Vic’s Black-White No 2

Victoria Joy
Transcript – 18-12-2006

Good Evening everyone this is Victoria Joy. I am honoured by being able to talk more about some of the
BLACK and WHITE. I have three issues for you tonight. The first one is Pete’s message from the Secretary
of State regarding the UCC-1 filing. The second one is an email I received regarding the Barton Buhtz
hearing. And the third one is a document written by a U.S attorney in a Federal Court Case called a
motion in Limine and I thought that there might be a lot of people out there who would benefit by hearing
the BLACK and WHITE of it in each of these instances. So if you want to take notes on this. You might
find it from saving you from having to go back and try to find what it is that would be beneficial to you.

First of all Pete’s filing for his Secretary of State UCC-1 paper was a Bailor Bailee agreement. The State of
Ohio rejected it and claimed that it had the authority to do that even that the document was not required or
not authorized or if the Secretary of State felt that it was materially false or fraudulent.

Pete then went to Michigan and filed it, if I am understanding his story correctly which means that it was
accepted there. Now last Monday the discussion revolved around the Statutes of Ohio. I saw Pete’s papers
starting off very good. He’s said, “I humbly accept your dishonour!” That was terrific until he started
testifying. I believe that the mistake here was that the parts that Pete put in the Letter Rogatory , which was
testimony actually belonged in the negative averment, worded in the way that we teach in the workshop
through the negative side.

I also recommend you do not call this an “Affidavit of Negative Averment”. It is an Affidavit in Support of
Letter Rogatory. The form is a negative averment, which you DO NOT need to announce to them. The
negative averment that Pete was reading and asking for feedback on, were actually questions. He said, “Is it
not true that Ohio Statute number such and such tells us this, that and the other things.

You CANNOT swear to a question! You are swearing to the accuracy or the truth of something in an
Affidavit. There is no accuracy or truth in a question. It requires an answer which can analyzed that way. So I
think if I were to make a recommendation which Pete called for, he said, “I’d like some feedback. Does
anybody see me writing these negative averments correctly?”

For the record, I do see them being written ABSOLUTELY incorrectly! They are the “Arguable
Confidential Information or CCI.

So when the Secretary of State made the first Statement or referred Pete to the Statutes, I would put most of
my emphasis on the fact that, “I haven’t seen anything which demonstrates that the Secretary of State’s
office pointed to box number such and such which requires the address of the debtor or the secured
party” or whatever any of these Statutory requirements are “and believe that none exists.”.

I haven’t seen that they have not been completed satisfactorily and believe that none exists. And there’s no
problem with that but Pete mentioned what he was going to do was give them an alternative and the
alternative would be to NOT FILE it and deliberately go into a dishonour.

I actually saw a key word or phrase in there that I think is much more significant, especially since Pete had
been to the UCC seminar that I did where my friend in Australia and I found that in the Declaration of
Independence and in the Coronation Oath the security of the Unalienable rights have to be maintained by
the government, by any government. And that is the gist of most of our paperwork in support of the way we
filed our UCC-1.

You see WE DID NOT put a lien the strawman. We did not put a claim on the strawman’s belongings. All
the Strawman has is use and possession. We already have that! So putting a claim on that did not make
sense to us. What we chose to do was put in a claim for the account, what’s been called the pre-paid pool,
the levy from exemption account, whatever! But we’re putting in a claim for it.
All we’re saying basically is, “I don’t see any reason why I am not allowed to access this account to be
exempt from these public levies, fines, fees, charges, costs, whatever” It’s like saying, “that insurance
policy is mine unless you can come back and show me that it was not specifically designated and set aside
for me through this number.”

So when the Secretary of State of Ohio rejected this filing, one of the reasons given was, “the document was
not required.” I would jump on that like a spider on a June bug. I would say or in the alternative let the
record show that the message the Secretary of State of Ohio is sending me, is that this document is not
required ERGO there are no hoops that the man or woman of substance needs to jump through to obtain
access to that exemption.”

You see if the documents not required and I really didn’t have to put in a claim in for that account, they
ALREADY know that’s my insurance policy and my insurance policy is based on that “Declaration of
Independence” where the “RESANT D TANT- the “reason for being” for all government is to maintain the
people, which is spelled out in that Coronation Oath in Australia as well as the life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness in the Declaration of Independence.

And that when the money was taken out, those unalienable rights still had to be secured, I don’t have to jump
through any hoops, however I do probably have to establish a record of who I am.

By that, that’s what Jack and I have been teaching for the past two and half years now. If you are not a man
or woman of substance, meaning you DO NOT ever infringe upon the unalienable rights of anyone else. You
do not injure or damage other people or their property, then you are a man or woman of substance and
you are entitled to that.

So if I were Pete I would come back and say “Thank you very much for sending me the message and
unless I hear from you otherwise that you are NOT sending this message I shall move ahead as if you
have just admitted that I am a man of substance. There is no record that I have damaged or injured
another person or their property and I am entitled to that supersedious bond, which was reinforced by the
Treaty of Peace of 1920 where all the high contracting parties were supposed to pay the debts of the
nationals and the enemy. Then I am o.k., thank you for not filing it, but please LET THE RECORD
SHOW THAT, that this document is not required. I don’t have a problem with you not filing it then.”

So that’s just a little clue on what I think is the BLACK and WHITE of it there. Some of the other details
basically are probably just to give to Jack in private. He can pass them on the Pete because I really don’t
think that there needs to be much detail in talking about the codes or whatever except just to refer to what
they say rather than their numbers as evidence that this was NOT the reason is was rejected. Leaving ONLY
the other reason which is that the document is NOT required.

Isn’t it nice to know that the people, if you truly are people, NOT PERSONS, PERSONS are strawmen who
probably commit a lot of crime but the people, the children of our creator who lived justly and righteously do
not have to jump through any hoops. Our forefathers KNEW that those rights were granted to us by our
creator and NOT by any government and government’s only resant’dant (reason for being). If you watch the
movie ‘National Treasure” is to secure those rights. So besides the fact that Pete reversed the way the
Negative averment and arguable CCI should be written. I think that this is the secret behind that rejection.

“Are you admitting that the document is not required because a man of substance is
protected by the Bond mandated under the tenets of the Declaration of Independence
and the Treaties to maintain the people?”

As long as we have a record showing that we are living in righteousness. I think all the discussion about how
the state where and who can file is irrelevant basically because of the “piece of glass” the bucks Act is
consecutively laid on top of all of this state. It’s what Jack talked about in “Water World” where we know
there’s land we just haven’t seen if for a while. It’s under the glass.

So he can get a Notary to “Memorialize the Dishonour” without you having to know the Statutes and
regulations or whatever but I thought that is as BLACK and WHITE as it would be a good way to open this
up but people could see sometimes the Key Words or Phrases are not as obvious unless you really
do take apart what it is your researching.
 E-mail – Barton Buhtz Hearing
The second one is the email that I was forwarded by somebody and I thought it was important enough to do
another black and white on it on the Buhtz hearing. So I am just going to read the parts that I have in the
email. Now I understand that there is nothing here in the email that is you know like sworn to that’s true. I
don’t know who wrote the email. I just know that there are some misconceptions here that some people
might benefit from listening to.

It starts off by saying. This is an Oregon case that I understand will be resumed in January, its worth
watching. .Now I wanted to put this on this week because there’s only three short weeks before this new
hearing is coming in January and I felt that there was someone who wanted to benefit from this there would
be time to do that. If I waited until January 8th, that would leave only two days before the hearing, not
enough time really to establish your record.

The Title of the email is called, “The reason why the United States District court could not claim
jurisdiction in Barton Buhtz’s case”. My comment is this; whoever wrote this missed the significance of
the hearing or would not have claimed a victory that the Judge admitted he had no jurisdiction. I doubt the
person who wrote this ever attended an Honour/Dishonour Workshop, for if they did they missed the key.
The email then begins!

Unfortunately a good many people seemed to have completely missed seeing the legal significance of U.S
District Court Judge Cooly’s Admission in court last Monday where he admits to having no jurisdiction in
the Barton Buhtz case. And I say “Dear writer of this email there is no legal significance for people to have
missed, sorry! The writer goes on; This was not their fault because most people are unaware of the
underlying behind the scenes fact causing this startling admission from the Judge.

My comment is this; there is no startling admission what you missed was the fact that this hearing, like all
initial court proceedings it is nothing more than a DATA INTEGRITY BOARD hearing where the one side
brings his arguable confidential commercial information, hereinafter called CCI and presents it to the
Judge, who’s acting as the DATA INTEGRITY BOARD HEAD at this stage. We call that DIB, Data
Integrity Board.

You see what they are doing is bringing their “Tooth Pick”.
They’re looking to see if you know enough to bring in YOUR
arguable CCI. They know theirs is a “tooth pick”, frankly
they don’t care.
Remember what you’re taught at the workshop, THEY’RE DEAD! AND THEY HAVE NO (FIRST
HAND) PESONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING. THEY WANT TO SEE IF YOU’LL STAY IN
HONOUR, and just calmly just walk in with YOUR arguable CCI. If you’re arguable CCI is a “Louisville
Slugger” it puts their “tooth pick” to shame and everyone goes home. There would be no controversy so
there is NO jurisdiction that attaches.

