All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 1994 - Bill Cooper
01:00:24
Robert Ross, The Laws #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Light hour of the hour, meet this hour and decide.
Light hour for the purpose of your life, soul and mind.
Light!
I'm going to kill you!
Good evening.
Welcome to the late edition of the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
And I'm Carolyn Nelson.
On the other end of the line here, folks, we have Mr. Robert Ross, who teaches people about the law.
He teaches them about the Internal Revenue Service and all kinds of other things.
He's going to be holding a seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.
We'll talk about that a little bit later.
I might even decide to go.
I planned on being in Phoenix on that weekend.
Anyway, and to meet with Linda Thompson, and since he's going to have his seminar over the weekend of the 19th and 20th, I may just attend this seminar also.
I never, ever fail to learn something from everybody that I meet, folks, if I just have enough time to spend with them.
I would recommend that if you live anywhere where you could get to Phoenix, Arizona for the weekend of February 19th and 20th that you make arrangements with Bob Ross to attend his seminar and especially if you've been ignorant of the law most of your life and you'd like to get straight and learn what's going on in the court and not be a victim.
In other words, come out a winner instead of a victim.
That's extremely important, ladies and gentlemen, so don't go away.
We'll be right back.
Make sure you have pen and paper by your side every time you listen to this program, not just tonight, folks, but every time you listen to this program.
Now, we started out with Bob on the earlier program tonight, so this is a continuation, and if you missed the earlier episode of The Hour of the Time, you can order the tape from us.
If you'd like information on how to order tapes, call the Research Center and talk to Carolyn either tonight after the show or tomorrow sometime.
The number is 602-333-5174.
602-333-5174 That's 602-333-5174
the the
the the
welcome back bob I believe that you left off talking about jurisdiction.
Yeah, we did.
Jurisdiction, of course, is fundamental to all legal issues, whether you're talking about a tax case with the IRS, That's right.
Or when you're talking about citizenship, what is the difference between a U.S. citizen
and a state citizen?
Or some people like to talk about non-resident aliens.
Or when you're talking about a feeding ticket.
Now when you talk about non-resident aliens, are you talking about the Benevolent Space
Brothers or those little gray guys that Whitley Screver was writing about?
That's right.
Those little gray guys from Mars.
None of them work for the I.R.F., I believe.
I think you're right.
I think you're right.
They told me, speak Martian, which is another term I use when I'm telling people about legal terms and legal definitions.
It looks like English, and the conspiracy, the real conspiracy that the Martians have arranged is that their secret code looks like normal conversational English, but it's not.
It's really Martian.
I hope you all realize out there, we're only joking about this stuff.
I don't believe in benevolent space brothers, or I knew it as Bob.
But you've got to put a little humor in these things sometimes.
It certainly is another language when we're talking about legal terms.
And for the benefit of those listeners that weren't with us earlier, legal terms can be defined differently than the terms that we use in our everyday conversations.
And as we used an example before, that the United States, which all of us think means the 50 states, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, New York, all of the 50 states, Sounds like the United States to you and me when we're talking about it.
But in the Internal Revenue Code, and in fact, in most of the federal statutes, the United States is defined differently.
And it doesn't include Arizona.
And they didn't just forget to leave it out.
So, that's what jurisdiction is all about.
Jurisdiction is the key.
How does the federal government, which the Congress limited in its jurisdiction to 10 square miles plus territories and possessions, How did we get under the jurisdiction of rules that were originally intended just for Washington, D.C.?
So, first of all, I'll read the definition of jurisdiction in Blast's Law Dictionary.
I'll use the fourth edition.
It's a little bit more complete than some of the later ones.
They keep changing these dictionaries on us.
And jurisdiction.
The first thing it says is the word is a term of large and comprehensive import.
I want you to realize the significance of that sentence.
I mean, you know, this is a law dictionary.
They don't say things that are, you know, that sound out of significance unless they mean them.
The word is a term of large and comprehensive import.
By the way, legal definitions like this, and Blackboard Dictionary and others, are derived from, usually, court decisions.
So these definitions are a compilation of various key court decisions that have been upheld by the courts as being definitive of a particular term.
So if you read down into some other court cases, you'll see that there's some other definitions of jurisdiction.
A lot of them apply to the courts.
But in general, this following one This is what we're talking about, and it is the authority, capacity, power, or right to act.
So what gives the federal government the right to act, or the authority to act, over a state citizen?
And this brings into play the fact that there's more than one United States, and that a state citizen has citizenship not only in one state, In the case of you and me, William, we're citizens of the state of Arizona.
We're also American citizens, or citizens of the United States of America.
And if we elect to be, if we volunteer to be, knowingly or unknowingly, if we accept the benefits of the federal government, we might also be construed to be United States citizens.
William, before you knew better, have you ever checked off on an application of any kind for a loan or for a driver's license or for a voter registration?
