Right click here and select "Save As" to download the Microsoft Word version of this document

This letter may be submitted in any of the following two situations:

  1. A federal employee against their employer.
  2. A private employee against their employer.


<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>  <<ZIP>>

Work phone:  _________________________

Email:  _________________________

Date:  _________________________









<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>  <<ZIP>>

Phone:  __________________

Email:  ____________________ 


Subject:  Formal Grievance under ___________________(instruction number for grievances)  and EEO Grievance


Enclosure(s):  (1)  DD FORM 2842, SEP 2002 submitted to Mr. ___________(name) on _______(date) and rejected by him.



1)       ________________________(agency instruction number for grievance procedure)

2)       5 U.S.C. 2302(b):  Prohibited Personnel Practices.  See:

3)       U.S. Office of Special Counsel website page on Prohibited Personnel Practices:

4)       18 U.S.C. 1510:  Obstruction of criminal investigations.

5)       The book Social Security: Mark of the Beast.  Book is available on the Internet as a free Acrobat file at:

6)       The book The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax.  Book is available on the Internet as a free Acrobat file at:

7)       IRS Deposition Questions, section 5 entitled:  First Amendment and Socialism, available at: 05.htm

8)       IRS Deposition Questions, section 14 entitled:  Citizenship, available at: 14.htm

9)       SECNAVINST 5510.30A, Appendix I, page I-1.  See:

10)    8 U.S.C. 1324b:  Unfair immigration-related employment practices.  See:

11)    Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, available from:

12)    Book entitled Assumption of Liability.  Book is available free on the Internet in Acrobat format at:


Table of contents:



3.         OFFENSE 1:  Failure to provide PKI Certificate. 7

4.         OFFENSE 2:  Failure to issue Common Access Card  8

5.         OFFENSE 3:  Security Clearance temporary suspension issues  9



8.         CONCLUSIONS: 13

Dear _____(supervisor name),

This is a formal grievance under ______________________(instruction number) and a formal EEO Complaint under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b) related to discrimination against me in the following contexts:

1.        My religious beliefs. 

2.        My national origin. 

I will cite specific instances of illegal discrimination by agents and employees of the Department of Defense and then conclude with a suggestion on how best to remedy or redress these grievances.  There are three counts or incidences of illegal activity described in this grievance which must be addressed separately.  I will devote one section to each and then propose remedies that I think would be in the best interest of the government to implement.  Among these remedies is my demand and formal request that _________________(name of your organization) purge all references to social security numbers from my personnel record.  I will then conclude my document by helping to frame the legal requirements that the government must meet in its response to this grievance and complaint in order to satisfy its burden of proof and its obligation to respect my due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


I am a Christian, which means that I profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  I regularly attend a nondenominational Christian church and also a home bible study hosted by a fellow coworker here at _______________(name of your organization ).  My wife and I were married by the Pastor at my church.  I also maintain a website that focuses on Christianity and citizenship issues called “Family Guardian” at:

The website contains extremely detailed legal research in a number of areas, and this document was prepared from the materials on that website.  Among the many materials appearing on the website is a book I published electronically entitled Social Security: Mark of the Beast.  The book analyzes the Social Security System from a legal perspective to prove with legal evidence and cites from the Bible that the program is completely inconsistent with and contradictory to the Christian faith and to the Republican values of this country.  A free version of that book may be downloaded from that website in Adobe Acrobat from at the following address:

I have also compiled a very detailed study on the illegality of the way the IRS enforces what is actually a completely voluntary income tax.  These findings are documented in a book that also appears on the Family Guardian website entitled The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax available at:

Among the many conclusions reached in both The Great IRS Hoax and Social Security are the following:

1.        Social Security is socialism and socialism is against Christian beliefs.  See the following:

1.1.      Ref. (5), section 10:  Socialism is not compatible with Christianity.

1.2.      Ref. (6) section 4.3.5:  Socialism is Incompatible with Christianity

2.        Participation in the Social Security program and the payment of Social Security taxes amounts to becoming surety for the debts of the government and of others.  See Ref. (6), section 2.8.11.

3.        The Bible says that Christians should not be surety for the debts of anyone, including government.  Prov. 11:15 and Prov. 17:18 say Christians should not be surety for their neighbor. 

“He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.” [Prov. 11:15, Bible, NKJV]

See the following references:

3.1.      Ref. (5), section 10

3.2.      Ref. (6) section 2.8.7.

4.        Social Security Numbers are the “Mark of the Beast” described in Revelations 13:16-18.  See:

4.1.       Ref. (5), section 1. 

4.2.      Ref. (6), section 2.8.7.

5.        The Bible in Revelations 19:19 identifies that political rulers, and by implication public servants who are their agents, are the real “beast”.

And I saw the beast, the kings [political rulers] of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him [Jesus] who sat on the horse and against Hi army.”  [Rev. 19:19, Bible, NKJV]

6.        Those who resist the mark and number of the beast, the Social Security Number, will be given the Harps of God according to Rev. 15:2.  See Ref. (5), section 1.

7.        Those who resist the mark and number of the beast will avoid God’s wrath according to Rev. 16:2.  See Ref. (5), section 1.

8.        Those who die resisting the mark of the beast will reign with Christ according to Rev. 20:4.  See Ref. (5), section 1.

I believe every word of the New King James Bible and every word in the Social Security book with all my heart, and I have built my whole life around both.  My view of the world has been completely transformed by virtue of my Christian faith and these and other books appearing on the Family Guardian website.  I therefore believe that either accepting or using Social Security Numbers violates my religious beliefs and that God will withdraw His sovereign blessings upon my future life if I do not do everything in my power eradicate the use of them from every aspect of my life.  I also believe that the reason the Bible has such strong things to say about Social Security Numbers is the following characteristics that they possess:

1.        They are issued by the government.

2.        They create a presumption that one is a “U.S. citizen”.  See 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g) says the following about this presumption:

26 CFR 301.6109-1(g)

(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons--(1) General rule--(i) Social

security number. A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual's social security number. 