The first hearing is NOT a question of jurisdiction it is a question to see IF there COULD BE jurisdiction
because of a controversy. The writer goes on:

Without these facts many people have just assumed that Barton got lucky and got an honest judge! Sorry
there is no such animal. My comment: The Judge doesn’t have to be honest or dishonest at this stage, he’s
just looking to see who’s in honour, who’s in dishonour. Arguing and being silent are TWO
DISHONOURS. If you know anything just about the Public venue you know that picking an argument is a
traverse, which is alleging to argue the facts.

I define argument in the workshop as “Escalating the other party’s

issue”.
That is opposed to a “demure” where the law is arguing, however an argument is an argument and it is
STILL a dishonour! The writer of the email proceeds!

What happened to make the U.S district attorney, refuse to read and certify all of the charges for the record
and to the Judge he had no jurisdiction (He probably meant he had no jurisdiction) was the good old
constitution of the United States of America. Can it be that the constitution be really a valid enforceable
document, which all of the branches of government must obey? Praise God it is true!

My comment:

Sorry! But the constitution is a document that puts chains on government and has nothing to do with the
people unless they want to claim the Title of PERSON. What happened to make the U.S attorney to certify
all of the charges for the record? What happened is he gave Barton his opportunity to present his arguable
CCI. There is no way to certify the U.S attorney’s charges or arguable CCI into the record because at this
stage they are STILL arguable. That is Barton still has a chance to come in and put in HIS arguable CCI. So
until the U.S attorney gets a stipulation, he would be foolish to try to certify his charges. You don’t swear
to Johnny taking the cookie out of the cookie jar until you’re absolutely sure that Johnny has swallowed that
cookie. So no one’s foolish enough are they Mr. or Ms. Writer of this email to certify only one side of an
arguable claim”?

That’s why scripture says, “Go first to your brother, and get a stipulation!

The email goes on: Mr. Buhtz did two very important things before his U.S District court hearing. He served
both the Judge and the U.S attorney with his acceptance of their oath of Office and he demanded that the
court uphold all of his constitutional rights. That’s the writer’s error! Including his right to have his case to
be heard before an article three court!

My comment: This is the BLACK and WHITE of it right here! I am so sorry that you feel those two things
Barton did were important, unless important to you is the result you report at the end of this letter. I am not
clear on the purpose of accepting their oath at this stage because a controversy hasn’t been decided yet that
you want to allow either of these people to handle under their oath.

If you are entitled to the unalienable rights as one of the people of substance, you DON’T have
or WANT constitutional rights. The Constitution is ONLY the device determining HOW the
unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be secured.

Again it’s got nothing to do with Barton unless he is in law enforcement, the email continues:

Both of these constitutional torpedoes scored a direct hit on the power magazines of the USS
Unconstitutional courts and she was sunk to the bottom of the great abyss of judicial tyranny.

My comment: I am sorry that you see Judicial Tyranny as the only thing that happened so far, for Barton was
provided with an opportunity to establish his counterclaim, which should have been protested only if he
wasn’t given that chance.

The Writer continues: Constitutional torpedo number one, the constitution requires that each holder of
public office to swear an oath to (probably meant to Swear an oath to the constitution) and an oath to their
office. The oaths are considered to be an offer to contract with “We the people”.

My comment! Please let me know where you bought this idea from. It had to have been a pretty good
salesman as you probably would buy the London Bridge too! The Oath as I see it is merely an agreement to
UPHOLD the Treaty with “We the people”. That is the declaration of Independence where the resant’dtant
(reason for being) was established, the reason for the government’s existence, which solely for the securing
of the unalienable rights. A Treaty is the highest form of contract. So I don’t see the Oath as an offer to
contract but evidence that they have contracted. Contracted to uphold that Treaty by way of the terms
listed in the constitution! Those terms BIND THEM!
The email goes on: For a contract to be effect (probably for a contract to “be in effect” or for a contract “to
be effective”) the person receiving the offer must accept it. This is what Barton did using Jack and Margy
Flynn’s material on Oath’s of Office. He accepted the prosecutor’s and the Judge’s Oaths of office making
them binding on them in the performance of that contract to him. Barton noticed both the Judge and the
prosecutor were the costs for any violation were under the constitution or Oaths or contracts.

Dear Writer I say: Have you ever looked up “NOTICE”? If you give “Notice” to not trespass am I not
warning you and isn’t a warning the beginning of an argument? All these people were doing were giving
Barton the opportunity to show that there is no controversy. Notice will be made clear when I get onto the
next document, the “Motion in Limine”. No warning is necessary; Barton just put his hand on his holster and
dared them to proceed. The email goes on: The cost of violating their oath or the contract is the immediate
removal from office being personally liable for any damages and treason for which they could go to jail.

My comment – You’d be correct if the contract you’re referring to with the one that secures the unalienable
rights. It is highly unlikely that any other government official would allow one of their own to throw the
baby out with the bath water. For they do not want the consequences for the failure to secure the unalienable
rights, that is the right of the people to alter or abolish the form of government to take effect because of this
one case because of the actions of one bad apple in this case, hence the constitution comes into play. It fines
them and by violating that they’re found violating that, they’re put away by their own rather than allow the
people to put the entire government away.

Remember our founding forefathers studied long and hard to find a form of government that would
protect the rights our creator bestowed upon us. I just got done reading the herald papers and I have done so
much research on that right now and I can see that the constitution really was nothing more than a way or a
manner in which they were going to secure those rights. I would be said if someone wearing a black robe
went to jail because as a man it would mean that he failed to honour other men and that’s a black mark for all
people of substance. Nothing was torpedoed here really, absolutely nothing and you know at the end of your
report when I get to it is going to prove it. Misleading others and other people is also a failure to honour
others regardless of your intent. So please kind Sir or kind Miss, whoever wrote this reconsider your
interpretation before passing it on as truth.

The email continues: “Constitutional torpedo number 2, Barton also noticed both the Judge and the U.S
attorney that he demanded his right under the constitution to have his case heard by an article 3 court
judge.”

My Response: Find the Key word of phrase. I’ll read it again what the email says: Barton also noticed the
Judge and the U.S attorney that he demanded his right under the constitution to have his case heard by an
article 3 court Judge”. Now what’s the key word or phrase? It isn’t article 3, it isn’t court Judge, it isn’t even
demanded his right under the constitution. They key word or phrase is HIS CASE!

His Case! Did he just admit that there is a case here NOW? That he wanted to “fight and argue”? What
case? There’s no case is Barton would have come in with his arguable CCI and you’ll see that in this next
document that I am going to go through. WHAT FOOLS WE MORTALS BE!

There isn’t and wasn’t a case up until that point. As soon as Barton said he wanted his case heard he just
admitted he was going to fight. Now the Judge says, “oh look at that, we have our controversy! – We have
a case, we have liftoff”. It’s called jurisdiction. Noting your own report below that this IS what happened.
You see you can’t say that I am wrong because the result of the end of this hearing came out exactly this way.
So you write further: “The U.S attorney prosecutor refused to read and certify the charges against Mr. Buhtz
because he would be committing fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, perjury and a host of other serious legal
offence plus violating his oath of office if he did.”

My Comment – I highly doubt that the U.S attorney feared any other such thing. He innocently came in
there because someone else gave him his or her energy to bring the charge. He merely laid his
“Toothpick” on the table. He laid out his arguable CCI. I tell about Eddie Kahn, his hearing in my
workshop. The same thing happened to him before he left the country. The Judge even told Eddie, “This is
an ARGUMENT hearing, not an evidentiary hearing.” In other words, “I am hearing arguable CCI today.
There is no need for evidence yet. EVIDENCE IS TESTIMONY. ITS’S ONLY REQUIRED IN A
CONTROVERSY.

So first of all let’s see if we have one and what does Eddie do? He comes back and says, “Where’s your
jurisdiction?” Now isn’t that asking for evidence? Of course it is. Its evidence of jurisdiction! In that case
the U.S attorney stood up and repeated what the Judge said. Now she didn’t have to. It wasn’t as if no-one
heard it. She did it to help Eddie. She was in effect saying, I don’t think Mr. Kahn heard you your honour.
And after she repeated it Eddie then said, “I’m not giving you jurisdiction” – BIG MISTAKE!

He was saying, “I’m not giving you my arguable CCI to even see if there is a controversy”. So you’re
judged as if you didn’t have any and told the prosecutor to proceed. Isn’t that what you report later in this
email that that’s exactly what happened in this case? Could they all be doing it wrong? Jack has taught
repeatedly “that they don’t do anything wrong!” When are we going to start getting the message? When are
we going to get down off the PRIDE HORSE we’re riding and take a course where this is taught? Are we too
proud that because it’s not a man teaching you? Don’t we realize that women represent the church and only
children of the creator are considered to be entitled to those unalienable rights the creator granted? And
the officials, his babysitters are securing. If we don’t show him who we are and we continue to fight and
argue we’ll continue to be led away in chains.