A little box that said U.S.
citizen?
Of course.
I think probably everyone who's ever been born in this country and most people who've ever visited at one time or another have probably done that.
Well, since you were doing that under perjury probably, there's usually a little statement that says, you know, you're signing this under You just volunteered to be a U.S.
citizen.
That's correct.
And a U.S.
citizen is something very specific.
In fact, it is so specific that even the statement about perjury is different for a U.S.
citizen than for a state citizen, or a citizen of the United States.
And this is like, you know, something that anybody out there can go look up.
If you go look up the rules of evidence in federal rules of evidence, And, uh, this is in Title 28.
Um... I won't give a page number or anything like that because it's, uh, could be different in a different, uh, version of the thing, but it's, uh, Section 1746.
Title 8, 28 U.S.C.
1746, number 1.
Now, here's this.
It's saying, unsworn declarations on the penalty of perjury.
If executed without the United States, now remember the definition of the United States in 3121 IRC, Applies generally in most state, in most federal statutes.
Includes Guam, America, Samoa, U.S.
Virgin Islands.
Places like that and in Washington, D.C.
So, if outside that area, it says something to the effect of, and they don't have to use the exact language, but it says something like this.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.
So they throw in there, if you're outside the United States, They throw the term United States of America in there, saying that you agree to abide by the laws of the United States of America in this perjury statement.
Now, if you're within the United States, they don't have to throw an agreement to abide by the laws of the United States in there, since you're already part of that jurisdiction.
So the statement that's in Section 2 reads, if executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths, I declare, under penalty of perjury, the foregoing to be true and correct.
So the difference between the two statements, I'll repeat once again so everybody's clear, because I'm going to give you another example in a minute, of how that's used, that you can go look up in a local library, or a law library.
If you're in the United States, you don't need, the perjury statement doesn't have to include the United States, obviously because you're already there.
If you're outside the United States, in other words, in Arizona, which is an independent republic, They have to include in the perjury statement for federal purposes that you agree to abide by the laws of the United States of America.
Because otherwise you would be outside that jurisdiction.
Now, the proof of the fact that they're not referring to Paris or France or Canada or Mars is when you go look at some forms that use the perjury statement.
Some federal forms.
Now the one I have here is for the U.S.
District Court.
Any of you can go out to the U.S.
District Court and get a form, which is, I'm using the Return of Service form, and it's the Declaration of Server.
Now, in the U.S.
District Court in Arizona, say, the Declaration of Server is signing the following declaration.
I declare, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing information Contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service is true and correct.
So now they included the laws of the United States of America.
The phrase that is only included in a perjury statement that is executed outside of the United States.
Now you go into your district court in any state republic and that's what you'll get.
A form that according to Title 28 U.S.C.
is intended for use without the United States.
proving in their own words, in their own forms, that you are not in the United States when
you sign that form. You're in a sovereign state. Now, it sounds more complicated than
it is, but it's a very clear definition of jurisdiction and the fact that there's more
than one United States. In fact, in the Blackboard Dictionary, there are three definitions of
the United States. What are those, Bob? Without going to look it up in blots, just off the
top of my head, one is the sovereign entity that the rest of the world sees as the United
States.
For example, if you're in France and you're dealing with the United States, there's a sovereign nation.
The group of us is called the United States.
It's a legal entity in international law.
The second is the United States referring to the federal government.
The United States that resides in Washington, D.C.
as it's defined in the federal statutes such as the Internal Revenue Code, Section 3121.
Actually, it's defined right in the Constitution.
In the Constitution?
In the Constitution, yes.
Yeah, I wasn't including that.
I was just using blacks, which kind of combines all three different types of definitions.
And the third definition, of course, is what everybody thinks the United States is,
which is 50 states that got together in 1776 and said, well, it wasn't 50 back then, but said, hey, we're united.
We're going to work together.
And we'll create this supposedly little, limited entity in Washington to run our international affairs for us.
Well, it didn't work out that way as you know.
So, you have to know two things in the law.
Very, very important to understand your addictions.
One is who you are.
And the other is where you are.
Now, does anybody imagine that you can get anywhere in life without knowing who you are and where you are?
And yet, when it comes to the law, we don't understand these very basic things.
So, the United States definition tells us where we are.
We're in a sovereign state.
Who we are becomes the next question.
Are we state citizens?
United States citizens?
Or citizens of the United States?
Which is three different things when you actually break down the law.
And what you find out is that according to the Constitution we are first and primary citizens of the sovereign republic or state that you live in.
And for you and me, that's Arizona.
Could be California, or New Mexico, or New York, or Ohio, Idaho, any of the 50 states.
Concurrently... Go ahead.
Concurrently, we are states of the nation.
I mean, we're citizens of the nation.
We're American citizens.
Another term for it.
The legal term is citizens of the United States.