On the other hand, the Bible also says that we should not be citizens on earth because we belong to God, who created us.  See:

2.1.      Ref. (6), section 4.1

2.2.      Philippians 3:20:  “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

2.3.      Hebrews 11:13:  “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”

2.4.      1 Peter 2:1:  “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul…”

2.5.      James 4:4:  “Do you not know that friendship [citizenship] with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [citizen] of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

3.        SSN’s are used as a means of universal identification.  Universal identification simply facilitates gross violations of our Fourth Amendment right of privacy.  Freedom cannot exist without privacy and we live in a free country.  Therefore, we cannot have a universal means of numerical identification without violating the intent of the founding fathers to impart to us privacy and sovereignty.

4.        The failure to use the Socialist Security Number results or can result either directly or indirectly in the inability to buy or sell goods or to obtain or maintain a job.

5.        Slave Surveillance Numbers are required by the government in order to comply with illegal enforcement activities of the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

6.        The numbers are disclosed to agencies and organizations and third parties who are outside my immediate work environment, which violates my Fourth Amendment right of privacy unless I disclose it voluntarily, which in this case I do not.

At the same time, I am certainly not against the use of numbers for identification within an occupational context, but only so long as the application or use the numbers does not have any of the characteristics listed above.   For instance, if _________________(name of your organization) wants to assign individual employee numbers, then I am OK with that so long as these numbers are not used outside of _________________(name of your organization) for any other purpose or disclosed to any third party without my written, explicit, and advanced consent in each case.  The fact that such a system may not currently exist is simply not my problem.  Nor can the lack of such a system create an emergency or “compelling public interest” that could justify or warrant an invasion of my Constitutional rights by the government.  Under no circumstances is the government authorized to violate the Bill of Rights, emergency or not, financial problem or not:


16 Am Jur 2nd 71-72 states: “No emergency justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision.” 2  [American Jurisprudence 2d, Volume 16, sections 71-72]


I was born in Santa Barbara, California on September 7, 1959 in Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital.  According to my research on citizenship, I am not now and never have been a “U.S. citizen”, but rather I am and always have been a “non-citizen U.S. national” as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1408, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), and 8 U.S.C. 1452.  See the following references for further information on this subject:

1.        There are three definitions of the term “United States” according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).  See Ref. (6), section 4.6.

2.        Sections 4.11 through 4.11.10 of Ref. (6) clarifies the distinctions between “U.S. Nationals” and “U.S. citizens”.

3.        Basically, a “U.S. citizen” is a person born or naturalized in the federal “United States”, also called the “federal zone”.  See Ref. (6), section 4.11.3.  I was not born in the federal “United States”

4.        Basically, a “U.S. National” is defined in 8 U.S.C. 1408(2) as a person who was born outside the federal “United States” to parents who at one time or another spent time in the federal “United States”.  See Ref. (6) section

5.        Ref. (7).  Provides evidence pointing to the fact that because federal statutes only apply inside the federal United States in most cases, then to be born outside the “United States”, so far as Title 8 of the U.S. Codes are concerned, includes the status of being born in a state of the Union.  This is a direct result of the fact that the U.S. government has no police powers within states of the union.  See:

5.1.      Ref. (6), section 4.8 entitled “The Federal Zone”.

5.2.      Ref. (6), section 4.9 entitled “Police Powers”

Even if the government wants to assert that I was at one time a “U.S. citizen”, the status of being a “U.S. citizen” is defined as also including “U.S. national” status under 8 U.S.C. 1401 and I have renounced the citizenship portion of that imputed dual status by noticing the Secretary of State as required under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(6).  My right of expatriation or renunciation of any aspect of citizenship that I find objectionable is my natural right and that right has been upheld by the federal courts.  See Ref. (6), section 4.11.9.

The status of citizenship involves two critical factors that must coincide:  1.  Domicile; 2.  Intent.  Even if I maintain a domicile in a geographical jurisdiction that would qualify me to be a citizen of that jurisdiction, I must also intend to be a citizen to in fact be one.

“The fourteenth amendment does not make a resident in a state a citizen of such state, unless he intends, by residence therein, to become a citizen.”

“”Citizenship’ and ‘residence,’ as has often been declared by the courts, are not convertible terms. Parker v. Overman 18 How. 141; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 648; Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 283; S.C. 3 Sup.Ct. Rep. 207; Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock. 389. Citizenship is a status or condition, and is the result of both act and intent. An adult person cannot become a citizen of a state by simply intending to, nor does any one become such citizen by mere residence. The residence and the intent must co-exist and correspond; and though, under ordinary circumstances, the former may be sufficient evidence of the latter, it is not conclusive, and the contrary may always be shown; and when the ques6tion of citizenship turns on the intention with which a person has resided in a particular state, his own testimony, under ordinary circumstances, is entitled to great weight on the point. 


“But, certainly, it was not the intention of the [Fourteenth] amendment to make any citizen of the United States a citizen of any particular state against his will, in which the exigencies of his business, his social relations or obligations, or other cause, might require his presence for a greater or less length of time, without any intention on his part to become such citizen. “The better opinion seems to be that a citizen of the United States is, under the amendment, prima facie a citizen of the state wherein he resides, and cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such state, but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his will, and contrary to his purpose and intention to retain an already acquired citizenship elsewhere. The amendment is a restraining on the power of the state, but not on the right of the person to choose and maintain his citizenship or domicile; but it protects him in the exercise of that right by making him a citizen of that state in which he may choose to reside with such intention. In Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 648, the court held that, for the purpose of giving the jurisdiction to the circuit court, an allegation that a party is a resident of a particular state is not equivalent to an allegation that he is a citizen thereof, for the reason, as suggested by Mr. Justice Harlan, that, even under the amendment, mere residence in a state does not necessarily or conclusively prove one to be a citizen thereof. And if an allegation of residence in a state is not necessarily, even under the amendment, the equivalent of an allegation of citizenship, then the mere fact of residence in a state is not necessarily the equivalent of citizenship.” [Sharon v. Hill, 26 F.337 (1885), Emphasis added] 

It has never been my intent to be a “U.S. citizen” and it has always been my intent to be a “non-citizen U.S. national”.  I may not have known until the last four years all the ramifications between those two distinct statuses, but had I known, I would most certainly have chosen only “non-citizen U.S. National” status.  According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a government cannot unilaterally sever its relationship with its citizens by taking away any aspect of their nationality or citizenship.  See Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).   Only I as a national or citizen can voluntarily and unilaterally renounce or eliminate either my nationality or my citizen status and that is exactly what I have done and exactly what the law authorizes me to do.