More of the email, “The U.S attorney knows that he can only charge a Sovereign American citizen with
crimes under the common law and only in a court of common law, which the constitution says is an article
three court.”

My Response: Let’s get this straight once and for all please. If the babysitters of the creator are put here to
ensure our unalienable rights and some miscreants’ rape and murder does the creator want them to go free
just because he created them as living men? Or is that only that live according to the laws he set up for us to
follow? There’s no get out of Jail free card! Until you show, not tell your Sovereign. That’s done because
you’re living in his image as Sovereign, not trespassing on anyone or their property. So don’t expect me to
buy into that, “You don’t have any jurisdiction” to ensure no-one commits crimes story. Read Romans 1,
Verse 13. Then try and sell that story with a straight face.

More of the email: Any attempt on his part to bring charges in any other court will be a willful disregard of
Barton’s constitutional rights, rule of law and usurping of the constitution and treason.

My comments: This is so far fetched it’s incredible. I know the case in Michigan where the man demanded
an article three court and the Judge said, “This is an article three court”. And that man in now in his second
year of a twenty year sentence. For a lack of knowledge my people shall perish! Go read Hosea 4: 6.

And the writer continues in the same vein unfortunately: “The U.S attorney in this case seems to be much
brighter than Judge Cooley because when the U.S attorney refused to read and certify charges against Mr.
.Buhtz in court, the Judge knowing full well that he had no constitutional rights to attempt to claim
jurisdiction over Barton does so by entering a plea for him.

My comment: Did you just hear what he said? Repeat the part about where I explain why the U.S attorney
did not read the charges to certify into the record. THEY AREN’T CERTIFIABLE YET! YOU DON’T
HAVE A STIPULATION. But Barton rejected his opportunity to RE-DRAFT, to come back with his
arguable CCI, which would have been his counterclaim and so the U.S attorney didn’t need to certify them
after that. Once Barton finished his ranting and didn’t produce any arguable CCI, the Judge figured just like
in Eddies’ case, HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY! So it was Barton’s own dishonour that VERIFIED THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIMSELF. Hey! Why should the attorney do it now? When they can get the
unknowing man to do it to himself out of his ignorance, BUT even then the Judge gave Barton another
chance he plead him not guilty showing Barton still had a chance to settle and close it.

The email continues: The Judge at this point ventured further out on the legal plank of the USS
unconstitutional court teetering over the edge and stared into great abyss of judicial tyranny recklessly
tempting his constitutional fate. He must have well know that he was demonstrating a willful disregard of
Barton’s constitutional rights, rule of law and a usurping of the constitution and treason.”
My comment: Oh sure he got up that morning and said, “Gee honey go and pack the stuff in the attic because
I am going to go out there today and commit a violation of the constitution and treason”.

The email continues: “The Federal Judges tend to have great big egos and he probably felt that he was well
protected by the corrupt system.”

My comment: Barton did it! Barton did it!, Barton did it! Say that three times and then call me in the
morning. Too bad your colourful writing lacks the understanding that would help Barton. I just finished
reading a thousand page transcript or major parts of it and I couldn’t keep count of the numerous times that
Judge tried to help the man who is kind of not understanding that that’s what the Judge was attempting to
accusing the Judge of imposing his black robed religion on him and other inanities. I truly pray for you who
wrote this if you do not get arrested yourself, until you have more understanding under your belt and more
compassion for the Judge of a public servant because on a daily basis they REALLY do deal with mostly
miscreants or you’re the one that’s going to be looking at the legal plank, the U.S.S Federal prison.

The email goes on in the same vein: “This Judge was not so arrogant and power mad to push the issue of
Jurisdiction any further when Barton refused to volunteer into”

My comment: Wee! Here we go again! Key word or phrase! Let me read that last sentence again. Pick out
the key word or phrase. “This Judge was not so arrogant and power mad to push the issue of jurisdiction any
further when Barton refused to volunteer into.” Key word or phrase! REFUSED! BARTON REFUSED!
There was the dishonour that granted the very jurisdiction he did not want to give BUT he didn’t even
understand they didn’t even have it at the point of the D.I.B. hearing. I don’t know where you getting
arrogance and power mad from. If someone raped your five year old daughter you would be happy to have
the same guy charge him and listen for his arguable CCI because you’d know it was a reprobate and he
probably wouldn’t have any. Now isn’t that true? Miss or Mr. Writer!

The email continues: “However the entering for a plea for Barton was a violation of the Judge’s Oath of
office because Barton had accepted his Oath for contract.” You know that doesn’t even make sense to me.
“However the entering for a plea for Barton was a violation of the Judge’s Oath of Office.” Do you think it
says anywhere in the Oath of office, “I will never ever, ever enter a plea for anyone? Because unless that’s a
term and condition in that Oath, there’s no violation of the Judge’s Oath of office!

People! We need to think through things NOT just up to them. Barton accepted alright but it wasn’t the Oath
of Office, HE ACCEPTED THE OFFER TO FIGHT BY NOT SHOWING THERE WAS NO
CONTROVERSY THAT GRANTED JURISDICTION BY COMING UP WITH A
COUNTERCLAIM THROUGH THE ARGUABLE CCI. And unfortunately right now because it takes
me four days in a workshop, I can’t give you a lengthy lesion on that on this program. But if I do another
workshop and you identify yourself to me Mr. or Miss Writer, I will be sure to invite you and let you know
what’s going on.

More of the email: “From that point on the Judge had the absolute duty to uphold Barton’s constitutional
rights at every step of the process and this meant that he probably should have dismissed the case against
Barton immediately upon the U.S attorney’s refusal to read and certify the charges against him. Judges gets
so accustomed to committing and getting away with judicial tyranny but they just can’t seem to help
themselves even when they are at risk of being slammed by the constitution for it. Perhaps now that we know
the power behind the Oath contract under the constitution, we can exploit the arrogance of Judges and take
some of them out of office violating their oaths or contract sending a shockwave throughout the whole
corrupt judicial system.”

My comment: Oh there’s a brilliant idea, let us go around exploiting now that’ll solve all the worlds
problems. I’ve already explained what’s wrong in this theory of yours and you just keep repeating it without
giving any thought to it. I sincerely hope that changes that you really study instead of point the finger and
accuse what you don’t understand because there are three fingers pointing back at you.

The email goes on: “Judge Cooley obviously knew that Barton would not fall into his ploy of entering a plea
for him and pre-arranged before Barton entered the court on Monday, this highly unusual meeting between
Barton and a supposed article three court Judge. How else would Judge Cooley know that the article three
court Judge would be able to meet with Barton on Friday? Ed verera has proven that there are no
constitutionally authorized article three court judges in America. So it will be interesting to see where the
court case of Barton Buhtz goes from here if anywhere.”

My response: sounds to me like that the Judge did show Barton exactly what he asked for, an article three
Judge! And Barton didn’t buy that the Judge as being one, how absolutely dishonourable. The Judge did a
full acceptance when Barton asked to talk to or see an article three judge. He honoured his request however
even if Ed verera did prove there were no article three court judges in the U.S, might it be that none are
needed. They don’t charge people of substance in their court, they charge strawmen. If they do take them
and order them in there, it s for YOU to show that you’re one of the people of substance by showing your
innocence through the counterclaim as God’s people are not supposed to violate his laws! But if they do
they get punished through the heathen courts, which are set up to argue.

You see no-ones sin is worse than any other. And so in God’s wrath you don’t escape just because you’re a
living man. So let’s see where it goes if anywhere, you say? He’s going right to trial because you’ve already
said there are already hearings and pre-trial conferences and things like that set on calendar and it’s all
because Barton was not prepared with his arguable CCI. And I will tell you that this will be shown very
clearly in the next document that I am going to do the Black and White of it.

Barton wasn’t prepared which should have been, could’ve been with a Louis Ville slugger laid next to their
toothpick. Now I showed Irwin Schiff how to put an easy slugger together and he escorted me out of his
office, he wanted to be right. He wanted to prove that there were absolutely no laws saying anyone had to
file an income tax. Do you know that that is an impossible task? He is basing his attempt to prove that on a
faulty presumption. The presumption is that that law has to be written in the internal revenue code. I have
news for you. The law could be written anywhere. We found the definition of vehicle in Title 18 which is the
Federal criminal code, I believe its section 31, who would ever think to look there for that BUT there’s no
law that says they have to put in a law with other laws similar to it.

In fact if you study how laws were made and the first laws came out of New York, the laws were deliberately
put in a pile and shot gunned and California adopted New York’s and who knows who adopted whose after
that. So basing your proof on a faulty presumption that if there is such a law it has to be written in the
internal revenue code and Irwin told me, “I looked at that code upside down, inside out, right side around
and all this, whose to say that law isn’t written on the bottom of a cabbage leaf in Borneo, whose to say that
law isn’t written on a piece of paper, taped to the flag up there on the moon or on the bottom of the
President’s shoes and those shoes are passed on from year to year. You know if you want to get obnoxious
about this, that law could be ANYWHERE and Irwin would have to spend 50 lifetimes searching for it.

