U.S.C. §1 that natural persons (people), unless they are elected or appointed officers of the United States, are neither the subject nor the object of the revenue laws and are "nontaxpayers".
2. The IRS Publications were modified to reflect the truth and specific IRS employees were held accountable for the constructive fraud and downright lies they put in these fraudulent publications.  Click here for why this change is needed.
3. The Internal Revenue Code was changed to plainly and unambiguously state the truth, which is that that only revenues derived from taxes on commerce external to the states, including foreign commerce and interstate commerce, is taxable.
4. All judges, jurors, prosecutors who receive any kind of federal benefit derived from Subtitle A federal income taxes must recuse themselves from any connection with litigation concerning income taxes.

The above changes reflect the way the original Constitution funded the federal government and it created a judicial system and a republican government system that was totally free of any of the above conflicts of interest which have been used to corrupt our system of government and transform our Constitutional Republic into a totalitarian socialist democracy.  Here is the way God himself describes the corrupted dilemma we find ourselves in because we have abandoned the path laid by our founding fathers, as described in Isaiah 1:1-26:

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 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]

So according to the Bible, the real problem is corrupted lawyers and judges and people who are after money and rewards, and God says the way to fix the corruption and graft is to eliminate the bad judges and lawyers.   Whose job is that?  It is the even more corrupted Congress!  (see 28 U.S.C. §134(a) and 28 U.S.C. §44(b))

"O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err,
And destroy the way of your paths." 
[Isaiah 3:12, Bible, NKJV]

"The king establishes the land by justice; but he who receives bribes overthrows it." 
[Prov. 29:4, Bible, NKJV]

Can thieves and corrupted judges and lawyers and jurors, who are all bribed with stolen or extorted tax dollars they lust after in the pursuit of socialist benefits, reform themselves if left to their own devices?  

"When you [the jury] saw a thief [the corrupted judges and lawyers paid with extorted and stolen tax money], you consented with him, And have been a partaker with adulterers." 
[Psalm 50:18, Bible, NKJV]

"The people will be oppressed,
Every one by another and every one by his [socialist] neighbor [sitting on a jury who
       was indoctrinated and brainwashed in a government school to trust government];
The child will be insolent toward the elder,
And the base toward the honorable."
[Isaiah 3:5, Bible, NKJV]

"It must be conceded that there are rights [and property] in every free government beyond the control of the State [or any judge or jury].  A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, liberty and property of its citizens, subject at all times to the disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all a despotism.  It is true that it is a despotism of the many--of the majority, if you choose to call it so--but it is not the less a despotism."
[Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 665 (1874)]

Consequently, it is completely ridiculous for a federal court, a U.S. Attorney, or a judge  in such a court to be saying that they are the only suitable place to try a case related to the facts and evidence documented in the We The People Truth in Taxation Hearing or in our IRS Deposition Questions.  As a matter of fact, it is this very corrupted court and Department of INjustice that is most likely to have a prejudice against hearing such issues.  The most likely place in which any court would be least prejudiced to try an issue relating to federal income tax would be in state court, but even that court would not be without conflict of interest if that state receives any kind of federal money or subsidies.  This kind of money flow, incidentally, is also nowhere authorized by the Constitution, and anything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution is prohibited by implication and reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. It is prohibited because it is the essence of socialism and the antithesis of a republican government founded on individual rights. This is not just a legal question, it is a question of morality in a nation besieged by greed and covetousness and idolatry and class warfare between the haves and the have-nots.  Americans are misusing the machinery of government and their electoral power to institute this war against each other to promote and expand socialism and the government is aiding and abetting them to expand its power to that of a totalitarian socialist democracy.  This is unconstitutional, unlawful, and morally and spiritually reprehensible.  Here is what the Supreme Court said about this socialist v. capitalist contest the first time it ruled against a federal income tax:

“Here I close my opinion.  I could not say less in view of questions of such gravity that they go down to the very foundations of the government.  If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end?