I have gone to great lengths to correct all government paperwork so as to reflect my true and correct status as a “non-citizen U.S. National” by the following means:

1.        Sent a revised SS-5 form to the IRS indicating that I am a “U.S. National” rather than a “U.S. citizen”.

2.        Did a revocation of election under 26 CFR 1.871-10 to remove my property from federal jurisdiction.

3.        Noticed the Secretary of State via certified mail with a proof of mailing that I renounce my “U.S. citizen” status but maintain my “U.S. national” status.

4.        Modified my voter registration to reflect my status as a “non-citizen U.S. National”.

5.        Allowed my passport to expire so that it no longer reflects an incorrect status.

6.        Notified _________________(name of your organization) security department, __________ (individual name) of my correct status as a “non-citizen U.S. National” on my security clearance application.

7.        Notified the IRS of my status as a “non-citizen U.S. National” and therefore a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the federal income tax laws.  Note, however, that a person can be a “nonresident alien” without being an alien.  See Ref. (6) section 5.6.12.  Everyone who was born in a state of the union and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States government is, in effect a state-only citizen, a “non-citizen U.S. National”, and a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the federal income tax.  See Ref. (6), Chapters 4 and 5.

According to my research, SECNAVINST 5510.30A, Appendix I, page I-1 (see Ref. (9)) on security clearances, indicates that even though I am a “U.S. National”, I can still hold a U.S. security clearance the same as a person who claims to be a “U.S. citizen”.  The reason is that 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)(B) of the Aliens and Nationality title of the U.S. Code indicates that a “U.S. national” is someone who “owes permanent allegiance to the United States”, which I indeed do.  By “United States”, I mean the 50 united States of the Union of states called the United States of America, and not necessarily the federal corporation called the “United States” that is defined in 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A).  That allegiance does not imply or infer that I am subject to any federal statute while I am physically present outside of federal United States or the federal zone except those that are strictly incident to my status as a federal employee.  If this is not the case, then please inform me so and cite the legal authority by which you make that statement, including the statute, caselaw, and regulation that leads you to that conclusion.

Those who are “U.S. citizens” are “natives” to the federal “United States” and all others are essentially foreigners.  There are two types of foreigners:  1.  “non-citizen U.S. nationals” and 2.  Aliens.  As a federal employee, I work in the federal “United States” [the federal zone] but my domicile is in a union state and outside of the territorial jurisdiction and legislative jurisdiction of the “United States” federal government.  This is direct result of the fact that the federal government has no police powers or legislative jurisdiction within states of the union.  See once again Ref. (6), section 4.9 for further explanation.

In addition to being a “non-citizen U.S. National”, I am also a federal employee under the jurisdiction of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.  As a federal employee and a “non-citizen U.S. national”, I am essentially an immigrant when I enter the federal “United States” [federal zone] or a federal reservation within a union state to work because my citizenship status is other than “U.S. citizen”.  8 U.S.C. 1324b prohibits immigration-related discrimination based on national origin or based on religious beliefs.  8 U.S.C. 1324b(3)(A) affords this protection against immigration-related discrimination to both “citizens or nationals of the United States”.  Because I am a “national of the United States”, then I claim the protection of this law, and because I work within the federal “United States” where federal legislation applies and where the crime in this case was committed, then the necessary jurisdiction exists to apply this law to my situation and to the persons who have injured my rights in this instance.

For the purposes of Ref. (2) and 5 U.S.C. 2302(b) then, my “national origin” is that of “U.S. national” and the evidence documented in this grievance will also show that discrimination is occurring based on my “national origin”.  I emphasize one last time that this choice to be other than a “U.S. citizen” originates from my religious beliefs, which say that we as Christians may not be citizens, but instead are sojourners and pilgrims while we are on this earth.[1] 

Philippians 3:20:  “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

I as a Christian am, in effect, a “minister of a foreign state” and the foreign state in this case is “Heaven”.  That is the the one and only place that I intend to permanently inhabit or reside in.  Even the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of  U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 167 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) admitted as much:

And Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court [legislating from the bench, in this case], in analyzing the first clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment in this case], observed that “the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.

[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 167 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898)]

I am a child of God, not a child of the state.  The U.S. government is not my “parent” or my “Parens Patriae”. 

Parens patriae. "Parens patriae," literally "parent of the country," refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability, such as juveniles or the insane, State of W.Va. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., C.A.N.Y., 440 F.2d 1079, 1089, and in child custody determinations, when acting on behalf of the state to protect the interests of the child.  It is the principle that the state must care for those who cannot take care of themselves, such as minors who lack proper care and custody from their parents.  It is a concept of standing utilized to protect those quasi-sovereign interests such as health, comfort and welfare of the people, interstate water rights, general economy of the state, etc.  Gibbs v. Titelman, D.C.Pa., 369 F.Supp. 38, 54.

In America, the state is not the sovereign.  Here is what no less than the Supreme Court says about this matter:

"From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens." at 472.

[Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.)  419, 1 L.ed. 454, 457, 471, 472) (1794)]

In America, the people (that’s me) are the sovereigns and government was created to serve, not oppress them.  It is a fundamental tenet of law that two sovereigns, the people and their government, have sovereign immunity from the acts or force of the other unless some tort or wrong has occurred.  I have committed no wrong by expecting the government to honor and respect my choice of citizenship status. 