So attempting to prove something like that is a ridiculous attempt. By the way he is now in prison. But you
my students in the honour/dishonour class can tell you that this idea I had would have worked, in fact it did
work in Alaska where this process saved a man from a seventy year prison term for practicing medicine
without a license. So dear writer thank you for your interpretation to provide yet another platform for others
to see the error of thinking of those with closed minds, those that can think up to something but through it
and allowed the Black and White of it are chance to encourage discernment in thinking, THINK ABOUT
WHAT IT IS YOU’RE READING. THINK THROUGH IT, NOT JUST UP TO IT. I sincerely hope that
we can a chorus poor Judge Cooley going before that man is misaligned any more for doing his job.
 GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
And now I’d like to do the Black and White of it on the government’s motion in Limine in a Federal case.
This was written in 2005. Before I do this I would like to repeat a section of my session in the
HONOUR/DISHONOUR workshop. It’s based on that Texas seat belt case that the Supreme Court took
which the supreme court took that case because they said the seat belt wasn’t a significant enough of an
issue, But if you read between the lines and Jack got the interpretation absolutely right.

A woman got arrested because she argued with a cop. The cop told her, “If you keep arguing with me about
whether or not I am going to write seat belt on the ticket, I will take you to jail.” Because when she stopped
she took off her seat belt. She had it on while she was driving but when the officer came up to the window he
said, “Oh I see you don’t have your seat belt on. I am going to write that on the ticket.” She said, “You can’t
do that I just took it off.” He said, “Ma’am you don’t have it on”. She said, “but I had it on until I stopped
and then I went to reach for my purse to get my Driver’s license.” He said, “Ma’am I don’t see it on you”.

Now do you see? If he said, “I don’t see it on you” what she could’ve done was to put the seat belt back on
and say, “Oh now you do!” I know I hope that you are laughing because it’s almost as simple as that. But
when that case went up to the Supreme Court because she told him, “You cannot arrest me on a seatbelt
charge because that’s an infraction and Texas has a statute that says you cannot arrest on an infraction.”

So the Supreme Court came back, took the case actually came back and said, “we find that the officer did
nothing wrong.” Now you see all of the Patriots now at that time went into a major uproar. Titles in the
patriot headlines papers were, “Supreme Court Authorizes police State. Police can now violate their own
Statutes.”Etc etc and Jack Really impressed me when he got this one right on the head. He said, “The
Supreme Court ruling, “the police officer did nothing wrong” was their way of COLOURABLY SAYING,
HE DIDN’T ARREST HER IN VIOLATION OF A STATUTE, HE ARRESTED HER FOR HER
DISHONOUR! – HER ARGUMENT and he did tell her that. He said, “if you keep arguing with me I will
arrest you.

Her problem was the brainwashing, the PUBLIC FOOL’S SYSTEM; she tried to connect the dots thinking
he meant I am going to arrest you because you don’t have a seat belt on but it’s not what he said. I cover
three other cases in my class that show that all of these higher court rules are based on honour dishonour. I’ll
go through them quickly because they are important to my interpretation of what this U.S attorney was doing
in this government motion in Limine. And dear listener if you understand it you will be leaps and bounds
ahead in where you’re going with these kind of issues.

The first case is called BRISCOE VS LEYHILL and it was a case where a sheriff admitted he lied on the
stand against Briscoe. Briscoe sued him and Briscoe lost because the court ruling came down and said,
“That officer is immune from lying on the stand” and again everyone went into an uproar and said, “Oh my
goodness they are now allowing to commit perjury.”

Well if you really interpret what they said, you have to understand that the police officer was in a trial. A
trial is set up for argument. ALL AGUMENTS ARE DISHONOUR. Briscoe agreed to go to Trial to fight the
charges. He was already in dishonour. Does it matter if the sheriff lied if the guy who brings the case is
already in dishonour? He’s already going to lose on the dishonour. What the court ruling said basically was,
IT DIDN’T AFFECT THE FACT THAT THIS MAN WHO CHOSE TO GO TO TRIAL, RATHER
THAN SETTLE IT, IN PRE-TRIAL PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, WAS ALREADY
GOING TO LOSE!

You see when both parties come in and argue as I show in my talking heads diagram, nothing gets to the
Judge except both sides presumption and that’s because NO-ONE can prove their side, that’s why you
need to do it privately first outside of court to first go to your brother to get a stipulation.

So the fact that Briscoe chose to go to trial he already chose to throw in his presumption, which was a very
weak one probably. It had to have been smaller than a toothpick because the other side won. He didn’t know
how to do it he didn’t even do it he chose to argue. So when the Judge gets nothing but two presumptions,
he can flip a coin and I can guarantee you that if you’re on one side and the governments on the other
side, you’re not going to win, it’s a two headed coin.
A major case called DaVilla Vs Shalala. In this case Da villa sued the secretary of the H.U.D which was the
cabinet post at the time and Shalala was in it. Because she has refused to give him some kind of benefit that
he applied for on the basis of she couldn’t find the record and the court came back in that case and said,
“ANY AGENCY WHO FAILS TO PRODUCE OR RECREATE A RECORD MUST EXPECT THE
COURT TO CONSTRUE THE CONTRARY TO ITS POSITION. Now key word or phrase in there!

The key word is “FAIL TO PRODUCE OR RECREATE A RECORD”. Look if you fail to produce
something, that’s either AN ARGUMENT or REFUSAL or DISHONOUR or its SILENCE. YOU
DON’T HAVE A RECORD TO STAND ON and that’s a very beneficial case for us. So again it has to do
with HONOUR and DISHONOUR. When you FAIL to produce something, that’s a DISHONOUR – YOU
LOSE!

The last case is called OK CORP Vs. WILLIAM and this is a case that says, “All entities must attempt
private administrative process BEFORE they can seek Judicial Review.” In that case it spells it out; if you
don’t come to the negotiating table with all of your elements then you have NO RIGHT to take it to court
and you know that’s exactly what’s being done. When you are given a traffic ticket or an indictment or a
compliant or an information. They are giving you your arguable CCI, therefore they cannot swear to it, they
can’t certify to it. They are only presenting one side. If you understand that DATA INTEGRITY BOARD
CYCLE that’s them showing you THEIR RECORD!

Now I do a segment in the workshop that shows that we actually initiated the DATA INTEGRITY BOARD
CYCLE in what I call the AFLACK case and the government responded. The IRS actually did a full
acceptance, agreeing to come into the DATA INTEGRITY BOARD cycle with us and present their evidence
and it was a “TOOTHPICK”. I mean that it was such a weak piece of paper that I don’t think it would have
been able to be written on it was that thin BUT they did it, which showed us that this cycle is the BASIS
FOR EVERYTHING. This is how everything gets started.

So in this particular case right now this is called “The government’s motion in Limine”. In Limine means at
the outset, in the beginning presented only to the Judge before or during Trial raised preliminarily because of
an issue about the admissibility of evidence believed by the movement to be pre-judicial, that’s what in
Limine means.

You understand of course that this comes in long after the indictment has been passed down by the grand
jury. If you fail the test at the stage of the indictment, at the point of the arraignment where you are to
bring in your arguable CCI, then you get another chance because this US attorney actually benefited these
defendants by doing this motion in Limine. She in here actually repeated every one of her arguable CCI like
waving a red flag in front of a bull saying “you hoo over here you missed it the first time in the indictment. I
can tell because you hired an attorney to come in and argue for you and we’re going to give you another
chance to try and settle this privately.” So she writes this motion in Limine, it is four pages long. I am going
to go through this pointing out to you the key words or phrases after I give you a chance to think of them. So
as I am reading these sentences try to focus on what the key word or phrase is that this US attorney is
hanging up on a red flag to wave in front of you because actually what she is doing is saying, “this is the
presumption we’re going on, do you have anything in your bag of arguable CCI to break this presumption”.
And if you come back and say, “Oh yeah man I have a Louisville slugger”. Then it goes to the Judge to see
which side will be sustained. So please listen closely so that I can through much of this as possible before the
time ends here.

Now comes the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA by and through U.S attorney and hereby moves in Limine,
similar to rule 103 of the Federal rules of evidence that this court hold the possible dissent and evidence
described below to be inadmissible of the trial of the instant case. Key word or phrase?

“TRIAL” “to be inadmissible in the Trial” Now folks this is what I mean by thinking through something
NOT up to it. If she wants it to be deemed inadmissible “IN THE TRIAL” and she spelled that out real
clear here. Could it possibly be that this evidence is admissible somewhere else? Like perhaps in the private
administrative process? Do you think that she might be telling you that here? If you’re tuned in to picking
out the key word or phrase, it’s admissible in the trial. She could have just said, “I want the court to hold this
evidence to be inadmissible in this instant case” but ah that would have been totally a different meaning
wouldn’t it?
“The United States further moves this court to instruct defendants and all witnesses called by defendants the
use of such evidence whether through pleadings or other documentary evidence, testimony, remarks,
questions or arguments either directly or indirectly is prohibited. The possible evidence subject to this
motion is espolen.”