Yeah, some patriots are afraid of the term citizens of the United States.
They think it gives the United States definition, the United States jurisdiction.
The term that actually gives the United States definition, that gives the United States jurisdiction is United States citizens.
That's correct.
Let me read this clause from, excuse me, Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
And the particular clause that creates this artificial government, which was in no way
intended to be created by our forefathers, with the power that it has accumulated when
they brought together the union of the several states for the mutual benefit and protection
of all.
But this particular clause, it's Article I, Section 8, and it's several paragraphs down
in Section 8, and I quote, To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever
over such district not exceeding ten miles square, as may be by cession of particular states
and the acceptance of Congress become the seat of the government of the United States, and
to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of
the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,
dockyards, and other needful buildings, To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or office thereof.
Basically what it says is they've created this district not exceeding ten miles square and all territories or property which is purchased and is a part of this, even though it's outside of it, and that Congress That's right.
Within their jurisdiction, it's as if you're working for a company.
cases whatsoever over such a district, meaning that whoever is subject to that jurisdiction
has no constitutional rights whatsoever, has no rights except those granted to them by
Congress.
And it's exactly backward of the intent of the forefathers.
That's right.
Within their jurisdiction, it's as if you're working for a company.
And in fact, it's a corporate nature to the United States government, the federal United
States, that the courts have actually ruled under certain circumstances that the United
States federal government is a corporation and to be treated as, in the course of cooperation.
They've also ruled that it is a foreign nation to the United States Union of the several states and to the states themselves.
That's right.
So it's as if, using the corporate analogy, as if you went into General Motors and you worked for General Motors and they had a dress code.
And that you shall wear a shirt and tie and jacket when you're working at General Motors.
Well, if you want to work at General Motors, that's what you've got to do.
And if you want to agree to their employee manual and the terms and conditions of your employment contract, which include how much you get paid and how much they withhold and whatever, for insurance purposes or retirement or whatever, those are the rules of the game that you agree to play by and you have to play by them.
But guess what?
I don't work for General Motors.
Now, I don't have to follow those rules.
Unless I choose to.
If I choose to follow General Motors' dress code wherever I go in Arizona, then that's my form of insanity.
But I don't have to do that.
Unless, of course, I sign a contract with General Motors.
Which I don't plan on doing.
Or with the federal government.
So, there's another important section, if you're going to bring up the Constitution, that refers to this issue of
jurisdiction and dual citizenship.
And it's very clear that there's a dual citizenship in this section.
There's section 2, Article 4, Section 2, I'm sorry, of the Constitution, where it says in the first sentence,
The citizen of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Can you see the dual citizenship inherent in that?
Of course.
So, you have both the rights of a citizen in each state, and you have the rights of the citizens of all the states.
Two different things under the law.
The law is very clear and very precise.
And when used properly, without abuse, that clarity and precision helps keep things clear.
When used abusively, it can be used to hide the truth, to deceive people.
And in the case of the IRC, as we pointed out in the first show, it's clear that it was intended to be read by the average person, and the average person would, of course, read the definition of the United States, or read the use of the term United States, throughout the IRC, and, you know, believe that it was referring to them.
Because it says United States.
Oh, that must mean me.
But it doesn't.
How did we get to the point where the United States government, Federal United States, can construe that you are within their jurisdiction?
Not you, William Cooper, but those people out there who haven't taken the steps necessary to get out of that jurisdiction.
Are you asking me?
No, I guess it was a rhetorical question to answer myself.
We give away our jurisdiction.
We talked about this a little earlier, but we give it away by ignorance.
See, the courts and the federal agencies involved do not have to inform you when you give away jurisdiction.
They don't have to tell you what the jurisdiction is.
There's a lot of little ways you can give away jurisdiction.
One of them is to sign a form that says U.S.
Citizen on it.
A legal form that you're signing under penalty of perjury.
So they have the right to construe that if you're signing under penalty of perjury and you're supposed to know the law, because ignorance is no excuse, they have the right to construe that you wouldn't sign that under penalty of perjury unless you were a U.S.
citizen.
So it's kind of like twisting it a little bit.
Or you were committing fraud.
Or you're committing fraud.
By the way, I got bad news for a lot of people out there, that if you signed a lot of stuff that says you're a U.S.
citizen, you are in fact committing fraud.
Unless you work for the federal government.
Because federal employees can be construed to be U.S.
citizens.
That's okay.
Your employers, or your employers with employer identification numbers, EINs, they're committing fraud.
If they're not federal corporations.
They don't know that, but it's true.
Because they're not federal employers.
The EIN, if you read the code, is intended for federal employers.
If you have a trust, a lot of people out there in the Patriot movement that may be listening
to this show have trusts, common law trusts and irrevocable trusts of various kinds.
Some of those trusts have EINs, just for the convenience of having bank accounts and doing
business, thinking that the beneficiary is protected.