The way I have avoided being a citizen in receipt of federal privileges is to instead to be a “non-citizen U.S. National” or simply a “U.S. National”. This voluntary choice and this intent is the only lawful means available to me as far as citizenship status which does not clearly conflict with my religious faith or prejudice my Constitutional rights.  Those in receipt of the privileges of citizenship simply cannot have all their rights.  Rights and privileges are mutually exclusive from a legal perspective.  You trade rights to get privileges.  See Ref. (6) sections 4.2 through 4.2.3.

3.      OFFENSE 1:  Failure to provide PKI Certificate.

As you know, employees of _______________(name of your organization) who did not receive NMCI computers have been asked to obtain an NMCI Terminal Services Account for their legacy computer in preparation for the termination of their legacy email accounts.  That process was supposed to have bee completed this week by all _______________(name of your organization) personnel, which includes myself.  The first step in the process of obtaining said Terminal Services account is obtaining a PKI Identity Certificate from the NMCI coordinator for our campus, who is  ____________(individual name), who works at  __________________.

Consistent with corporate policy, I requested my certificate early last week and was notified on Monday this week of its availability for pickup.  On May 8, 2003 at 10:30am, I went to __________(location) as instructed by Mr. __________(individual name) to obtain my PKI Certificate.  He handed me a DD FORM 2842 (see Enclosure (1), which is the exact form I handed to Mr. ________________) to complete, which I did and gave back to him.  He looked at block (b) of that form and said that he would not issue me a PKI Certificate.  I explained the following to him:

1.       I have a religious objection to furnishing a Social Security Number and that I have a First Amendment right of freedom of religion that the government MAY NOT abridge or punish me for exercising.

2.       I have a First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech, which includes the right to NOT communicate certain information to the government that I choose not to disclose.

3.       The denial of a PKI Certificate renders me incapable of fully functioning within my work environment, which therefore makes me incapable of earning a living or competing or working on equal footing with other coworkers.

4.       The denial of the PKI Certificate therefore amounts to an injury, a liable, a tort, and use of undue force and coercion upon my person based solely upon my religious beliefs.  I reminded him that he was personally liable for this injury because no law authorizes him to deny me any right or privilege based on my failure to disclose or use a Social Security Number.

5.       That 42 U.S.C. 408(a) makes it a crime to compel the use of Social Security Numbers and that he was violating the law.

6.       The Social Security website says that the use or disclosure of Social Security Numbers is entirely voluntary.

He pointed to the line entitled “DISCLOSURE”, which said:

DISCLOSURE:  Voluntary; however, failure to provide the information may result in denial of issuance of a token containing PKI private keys.

I pointed to the underlined word in that line, which says “may” and said that it didn’t say must and the reason it didn’t say must is because the government may not discriminate against me based on my religious beliefs.  He was dumbfounded and said that I would need to contact ________________________(name of contact) with my grievance and that he would respond to their conclusions and recommendations relating to my situation.

I then asked Mr. ___________(name) to write on my for “Rejected”, list the reason for rejection, and sign it.  I simply wanted evidence documenting his decision that could be used as part of the grievance process, which I indicated I was going to initiate based on his decision.  He refused to cooperate, in what I view as an obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1510 (see Ref. (4)). I said that because he had violated the law, then the gathering of such evidence amounted to a criminal investigation and that his refusal was an obstruction of justice.

In the context of this offense, the specific injuries incurred to me by virtue of the discrimination demonstrated by Mr. ______ are as follows:

1.        Unable to send or receive ALL work-related email.

2.        No visibility to sponsors and customers.

3.        Poor productivity.

4.        Lack of access to other corporate resources via email.

5.        Possibility of eventually termination if unable to satisfy the needs of my sponsor and employer without email.

6.        Public embarrassment with my sponsor for inability to perform my job function.

7.        Necessity to create an email account on a server outside the center in order to continue functioning.

I estimate that loss of ability to obtain NMCI Terminal Services PKI Certificate and the email services that go with this will cost the government probably 20% of my pay in lost productivity in the short term.  In the longer term it could and probably would eventually lead to my termination for being unresponsive to the sponsor and unavailable to do normal business.  Now certainly, the prospect of eventual termination and the loss of credibility that would result from the above bothersome side-effects is a matter of corporate concern, and a direct negative infringement of my right to work and pay my bills.  And unless you force all employees to endure the same fate, then treating only me this way amounts to discrimination.  It also does violence to my person, my credibility, and my work performance and disadvantages me in my interactions with everyone I know.  The one and only reason why it is occurring is my failure to provide a Social Security Number, which in turn is based entirely and only on my religious beliefs.  Therefore, this discrimination is a direct result of my religious views and beliefs and I have made this issue perfectly clear with everyone I have dealt with at _______________(name of your organization) who asks for a Socialist Security Number.

4.      OFFENSE 2:  Failure to issue Common Access Card

Back when NMCI was first being introduced about a year ago, employees at _______________(name of your organization) were reminded that they would all be required to obtain a Common Access Card (CAC).  I was requested to report to the card issuing authority above the Pass Office in _______(location) to obtain my CAC card.  I did so in approximately April of 2002.  When I did so, the person manning the desk told me that he could not issue a card for me unless I provided a Social Security Number.  He gave me the name of the Site Security Manager for CAC, a ________ (person name).  I called Mr. _______ shortly thereafter and asked him how I could get a card without a Social Security Number.  He said he would check on it and get back to me.  He never got back to me and I am still waiting for a determination as to how I may obtain such a card without a Socialist Security Number.  I called him back at least five times and he simply avoided responding to my situation.  At that time, my reasons for not wanting to use the number are the same as they are now.  My position on Social Security Numbers has not changed since that time.

