All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 1998 - Bill Cooper
59:57
Affidavit & Jurisdiction Challenge #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Owl of the Isle.
The Owl of the Isle.
Yes, Owl.
With a roof over his head.
I am the one who will be the first to see you die.
This is the end.
you You're listening to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
Ladies and gentlemen, we continue today with Part Three of the continuation of our affidavit Notice, Declaration of Citizenship, Demand and Jurisdiction Challenge.
If you've been listening to this all along, you've already heard some pretty astounding things in the law.
Some of you who thought I was crazy before and have been following this documentation in the law now know that I'm right on the items that I've covered and I will continue.
Ladies and gentlemen, when the chief of this country ever wake up.
If they ever wake up, the tyrants in Washington, D.C.
had better have found a very deep hole.
And it better be a big hole, because there's an awful lot of cockroaches that need to crawl into it.
Don't go away.
I'll be right back.
And we will continue right where we left off on Friday.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
The portion of the law that I'm covering now concerns the authority of the Criminal Investigation Division of the
Internal Revenue Service.
We're talking about the CDOs issued by the commissioners.
of Internal Revenue.
That's the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
And we have a list enumerating every published CDO from 1954 to the present, linked from our website at harvest-trust.org.
If you've never been there, you need to go.
Harvest-trust.org.
From 1954 to the present.
It's contained in a file linked to our webpage.
By review of these various CDOs, it is possible to trace the authority which is the subject of Section 7608, which the Internal Revenue Service claims gives them the authority to investigate the citizens of the several states.
The only possible CDOs which could delegate Section 7608 authority are numbered 31, 33, and 34.
On April 30, 1956, CDO No.
31 was issued delegating to the Assistant Commissioner and the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division the authority to administer and enforce chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Code.
These are the ATF chapters, for those of you who aren't familiar with the Code, in addition to a few other functions.
A few months later, CDOs number 33 and 34 were issued, and these orders also related to alcohol and tobacco taxes.
Once these units of the Internal Revenue Service had been delegated these enforcement responsibilities,
Congress thereafter in 1958 created Section 7608 and the regulations at 301.7608-1 was promulgated in 1958.
This is a list containing the sites where these and subsequent revisions of these orders were published.
CDO number 31.
Small A. Original at 21 Federal Regulations, 3083, 1956-1, CD 1015.
at 21 Federal Regulations 3083 1956-1 CD 1015.
Small B, Revision 1, 34 Federal Regulations 87-1.
Small C, Revision 2, 35, Federal Regulations 16808, 1970-2, CB 487.
Small c, revision 2, 35, Federal Regulations 16808, 1970-2, CB 487.
Small d, revisions 3, 36, Federal Regulations 18678, 1971-2, CB 524.
Small e, revision 4, 36, Federal Regulations 2278.
CDO number 33, small a, original, 21 Federal Regulations 4415, 1956-2, CB 1375.
25 CDO number 33 small a original 21 Federal Regulations 44 15 1956-2 CB 1375 and CDO number
34 small a the original at 21 Federal Regulations 58 51, 1956-2 CB 1375 and small b revoked
it was revoked in 38 Federal Regulations 33 407, 1973-2 CB 462 as can be seen from these
orders the same allowed for the seizure and forfeiture of property and the enforcement
of the criminal laws.
Logically, it is these orders which permitted the promulgation of the regulation at 301.7608-1.
The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service, which was the unit which was responsible for the administration enforcement of the laws which were the subject of the CDOs number 31, 33, and 34.
This ended with the creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms via Treasury Directive Order No.
221 on June 6, 1972, C-37 Federal Regulations 116696, 1972-1, CB-777.
on June 6, 1972, C-37 Federal Regulations 116696, 1972-1, CB-777.
Among other administration and enforcement functions transferred to BATF via this order were the following.
Small a. Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and sections 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar
as they relate to the commodities subject to tax under such chapters.
Small b.
Chapter 61 to 80, inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, insofar as they relate to the activities administered and enforced with respect to Chapters 51, 52, and 53.
Now, about two and a half years later, the Secretary issued TDO No.