Now, for those people out there who don't know what you're talking about, what do those
initials mean?
DIN is an employer identification number.
It's the equivalent of a social security number for an employer.
It identifies the employer as a federal corporation, an employer of federal employees, and allows them to withhold taxes and social security from your paycheck, if you're a wage earner.
Those trusts and companies and stuff like that that are chartered in the state, or in common law jurisdictions, if they have a Federal Employer's Identification Number, that is a fraud!
And it's a sign of the penalty of perjury.
So given that the United States prefers to assume that you wouldn't commit a fraud, they
get to assume that you're telling the truth.
That you are within their jurisdiction.
So you see, you gave it away.
I know just about eight people just leapt right up off their couch when you told them that.
Well, you know, to tell you the truth...
A lot of people do these things and think they're safe and secure, but they don't really
understand what they did.
Exactly.
I mean, it just goes... it's so pervasive that it's ridiculous.
I mean, if you get picked up for speeding on a traffic charge, and you go into...
That's right, you don't understand nothing.
I used this example earlier.
Do you understand the charges against you?
He didn't ask you to plead.
Most people are smart enough to know that if they plead guilty or not guilty,
especially patriots, that they're giving jurisdiction to the court.
He just asked you, do you understand the charges?
Bingo. He got you.
No, sir. I don't understand nothing.
That's right. You don't understand nothing.
I don't know nothing.
You don't plead. You don't understand anything.
You don't know nothing.
Ignorance is bliss as far as that's concerned.
Because that buys you the time to figure out where you're at, to force the coordinates to getting a formal complaint.
And that right there is enough usually to stop them because usually there is no formal complaint and there is no complainant.
Very often that's true.
And if there is a formal complaint... That's always true in the case of traffic tickets.
Yes.
In the case of traffic tickets, even if there is a formal complaint, chances are it's signed By the prosecutor.
Right.
Well, the guy that should have signed it is the police officer that stopped you.
From the prosecutor's point of view, anything that happens is hearsay.
So the police officer gets up there on the stand, and you ask for a formal complaint, and the first thing that happens is they call up the police officer, and he says, Officer, would you state your name for the record?
And he goes, John Smith.
And you jump up and say, Your Honor, I object!
I object!
The judge says, why?
What's going on?
He says, well, your honor, I read the complaint, and John Smith isn't anywhere on the complaint.
He didn't sign this complaint.
His evidence isn't admissible, it's hearsay.
But he's not the party to sign the complaint.
But you can't do that if you give him jurisdiction from the get-go.
That's right.
You have to understand who you are and where you are.
Now for those of you who think we're taking an inordinate amount of time on the subject of jurisdiction, it is the number one, utmost important thing that you're going to run into in any brush or joist or anything else with the law.
Absolutely.
Because you have to know where you are and what court you're in.
Most people don't even know that they're standing in one courtroom and you could have several different jurisdictions that could pop up unbeknownst to you.
You could be in advocacy jurisdiction, you could be in equity jurisdiction.
You know, the courts have multiple overlays of jurisdiction built in to the courts.
You have to know which one you're talking to.
A very good example of that is the difference between ministerial jurisdiction, which is for summary proceedings, such as excise tax, or public activities, or income tax, Contracts, statutes, those are all ministerial proceedings under, you know, ministerial jurisdiction.
Most people, they think they go to court, they think they're in a judicial proceeding, because we think all the courts are judicial proceedings.
We don't realize there's multiple overlays of jurisdiction that are possible in any given court, depending on what the legal circumstances are, because they were all combined under the law quite a while ago in our country.
They used to be like separate courts for these things.
Isn't it true that most people when they enter a courtroom are actually in an equity jurisdiction?
Probably in most cases because you're dealing with ministerial summary proceedings in almost all cases.
And not only that, I think the only real authority that our forefathers ever gave to the federal government was over interstate commerce.
Well, they didn't actually give even that.
There was an argument over that.
There was, but that's really the only authority that they ever got.
Later on.
Yeah.
States fought against it.
They weren't so sure they wanted to give that much power to the federal government.
That was in the 1800s.
Originally... That's what sparked... This was even a state issue.
That's what sparked the argument over the Federalist Papers.
How much power is the government going to have?
A judicial proceeding deals only with the rights of private property, with sovereign rights, with the Constitution.
Everything else is administrative or ministerial, which means it's a contract that you have with the government.
Your driver's license is a contract.
You agreed to sign up with it even though you didn't ask him.
That's right.
When they talk about civil actions, those are completely outside any of the provisions of the Constitution whatsoever.
That's right.
You have civil rights and you have God-given rights.
That's correct.
Civil rights are granted by the government, or taken away by the government.
They're really privileges, even though they call them rights.
And the rights that the Constitution protects are Creator-endowed rights.
God-given rights which cannot be taken away.
That's right.
But you can give them away, however.
You can waive them.
