This guidebook, is, in the  main, a manifesto to maintain and expand judicial tyranny,.

The so called guidebook is repugnant to the USA Constitution and is a disgrace to the Founder’s original intent

See also http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010313.htm

Bing

I learned the law of federal jurisdiction from Fam Guardian, SEDM, Ed Rivera, by reading the landmark 1956 and 1957 two part study on Federal Jurisdiction Inside the States, and from the 11th edition of Paul A. Mitchell’s treatise.

So in part, I am indebted to Paul and am pleased to see that he is now free.

All that said, I think it is a mistake for Paul to be relying on 42 USC 1985 and 1986.

As smart as Paul is about the law, he is making a mistake in trying to go to territorial executive branch federal court, to protect his so called “civil rights”.

Civil rights are for statutory US citizens. If Paul wants to argue the US Govt engaged in witness tampering, he should do so under 18 USC 1512 and also under state laws.

Further, one serious gap in his never ending plethora of pleadings, is that he often neglects to cite state constitutions and state supreme court opinions. And he also fails to integrate and invoke the Rules. of Decision Act.

So far as the Rule of Decisions Act, which basically requires the federal government to use the state rules of decision of the domicile where the opposition party is domiciled.  When the US Government rules against Paul, and refuses to obey the rules of decision act, Paul never follows up and argues that his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws was violated. Thus converting the issue into a due process of law matter.

By creating a due process of law issue at early on, he could more easily put the opposition on the defensive while also raising the stakes and raising the bar.

By identifying due process of law violations early on, Paul more readily can lay the foundation to prevail on appeal. Thus greatly increasing the chance he would prevail at the lower court level and not need to end up in Court of Appeals.

As a legal strategist, Paul could learn a few things from FG and SEDM. But my sense has been that Paul has ALOT of pride. And pride, as many here realize, is a major character defect because it potentially can blind one from the TRUTH

You might try using the search function.

I will also tell you that I think you will be better off looking for bankruptcy stuff on some other website.

It is telling that of all the topics covered on FG and SEDM.org, you want info on bankruptcy. Hmmmm

Good luck in your journey

And other questions are,

1) who exactly is funding these chemtrail spraying operations?

2) And why?

3) what are the targeted goals of the chemtrail spraying?

4)  Does the chemt rail spraying have project milestones? Have any chem trail milestones been hit yet?

5)  If there are milestones, who decided these milestones and when were they decided?

6)  How come the state governments from the 50 Union states are not objecting to the spraying?

7.  Are the 50 Union state Governments in conspiracy with the lying, corrupted US Government?

8) what are the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the scientists and government officials responsible for

designing and implementing chem trails?

9) Why are the lawyers strangely silent about the chem trail project and how come no one has filed lawsuit to stop the chem trail program?

The Soviet KGB and East German Stasi routinely opened mail. And they were hardcore communists.

Freedom? Freedom?

Where?

I respectfully disagree with Mr Hurt’s conclusions although I admire the fact that he attended an income tax trial. The notion that people like me have not provided the info and tools to win in federal court, is nonsense. I have collaborated with the FG fellowship and alot of my important legal research is on the FG and SEDM websites. Plus, I know other FG fellows and their research is also on the FG website,

I agree with everything that ADMIN wrote above, except I disagrre on one point.  I think it is preferable to identify oneself as being “Sui Juris” as opposed to pro se. A Pro Se defendant is subject to court sanctions, whereas a Sui Juris defendant is not subject to contempt of court sanctions when challenging the courts or teh plaintiff’s jurisdiction.

The information to prevail in civil and criminal tax trials is readily available to those who want to know how to win. God knows me and ADMIN and others have posted countless times and explained how to play smart in federal court.

I am a hardcore researcher/constitutional scholar/income tax guru, and I have been a part of four federal civil court income tax cases, and the parties whom I assisted, prevailed in each of the four cases. I am not bragging, but just stating the facts

One basic error that THM members make is that they fail to properly lay a solid foundation for the reasonable, good faith beliefs about the legal reasons why they, as the defendant, believe that they do not have a legal duty to make, sign, and file 1040 income tax returns.

This is important because there are dozens of US Supreme Court cases that one can rely upon that can demonstrate to others, why you believe that you do not have a legal duty to pay income taxes. And you can not be penalized for relying on US Supreme Court cases. Plus, these US Supreme Court cases are the law. So if they are disobeyed by the lower federal court, one can turn around and hold the lower federal court accountable for violating ones constitutional right to equal protection under the law and due process of law  violations.

Second, I would say that most THM members who become defendants, make the crucial mistake of hiring a lawyer, as noted by my esteemed cyber cohort in the lead post above, and this is fatal to the defense because by hiring the lawyer, one is de facto conceding that the Executive Branch legislative federal court has jurisdiction. And this is fatal because the very first part of one;s defense should be “lack of jurisdiction”, and a lawyer who goes to court and signs the court log, is making a “general appearance”, and not a “special appearance”.  A lawyer can not make a general appearance and then argue jurisdiction.

So there is that.

Everything starts with jurisdiction.

Third, THM who are defendants in income tax trials, fail to properly invoke the Administrative Procedures Act and Federal Register Act and integrate that as part of their defense. And this is done via a RULE 201 Motion. And if said Motion is denied in whole or in part, one should raise due process of law and equal protection of the law violations on the part of the federal judge.  Doing at the trial stage, makes your chances of winning on appeal much greater; but it also increases the chance that the IRS and US Dept of Justice will drop the lawsuit because they do not want to risk losing on Appeal.

But it is even more basic than that.

It was noted above that the defendants lawyer helped pick the trial jury. Before it even got to that stage, the defense lawyer, had they been honest with their THM client, would have attacked the federal grand jury indictment by questioning the qualifications of the grand jurors to sit on said grand jury.

You see, as ADMIN and a few others in these forums are aware, in order to qualify to sit on a federal grand jury, one must certify on the grand jury form that one has resided in the federal judicial district for the 12 months preceding your service on the federal grand jury.

Now, it is also true that the federal judicial district is comprised of ONLY the land that is owned by the US Government in the surrounding counties near the federal court. So in order for the prospective grand jury member to qualify as a federal grand juror, they MUST have resided on land owned by the US GOVERNMENT. This should be a very powerful part of every defense of every person who is facing tax evasions and willful failure to file charges.

Sadly, defense lawyers sell their THM clients down the river and never make the aforementioned challenge.  If nothing else, by raising the issue and putting certain arguments into the open record, it GREATLY improves one’s negotiating position.

WHY?

Because the IRS and US Dept of Justice Tax Division attorneys would not want to risk it becoming more widely known that one can successfully attack income tax indictments by proving that the grand jurors did not reside within the federal judicial district. They were unqualified to sit on said grand jury and possibly may have committed perjury by stating that they resided in the federal judicial district (i.e.) lived on land owned by the federal government)

The blueprints and templates for defeating the IRS and Dept of Justice are readily available on FG and SEDM websites. So the problem is not that the info does not exist, the problem is that too many defendants want to be spoon fed the info or prefer to hire a lawyer to defend them.

Mr Hurt is misinformed and I set forth the basis of his faulty position andI welcome any and all criticisms as to where my position is incorrect

Bing

I would posit that the income tax liability begins the moment the US Government worker begins his or her work as an employee, which is another way of saying the liability commences as soon as the federal employee engages in the “conduct of a trade or business” (i.e. assumes a public office)