CDO No. 221-3, which can be found at 40 Federal Regulations 1084, 1975-1, CB 758, which delegated
to the BATF the authority to administer and enforce Chapter 35 and Chapter 40 and 61 through
80 inclusive of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, insofar as they relate to activities
administered and enforced with respect to Chapter 35.
Chapter 35 deals with wagering taxes and Chapter 40 concerns occupational taxes related to wagering.
Some one and a half years later, TDO No.
221-3, Revision 1, was issued.
The only real detectable distinction between the former and latter orders was the inclusion of the following phrase in the latter, quote, The Commissioner may call upon the Director for assistance when it is necessary to exercise any of the enforcement authority described in Section 7608 of the Internal Revenue Code, end quote.
But on January 14, 1977, The Secretary transferred back to the Internal Revenue Service the enforcement duties relating to wagering via TDO No.
221-3, Revision 2.
Thereafter, the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms encompassed
Chapters 40, 51, 52, and 53 of the 1954 Code, in addition to the authority to enforce other
non-code laws.
It is of great significance that the repeal of Regulation 301.7608-1 occurred shortly
after creation of the BATF.
It no longer exists.
The authority of BATF agents to exercise the functions under Section 7608 is found today in 27 CFR Section 70.28.
In summary, Section 7608 requires delegations from the Secretary to enforcement agents.
In reference to Section 7608-a, it has been shown that this ATF authority, not IRS authority, has flowed through the ATF unit within the IRS, ultimately to be passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as a separate agency, however bogus it may be.
The IRS has no enforcement authority under Section 7608 or 7608-a whatsoever within the territorial boundaries of any state.
But in the search for authority under Section 7608-b, a review of all published TDOs and CDOs reveals that there appears to have been no such delegation whatsoever.
Thus, if a special agent is conducting any investigation pursuant to the authority of Section 7608, that investigation encompasses violations only of the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms tax laws, and there is no apparent authority to conduct any federal income tax investigation which is possessed by any special agent at any time, at any place, whatsoever.
That a client filed Freedom of Information Act requests asking the Internal Revenue Service for specific documents which gave the Internal Revenue Service the authority to conduct an investigation of a citizen of Arizona.
The Internal Revenue Service could not and did not produce any such documentation.
We noticed Special Agent Schutnick and Assistant United States Attorney Weinripp to produce their credentials and documentation of their authority to conduct such an investigation.
They refused because they could not, as no such documents exist.
99.
That of all the circuits, the Ninth Circuit has addressed jurisdictional issues more than any of the rest.
That is the circuit to which the State of Arizona belongs.
In United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 M. D. 1888, it was determined that the United States
did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because
California had never ceded jurisdiction.
See also United States v. Tully 140 F.
899 D. Mon 1905.
But later California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States and it was held in United States v. Watkins 22 F.
2 small d 437 in period D period Cal 1927 that this enabled the US to maintain a murder
prosecution note that it was after California ceded the property to the United States ceded
jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States.
We also United States versus Holt 168 capital F period 141 W period D period Washington
1909 United States versus Lewis 253 capital F period 469 S period D period Cal 1918 and
United States versus Wurzburger 276 F that's capital F period 753 capital D period Oregon
1921.
Because the United States owned and had a state session of jurisdiction for Fort Douglas in Utah, it was held that the United States had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squire, 157, capital F period, 2 small d, 948, 9th Circuit, 1946.
But without a session, that is a session of land and jurisdiction, the United States has no jurisdiction.
C. Arizona v. Manny Penny, 445 F. Sup. 1123 D. Arizona, 1977.
These cases from the United States Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth
the rule that in criminal prosecutions the government, as the party seeking to establish
the existence of federal jurisdiction, must prove U.S.
ownership of the property in question and a state session of jurisdiction.
This same rule manifests itself in state cases.
State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was committed within the state and a county thereof.
If a defendant contends that only the federal government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal jurisdiction, must likewise Prove United States ownership of the property where the crime was committed and state session of jurisdiction.
Session must always be seated by the legislature of the state.
Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous.
Now listen to me very closely.