That's how they get you.
Well, there's even an argument that says you can't do that, since they're endowed by God.
Man has not the authority to take them away, or give them away, or contract them away.
I don't know who would win that argument, but that is one of the arguments that I've heard and seen written about over the centuries, in fact.
I'm glad we won't have the answer to that until we all meet our maker.
But in the meantime, the courts do assume that you have the right to give away your rights, even if you don't know you're doing it.
A good example of that is the Fifth Amendment.
Keep in mind that everything in the law is very specific.
you have to know what every word means.
You go into a proceeding, let's use the Internal Revenue Code, which is my daily wick.
You know, we're talking probably about the only part of the Constitution that most people have ever even known about.
This is true.
And it's amazing how many people don't know that in most cases, you know, you see a lot of things on TV, people...
In fact, we did this amendment, and you hear all...
There are whole volumes and volumes of stuff like this at state and federal level, and they go step by step, by teeny
weeny tiny little baby steps.
And in every one of those steps if you make a mistake you can blow it.
You can give somebody jurisdiction that they didn't have before you took that step.
And the Fifth Amendment is a good example because everybody, you know, years ago used to file Fifth Amendment returns and say, I don't have to file this return because, you know, I'm giving away information that could be used to incriminate myself.
So they attended a return of the Right to Fifth Amendment, it was very popular in the 70s and early 80s, and a lot of those people, years later, left their homes and went to jail.
Were they wrong?
Not really in principle.
They were wrong procedurally.
They didn't understand the full effect of the law.
They were also claiming a right that they're not due as citizens of the United States, or United States citizens.
That's true.
That could be construed that way.
But even for American nationals or anybody, when you fill out a return, you are admitting that you have, even if you don't fill out the return, you just send it in.
The act of sending in a return or having a return is an admission that you have records.
And the courts have ruled that if you admit that you have records, then that admission is itself a waiver of your rights.
Just like in the driver's license case, Where if you get in front of the judge and you admit that you understand what he's saying, you waive your rights to challenge the jurisdiction.
In a 1040 form, the mere act of having the form sent in is an admission that you have records and that they have jurisdiction.
So you waive your Fifth Amendment rights right there.
I'm going to explain this to our listening audience just a little bit.
The reason that you lose jurisdiction when you send in a return, whether or not you fill
it out or anything else, if you send that return in, you are complying with their requirements.
And since you have complied with their requirements, you have then admitted that they have jurisdiction
to make those requirements upon you.
Therefore, they have jurisdiction upon you, behold you, for whatever their requirements
in full may be.
So this is something that people don't understand.
I know people who were perfectly safe, had done everything right all the way down the
line, couldn't be touched.
Until they were called one day and asked to come in just to have a talk about the legal points that they were basing their case upon and they actually went down to the IRS office and went in for the appointment and sat down at the desk and gave them jurisdiction by that action.
Exactly.
I have a guy that just called me today.
Somebody from the IRS sent him a case from the tax court intended to scare him off on some legal points that I've educated him about.
And they covered some of the legal points I educated them about, and he was all freaked out because all these points were thrown out by the court as frivolous.
And I said, of course.
Can you imagine why?
Can you guess why?
So what is the jurisdiction of the tax court?
Tax courts, by the way, in 601.102, Code of Federal Regulations, that Code of Federal Regulations specifically excludes Employment taxes from the tax court.
And, of course, self-employment taxes.
Well, most people wouldn't know that.
Most of us, I think, we're dealing with employment taxes, don't we?
We don't realize that the tax court doesn't normally have jurisdiction over employment taxes.
So when you go into the tax court to argue a case on employment taxes, you're going in to play by their rules.
So that poor person that went in to make those arguments went into a court that didn't acknowledge the existence of
those arguments.
They were a moot point in that court.
Those rules that they were arguing were monopoly rules, and they were dealing with chutes and ladders or something.
It's also not a constitutional court, and that's why so many people who try to argue constitutional issues in a tax
court get sent to jail for contempt of court.
When they actually study the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues that the tax court is supposed to decide
are issues of how much you owe and how you should pay it.
That's the only thing they're supposed to decide.
That's right, and when you get there, that's the only issue there is.
Anything else that you bring up is contempt of court or could be construed to be.
Of course, because they're not designed to do anything else except decide how much, how fast, and how high.
People don't understand.
People have come to me for advice when they have been summoned to go into tax court.
And my advice to them is to immediately file their motions in the United States District Court, and invariably they won't do it.
They'll go into tax court and try to do it, not realizing that the advice I gave them is the correct advice, and they can't make those arguments when they get to tax court.
It's too late.
That's right.
It's like, you know, the tax court is basically an arbiter between you and the IRS.
They can arbitrate the issues of how much you owe, But they're not empowered to argue legal issues or constitutional issues.