At this time, I do not presently require a Common Access Card and so my work performance and productivity is not adversely affected yet.  But if or when the use of these cards becomes mandatory or necessary to accomplish my core job functions, the same situation as above with the PKI Certificate will occur, where I simply cannot function in the organization.  Because I would like to avoid this situation, I am taking the proactive approach of making this an issue now so that if or when use of the CAC becomes mandatory, _______________(name of your organization) management will have a vehicle, procedures, and policies in place to deal with my situation.

5.      OFFENSE 3:  Security Clearance temporary suspension issues

In the last two months, issues with my security clearance have arisen involving my Navy Reserve affiliation with _________________(name of your organization).  I have a Secret security clearance renewal pending with DONCAF for the naval reserves.  By virtue of my stance on citizenship issues, the naval reserve center in Mira Mesa has first contacted the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to report that I shouldn’t be holding a security clearance.  They were referred to DONCAF, who were then told by the Security Officer of the Reserve Center that I was a security risk because I claimed to not be a “U.S. citizen”.  The reserve center never bothered to inquire about the validity of my status as a “U.S. national” or ask me what I meant by claiming that status.  I have tried to communicate to them that SECNAVINST 5510.30A, Appendix I says that I may hold a security clearance as a “U.S. National” but they were more interested in oppressing and harassing someone who dared to be different than they were in the facts or the truth or in respecting my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  Consequently, I was told that DONCAF temporarily suspended my naval reserve security clearance pending resolution of the issue of my citizenship status. 

I am still waiting for a due process hearing with DONCAF regarding this issue, and no one at DONCAF has contacted me, nor am I able to talk to them about this directly.  They have said that I must go through the Security Officer of my Reserve unit, but the unit I am presently attached to does not have a Security Officer.  I am therefore left in limbo.  In the meantime, I have been involuntarily transferred to a different reserve unit pending resolution of my case, at great inconvenience and anxiety to me and a waste of the valuable talents that I can and should be applying as a member of my former _________________(name of your organization) reserve unit.

The issue of my reserve security clearance, I am told by _____________ (person name) of ___________(name of your organization), does not affect my _________________(name of your organization) clearance because they are separate clearances.  At the same time, this matter, while related to my reserve affiliation, also touches my _________________(name of your organization) relationship as a naval reservist because the unit I was attached to was a _________________(name of your organization) reserve unit.  I had nearly 14 years with that unit before I was involuntarily transferred two months ago to a different unit and would like to reaffiliate and remove this controversy.  I believe that my ____________(name of your organization), ___________________ would attest to the fact that my inability to affiliate with his unit because of the issues with my citizenship status and “national origin” have proved to be a detriment to _________________(name of your organization).  These issues have also caused me great emotional anxiety which would have been entirely unnecessary if proper respect for my due process rights and a proper regard for the underlying SECNAV instructions and laws had been observed by the reserve center, and more specifically by _____________ (person name) at the Reserve Center.  Once again, this type of discrimination is completely uncalled for and completely inconsistent with the Navy’s Equal Opportunity program and mission.  I believe it is also being accomplished based on a personal agenda by ____________ (individual name) and is not within his lawful or delegated authority.


The remedies I would like to propose in this case that would satisfy all of my concerns are as follows:

1.        I would like for the government, including _________________(name of your organization), the Navy, and the DOD, to stop trying to compel or force me to violate my religious beliefs regarding Socialist Security Numbers by forcing me to either have them or to use them.  The way to make this happen is to allow me to be to fully function at _______________(name of your organization) in all respects without using a Socialist Security Number and without being discriminated against because I won’t use such a number.  That means I need advanced written authorization from my management to obtain and receive equal treatment as other employees whenever I encounter a situation where an SSN is requested and I do not provide one.  Such occasions include, but are not limited to:

1.1.      Obtain a PKI Certificate without an SSN.

1.2.      Obtaining a CAC card.

1.3.      Submitting security clearance request documentation and obtaining a security clearance.

1.4.      Filing tax withholding forms with payroll.

2.        The issue of my citizenship status needs to be clarified and recognized formally and by written affidavit by an authority at _________________(name of your organization) who is able to make such a determination.  This document will then be used as a basis for my future interactions with security, payroll, NMCI, and other personnel whenever my citizenship and “national origin” status are challenged.  Without such a written determination, the level of legal ignorance by personnel working in these areas regarding citizenship law will result in continued and perhaps worsening discrimination related to my “national origin” as a “U.S. national”.

3.        That the SSN appearing in my personnel record be completely and permanently removed because it is incorrect.  It is incorrect because it is not MY number.  I never voluntarily requested it nor consented to its use.  My parents did so without my informed or adult consent and I cannot be held responsible for the commitments or actions of others made in my behalf while I was a minor, nor has the government afforded me an administrative means to rescind the number that I to not consent to using.  This amounts to duress.  Up until now I believed that the use of SSNs was effectively involuntary and did not know of a way to have it expunged from my record.  The number I have been using was obtained through fraud and duress on the part of the government and the continued use of it is also a matter of duress.  Any information provided by me to others that is provided under unlawful duress or involuntarily is not admissible as evidence in a court of law.  See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) and Ref. (6), section 8.4.8 for further clarification.  Because the SSN information is incorrect and submitted under duress and inadmissible in court, then I contest that it should not and cannot be maintained in my personnel record.  Under the authority of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2), I demand that this erroneous information be purged from my record and that my record be amended appropriately.  The following link also provides a complete description of why the SSN was both obtained and used under duress and involuntarily in my case:

If you disagree with the above Social Security Asseveration of Coercion, I respectfully request legal evidence, statutes, and implementing regulations that authorize you to disregard this demand to purge inaccurate information from my personnel files.  You will note that according to the Declaration of Independence, government derives all of its legitimate and just authority from the voluntary consent of the people, and that anything done nonconsentually is inherently unjust and oppressive and illegal and should be avoided, because it is tyranny and the antithesis of freedom:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  [Declaration of independence]

4.        If anything in this grievance is slandered or rebuked as being “frivolous”, then I would like for the person attempting to do the slandering and discriminating to refute evidence and findings right out of the government’s own mouth proving most of the contentions I have made in this letter.  This is the only way to preserve my right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and equal protection of the law and to stop the discrimination I have experienced because of the uniqueness of my situation.  The evidence I would like refuted is found in Ref. (8) above.  I would like an affidavit under penalty of perjury containing answers to the questions in that reference, but only if the factfinder or deciding official addressing this grievance rules adversely against me on any claims made by me about citizenship issues described in this document.