A lot of you people and local law enforcement in the state of Arizona And all of the ranchers, the cattle ranchers in the state of Arizona have been totally bamboozled by the federal government because you don't understand the principle of jurisdiction.
Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous.
In the state of Arizona The state has jurisdiction over all federal lands in the public domain.
The state never ceded jurisdiction of that property to the United States, and here is the court site.
C. State vs. Dykes, 114 Arizona, 592-562, capital P. 2d 1090-1977.
It's a shame that a lot of people who need to know this and could really profit from
it are not even listening to this broadcast, and I'm not going to make any effort to seek
them out and make sure that they get it because I don't see any of them standing up here by
my side.
Thank you.
In California, if it is not proved by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense.
Sea People vs. Brown, 69, California.
If the session exists, the state has no jurisdiction.
See People vs. Mouse, 203, California, 782,265, capital P, period 944, 1928.
period 2 small d 686 1945 if the session exists the state has no jurisdiction see people versus
mouse 203 California 782 comma 265 capital P period 944 1928 in Montana in Montana let
me start that again in Montana the state has jurisdiction over property it
If it is not proved, there is a state session of jurisdiction to the United States.
See State, X. Rel.
Parker v. District Court, 147, Mun.
151, 410, P.
2, d.
459, 1966.
The existence of a state session of jurisdiction to the U.S.
14, capital P. 2, small d, 459, 1966. The existence of a state session of jurisdiction
to the U.S. ousts the state of jurisdiction. See State vs.
Tully, 31, month The same applies in Nevada.
C-State vs. Mack, 23, Nevada, 359, 47, P, 763, 1897.
State, capital P, period 760, 1904. The same applies in Nevada. Sea State versus Mack,
23, Nevada, 359, 47, capital P, period 763, 1897. And Pendleton versus State, 734, capital
P, period 2, small d, 693, Nevada, 1907.
1987. It applies in Oregon. See State v. Chen Ping, 91.
Oregon, 593, 176. P. 188, 1918.
And State v. Aguilar, 85. Oregon, App. 410, 736. P. 2d. 620, 1987. And in Washington.
The State vs. Williams, 23 Washington.
694, 598, P.
2d 731, 1979.
In People v. Hammond, 1, Illinois, 2d 65, 115, E.
In People v. Hammond, I, Illinois, 2d65.115.e2d331.1953, a burglary of an Internal Revenue Service
office was held to be within state jurisdiction.
The court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence of federal jurisdiction by U.S.
ownership of the property and state session of jurisdiction.
In two cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at United States post offices, which were rented, were held to be within state jurisdiction.
See People v. Burke, 161, Michigan, 397, 126, N.W.
161 Michigan, 397, 126 end period W period 446 1910 and People vs. Van Dyke 276 Michigan
See also in Rhee Kelly, 311, Michigan, 596, 19, end period, W period, 2 small d, 218, 1945.
7, 8, 1936. See also in Rhee, Kelly 3, 11, Michigan 5, 96, 19, N.W.2d 218, 1945. In Kansas
City v. Garner 4, 30, S.W.2d 6, 30, Missouri App 1968.
1968 State jurisdiction over a theft offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S.
ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction from the state to the United States.
A similar holding was made for a theft at a United States missile site in State v. Rindau, 146, Mon.
In Pendleton v. State, 734, P.2d.693, Nevada, 1987, the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a DUI, that's driving under intoxication, committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show U.S.
734 P.2d 693 N. 1987. The State Court was held to have jurisdiction over a DUI, that's
driving under intoxication, committed on federal lands, the defendant having failed to show
U.S. ownership and state session of jurisdiction. In People v. Gerald 40 M. 2d 819,243 N.Y.S.
S. 2 small d 1001 1963.
The state was held to have jurisdiction of an assault at a United States post office since the defendant did not meet his burden of showing presence of federal jurisdiction, and because a defendant failed to prove title and jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station.
State jurisdiction was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97A.D.2d651,1.
New York State 2 small d 187 A period D period that's capital A period capital D period 3
Department 1983. The proper method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated
by the decision in People v. Williams, 136 miscellaneous 2 small d 294, 518 New York
State 2d 751 1987.