Ok all you hard fighting patriots out there go get your pom-poms because you’re going to be in an uproar
when you hear what it is this U.S attorney wants to keep the defendants from discussing at the trial but don’t
start waving your pom-poms too angrily yet until you listen to the other side which means that if this is not
admissible at trial, this U.S attorney is saying, You hoo this is exactly what you need to discuss before there’s
any trial, before you set up a controversy the way Barton did”, Before like Williams said during your
PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

Any evidence which seeks to establish that the income tax laws of the United States are unconstitutional or
unlawful or that defendants believed, even in good faith that those laws are unconstitutional or unlawful,
specifically included within this request is any evidence challenging the process for ratification of the 16th
amendment of the U.S constitution, evidence alleging the unconstitutionality or unlawfulness of Title 26 and
any challenge to the validity of the regulations promulgated by the internal revenue service applicable to the
above statutory provisions.

Oh man they’re tying up hands. NO! Who could make a case that the income tax laws of the United States
are unconstitutional except someone from within the U.S Corporation? How could you or these defendants
make that case? Who could of known that the intent of those laws unless it was the person who designed the
law, the legislator! Where these defendants’ legislators at the time that amendment was passed? Do you
understand why you would have absolutely no standing to discuss this in a trial because you couldn’t
present this as a fact or you couldn’t present the opposite as a fact. So a jury has no right to hear it, you
understand don’t you? The Juries listen to facts!

However if you were to raise this issue PRIOR to that time in a private administrative process through your
arguable CCI in a LETTER ROGATORY going directly to the IRS, keeping in mind they only have four
choices, you might win this because they’re going to role over, they’re going to go into dishonour. They will
be the ones that either ARGUE or are SILENT. At which point you go to the Notary Protest process and
you show according to Da’villa vs Shalala the prosecution has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted in the private and if they can’t make a claim in the private they have no right to seek judicial
remedy. So she gave you exactly what is it you needed to include in your arguable CCI in the private
administrative process by telling you right here what they’re presumption is going to be.

“Any evidence challenging the validity of the United States Monetary system or the Federal Reserve notes
are legal tender or a unit measure of value” Oh yes they’re tying our hands. They’re not going to let us talk
about the truth because they don’t want the truth out again. I am going to ask you how would these
defendants know whether the United States Monetary system is valid in the United States Corporation?
Could the United States tomorrow say, “Hey everyone within this corporation is going to stop using Federal
Reserve notes and we’re all going to pull out that monopoly money that’s in the Parker brother’s games and
we’re going to that.” Oh no better than that lets all start using warmfer meaning everyone would start
charging down to the seashore tonight. You see how could you argue that? You have NO personal
knowledge of this whatsoever? So if you don’t have personal knowledge would your testimony or evidence
be inadmissible? The answer is YES! ABSOLUTELY!

Any evidence that wages, profit, interest or other gains do not constitute income subject to taxation within
the meaning of revenue laws of the United States including the internal revenue code.” Who are you to say
that they’re not? Do you have their stipulation? NO! so they wanted to say that wages, profit, interest or your
TEARS or your HAIR constitute income is in that corporation, that’s their corporate privilege to do it.

Any testimony or evidence [Except through defendants] or physical evidence regarding defendant’s good
faith belief the defendant’s gains were not income or subject to taxation or that defendant’s were not required
to file federal income tax returns or that defendant’s were not subject to the income tax laws.
You need to admit that what you have done up until now is WRONG! That you tried to do this in the private
sandbox, not by the private process because how can they get the evidence in? It says, “we want to keep it
out except through defendants”.
How about if they did an Affidavit attached to your arguable CCI in the private administrative process? I
haven’t seen any material facts or evidence which demonstrates that it was NOT my good faith belief
based on this, that and the other thing and believe that none exists. THAT’S HOW YOU GET IT IN!

Now how could the Judge expect the other side to have any personal knowledge if this wasn’t your good
faith belief? You see the Judge deals with the “law of the case”. The law of the case is what you and the
other party STIPULATE to, BEFORE you eve go into a controversy. It’s almost as if it’s an ice cube tray
that you, the Judge and the other side are creating because that Judge after that’s created, that ice cube tray is
created, is going to turn around at the end of the trial and hand that ice cube tray into the jury and say, “take
the facts as you heard them come out during the trial and attach them to this ice cube tray. You must use this
ice cube tray. We have all agreed that this is the law of the case.

You’re going to laugh but many of you have done research in the law library and if you’re looking for a case
site that says, Black is Black you’re going to find just as many case sites that say, Black is White as you find
say, Black is Black and you’re looking at this saying, “What’s wrong here? There is no truth. The truth is
whatever they make it. YOU’VE GOT IT!. The law is THE LAW OF THE CONTRACT.

If you and I agree today that Jim’s shirt is blue then for the purpose of our contract, Jim’s shirt is blue even if
the radio waves, the light wave pattern, the infrared waves, x ray, everything else in the world knows that
that shirt is red. That is why you can find opposing case cites. IT’S WHAT IS DETERMINED BY THE
PARTIES, PRIOR TO ANY JUDICIAL ACTIVITY. Absolutely amazing! You see you don’t need
testimony at trial. IF YOU TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL YOU BECOME A DEBTOR but it says they will
allow testimony in THROUGH the defendants but it DOESN’T say it has to be ORALLY at the trial.

If you’re smart enough and know that you can get it in BY GETTING A STIPULATION from the
prosecutor during the private administrative process.

“Any evidence which attempts to suggest that the 5th amendment prohibition against compelled self
incrimination is a defence to the failure to file a tax return” Key word or phrase!

DEFENCE! Isn’t a defence a dishonour? Is there any defence that isn’t a dishonour? No because it’s all
arguments. Now can the 5th amendment protect you against a dishonour? NO! You see when you take a
look at the constitution it says, “I have the right to remain silent”, which is a protection against self
incrimination.
I am telling you that this is for the PUBLIC SERVANTS. They will deliberately roll over and go into a
dishonour rather than touch issues like this which are tar baby!

“Any documentary evidence including, but not limited to statutes, codes, judicial decisions, legal opinion,
writing, tax protestor material upon which defendants purportedly relied in determining that gains were not
subject to the income tax laws” Oh I want to read this again because I really want you to try to find the key
word or phrase.

“Any documentary evidence including, but not limited to statutes, codes, judicial decisions, legal opinion,
writings, tapes or tax protestor materials upon which the defendants purportedly relied in determining that
gains were not subject to the income tax laws.” So are any of the things listed facts? Is a statute a fact? Is a
code a fact? Is a judicial decision a fact? How about a legal opinion? Writing? Tapes, tax protestor materials?
Are any of these facts? NO THEY’RE ALL PRETEND GAMES IN OPERATION! Jack calls them all
legal fictions. Are there any of these things which a jury could rule on as a fact? Remember that juries deal
with facts. NO, SO YOU CAN’T LET THEM IN TO TRIAL. The jury is only supposed to decide the facts.

Are they admitting then that there judicial decisions aren’t fact? ABSOLUTELY! That legal opinion is
NOT FACT? ABSOLUTELY! Neither are the Statutes, the codes and then again neither are tapes,
materials, writings or tax protestor stuff. So you see it doesn’t belong in front of a jury because they’re not
facts, HOWEVER folks they are issues of law and if you turn these into your arguable CCI in a private
administrative process, you could get them through a STIPULATION to admit that a statute says something
or code admits something or judicial decision say something in your favour. You see these belong before the
trial, they’re only telling you that this “Motion in Limine” these things don’t belong at trial.

So you, because you think that trial is the only way start to accuse them of limiting and restricting your
“constitutional rights”. I have news for you. How can a jury know what you relied on first of all? Can you be
absolutely certain about what you relied on? Folks you may think that you relied on A, B and C but
something may have triggered your memory where you knowledge in childhood and THAT may be
influencing you.

So even what you relied on is ONLY your presumption. It’s got nothing to do with the facts therefore it does
not belong in front of the jury and she is TELLING YOU THIS but where CAN you deal with this issue?
You can deal with this issue in the arguable CCI. You can take every one of those judicial decisions, statutes
and codes and present them as arguable CCI to the other side and say, “do you admit that this says this”?

Now if they come back and they agree with you, you win! If they redraft you, No problem because you can
always redraft back! If they argue, YOU WIN because that’s a dishonour and they choose that about 90 % of
the time. If there’s silence you win! Why? Because that’s another dishonour and they choose that the other
10% of the time. They WILL roll over for you if you give them the chance because THEY KNOW all they
have is a toothpick. Why is it, that all they have is a toothpick? BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD! They are
dead fictional corporate entities and they have NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, all they can do is rely
on their record. And if you draft them to correct and change their record, they have to tell you why they
can’t. We just saw this in Pete’s case when I started discussing that earlier.