All of the offenses addressed in this grievance and EEO complaint are related to my religious views.  My choice to not accept or use an SSN is a direct result of my religious beliefs as described earlier in section 1.  My choice of being a “U.S. national” rather than a “U.S. citizen” is also a direct result of my religious beliefs as described earlier in section 2.  Section 2000e(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act defines “religion” as follows:

Section 2000e

(j) The term ``religion'' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. 

The core issue in this case is whether accommodating my religious beliefs would impose “undue hardship” upon my employer or the government.  Since the term “hardship” is nowhere defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then we can’t resolve this matter easily or objectively.  Additional considerations identified by the U.S. Supreme Court relating to Social Security Numbers include the issue of whether there is a “compelling public interest” involved in forcing me to violate my religious beliefs.  See U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982).

Before you begin attempting to answer the above issues I have raised and decide on the remedy you would like to pursue, I would like to remind you of the following:

1.        I do not personally believe that it would impose “undue hardship” upon _________________(name of your organization) to create a registry of local employee numbers and use these instead of SSN’s in all their dealings with the employees.  The costs or inconveniences that might be incurred would be minimal.  Respect for Constitutional Rights cannot, after all, be made into a dollars and cents issue because my rights are simply not negotiable nor do they have a price tag.

2.        Even if your computer systems will only accept SSN’s, there is no reason why you cannot invent a number that is not being used but which is not a number issued by the Social Security Administration and use that.  This would an additional procedure required whenever entering new data into the system.  One additional field could be added to computer databases requiring SSN’s indicating whether the number is locally administered or whether it is issued by the Socialist Security Administration.

3.        If you want to claim that the costs of accommodating the above changes would be prohibitive, I would argue that the costs of NOT implementing them would be far worse and that the damage to productivity incurred by me and the others like me to our productivity and employment would far outweigh the short-term cost of implementing the needed changes.

4.        The government cannot claim that it is “unduly burdened” in the case of activities that it is not lawfully allowed to accomplish in the first place, as evidenced by Constitutional authority, statutory authority, an implementing regulation, and specific delegated authority.  I request that in each instance of “undue burden” described by the government, that it present all four of the simultaneous prerequisites indicated here (Constitution section, statute, implementing regulation, and delegation order) for the burdened activity BEFORE it attempts to claim that there is an “undue burden”.

How burdensome would it be to accommodate my religious beliefs?  The main area where Social Security Numbers are most necessary within _________________(name of your organization) is in the area of payroll tax withholding and the interface to the Defense Financial Accounting Service (DFAS).  As far as payroll taxes, my specific situation is as follows:

1.        I have removed all references to my SSN on my W-8BEN withholding allowance form(s).

2.        _________________(name of your organization) and the Department of the Navy may only release that specific information about me to the IRS that appears on the withholding forms I submit if I authorize it because it is subject to the Privacy Act.

3.        The withholding allowance forms I submitted specifically stated that _________________(name of your organization) DOES NOT have my permission to release ANY INFORMATION about me, my pay, or SSNs to any third party.  Failure to observe this demand is a criminal violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 found in 5 U.S.C. 552a and of the Fourth Amendment.  All information about me that is attached to my Social Security Number I considered to be my copyrighted property and you do not have the authority to disclose copyrighted material without my specific written permission.

4.        The only territory over which the IRS is authorized to operate under the Constitution and the U.S. Code is federal territories and possessions and nowhere else.  It certainly would be operating illegally to affect anyone living in a state of the Union. See Chapters 4 and 5 of Ref. (6) for detailed evidence supporting this.

5.        The IRS is not a U.S. government agency as the term “agency” is properly defined in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(1).  I have a signed affidavit from a U.S. Attorney confirming this.  See:

6.        If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, then what is it?  I have researched this matter for three years and the conclusions of my research are documented in Chapter 7 of Ref. (6) and Chapter 9 of Ref. (12). My research confirms the following astounding but quite provable facts:

6.1.      The IRS is not an agency of the federal government.  See Ref. (6) section 7.1. and Ref. (12) chapt. 9.

6.2.      The Supreme Court confirmed in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) in footnote 23 that no law has ever authorized the creation of the Internal Revenue Service.  See Ref. (6), section 7.1.

6.3.      The IRS is a federal corporation homed out of Puerto Rico in which the U.S. Government owns at least 51% of stock as required by 28 U.S.C. 1349.  See Ref. (12), Chapter 9.

7.        Because the IRS is not a federal agency but instead is a federal corporation, no legitimate federal agency has the lawful authority to disclose any information to it under the authority of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.  The Privacy Act only authorizes disclosure of information between agencies of the U.S. government and not between an agency and a federal corporation, which is what the IRS is.

8.        Because the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, then it is a foreign organization.  All persons in payroll who process IRS forms and facilitate the collection of federal taxes on behalf of a foreign organization known as the IRS are voluntarily acting as “agents of foreign principals”.  18 U.S.C. 219, which is  entitled “Officers and employees acting as foreign principals” indicates that all officers and employees of the United States government who are acting as agents of foreign principals are required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.  Those who fail to do so can be fined and imprisoned for 2 years.  The question is, has everyone in _________________(name of your organization) payroll and at DFAS who processes federal tax forms been properly registered under 18 U.S.C. 219?  If they have not, then they are violating the law and can be imprisoned for two years.  Chances are they haven’t, so they aren’t even authorized to process or collect these forms by law anyway!  See Ref. (6), Section 5.4.14.  Furthermore, they cannot legally act as federal withholding agents unless they have filed an IRS form 2678 and that form has been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.  Can you show me this completed form with the Secretary’s signature?