This rule was likewise enunciated in State v. Berger 33 Ohio 3d 231, 515 N.E.
2d 640 1986.
rule was likewise enunciated in State v. Berger, 33, Ohio, App. 3, small d, 231, 515, capital
N.E. 2, small d, 640, 1986. A case involving a DUI offense committed on a road near a federal
arsenal. Now, I know that reading these cases may get old for some of you and some of you
don't even know what it's about, but if I don't, you won't know where to go look for
this information.
No.
None of you knew that the state of Arizona retained jurisdiction over all the federal land in public domain.
None of you knew that.
If you knew that, you ranchers wouldn't be having such a hard time with the federal government over grazing rights.
Because it's within the jurisdiction of the state of Arizona, not the federal government.
And you call me crazy.
In Kirchner v. State, 493 P. 2d 1402 Oklahoma, CR. App.
1972, the State was held to have jurisdiction of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air
Force base, the defendant not having attempted to prove federal jurisdiction by showing title
and jurisdiction of the property in question in the United States.
See also Torrey v. State, 540 P.
2d 597 Oklahoma CR.
Oklahoma 540 P.2d 597 Oklahoma CR.AP.1975 Similar holdings for murders committed at
United States Post Offices were made in State v. Chin Peacock.
188, 1918, and in United States v. Pate, 393, F.
2d44, 7th Circuit, 1968.
3.176 P.188 1918 and in United States v. Pate 393 F.2d 44 7th Circuit 1968.
Another Oregon case, State v. Aguilar 85 Oregon App. 410.736 P.2d 620 1987 demonstrates this
rule. And finally in Curry v. State 111 T.C.R. 264,12 S.W.2d 796 1928 it was held that in
the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States,
the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense. 100 Thank you.
That in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional-type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing United States ownership of the place where the crime was allegedly committed and state session of jurisdiction.
If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside its jurisdiction, it must prove an extraterritorial application of the statute in question, as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same.
Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside its jurisdiction.
Period.
These are all Supreme Court rulings.
If you don't want to believe me, that's fine.
Go argue with the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Don't do it with me, because I understand and know and have studied, and I am quoting you, the law.
Quote, Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.
End quote.
Higgins v. Levine, Supra Note 3.
Quote, No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction.
End quote.
Standard v. Olson, 74, Supreme Court, 768, "...it has also been held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed."
Special Indemnity Fund v. Pruitt, 205, F, 2d, 306, 201, OK, 308.
Capital F 2 small d 306 comma 201 Oklahoma 308.
101.
101. That a citizen or resident alien, that is resident versus non-resident, that a citizen
or resident alien making a living within one of the fifty states of the Union has never
been made liable by Congress for the payment of the income tax under Title 26, Subtitle
A. An affiant's wife had no liability under the law to file or pay the so-called income
tax.
The so-called income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional as applied to the citizens and others domiciled
within the territorial boundaries of the Union States who earn a living within the Union
States and are not engaged in excise taxable activities.
102.
That there are three sections of the Internal Revenue Code that addresses the making or
filing of returns or statements.
And these are the only ones.
If you don't believe me, look it up.
If you find another one, bring it to me and I will correct myself on the air.
I don't want to be wrong, ladies and gentlemen.
So if you're criticizing me, put up or shut up. 102.
that there are three sections of the Internal Revenue Code that address the making or filing of returns or statements.
That's sections 6001, 6011a and 6012a.
Section 6001, this section states in relevant part, quote, every person liable for any tax imposed by this title or for the collection thereof shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and, whenever in the judgment of the Secretariat is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records."
Therefore, Section 6001 clearly does not create a requirement for every person to file, but only specific individuals, in effect, those made liable.
This section does not, however, establish who is liable, does not establish the liability, but merely presumes it, and that is against the law.
Cannot presume it.
Must state who is liable.
Section 6011 small a. This section states in relevant part, quote, When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement, and every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations, end quote.
Similar to section 6001, 6011 small a applies only to certain individuals and a liability for who... Similar to section 6001, 6011 small a applies only to certain individuals and a liability for who those individuals are is not established but again presumed, which is against the law.