So once you accept their rules, you're accepting that the legal issues are no longer, in effect, are no longer the matter before the court, or what they call subject jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction.
You've given all that up.
You're now there just to argue how much you owe.
So when you go into a situation where the judge expects you to argue how much you owe, and you say, blah blah blah blah Constitution
He says wait a minute, we're not here to talk about Constitution, we're here to talk about how much you owe
He doesn't do it in those words, so you never quite figured out what issue
But that's what's going on So there's a lot of little nuances you have to understand
to understand who you are and where you are That's what your edition is about
They want you to forget who you are, you see Now you and I, Bob, have both studied the law and I don't
know about you, but when I first decided that I was going to stick my head into the law
And find out what it really said in there, I was pretty intimidated and I thought it was going to be some
monumental difficult task And I found out that it's not difficult at all, but you have to pay attention to every single detail.
There's actually a phrase called black-letter law, and what it really means is that a fundamental The Lord's being interpreted literally, exactly what's there, the black on white.
And if you learn how to read the black letter law, you have a chance at turning the situation around in your own individual case.
If you don't know how to read the black letter law, then you're at the whim of, you know, the prosecutor or whoever else, the court, the judge, the jury, whatever it is.
They may or may not know the black letter law, But they will have more standing than you in court.
They actually like that.
Now, something else we've all discovered is that if you go in a court and you demonstrate
to the judge that you understand and know the law and can present a good argument with
good points in law and file good briefs and good motions, that the judge, when he wouldn't
help anybody else, will sometimes help you out.
He'll have respect for you.
They actually like that.
It makes them smile a little bit.
And they have a contempt, a blatant contempt that you can see when you walk into that court.
anyone who does not understand the law.
Absolutely.
And in a sense, you know, I don't know if that's fair because the system is basically manipulated so that we won't understand the law.
I mean, some of the principles we're talking about today should be taught in high school or primary school.
The fact that they're not taught in school is evidence, to me, That something is going on that's not right.
That somebody intentionally is deciding to not teach basic fundamental principles of law in the school.
Principles that are as important to getting along in your daily life as reading and writing and arithmetic.
I mean, in America they pass between 20,000 and 200,000 laws in the United States, federal laws, in Congress, every year.
On a good year it could be as high as 200,000 laws.
I saw a good example of this.
this has been going on now for 200 years?
Hey, where you're turning, there's a law that's going to affect your life.
And you don't know how to read the law?
You don't know how to understand the definitions of the terms in the law?
I saw a good example of this. I watched 48 hours tonight between shows,
and they were talking about the E. coli infection in beef.
And it was very plain that this is a danger.
Anytime you eat any kind of raw meat, you're in danger of being infected by some bacteria or contracting food poisoning or something of that nature.
And throughout history, everyone who has a brain knows that if you cook that food so that it is cooked all the way through, done, you have obliterated that risk.
That risk no longer applies.
But this whole show was aimed toward the one question at the end.
What steps has the federal government taken to stop this spread of E. coli infection?
And what they're doing is planning in the public mind that there's going to be more control over food by the United States government.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Along with that, I'm sure many of you listeners are familiar with the issue about control of vitamins.
And if that goes through, we're going to have to get prescriptions just to get vitamin C. That's right.
Of course, if you're not a U.S.
citizen, they can't enforce that on you.
But if the drug stores and health food stores and all of that don't know that, it's not going to do you much good.
So we have to get out there and educate the people, educate the employers.
When you take on these issues, it's a responsibility.
It's not just for yourself that you're doing it.
You have to inform your employer.
First of all, you're not going to want him to withhold wages from you.
Second of all, you want to protect your employer from the fraud that he's committing.
He may not even be aware that he's committing a fraud, or she.
And if you like your job and you want to keep that job and opt out of the system and not have money returned from your paycheck, you're going to have to educate your employer.
And in the case of Fortune 500 companies and multinational companies, that ain't going to be easy necessarily.
So what do you do?
This is a question I think that each individual employee has to confront themselves based on their family needs and their job situation.
It's not for me to say that a specific person should stand up and fight the system when they might lose their job and they have a family to feed.
But we have to consider that And what all the options are, at the very least, and what our responsibilities are in the way of that.
And to do that, we have to know who we are, and where we are, and what the options are.
And if you don't understand legal terms, if you don't understand principles of statutory construction, it's like driving someplace without a map.
Now, the IRS is counting on you to not know your way around.
They're counting on the fact that you can't read the map.
That even if you look at the map, you don't understand what you're looking at.
We're also counting on you to be absolutely terrified of them, and in most cases, they depend upon this terror to bend you to their will, and because of that, usually all they have to do is write a letter, and boy, you're just buckling under and glistening and whistling and playing their tune and dancing their little skit.
I'll give you a good example of that.
To get back to the IRC, there's section 6331.
Now, probably a lot of your listeners have liens and levies.
