An indictment is a written accusation by the government that a person has committed a crime.  The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is the organization in the federal government responsible for making indictments and prosecuting U.S. citizens for federal crimes.  They do this as a way to keep the rest of the sheep scared so they will continue volunteering for an income tax they don’t owe.

Most of the Internal Revenue Code is quite harmless, but there are three criminal statutes in particular that can and often do land people in jail and result in liability for fines.  Here are the three criminal statutes:

1. Tax Evasion, 26 U.S.C. §7201
2. Willful Failure to File, 26 U.S.C. §7203
3. Making a false or fraudulent statement, 26 U.S.C. §7206

In the vast majority of cases, persons who have been found guilty under these statutes were “nationals” who mistakenly thought they were “U.S. citizens” and who were ignorant about the law and especially federal jurisdiction.  In the event that they had legal counsel, their legal counsel must have been equally uninformed about federal jurisdiction.  Recall from Chapter 5 of this book that most people are “nationals”, are not “U.S. citizens”, and are “nonresident aliens” with respect to the foreign jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code.  Most Americans also happen to reside outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the “United States**” government and outside of the federal zone and therefore cannot be the proper subject of foreign jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code.  We would speculate that most of the lawyers who work for the Department of Justice know this but would never admit it, because it would make their authority and their job largely irrelevant to most Americans.  Because of this, the IRS and the DOJ both have a vested interest in making sure that the very limited jurisdiction of the U.S. government is not revealed to the general populace, and to choose their legal court battles very carefully to single out those persons (sheeple) who are unfamiliar with their jurisdiction and assume that they have jurisdiction.  They will only pick fights they know they can win, and in most cases, the ignorance of their opponent is their most effective weapon for obtaining jurisdiction over “nationals” outside of the federal zone.  We can thank our deficient public education system and docile populace for the fact that there are plenty of ignorant people they can pick on and make an example out of, many of whom are famous celebrities who get a lot of press coverage.

In order to challenge criminal tax indictments, we must be very familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the structure of the federal courts system.  As we have said repeatedly throughout this book, the federal government has no jurisdiction outside the territorial boundaries of the federal zone and Subtitle A income taxes only apply to “U.S. citizens” born inside the federal zone no matter where they reside.  To be successful, we must recognize that there are two types of federal courts:

1.  Article 1 Legislative/Administrative Courts.  These courts are created by Congress through legislation under the authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. constitution to administer the laws that govern the federal zone only.  The only way they can or should be used for issues outside the federal zone is by stipulation of BOTH parties to the controversy, which many people misguidedly do by implication and without knowing it whenever they file a suit in such a court.  By default, if the statute creating the court does not specifically mention that the court is an Article III court, then the court is assumed to be an Article I court.  These courts may address matters of “public right” and handle matters between the federal government and other parties.  They deal mainly with matters susceptible to “judicial determination” but not requiring it, which means they deal primarily with administrative law.  Below is a description of the Article 1 courts as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511 (1828):

''These courts, then, are not constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government, can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3rd article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.''

The Court went on to hold that admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States only in those courts which are established in pursuance of Article III but that the same limitation does not apply to the territorial courts, for in legislating for them ''Congress exercises the combined powers of the general, and of a state government.''  Among the matters susceptible of judicial determination, but not requiring it, that may be decided by Article 1 courts are claims against the United States[1], the disposal of public lands and claims arising therefrom [2], questions concerning membership in the Indian tribes[3], and questions arising out of the administration of the customs and internal revenue laws[4].  Other courts similar to territorial courts, such as consular courts and military courts martial, may be justified on like grounds[5].  Article 1 Courts include the following:

1.1.  U.S. Tax Court, formerly an independent agency in the Treasury Department, but by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Sec. 951, 83 Stat. 730, 26 U.S.C. §7441, made an Article I court of record

1.2.  Court of Veterans Appeals, Act of Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4105, 38 U.S.C. §4051

1.3.  U. S. Court of Military Appeals, strictly speaking, is not part of the judiciary but is a military tribunal, 10 U.S.C. §867, although Congress designated it an Article I tribunal and has recently given the Supreme Court certiorari jurisdiction over its decisions.

2.  Article III Constitutional Courts.  These courts are created under the authority usually of the Constitution and are the only courts that can hold admiralty jurisdiction that can be exercised inside the States.  They are also the only courts that may deal with matters requiring judicial determination, and which involve “private rights” or constitutional rights.

2.1.   Federal District Courts.  Magistrate judges are adjuncts of the District Courts, see infra, n. 105, and perform a large number of functions, usually requiring the consent of the litigants. See Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989); Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991).   They can also deal with matters requiring judicial determination (except income taxes, as per 28 U.S.C. §2201) and involving private rights of Americans inside the 50 states and outside of federal territorial jurisdiction.

2.2.  Federal Circuit Courts.  These courts handle appeals from the Federal District Courts.

2.3.  U.S. Supreme Court, created by Article III of the Constitution.

2.4.  Court of International Trade, which was declared an Article III court in 1956 (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/01.html#5, see Courts of Specialized Jurisdiction)

If you would like more background information on the above subject, we refer you to the following URL from the Findlaw website.

Very noteworthy of the above treatise about the courts on the Findlaw website is the notable absence of any mention of which type of court the federal District and Circuit courts are.  This should raise a red flag for you and serve as a reminder that theses courts may be Article 1 courts, which many people believe they are.  You could be sure that the website would mention these as Article III courts if in fact they were, because people in the legal profession will always try to make their profession seem as important and influential as they can.  The absence of a mention of the District and Circuit courts above is one more example of how the legal profession would appear to be colluding to expand the jurisdiction of these courts by hiding information about their authority, which does not extend beyond the federal zone nor may it involve the “private rights” of Americans who are “nationals” and not “U.S. citizens”.  To put it bluntly, the federal District and Circuit courts are irrelevant to the average American, who in most cases is a “national” living outside of the federal zone!  The emperor clearly has no clothes but simply doesn’t like being reminded of that fact!

Another important consideration in federal courts is the juries.  Jurors who serve on federal trials must be “U.S.** citizens” or they can’t serve on jury duty!.  In all criminal trials, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a trial by jury.  See the following URL for further information on this subject:

The jury must be comprised of a jury of one’s peers.  Private Americans, also called “Natural Born Sovereign Citizens”, who are typically “nationals” and not “U.S. citizens” and who typically do not live inside the federal zone of the U.S.** must therefore be tried by a jury of people who are similarly situated.  However, such a jury simply cannot exist in a federal courtroom, because all the jurors must be “U.S. citizens” to serve on the jury!  Therefore, there can be no such thing as a fair trial in a federal courtroom for a national who lives outside the federal zone and that basis (improper jury selection) alone is usually sufficient to get any indictment thrown out for cause!

In state courts, the situation is exactly the same.  Most states require you to be a “U.S. citizen” to serve on a jury in a state court.  This has the result of excluding “nationals” from serving on jury duty, which in turn ensures that only socialists and federalists serve on jury duty, and these people are definitely not your peers if you insist on being a national!  The tactics above for having criminal indictments dismissed in federal courts therefore are also just as effective in state courts.