Let me go on. “Any evidence regarding the civil procedures available to the internal revenue service to
collect taxes due and owing the United states from the defendants” Again what could you possibly know
about the civil procedures available to the internal revenue service and what business is it of yours if you
NOT in privity with them, to care? BUT if you can set yourself apart as one of the exempt, however
honourable enough to help this entity who is trying to get rid of his high debts by offering your asset fund
INSTEAD of liability instruments for the debt of the charged party, THE STRAWMAN because your
honourable and you don’t want to see this other party keep escalating their debt through the use of
liability instruments, ask them why you can’t do that? Why it is that they didn’t charge the strawman
specifically TO GET YOU the man of substance who has the ONLY substance which is the assets.

I mean if only for the fact that that’s a tar baby and they don’t want to touch it, don’t go into dishonour and
you get the Judge to rule in your favour by sustaining your arguable CCI and they guess what, THEY CAN’T
RAISE THAT ISSUE in the trial if it ever goes there. See, Of course if they don’t have any issues to go to
trial, the indictment is gone and you’re going to see this U.S attorney admit this later down the road

“Any evidence that seeks to establish or suggest that defendants were not PERSONS subject to the taxes
imposed by Title 26 in that defendants were not residents of the District of Columbia, non resident aliens,
foreign corporations, agents of a foreign corporation getting income from sources within the United States,
nor a citizen of a particular state or country or resident alien having income from abroad or from a U.S
possession, nor employees of a state or Federal government nor engaged in any occupation, nor a vessel in
admiralty, nor any particular type of person natural or otherwise.” Wow you say! She sure shut us down. No
she didn’t, all she did was prevent this from going to a jury and it isn’t because they don’t want the jury to
hear it, it’s because they WANT YOU TO SETTLE THESE ISSUES, UP FRONT IN THE PRIVATE
ADMINSTRATIVE PROCESS.

Rather than testify to this or produce evidence, you can go and get their stipulation by arguable CCI asking
them to produce evidence that YOU ARE WILLINGLY AND KNOWLINGLY EACH ONE OF THESE
THINGS. You see if you do your arguable CCI correctly you ALWAYS ask them for what they can’t
produce rather than come in and ARGUE their issues. Just discussing their issue is called a traverse and
when you’re arguing it, you’re ESCALATING THEIR ISSUE but you’re not bringing in YOURS, but
she’s telling you right here these are the presumptions that we’re going on. But if you’re going to break them
you can’t do it in front of a jury. You have to do it in a PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
because the only thing that determines whether or not it is a fact that you ARE a RESIDENT of the
District of Columbia or a Citizen of the United States is YOU!
 And YOU have only your presumption that you’re not? But if you go to them first and say, “Where’s your
evidence that I WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY signed up as a U.S Citizen and they don’t produce it,
NOW YOU HAVE A STIPULATION! Now you have THEIR AGREEMENT and now it BECOMES
A FACT but it becomes a fact regarding the law of the Contract. : The law of the contract now says
you’re NOT LIABLE.

So where’s the Jury going to hand any kind of a fact on that portion of the ice cube tray? There isn’t one so
they can’t even take that to trial. You can do a Motion in Limine to stop them from talking about that because
you ALREADY have their STIPULATION that you are NOT that. It’s amazing when you start to
understand that this woman has been helping us all the way through so far. We’re on part I

“Any evidence that seeks to establish or suggest that this court is without jurisdiction”, I already told you if
you’re this far in you have jurisdiction because you failed to break the presumption earlier at the DIB hearing
before the court even decided it was a controversy through YOUR REFUSAL.

J. “Any evidence provided by tax experts, regarding opinion concerning the status, impact, effect and
significance of tax law and related subjects.” Now I am not going to go into this in-depth right now because
when this lady gives in to her Memorandum of points and authority she gives you the BIGGEST CLUE
why YOU NEED TO DO THE PRIVATE ADMINSTRATIVE PROCESS and she does it because she
tells you that the judge DOESN’T NEED TAX EXPERTS. The JUDGES KNOWLEDGE IS DEEMED
SUFFICIENT. Now keep that in mind because when I get to it this is the part that really tipped the scales for
me.

Section K. “Any evidence that seeks to establish that the process by which the defendant are before the court
is historically flawed or otherwise flawed or not to defendants liking, standards, demand or imagination
which appear to claim that

A) A Natural PERSON as opposed to a PERSON is not included in the Federal tax laws
B) That the United States is engaged in the practice of slavery to steal citizens labour
C) That the PERSON engaged in the investigation and prosecution in this matter has been
engaged in crimes including extortion, oppression, fraud or lack of authority to be so
engaged
D) That the Federal tax laws violated the defendants perceived right of contract
E) That the contract laws of the United States are not positive laws
F) That there is relevant significance between direct taxes and indirect taxes
G) That the taxing authorities or composition of the Federal grand Jury
H) That the laws of congress do not extend into this state

Wow! Again it sounds like she’s shutting you out but you see the KEY WORD there is CLAIM. You just
cannot bring your presumption there, IT’S NOT A FACT! Juries can only hear facts. Until you have a
STIPULATION, all you have is a PRESUMPTION. So we’re not going to let you come in and CLAIM it.

The other key word is PROCESS. They are there because they put themselves there, the defendants I am
talking about. By not presenting valid COUNTERCLAIM or ARGUABLE CCI at the DIB hearing So its
not historically flawed or otherwise flawed and just because it’s not to the defendants liking, standards or
demands from imagination, it’s their own fault they put themselves there. Folks that’s the end of the
Memorandum, I mean this motion and you will see that the U.S attorney just laid out each and every one of
HER ARGUABLE CCI’S for you to come back in and put in your arguable CCI’s.

She just told you in no uncertain terms WHAT PRESUMPTION’S she’s preceding on and it gets even
better because in her motion or Memorandum of points and authority that supports this motion she’s going to
show you that here toothpick that she basis the CCI’s on is nothing more than toilet paper this. All of this
should have been done PRIOR as the COUNTERCLAIM therefore you’re not able to raise it NOW!

Are you aware that the Federal rules of civil procedure say, that you WAIVE A DEFENCE IF YOU DO
NOT RAISE IT and FRPC8 says that, IF YOU FAIL TO DENY ITS DEEMED AS AN ADMISSION.
What are you admitting? THE LAW! THE LAW OF THE CASE! Every one of these issues deals with the
law. It’s exactly what the Judge is going to lay down before the Jury during the Jury instruction. The law of
the case, that ice cube tray that the Judge is going to hold before him to see if whether certain facts are going
to be admissible during the case, which is why attorneys object to certain things. What they’re really saying
is, “Oh excuse me your honour, but that fact is irrelevant or immaterial because you
can’t find one of those little segments of the ice cube tray that this fact can sit into. It
wasn’t something that we all agreed constituted the facts of this case. It wasn’t
decided earlier.”

So the Jury uses that “ice cube tray” as a template to be able to lay the facts against. Now when I get into this
Memorandum of points of Authority, I will tell you when I finished this I said, “What a wonderful thing this
U.S attorney did. She not only laid out what he arguable CCI’s were, she not only gave us here toothpick but
she’s giving us all of the reasons why she’s using it because of SOMETHING WE FAILED TO DO!

When you see this, you will be able to look at everything that comes out of
the court from now on as a guideline, a path through the maze, the
breadcrumbs for Hansel and Gretel to find their way home, that’s what they
do.

She wants to see if you’ve got a Louisville slugger to give it to her and give it to the DIB head with her
toothpick to see which one the man in the black robe is going to sustain. Ok she starts off by saying:

“The government anticipates that during the trial of this case the defence may attempt to introduce evidence
both TESIMONIAL and DOCUMENTARY, which would be objected to by the government and found to be
inadmissible by the court.” Whoa she’s pretty confident isn’t she? I mean she knows that this is a pretty safe
presumption, she’s on solid ground. “In previous filings related to this matter, the defendant has evidence
position that are the same or similar to the subject of this motion for which are of similar tone or tenor.” Key
Word or phrase! Are you forgetting to listen for those?

Every thing that I read to you that she writes has a clue in it, like if you were playing the game of clues
you’re going to want to listen carefully to what the other players are saying so you know if Miss scarlet did it
in the library with a candle stick or whether Colonel Mustard did it in the Kitchen with the (?) and that’s
what she’s laying out here for us. So I am going to read this one again as a reminder that you need to listen to
the key word or phrase. Every one of her sentences, because EVERY ONE of her words are well measured
here. She says,

“In previous filings related to this matter, the defendants have evidenced positions that are the same or
similar to the subject of this motion of which are of similar tone or tenor.” Key word or phrase! PREVIOUS
FILING! She is trying to say that you’re trying to bring this into the court. You’re putting this in court
documents filed with the clerk for the record. You don’t have any CCI that’s been sustained at the DIB
hearing, so you’re just dumping these into these filings trying to make your presumptions into facts when
they’re all LAW ISSUES, the kind that you can demure to. But you see you can win a demure IN THE
PRIVATE without ever having to raise it in the public.