Section 6012 small a. This section states in relevant part, quote, returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle capital A shall be made by the following.
One, capital A, every individual having for the taxable year gross income under this section An individual is required to file under specific circumstances with respect to subtitle capital A and the liability for any tax under subtitle A, that's capital A, is established elsewhere in the Internal Revenue Code.
In other words, the section 6012 small a requirement for returns to be made applies only those who are made liable under subtitle capital A.
Therefore, it is clear from this section, as well as those previously cited, that the
requirement to file is not an all-encompassing one, but is directly related, as well as those
previously cited, that the requirement to file is not an all-encompassing one, but is
directly related to an explicit liability for a tax.
Who is made liable?
So far, none of us.
103.
That the sections of the Internal Revenue Code which actually establish a liability for a tax are as follows.
Here is the meat of the matter.
Under subtitle capital A, income taxes, small a, section 402, small d, 1, capital D, makes liable for a separate tax The recipient of a lump sum distribution from employee benefit plans.
Appiant and Appiant's lawful wife are not a recipient of a lump sum distribution from any employee benefit plan.
Small B, section 1461, makes liable every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under subchapter capital B.
Appliance and Appliance Lawful Wife do not deduct and withhold any tax under subchapter capital B. Under subtitle capital B, estate and gift taxes, small c, section 3405, small d, 1, makes liable the payor of a designated distribution from a pension or annuity.
Appliance and Appliance Lawful Wife are not a payor of a distribution from any pension or annuity.
Section 3505 small a and small b make liable a lender, surety, or other person that pays wages directly to an employee and that is withholding.
Appliant and appliance wife do not pay wages to any employees and we are not withholding.
Under subtitle capital D, miscellaneous excise taxes, small e, section 4401 small c, makes liable each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not engaged in the business of accepting wagers.
Small f, section 4980, small b, makes liable an employer maintaining a qualified plan.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an employer maintaining a qualified plan.
Under subtitle capital E, alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes, small g, section 5005 makes liable the distiller or importer of distilled spirits.
Appiant and Appian's lawful wife are not a distiller nor an importer of distilled spirits, small h. Section 5703 makes liable the manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes.
Appliance and appliance lawful wife do not manufacture or import tobacco products, cigarette papers, or tubes.
Here's the case authority.
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not, let me back up because this is a quote, case authority, quote, In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.
In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen."
Gould v. Gould, 245, U.S.
Supreme Court, 151.
Quote, liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax, end quote, highly versus Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 69 F.2d160.
Quote, the taxpayer must be liable for the income tax.
Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand.
Merrily demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability."
Both Key vs. Fluor, Engineers and Contractors, 713, F.2d 1405.
104.
There is only one section, ladies and gentlemen.
Section 6020 of the Internal Revenue Code, covering the preparation of returns by the Internal Revenue Service on a person's behalf.
This section states in relevant part, quote, 6020 small a.
If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title, or by regulations prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return, which, being signed by such person, may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person, and, quote, If any person fails to make any return required by any Internal Revenue Law or regulation made thereunder, at the time prescribed therefore, or makes willfully or otherwise a false or fraudulent return."
Therefore, it is clear from this section that the Internal Revenue Service may prepare or execute returns on a person's behalf, but only when that person has a clearly established requirement to make a return and With such person's consent to provide the necessary information, Section 6020 does not establish a requirement to make a return, however, but merely presumes it, which again is against the law.
Furthermore, Section 6020 clearly declares that any return prepared by the Internal Revenue Service on a person's behalf must be signed by that person.
This is confirmed by the enforcing regulation 26 Code of Federal Regulations 301.6020-1, which states in relevant part, quote, small a, preparation of returns.
1.
In general, if any person required by the Code or by the regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return fails to make such return, It may be prepared by the District Director or other authorized Internal Revenue Officer or employee provided such person consents to disclose all information necessary for the preparation of such return.
The return, upon being signed by the person required to make it, shall be received by the District Director as the return of such person."
How many of you have had the Internal Revenue Service When you were late or failed to make a return, prepare a return for you, sign it themselves without your permission, without getting your permission for any of the information to be disclosed for the preparation of the return, and without your signature.