In fact, I know they do because some of them have already called me between shows about the liens and levies they have that they're concerned about.
Now, you get a lien.
What you get from the IRS, actually, is not a lien.
It's a notice of lien.
And that notice of lien is filed in an alphabetical index at the County Recorder's office.
It has no more force of law than anything else that you can file at the County Recorder's office, which is just about any kind of document you want.
That's right.
What happens is that usually the county recorder will then enter it as if it is a proper lien.
That's right.
And he has in fact committed fraud.
He doesn't actually enter it as a proper lien.
They actually do just enter it as a notice of lien.
It's still a fraud though.
Why is it a fraud?
Because everybody thinks it's a lien.
So the notice of lien goes to the banks.
Go to your employer, the employer starts withholding your wages, the bank freezes your assets.
They didn't get anything other than a Notice of Lien.
In fact, any of your listeners out there can check this out themselves, and here's how you do it.
And you'll get a wonderful piece of evidence that you can use in your battle against the IRS.
If you have a Notice of Lien on your record, if you receive a Notice of Lien, for most people it would be more than 10 days have passed, so the immediate options of what to do when you immediately get it are not available.
There are some things you can do the day that you get it to return it and refuse to accept it.
It's called return or presentment under the Uniform Commercial Code.
By the way, under the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, all these extraordinary correction proceedings, like liens and levies, are governed under the Uniform Protection Code.
That's the jurisdiction.
Not all contracts are under that jurisdiction unless that jurisdiction is written in the contract.
A lot of people don't understand that they think UCC is a universal panacea, another magic bullet.
Not necessarily, but in the case of liens and levies, it does apply.
Go to your library, look up your state statutes.
It's usually a few volumes, four, five, six volumes.
And you look in the index under Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, which has been incorporated into the statutes of most states.
And you'll actually see what we talk about.
You'll see two ways of listing a lien.
There's the notice of lien, which is listed in an alphabetical index by the county recorder, and then there is a real lien.
A real lien with an affidavit that goes with it, and the elements of a real lien are, uh, have to have an affidavit, uh, have to have, I don't have the, uh, bullets to fire me over the top of my head, but there's a, you know, several elements that it has to have.
And it also has to be filed with the secretary of your estate.
So what you do, is you call the secretary of your state and you ask what is the proper procedure for getting a list of all the encumbrances and judgments and liens on file against you and the secretary of state will tell you to either write a letter and send in a fee for like five dollars or seven dollars or nine dollars or they'll ask you to get a UCC3 form which is a standardized form under the Uniform Commercial Code and you'll send that form in or the letter and the small fee
And they will send you back a statement of what liens and judgments are on your record at the Secretary of State.
And invariably, I will take you out to dinner, anywhere in the country, if I'm there, or if I can afford to be there at the time, if you get anything back from the Secretary of State, from the IRS, that says you have a lien, from the IRS.
And the reason is, Well, that is multiple reasons.
There's a lot of reasons for that.
But basically, under the law, the IRS is not empowered to actually produce real liens.
If you look at 6331, number one, the first thing you'll find out is, if you recall from the earlier show, that a statute has no force of law without a regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The statutes are a broad authorizing language of the law.
That's how they're defined in the law.
Broad authorizing language.
They require regulations written by the Secretary.
In this case, the Secretary of the Treasury.
In the case of transportation statutes, it would be the Secretary of Transportation.
They have to write specific regulations to itemize exactly how they're going to enforce those broad authorizations in the statutes.
Now, the Secretary, of course, can't write authorizations for anything that would be really unconstitutional, so they don't.
Even though the statute might look like it's there, The secretary has to be more careful about the authorizations, I mean, about the regulations.
If you look under the regulations under 6331, which is liens and levies, there are no regulations.
In fact, I have a document here, I don't have it in front of me, but if anybody's interested, I'd be happy to provide the citation, or I can provide it to you, to you, William, and, you know, the Corley's can get it.
Well, basically what that means is if there are no regulations, then there are no liens or levies.
And that's why they file notices of liens and not real liens.
That's right.
And when you look, they actually had, a couple of years ago, they had a regulation before Congress to actually create a regulation for that, and it was voted down.
But at the same time, they're operating fraud, they're creating a fraud, perpetrating a fraud, and they're operating under the color of law, which is a crime in itself, and you can charge them with that crime.
That's right.
Actually, I've seen people take these agents to court who file those liens and sue them
and have the liens lifted before they ever got to court because they don't want it taken
into court.
That's right.
Although you do have to really know the court procedure to do that properly because people
can get into trouble if they do that improperly.
Like if you try to file some of the common law liens that patients have been filing over
the last year or so.
I was talking about actually suing an agent of the IRS for leveling a notice of lien on your property and perpetrating a fraud and operating under the color of law.
Right, but be sure when you do that that you know what you're doing.