The point of talking about the above issues is that you can’t claim you are inconvenienced or “unduly burdened” in the process of collecting or accounting for payroll taxes that the law doesn’t authorize _________________(name of your organization) to collect!  You can only legitimately claim that you are burdened if and only if the activity that is allegedly being burdened is a lawful activity that is specifically authorized by the Constitution, federal statutes, implementing regulations, and a specific delegation of authority order from the top on down to the person doing it.  What I’m asking you to do is simply prove that you even have the lawful authority to act as a “withholding agent” under 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(16) before you can even claim that the task of doing that function is subjected to “undue hardship”.  You simply cannot assume that you have this authority, because doing so violates my due process rights:

“Due process of law.  Law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice.  Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs.  A course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights.  To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution—that is, by the law of the creation—to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit;  and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or his voluntary appearance.  Pennoyer v. Neff, 96 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565.  Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved.  If any question of fact or liability be conclusively be presumed [rather than proven] against him, this is not due process of law.”  [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 500]

The way you can prove that you have lawful authority to act as a “withholding agent” as legally defined is to refute the law and words right of the government’s own mouth showing that you don’t have the authority to act as a withholding agent by answering the questions found below, each of which has evidence to support the points made:

If any aspect of the above conclusions are incorrect, then I request a written rebuttal in affidavit form using only law and evidence.  I’m not interested in opinions and the IRS’ own Internal Revenue Manual at section says that federal court cites below the Supreme Court may not be cited to apply to more than the one taxpayer in question who was the object of the suit:

IRM, (05/14/99)

“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. 

 Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.” 

Therefore, you can only cite Supreme court cases if you wish to quote caselaw because these are the same constraints applying to the Internal Revenue Service. 

Without a point-by-point rebuttal, I shall assume that you and the U.S. government acquiesce and agree with these conclusions and research if I do not receive a rebuttal in 30 days.  Simply calling them “frivolous” without providing evidence and legal authority to rebut them is not only “frivolous”, but hypocritical.  Calling the very serious legal issues raised here or the defense of my Constitutional rights “frivolous” would be verbally abusive, slanderous, discriminatory, and irresponsible.  It would be an injustice and an evasion of the issues of justice raised and a constructive case of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73:

Frivolous.  Of little weight or importance.  A pleading is "frivolous" when it is clearly insufficient on its face and does not controvert the material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent. A claim or defense is frivolous if a proposent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim or defense. Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc., Col.App., 701 P.2d 140, 142.  Frivolous pleadings may be amended to proper form or ordered stricken under federal and state rules of civil procedure."   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 668]

The other main area where SSNs are used other than payroll is security clearances.  The collection of personal information for doing security clearances is certainly a necessary and proper and lawful role for government to do.  However, in the case of security clearances, the government:

1.        Has failed to demonstrate that it CANNOT perform a security investigation or clearance check without an SSN.

2.        Has failed to demonstrate that it would be “unduly burdened” without the ability to use SSNs in this case.

3.        Has failed to explain why they could use SSN’s for the security clearance and not for any other purpose.  The government could, for instance, keep SSN information related to security clearances in a special sealed area of my personnel record and not allow it to be revealed  to any third party or used for any other purpose.


Because I simply cannot function without email and because I can’t get corporate email, then I am compelled to provide my own email services while I am waiting for a resolution to this dilemma that government “disservants” have put me into.  Consequently, I am compelled to take emergency and temporary measures to deal with the situation.  What I must do is use my cable modem account at home to create a new email address and to have all my _______________(name of your organization) email forwarded to that address from this point on.  Once you have examined this grievance and taken the appropriate remedy of hopefully authorizing me to obtain PKI Certificates without an SSN, then I will delete this temporary account and move my email server back to _______________(name of your organization).  If you disagree with this approach, then please provide an acceptable temporary alternative that allows me to continue to function.


I apologize for the very detailed legal nature of this grievance.  It certainly is not my intention to overburden you with technical information or inconvenience you in any way.  In this situation, however, I am simply unable to address these issues any other way.  I don’t enjoy being legalistic, but legalism on the part of government “disservants” is the very reason that I have been put into the compromising situation of feeling discriminated against by the government to begin with.  I am only using legalism here because I have to respond to legalism on the part of the government in mandating the use of what I view as Satanic Socialist Security Numbers that are used to invade my privacy, oppress my Constitutional rights, and undermine my relationship with my sacred God.

When I joined the U.S. military, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same”.  I believe that the content of this grievance completely fulfills that calling and that I should not be harassed, discriminated against, or persecuted in any way for submitting it or for expecting a government that conspicuously abides by the laws that I have gone to such great lengths to investigate and obey myself.  In fact, the First Amendment Petition Clause gives me the right to petition my government for a redress of grievances and that is exactly what I am doing here.  A right is not a right unless it can be enforced, and the means of enforcement in this case is for the government to be held accountable in dutifully responding point-by-point to the specific legal issues raised in this letter and all the references and enclosures.  Any other approach would be frivolous and without legal basis.

I’m simply asking and expecting the government to obey the law and provide a legal excuse or justification for why it is acting illegally in my case.  The foundation of our Constitutional government is that we are a society of laws and not of men. 

“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.  It will certainly cease to deserve that high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”  [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]

The federal government is a creature of the law and a creation of the sovereign people in the sovereign states of the union.  We as federal employees are the fiduciaries and servants of the people inhabiting the states of this great country.  Absolutely everything the federal government and any federal employee does on behalf of the sovereign people it serves must be authorized by law and by explicit delegation of authority.  Even the Supreme Court agrees:

We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Ibid. 