If so, they've committed an illegal, unlawful act, and you can make a lot of money suing them.
105.
That if the Internal Revenue Service wishes to prepare a return on a client's and a client's lawful wife's behalf, please provide the 1.
Code or regulation that requires a client or a client's lawful wife to make statements, keep records, or file returns or 2.
Proper notice served upon a client or a client's lawful wife by the Secretary or delegated authority requiring us to make such statements, keep such records, or file such returns. 3.
Code and regulation that makes a client or a client's lawful wife liable for a tax and for specific sources of gross income upon which a tax is imposed.
106.
A client and a client's lawful wife would be most happy, most happy, to complete any returns required of a client or a client's lawful wife by law if a client or a client's lawful wife Have a tax liability and upon service of proper notice according to law.
How many of you have been noticed by the district director to maintain records and file returns and all that kind of stuff as the law requires? 107.
Appliance and Appliance Lawful Wife hereby rebut the presumption of a requirement where none actually exists under law via this sworn affidavit, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the agency, Secretary of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service, which must then disprove Appliance and Appliance Lawful Wife's statements and cannot.
But on June 18, 1998, a United States Marshal came to a client's domicile in Eager, Arizona, to serve a summons for criminal trial in U.S.
District Court, he said, in Phoenix, Arizona, on the legal fictions, capital W-I... These are all capital letters, folks.
All capital letters.
That's how you tell a legal fiction from a real person.
W-I-L-L-I-A-M-C-O-O-P-E-R, all capitals.
And A-N-N-I-E M-O-R-D-H-O-R-S-T, all capital letters.
109.
That a client noticed the U.S.
Marshal that a client is not the legal fictions named in the summons and ordered him off the property.
110.
That a client noticed the United States Marshal that he was trespassing.
111.
That a client noticed the United States Marshal that he has no federal jurisdiction or authority within the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona. 112.
That the United States Marshal did not serve the summons.
113.
That the United States Marshal obeyed Appliance's demand and notice to vacate the property due to unlawful trespass.
114.
That Appliance and Appliance's lawful wife are not the legal fictions spelled in all capital letters W-I-L-L-I-A-M-C-O-O-P-E-R and R in all capital letters A-N-N-I-E M-O-R-D-H-O-R-S-T or any other fiction named in the summons signed by United States District Court Judge Irwin.
115 That no summons has ever been served upon the affiant or affiant's lawful wife at any time whatsoever by anyone whomsoever. 116 That any summons issued by a federal judge of a federal court upon citizens of any state domiciled within the territorial boundaries of that state is unconstitutional and unlawful when jurisdiction is challenged unless and until the United States first proved their jurisdiction over such land, property, business, and citizens.
That any arrest warrant issued by any federal judge of any federal court due to failure to appear in any federal court against a summons which was never served is unconstitutional and unlawful and is void upon its inception.
118 That any arrest warrant issued by any judge of any federal court against any citizens of any state domiciled within the territorial boundaries of any state, any union is unconstitutional and unlawful when jurisdiction of the United States is challenged unless and until the United States first proved their jurisdiction over such land, property, business, and citizens.
119.
On July 1, 1998, U.S.
District Court Judge Irwin unconstitutionally and unlawfully stepped outside the jurisdiction and authority of the United States when he issued a bench warrant for the arrest of the legal fictions known as, all in capital letters, W-I-L-L-I-A-M-C-O-O-P-E-R and all in capital letters A-N-N-I-E-M-O-R-D-H-O-R-S-T, mistaking them for capital W, small i, small l, small l, small i, small a, small m, capital C,
small o, small o, small p, small e, small r, and capital A, small n, small n, small i, small e, capital C, small o, small o, small p, small e, small r, for not appearing in his court on an unconstitutional and unlawful summons which was never served.
United States has no jurisdiction or venue within the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona except over land that was ceded to the United States by the state legislature.
120.
That the federal income tax is void because the administrative and enforcement powers are unconstitutional.
Supreme Court ruling in 240 United States Supreme Court 1, 36 Supreme Court 236, 60
L. E. d. 493 Frank R. Bruchaber.
Supreme Court ruling in 240 United States Supreme Court 236, 60 L. E. d. 493 Frank R. Bruchaber.