The present assault upon capital [theft of people's property and labor in the name of taxation and socialism] is but the beginning.  It will be but the stepping stone to others larger and more sweeping, until our political contest will become war of the poor against the rich; [with the government and the ballot box as the weapon and the robinhood] a war of growing intensity and bitterness.”
[Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)]

With so many glaringly obvious conflicts of interest, it simply boggles the mind to consider how any reasonable person could conclude that a federal court would be the best place to rule on the evidence or conclusions found in these questions or on any income tax matter.  Should the fox be in charge of deciding whether he can eat the chickens?  The only reason a person would appeal to such a corrupted court to begin with is because their Constitutional Rights have been violated and their servants in Congress REFUSE their absolute legal duty under the First Amendment Petition Clause to remedy the egregious wrong, and yet these same courts can't rule on rights to begin with, nor are most of them even willing to demonstrate that they have Article III jurisdiction sufficient to even hear a case on rights!  In the case of federal income taxes, federal courts can therefore act as nothing other than an administrative court devoid of enforcement authority relating to the invasion of constitutional rights.  The reason is because these courts are acting in an Article II and Article IV capacity when ruling on federal tax issues, which means that their rulings can only apply to territories and possessions of the United States under Title 48 of the U.S. Code.  Anyone who would appeal to such a court absent proof that they were not a "U.S. citizen" is worst than criminally stupid.

For those who stubbornly and ignorantly cling to the idea that a federal court is the correct forum in which to try such issues, I have a few very pointed questions I want you to answer as indicated below.

1. Please identify the specific authority within the Constitution that authorizes the collection of direct taxes upon persons who are neither "U.S. citizens" nor "aliens" and who reside on nonfederal land within states of the union?  The Supreme Court said it wasn't the Sixteenth Amendment in the case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 204 U.S. 103 (1916).  So what amendment was it, exactly, because before the Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in Pollock said direct taxes weren't authorized?  See Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).
2. Please identify how a judge who is paid by an income tax can hear a case on income taxes and not possess a conflict of interest in violation of 28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144.?
3. Please explain how a person may obtain a redress of grievances against his constitutional rights in a court that cannot rule on constitutional rights in the context of federal income taxes as required by 28 U.S.C. §2201?
4. Please explain how congress by legislation can suspend the enforcement of constitutional rights within states of the Union under 28 U.S.C. §2201 within the context of federal income taxes if these taxes do indeed apply to states of the Union?
5. Please explain how a person can pay a voluntary donation to the government, which is fraudulently called a "tax" by the IRS, without in effect bribing a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. §201?
6. Please explain how a person can sit as an impartial juror and rule on an income tax issue before the court if he is (or will be) receiving the proceeds of income taxes extorted from the defendant in violation of 18 U.S.C. §597?
7. Please explain how the court can recruit jurors who are peers of a defendant who is not a "U.S. citizen" when 28 U.S.C. §1865(b) requires that all jurors in federal court must be "U.S. citizens"?
8. Please explain how a person born in a state of the Union and not on federal territory or property can be a "citizen of the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §1401 if he was not born on federal territory or property?
9. Please explain how a person living in a state of the Union, not residing in the federal United States [federal zone], who is neither an elected or appointed officer of the United States government can submit a tax return involuntarily without violating his constitutional rights and subjecting himself to later criminal prosecution based on the information he submits?
10. Please indicate how a person can indicate on their tax return that they are under duress without being subject to a frivolous return penalty?
11. Please indicate how a federal court can admit into evidence a tax return that was filed under duress and in which the government was unable to define any statute within Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code that made a person liable for the income tax?
12. Please indicate how the IRS can penalize and charge interest for unpaid taxes against natural persons (people) when the Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution specifically forbid Bills of Attainder, which are penalties not imposed by a court?
13. Please specify how the IRS can change a return if the only evidence that is admissible in the verification of returns is a signature under penalty of perjury as required under 26 U.S.C. §6065 while at the same time, none of the documents provided by the IRS to the alleged "taxpayer" are under penalty of perjury, and in most cases don't even identify the person you are even dealing with?
14. How can I sign a tax return document under penalty of perjury stating it is true without accurately knowing the answers to these clearly conflicting constitutional and legal questions in the face of a hypocritical servant government who absolutely refuses to answer them and who would rather see people die of hunger than answer them?
15. How can a court or a judge claim or infer that a person gave their voluntary consent to pay a tax if that person is completely unaware of doing so and claims instead to be under illegal duress?
16. How can a person pay a tax that is mandatory instead of voluntary and still live in a free country in which the government derives all its just powers from the voluntary consent of the people as the Declaration of Independence requires?
17. How can an attorney who is defending a tax freedom advocate and who is also licensed by the same court he is litigating in front of or by the judicial branch of any government claim to be free of conflict of interest?  How can this same attorney claim to objectively administer and zealously defend the rights of his client if he could have his license to practice law pulled or be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for doing so?
18. How can any judge of good conscience, after having been made fully aware of all the foregoing conflicts of interest created exclusively by the illegal enforcement of our income tax laws claim to be administering justice and to be doing so completely free of conflict of interest in the process?
19. How can a judge declare the truth about these matters without putting his law school buddies, his golf buddies, and most of his attorney friends who "practice law" (synonymous with deny justice in most cases) into jail in the process and making himself into a criminal for having denied justice to so many people in previous trials he has heard in which he ruled unjustly because of ignorance about the matters mentioned here?  Are criminals capable of policing themselves?  Do they just walk into the nearest courthouse and declare themselves guilty and sentence themselves properly?  Who polices the police?  Earth calling the federal judiciary?  (Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life here!).
20. How can a government that the founding fathers designed as the servant of the sovereign people claim any right greater than the people it serves?  People can't legally steal property from each other or enslave each other so what gives the federal government the right to STEAL income taxes from the sovereign people it is supposed to serve or enslave them?  See our Natural Law information for further details.  See also the following for further details:
    • “Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’” 
      [John15:20, Bible, NKJV]
    • “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid…[text omitted]  It is not otherwise  to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.  A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges, as fundamental law. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”
      [Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Paper # 78)]