So she’s warning these defendants against filing. She said that everything you’ve done previously has been
in the public and all they can see is “FACTS” but you don’t have any facts because you NEVER went
through the DATA INTEGRITY BOARD PROCESS to get our stipulation to make the “red shirt”, blue to
give the jury an agreement. So that’s your arguable CCI. She goes on:

“In order to facilitate with compliance with rule 103c of the Federal rules of evidence, the government has
moved in Limine that such evidence be now deemed be admissible by this court and that the defendant be
instructed not to attempt to introduce such inadmissible evidence in the presence of the Jury. There’s your
arguable CCI number 2, THE WORD “DEEMED” means to treat something as if it were something else
or have qualities it doesn’t have. Well I better stop using that word. To treat something as if it were
something else or have qualities it doesn’t have. Now look at what she said.

“The government has moved in Limine that such evidence”, what evidence? The stuff in their previous filing
be NOW DEEMED INADMISSIBLE. Well now wait a minute, to treat something as if it were something
else. So if it’s going to be deemed inadmissible, I guess at one time it was admissible. If I am going to now
treat it as if it were something else and what I want to treat it as now as inadmissible then that
SOMETHING ELSE must have been admissible. IT WAS ADMISSIBLE AT ONE TIME which would
have meant prior to you putting it into the court record, which would have meant doing your
PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
YOU COULD HAVE ADMITTED IT AS ARGUABLE CCI – HOLY MACKERAL ANDY!

This is incredible. She quotes a case cite here later on now see I am going to be jumping through this. I am
not going to read every single word or sentence here. This could go on til Christmas I’ve tried that but I just
want to bring things to light here to show you that she is LITERALLY dissecting here toothpick and telling
you, “this is what this toothpick is made up of”. HOWEVER, if you try to break our toothpick by
bashing it by the way your continuing to bash it, YOU’RE JUST GOING TO GET A
THOUSAND MORE TOOTHPICKS.
And they’re going to be splinters that are going to be hard to undo.

So just build your LOUISVILLE SLUGGER based on all of these HINTS and CLUES I’m giving you
and give it to me so that I can decide whether or not I want to take it up to that DIB head, because if I look at
your LOUISVILLE SLUGGER and it’s not even worth it I will drop the indictment and by the way I am
telling you for the second time she actually gets to that statement later on.

“Ok right now there’s a case cite here that says, “For over 75 years the Supreme court and lower Federal
court have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the sixteenth amendment authorization of a non
apportioned direct income tax on a United States Citizen residing in the United States….” And I don’t need
to go on to the rest of it. What is she telling you here?

CAN THEY MAK LAWS ON WHETHER OR NOT THEIR LAWS WERE RATIFIED? Who else
can? If they want to DEEM the sixteenth amendment ratified, they CAN do it, IT’S A CORPORATION.
ONLY THEY KNOW THEIR INTENT. How dare you be so audacious to think that you can go around
and TELL this CORPORATION what they can or can’t do! And then later on she gives another case cite
that says,”

“In deed in LEVELL, which is LEVELL vs. U.S one of the more recent cases implicitly rejecting a sixteenth
amendment argument virtually identical to Beecraft’s position in this case; the court sanctioned the pro-say
appellant for raising this and other tax exemptions, claims on appeal. LOOK WHO ARE YOU TO SAY
WHAT THEY INTENDED? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM? THAT’S WHY THEY GOT
SANCTIONED. IT DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

So in effect it’s your ARGUABLE CCI number three. They’re saying it’s ok to do this and you want to say
with your arguable CCI, “yep, I agree with you. It’s ok for you to do this. If you want to DEEM that thing
ratified, go for it, BUT LET THE RECORD SHOW that in the absence of evidence that I WILLINGLY
AND KNOWINGLY agree to be a part of your corporation you should include me in that group.” –
Wow when that’ discussed up front just between you and the other party IN THE PRIVATE that becomes a
TAR-BABY! They’re NOT going want to touch that.

Down here a little later! “The Statutes under consideration directly in the instant case (then she names some
Title 26 stuff) have survived constitutional challenge.” What is a statute? IT’S A CORPORATE RULE! Is
it unconstitutional or is it non constitutional? THAT’S THE QUESTION! If it has to do with a Corporation it
is NON constitutional. So of course it survived constitutional challenge. It is OUTSIDE of the constitution.
So there’s your arguable CCI Number four. “I agree that it survived constitutional challenge BUT LET THE
RECORD SHOW, that it survived constitutional challenge because it’s NON constitutional ERGO IT’S
PRIVATE CORPORATE LAW AND REQUIRES VOLUNTARY CONTRACTING INTO IT BY ME. That
isn’t grammatically correct but you get the point!

Ok she goes on, “To permit defendant to present evidence before the jury challenging the constitutionality or
lawfulness of the internal revenue service code would USURP the traditional function of the court to instruct
the jury on the law.” You are going to see this phrase repeated numerous times throughout this paper. It is
mind-blowing.
Listen to it. – TO PERMIT DEFENDANT to present evidence before the Jury challenging the
constitutionality or lawfulness of the internal revenue code would USURP the traditional function of the
court to INSTRUCT the jury on the law.”

IN OTHER WORDS – If these defendants try to come in and CONVINCE the jury of the
constitutionality or the lawfulness of the Internal Revenue Code, They would be trying to tell the jury
THE LAW. THE JURY IS ONLY THERE FOR THE FACTS, so it would be usurping the FUNCTION
of the court to instruct the jury on the law because the court gives the law to the jury as I said in JURY
INSTRUCTION and THAT LAW folks is the ONLY law POSSIBLE in countries that don’t use
MONEY (Money of Substance). And that IS the LAW of the case.

THE STIPULATION! What did you think THE LAW was? Case cites? NO, those are opinions, NOT law
and as I mentioned you find many opposing case cites. SO CONTRACTS DIFFER CASE BY CASE. This
is WHY you MUST try to SETTLE THINGS PRIVATELY, UPFRONT to ESTABLISH THE LAW of
the case and if you’re opponent walks away because YOU asked for things he CANNOT produce, there is
NO case. That’s why the court says, EVERYONE MUST ATTEMPT PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS FIRST

And here’s where it is put absolutely in the record by her as telling you this is the key. She quotes a case cite
called UNITED STATES VS INGREDIENT TECHNOLOGY CORP. Ingredient being like ingredients in a
recipe from the s2nd circuit 1983. It says, “It would be very confusing to a Jury to have opposing opinion of
law admitted into evidence as involving the factual questions the jury could decide. Indeed if the tax law is
uncertain the indictment should be dismissed. Questions of law are for the court.”

I’ll read it again, “It would be very confusing to a Jury to have opposing opinions of law -opinions of law,
you see if you DON’T STIPULATE each one of you has your own opinion of the law - admitted into
evidence as involving a factual questions – So if both of you have opposing opinions of law how does that
become a factual question for the jury to decide? And then it goes on; Indeed if the tax law is uncertain
the indictment should be dismissed –If the tax law is uncertain? You mean today the tax law could be
certain and tomorrow it might not be? You mean that in this case it might be certain and in my case it
might not be – YOU SEE IT CAN CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE STIPULATIONS you give up front
during the PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS through your ARGUABLE CCI.

Well what could make one of the things uncertain about the tax laws, WHO IT’S APPLIED TO? And if
you do your ARGUABLE CCI law, well what could make one of the things UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE
TAX LAWS – WHO IT’S APPLIED TO? AND IF YOU DO YOUR ARGUABLE CCI CORRECTLY –
THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND PROVE IT ABSOLUTELY APPLIES TO YOU, but since you
have AGREED to SETTLE and CLOSE the DEBT of the strawman and you’re going to acquiesce o the
fact that it probably applies to the strawman, there is no more argument, no more controversy – the
indictment should be dismissed.

So if you had done this previously, IN THE PRIVATE you wouldn’t even be involved in a case. It says that,
“Questions of law are for the court” What is the law? THE LAW OF THE CASE, THE STIPULATION
THAT YOU AND THE OTHER PARTY AGREED TO and you know what if you get a stipulation on
EVERY ISSUE – IT DOESN’T GO TO COURT! There is NOTHING to take it to court ON!

She continues, “The defendants may attempt to introduce a trial evidence which purportedly lead them to a
belief that the income tax laws are unconstitutional or unlawful. Such evidence would then be used to argue
that regardless of the correctness of the defendant’s belief. Defendant’s conduct was not willful. Defendant’s
belief in the unconstitutionality or the unlawfulness of the internal revenue code no matter how
SCINCERELY held is NOT a defence to the instant charges and therefore evidence to that in effect is
inadmissible.” – WOW! Key words?

“USED TO ARGUE”, “CONDUCT WAS NOT WILFUL”, “BELIEFS ARE SCINCERELY HELD”,
THAT ARE INADMISSIBLE” Can a belief be a defence? No! Because a belief is just your presumption.
NO-ONE CAN STIUPULATE TO YOUR BELIEF.
If I told you today one of my beliefs and you went out tomorrow and repeated that I could have changed my
mind by then. YOU SEE, can an argument be a defence? No, how could an argument be a defence to
anything – IT JUST ESCALATES THE ISSUE. It’s just amazing what she is telling us here.