16, 1915, decided January 24, 1916, affirmed. The Supreme Court ruled,
quote, We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative powers
to enforce the Act were conferred by the Statue upon the Secretary of the Treasury, therefore
it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state the proposition
is to answer it, end quote.
Thank you.
The Supreme Court cited Marshall Field and Company v. Clark, 143, U.S.
versus Clark one forty three United States Supreme Court six forty nine comma thirty
six capital period E.D. period. Two ninety four twelve. So C.T.
Rep. Four ninety five Butterfield versus Stranahan nineteen.
Twenty United States Supreme Court four seventy four ninety six forty eight capital period
E.D. period five twenty five comma five thirty five comma twenty four.
So C.T. Rep. Three forty nine.
Oceanic Steam Navigation Company v. Stranahan, 214 U.S.
Supreme Court, 320-53 L.E.D.
1013,29 Sup.
C.T.
Rep.
671 Note.
The Supreme Court not only referred to the contention, but stated it, and thus answered it, citing case precedent.
In answering the contention in the ruling of the Court, the Supreme Court Justices have rendered the federal income tax void.
Since no one else to my knowledge has ever cited this fact, the courts probably will not honor the ruling.
Nevertheless, it is a factual statement under the law that Congress cannot delegate its powers to anyone or anything or any entity.
Another factual statement in the law is that the Congress cannot breach the balance of power between branches of government by giving its legislative power to the executive or judicial branches of government.
Both of these statements are set in stone.
For either one or both of those reasons, the federal income tax and the Internal Revenue Service are unconstitutional.
The first time this contention is brought before the Supreme Court, the income tax must be struck down.
121.
that between the years 1970 and 1973 while a member of the intelligence briefing team,
petty officer of the watch and the command center, and speak at operator of the KL-47
for Admiral Bernard Clary, commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Fleet, affiant
witnessed the Majesty 12 plan to disarm the American people, destroy the United States
of America, and institute world totalitarian socialist government. The plan included a
statement that the so-called income tax is the unconstitutional implementation of the
graduated income tax required as plank number two of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Communist
Manifesto.
122.
That a client has never knowingly or intentionally defrauded any bank.
All contracts have been honored and all loans repaid on time and in full,
except for one, which loan is current and paid up to date according to
contract.
123.
That a fiant has not obtained a loan of any kind from any bank in over
seventeen years.
124.
That a fiant's lawful wife has obtained five loans from a bank, an
individual, or a lending institution as a single woman.
125.
That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a bank, individual, or lending
institution, a fiant and the fiant's lawful wife have, without fail,
informed the bank, individual, or lending institution of our married
status.
126 That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a bank, individual, or lending institution, a client and the client's lawful wife have asked the representative of the bank, individual, or lending institution to make the loan to a client's lawful wife as a single woman because of the immediate danger that a client might be killed due to his status as an enemy of the socialist subversives operating within the United States government.
That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a bank, individual, or lending institution, a faience and a faience lawful wife have followed the instructions of the representative of the lending institution, individual, or bank.
That all letters delivered, forms filled out, or forms signed by a faience or a faience wife were at the instruction of the representative of the bank, individual, or lending institution for the purpose of facilitating the loans to a faience lawful wife as a single woman.
128 That following the instructions of the lending representative of any bank, individual, or lending institution, after having given full disclosure of our marital status, is not fraud.
129 That as all letters delivered, forms filled out, or forms signed by a client or a client's were at the instruction of the lending representative of the bank, individual, or lending institution, for the purpose of facilitating the loans to a client's lawful wife as a single woman, there can be no fraud.
130.
That all monetary figures given to any representative of a bank, individual, or lending institution as monies earned by a client and are a client's lawful wife were always much lower than actual monies earned during any period of time requested.
STATING A LOWER FIGURE ALWAYS MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN A LOAN AND IS NOT FRAUD.
131.
THAT IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR A SINGLE WOMAN WITH CHILDREN TO OBTAIN A LOAN THAN A MARRIED WOMAN.
MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT UPON ONESELF TO OBTAIN A LOAN IS NOT FRAUD.
132.
THAT FRAUD REQUIRES INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
and no such intent has ever been present in any of a fiance or a fiance's lawful wife's dealings with any bank, individual, or lending institution.
A fiance's intent was to protect his lawful wife and children against the possibility of a fiance's murder by a despotic government.
All contracts have been honored and all loans repaid on time and in full except for one
which loan is current and paid up to date according to contract.
133 That the only outstanding loan is on the headquarters of a constitutional contractual
pure trust for which a client and a client's wife are the trustees.
The transfer of title is registered with the Apache County Recorder in St. John's, Arizona.
The lending institution has accepted all payments by check drawn on the trust account.
The property has been legally and lawfully transferred from a client's wife to the trust.
Even though the loan remains in the name of a client's wife, according to law, a client's
wife holds title in trust as trustee.
134.
That all applications for loans by a fiancee lawful wife were accepted and signed by the representative of the bank, individual, or lending institution as true and correct, approved and accepted. 135.
That any representative who attests to anything other than what is sworn to in this affidavit is acting only to protect his or her job and to cover his or her own actions in advising us in the particular manner dictated to us in order that a fiancee could obtain the loan or loans as a single woman.
Any loan obtained in this manner cannot be and is not fraud.
136, that a client is a member of the constitutional and lawful constituted unorganized militia of the state of Arizona and of the United States of America.
137, that the client and the militia have the right and the duty guaranteed by the Constitution for the United States of America and the Constitution of the state of Arizona to keep and bear arms in defense of a client's property, the state of Arizona, and the Constitution for the United States of America.
That if the United States will not enforce the laws of the Union, it is the right and the duty of the Militia to enforce the laws of the Union.
138.
That a client and the Militia have the right and the duty to stand and fight the United States government's despotic and tyrannical, unconstitutional and unlawful Usurpation of power and jurisdiction with all the means at affiance and the militia's disposal, including, but not limited to, the force of arms, any assault which may be mounted upon affiance, affiance family, affiance property, and any other property for which a client may be responsible.
Affiance and are affiance wife are not anti-government, radical, fundamentalist, crazy, suicidal,
criminal, child molesters, bank robbers, child abusers, tax protesters, bank defrauders,
wife beaters, husband beaters, drug users, drug dealers, drug growers, drug stockpilers,
revolutionaries, subversives, terrorists, white supremacists, racist, anti-semitic,
or any other demonizing label that may be applied. Affiant and affiance wife do not have
illegal weapons, hand grenades, bombs, missiles, tanks, machine guns, anti-tank rockets,
anti-aircraft weapons, or any other demonized instrument of any type whatsoever.
The trust headquarters and the domicile of affiant and affiance wife as trustees is not a compound.
Thank you.
We will take this up and hopefully finish tomorrow.
Good night, ladies and gentlemen.
God bless each and every single one of you.
Hope you're learning something.
But more than that, I hope you're waking up.
Whether you agree with me or not, stop believing in things just because somebody else told you to.
That is absolutely the most disgusting thing that I can think of in this country.
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
And ladies and gentlemen, you might want to ask yourself this question, especially over the controversy involving
grazing rights for Arizona ranchers, and over the recent bamboozling of our local law
enforcement officials by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, known as BLM.
BLM.
Why is it that our local law enforcement officers do not know that when Arizona became a state, Arizona reserved jurisdiction for the state of Arizona over all public lands held in federal trust?
In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the jurisdiction belongs to the state of Arizona, not the United States Forest Service or the BLM.
Get the wool out from over your eyes.
Stop being hoodwinked.
Gee, just grow up!
Grow up!
Be adults instead of children.
Please.
Or you're going to lose your country, your rights, your birthright, your children, your property, everything that you can think of is going to be gone.
if you don't wake up.
I'm going to be a good boy.
Guess who the rainbows were in the 1800s, ladies and gentlemen?
Guess who was persecuted because they were different?
Because they dressed differently.
They had different laws for themselves and a different religion.
They were the rainbows in the 1800s.
They're known today as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, the Mormon Church.
▲
Export Selection