Oh, and by the way, the above questions are the same questions I am going to ask during voir dire of the next federal judge who hears any case that concerns me and the issue of federal income taxes.   To the above questions, I will add the following additional questions when I'm questioning the judge as well:

1. Admit that this proceeding concerns the issue of payment of “federal income taxes”.

2. Admit that you pay what is commonly referred to as “federal income taxes” collected under Internal Revenue Code.

3. Admit that your salary is derived from federal income taxes collected from me personally for those years that I paid them.

4. Admit that if the monies I paid to the IRS were paid under duress and absent the authority of law, then these monies amount to a gift and a bribe of the public officials who will spend them in violation of 18 U.S.C. §201.

5. Admit that those who collect financial benefits from the federal government are adversely influenced to vote in favor of politicians who would continue the flow of those benefits in violation of 18 U.S.C. §597.

6. Admit that you do not know what statute within the Internal Revenue Code makes me “liable” to pay federal income taxes and therefore are operating on presumption in concluding that I owe a federal income tax?

7. Admit that “presumptions” violate due process under the Constitution unless clearly authorized by federal law.
[See:  http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/DueProcess.htm]

8. Admit that if you ruled in favor of me in this proceeding relating to the income tax issue, and if others on a large scale imitated you in doing so and imitated me in raising the same issues, that federal revenues from income taxes would inevitably go down.

9. Admit that if the truths exposed in The Great IRS Hoax book were widely known by every American and admitted to by the U.S. government, then there is a reasonable possibility that federal revenues would go down by approximately 41% identified in section 1.12 of The Great IRS Hoax.

10. Admit that if federal revenues went down significantly, then the result could eventually mean the a drastic downsizing of the federal government, the possible elimination of your job, and/or the reduction of your payroll and/or retirement benefits.

11. Admit that because of the foregoing facts, you have a personal financial interest in this proceeding.

12. Admit that if you were paid exclusively from taxes on imports from commerce only with foreign countries as the U.S. Constitution originally required under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, that this conflict of personal financial interest would be eliminated because you would no longer either be paid from income taxes nor would you have to pay them.

13. Admit that there is no way to eliminate or reduce the personal financial conflict of interest in this case without one of the following options:

13.1. You being paid from revenues connected only with foreign commerce, instead of from the general revenues produced by the IRS.

13.2. You surrendering your entitlement to federal retirement benefits or at least that portion which derives from Internal Revenue Taxes….OR

13.3. Having an impartial jury, none of whom are collecting government benefits derived from income taxes, to rule on the issues at hand.

14. Admit that without taking the steps in the preceding question to eliminate stated conflicts of interest, that for you to hear this proceeding amounts to a conflict of interest in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208(a).

15. Admit that when a financial conflict of interest exists, that you have a moral and legal duty to recuse yourself from this proceeding and recommend ways to your supervisors to rectify any conflicts of interest that might exist.

16.   Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. §557(d), please now fully disclose for the record the dates and particulars of any ex parte contacts you have had with anyone relating to this case.

If you want a funny example of how corrupted our political system has become and how the bribery has biased our judgment, watch the movie entitled The Distinguished Gentleman featuring Eddie Murphy.  It is far more truthful than many people want to admit.