Yes, well be sure when you do anything you know what you're doing.
a lot of patients have gotten into trouble by being in the wrong kinds of suits, in the wrong kinds of jurisdictions,
and then the court either throws them out or some patients have even gone to jail for a frivolous lawsuit.
Using 6331 as an example, I'll throw in another interesting legal principle.
A lot of people talk about the Internal Revenue Code as being time-efficient or non-positive law.
This is an area I just want to clear up because everybody says,
oh, it's not positive law, it's not really law. I don't have to follow it. It's just administrative rules.
There's a lot of misunderstanding in the Patriot community about what non-positive law is, or prima facie law.
But it's a good example again of the black and white character of legal understanding and legal principles.
Prima facie means on the face of it.
The reason there's a lot of Latin terms in the law is because Latin is a dead language.
What it means is it looks like it's an elephant, it's really a duck.
Well, what it means is on the face of it, it just means... It's law until somebody proves that it's not.
That's what I said.
Well, you know, you see, most people think positive and negative.
There's positive law, and that's law, there's law, and then there's things that are not law.
Well, there's this in-between thing called evidence of the laws, or prima facie law, also called non-positive law.
Well, it's not just...
Out of the blue sky that they pull this evidence of the law out, the evidence of the law is based on what's commonly referred to as the U.S.
Statutes-at-Large.
The U.S.
Statutes-at-Large are all the public laws that people vote on in Congress, that Congress votes on, over time.
Some of the laws go back to the 1800s.
And when they take all the laws, and they just put them down in the Federal Register or whatever, chronologically, That's the statutes at large.
But when they take the laws and they codify them by subject matter, so that we can refer to them easily by subject, they take all the laws that are in the statutes somewhere in the statutes at large, and they put them together in one place, and then they codify it, which means they reword it so that it all fits together properly.
Then it becomes a title in the code, like the Internal Revenue Code is Title 26.
So Title 26 has never been enacted into law in its own right.
They've never taken the title, the two books or four books depending on the volume that you have, the set that you have, they've never taken that and voted on it and made it part of the law.
So Title 26 is only evidence that somewhere in the U.S.
statutes at large there really is a law that was actually passed by Congress.
We're going to have to save that for another night, Bob, because we're just about out of time.
demonstrate further how phony Leaves and Levees are and how completely deceptive and fraudulent
this whole system is.
We're going to have to save that for another night, Bob, because we're just about out of
time.
I want you to give the information on how to reach you about your seminar that's coming
up in Phoenix, and then I have to do a spot for Swiss American.
Okay, well, just ten seconds then.
6231 goes way back into the 1800s, 1866 actually, when it was written in a law to collect taxes
on distilled spirits, cotton, and tobacco.
tobacco.
So it doesn't apply to anybody.
Now, I can be reached at Boston Tea Party Enterprises, area code 602-282-5653.
My name is Bob Ross, ROSS.
SNAKE!
My next workshop I'm giving, I give a two-day workshop, which basically teaches fundamental principles of law, so that you can understand the issues before you go to anybody that's going to give you a system for getting out from under the IRS, or for becoming sovereign, or for becoming a common law citizen, or a state citizen, or whatever the system you're interested in.
None of those systems provide enough education.
You really need to learn the law In an unbiased forum, and that's what I try to provide.
The first chapter is called, What the IRS Doesn't Want You to Know.
It's two days.
And I have three scheduled next in the Phoenix area right now.
And they're February 19th and 20th is the next one.
And I have one in mid-March and one in early April.
Why don't you give your number a couple times again, just for the people who might be slow out there.
I tell them, always have paper and pen by their side, but there's always a few dummies out there that never, never listen.
So, why don't you repeat it a couple more times so that if they're running around looking for a pen, they can write down your number again.
It's area code 602-282-5653.
I'm Bob Ross, Boston Tea Party Enterprises, 602-282-5653.
Thank you, William.
Folks, if you're sitting there listening to all of this and you've been listening to the Hour of the Time for some time, then you know how much you've been scammed and you know what's coming down the line.
People are beginning to wake up across this country, and as they wake up, they're going to create a lot of questions that have to be answered.
The answer is going to come in a form that none of us are going to like.
I can assure you of that.
These people who are bringing about the New World Order have gone too far, too fast, and they have too much to lose to give in to anybody so easily as that.
So just asking questions and taking our problems into court ain't gonna get it, folks.
There will be no political solution and there will be no relief in the courts.
Relief will come to individuals only, not to the nation.
I can assure you.
You need to protect yourself against the inevitable consequence of all of this.
Call Swiss America Trading now at 1-800-289-2646.
the world.
Thank you.
I'm going to be doing a lot of this stuff. So, I'm going to be doing a lot of this stuff.
So, I'm going to be doing a lot of this stuff. So, I'm going to be doing a lot of this stuff.
So, I'm going to be doing a lot of this stuff.
▲
Export Selection