[U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

Note the phrase “enumerated powers”, which is a way of saying there must be an explicit authority for everything the federal government does found in the Constitution.  If the federal government or an employee as an agent of the government can’t provide a specific statute and implementing regulation and delegation order that authorizes the employee to do what he or she are doing to me, or if what the employee is doing in this case oppresses my First Amendment freedom of religion or freedom of speech, then quite frankly that actor or agent of the government is acting illegally and unlawfully and becomes personally liable for his misdeeds committed outside his lawful authority:

“Unlawful.  That which is contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law.  That which is not lawful.  The acting contrary to, or in defiance of the law; disobeying or disregarding the law.  Term is equivalent to “without excuse or justification.”  State v. Noble, 90 N.M. 360, 563 P.2d 1153, 1157.  While necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it.  [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1536]

Those persons in government who evade or avoid understanding or investigating the lawful limits on their authority or who oppress those who do so or call them “frivolous” are, quite frankly, communists by the admission of our very own U.S. Congress, which said in talking about the Communist party:


Sec. 841. - Findings and declarations of fact

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the [dejure] Government of the United States [and replace it with a defacto government ruled by a the judiciary]. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship [IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion]  within a [constitutional] republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges [including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution. Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views, and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of the tax laws] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding recently by the framing of Congressman Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon its conduct or upon that of its members. The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence [or using income taxes]. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)] renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed

Indeed, what I have experienced in my specific case provides abundant evidence that we do indeed have an “communist authoritarian dictatorship”, to use the Congress’ own words above.  It is an authoritarian dictatorship that:

1.        Refuses to acknowledge the lawful limits of its power.

2.        Refuses to be accountable to the people of the United States that it was created to serve and protect.

3.        Refuses to respond to the legal issues raised in Petitions of Redress such as this, in spite of the fact that the Petition Clause contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees this right to all persons.

4.        Harasses, intimidates, invades the privacy of, and persecutes those who question or challenge its authority.

5.        Abuses its taxing power to harass and persecute and oppress those who question its authority.

6.        Is the antithesis of what the founding fathers intended and the antithesis of a free country founded on liberty.

7.        Is anathema to the Christian faith and the family by promoting abortion, homosexuality, and the oppression of religious expression and by coercing people to get marriage licenses instead of having private marriage contracts in order to have their marriage legally recognized.

8.        Spreads financial slavery and servitude throughout the world by colluding with a private corporation called the Federal Reserve to make debt slaves not only of the American people, but of the entire world.

I’m simply asking for legal justification for what authorizes the government to injure me the way it is so clearly doing.  This injury is a matter of grave anxiety and concern, and I lose sleep over it.  I worry about whether America has indeed become a police state.  I worry as I watch our Constitutional Republic degenerating into a totalitarian socialist democracy devoid of individual rights.  See Ref. (6) Sections 4.5 through 4.5.16.  I worry that the information provided about me to third parties by my employer will be abused as a means or a tool to persecute, harass, and punish me for my political and religious views.  The fact that I even have to feel this kind of fear about a bloated socialist government that has run amock is the most compelling evidence of why I feel that I simply must do something about this situation now before it is too late.  This is not paranoia by any means, but a rational fear based on overwhelming evidence of government fraud and Treason against the constitution.  At the same time, I am certainly not suggesting that I could or would use my government employment as a means of political activism because that would clearly be wrong.  I am simply saying that the government’s influence on my private life needs to be carefully limited and controlled because if it isn’t, then my Constitutional rights will be threatened and I will become a target of prosecution for my political views.  The main vehicle for such persecution is the Slave Surveillance Number and a severely corrupted federal judicial system.

Lastly, I wish to emphasize that my loyalty and allegiance to these United States is beyond dispute.  I love my country dearly and I would die for her.  That is why I have faithfully served in the U.S. Navy reserves for over 25 years and at _________________(name of your organization) for over 20 years.  I was born here and I have never expatriated my “U.S. nationality”.  “U.S. nationality” is the only thing I need to have in order to serve in the military, to hold a security clearance, and to collect the military retirement that I worked hard to earn.  See Ref. (6), section  I neither need nor want to be a “U.S. citizen” and anything that isn’t consentual isn’t lawful in this case.  If you don’t understand what this means, then please at least take the time to understand what I am saying using Ref. (6) chapter 4 before making the rash mistake of discriminating against me because of my “national origin”.

At the same time, I’m not obligated to:

1.        Stand idly by while tyrants and bureaucrats destroy our freedoms and constitutional rights in the courts and through unconstitutional legislation.

2.        Obey federal statutes or regulations that don’t apply to me while on this federal reservation.

3.        Involuntarily sacrifice my Constitutional rights or religious faith because of workplace expediency.

4.        Be subject to federal law and federal statutes not related directly to my government employment when I leave this federal reservation and the federal “United States”.

5.        Obey any government servant who can’t provide or describe the detailed lawful authority that authorizes him or her to impose a duty upon me.  We are a society of laws and not of men and that is the foundation of what it means to be that.  See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

6.        Allow the government to dictate what I do in my private life, or to influence or affect my private life or my personal privacy while off-base in any way by compromising my privacy and becoming an “informant” against me to third parties who aren’t even part of the U.S. government, such as the IRS.

I love my job and my coworkers here at _________________(name of your organization) and I believe the work that I do is important to this code and to the mission of this organization.  I work very hard to maintain the good reputation that this center both deserves and enjoys.  I respectfully request that you afford me the same opportunity to serve here that other employees enjoy and yet have my First Amendment religious beliefs respected and protected, but not necessarily advocated, by the management of this organization.  I relish the opportunity to continue to faithfully and honorably serve you in this position and to be fully functional and fully empowered to meet all of the many responsibilities imposed upon me in that position.  The cost of not allowing me this opportunity would far outweigh the cost of accommodating my religious beliefs.

If the issues discussed in this grievance are unclear to you in any way, then I would be happy to meet with you and provide any evidence or information that you feel you need in order to make an informed and just decision about this matter.  Thanks you for your generous attention to this complex but very important matter.

Very Respectfully,






Signature of person accepting service of this document:____________________________________________


[1] See Philippians 3:20; Heb. 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11.