She has another case cite, UNITED STATES VS BURTONS, it’s not relevant but I am just letting you know
that I am not breaking this up and this is what is says, “Those that refuse to pay taxes as a protest against
governmental policies are not asserting any misapprehension of the duty imposed by the statutes. Their
violation of statutory command is willful and they must suffer the penalties attending their acts of civil
disobedience/” KEY WORDS? REFUSED TO PAY! – That’s an argument!

In the Honour/Dishonour workshop I teach people about primary liability and I understand that PRIMARY
LIABILITY hasn’t changed in the last three BLACKS law dictionaries to say simply prime liability that
which is NOT secondary but if you look it up in Black’s Fourth you’ll see a definition but its written in
legalese because it gets rather confusing but the BOTTOM LINE of it is you can plough through that
legalese is that IF ANYONE REFUSES TO PAY, SHIFTS THE PRIMARY LIABILITY FROM THE
MAKER (E.G. that would be the cop giving the traffic ticket) YOU SHIFT THE LIABILITY FROM
THE MAKER TO YOU – IF YOU REFUSE TO PAY! And that’s tied into BANKER’S ACCEPTANCE.
So if you have time go look those up or view the DVD’s of the workshop because I go through those.

“One who believes the statutes to be unconstitutional is entitled to challenge it in court but disobey it at the
risk criminal penalties should the constitutionality of the statutes be upheld.” Whoa, you can take it to court
it if you disobey it before you have it proven in court then it is unconstitutional then you risk the criminal
penalties. Yeah I’ll buy that but I find something more telling in that. It says, “It is entitled to be challenged
in court.” How about at a DIB HEARING? Not after the fact of your refusing to pay BUT at the DIB
hearing. See it has NOTHING to do with constitutionality. It is a NON constitutional issue. It is totally
outside the constitution because THEY ARE NOT IMPOSING THOSE KINDS OF TAXES ON THE
PEOPLE that the constitution says, that they are obligated to uphold the unalienable rights described
in the “Declaration of Independence” book.

Now this is not the case cite anymore this is what the U.S attorney is writing, “A defendant’s claimed good
faith belief in the unconstitutionality or unlawfulness of the income tax laws of the United states is irrelevant
to any issue to be determined in the trial of this case.” KEY WORD OR PHRASE?

“TO ANY ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL” It’s NOT that your good faith belief is
irrelevant, it’s irrelevant to any issue to be determined in the trial because your GOOD FAITH belief
ESTABLISHES THE LAW OF THE CASE. It becomes part of the ice cube tray that the jury has to put the
facts into if it ever goes there BUT if you get it sustained through the DIB cycle, it’s not going to go there.

First of all how can the jury possibly decide this? IS YOU BELIEF A FACTUAL ISSUE! There’s your
arguable CCI number six. But that is an arguable CCI if you were to bring it up properly in front of the Judge
because the OTHER SIDE cannot come back with a response to what your GOOD FAITH belief is. THE
ONLY ONE THAT KNOWS YOUR BELIEF IS YOU!

Ok the next issue, “The evidence challenging the validity of Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender OR the
monetary system of the UNITED STATES. The ARGUMENT that Federal Reserve notes DO NOT constitute
legal tender then repeatedly rejected as a defence to prosecution under the Internal Revenue code.” I will
tell you this; if you can untangle statements like this you will NEVER be caught again by ANY of their
presumptions. This statement is so beautifully worded that if you have even AN OUNCE of discernment that
you can draw upon to take this thing apart an dismantle it and lay it in front of you, phrase by phrase you
WILL SEE exactly what she is saying here. The ARGUMENT that Federal Reserve notes DO NOT
constitute legal tender has been repeatedly rejected as a DEFENCE to prosecution under the Internal
Revenue Code.

What a minute, did she say has been repeatedly rejected as untrue? NO NOT AT ALL! How about has been
repeatedly rejected false? No! Repeatedly rejected frivolous? NO IT HAS ONLY BEEN REJECTED AS A
DEFENCE! So if you were to bring it up as an issue in ARGUABLE CCI regarding the validity of a
Federal Reserve Note, you can do it there, it’s just NOT a DEFENCE to a prosecution folks. ARE YOU
GETTING THIS? CAN YOU ESTABLISH IT’S NOT LEGAL TENDER VIA THE DIB PROCESS?
ABSOLUTELY FOR YOU!

It’s NOT legal tender for you because you’re NOT a part of that corporation and in fact you might even be
able to establish that if you were to use it, you could be DEEMED an enemy of the state BY CREATING
MORE DEBT BY AUGMENTING THE DEBT RATHER THAN DECREASING IT.

Now not only does she give us that she gives us the fact that this is NEVER been rejected as untrue or
rejected as false or frivolous but she quotes another case cite. I guess that’s the case cite but this is another
sentence from it. LISTEN CAREFULLY! Pull out every ounce of discernment you have right now. This
court says; “We publish this opinion solely to make it clear that this argument has absolutely no merit”

Right, did you get it? Do you understand it? WHAT ARGUMENT DOES HAVE MERIT? Aren’t ALL
arguments dishonourable? So they didn’t say, “We publish this opinion solely to make it clear that Federal
Reserve notes are valid tender that can DECREASE a debt.” No, No, No, They’re only publishing this
opinion to make it clear that THE ARGUMENT about it has NO MERIT. If you put it in a different form
OTHER than argument you might be able to milk some validity out of it and some merit out of it.

And then she says in the very next sentence, “Thus evidence in conflict with the law on this issue should be
excluded as an improper attempt to usurp the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury on the law.” I told
you that that phrase was going to be repeated and there it is again so if there’s evidence in conflict with the
law on this issue, which was established because you did NOT come up with your arguable CCI and
whatever she put in her indictment STANDS as the law of the case. She says, “it should be excluded as an
improper attempt to usurp the duty of the trial to instruct the jury on the law.” Let’s see how much
discernment you have? KEY WORD OR PHRASE – “IMPROPER ATTEMPT”

“Evidence in conflict with the law on this issue should be excluded as am improper attempt to usurp the duty
of trial court to instruct the jury on the law.” Wait a minute! If this is an improper does it mean that
somewhere else it would be a PROPER ATTEMPT? Of course, this is an improper attempt to usurp the
duty of the trial court by bringing it up in front of the Jury before you give that trial court a chance to sustain
or not sustain it as arguable CCI, but if you were to do it that way it WOULD be a PROPER ATTEMPT.

I tell my classes LOOK FOR ADJECTIVES. Any time there is an ADJECTIVE, get suspicious, analyze
it, look it up, find out what the opposite is or what the antonym is.

So if this should be excluded as an improper attempt to usurp the duty of the trial court then all you have to
do is turn this around and say, “Oh would a proper attempt NOT usurp the duty of the trial court?” Look a
proper attempt would be by bringing it as ARGUABLE CCI at the DIB HEARING. – WOW! This
lady is giving us everything we need right here. Just amazing Ok this next case cite kind of clever, almost
cutely written as the little guy or woman who wrote about the plank of the USS constitution. These people
should be professional writers but who ever wrote this, some judge is probably off writing fiction stories
right now and selling them to the public.

He writes, “Like moths to a flame some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to other tax protestor
movements, illusory claims that there is no legal requirement to pay Federal income tax and like the moths
these people sometimes get burnt. The real tragedy of the case is the unconscionable waste Mr. Sloan’s time,
resources and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the
validity of the income tax laws of the United States.” Now listen, “Mr. Sloan’s time, resources and emotion
in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income
tax laws” KEY WORD OR PHRASE.

ARGUMENTS! This court is telling us “these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments”. Now why
didn’t this judge, which we could presume is pretty high up on the I.Q scale, why didn’t he write, “Wholly
defective and unsuccessful statements about the validity of the income tax” Because PERHAPS a
STATEMENT if raised PROPERLY though arguable CCI would NOT have been defective or unsuccessful
at all. In fact they might have been very well on point and very successful at a DIB HEARING. The only
thing he is calling defective and unsuccessful is the fact that it is wasting Mr. Sloan’s time, resources and
emotion in continuing arguments – Weeee! Are we having fun yet? Would we like to go down to the store
and buy three pounds of discernment tomorrow? Because you see in your arguable CCI number 8, LET
THE RECORD SHOW that it’s ARGUMENTS that are defective, NOT the presumption that Federal
Reserve Notes are backed up by anything.
You see it may not be a defective presumption at all but if you go AND ASK the prosecutor about that
presumption or draft the Federal Reserve who would probably have more knowledge. GET IT ON THE
RECORD FIRST! So he didn’t say, “Defective and unsuccessful Statements” Arguable CCI number 9. And
ANYTHING can be DEEMED valid WITHIN THE CORPORATION. Let me ask you, can I issue IBM
dollars? Can IBM issue wafer to issue within IBM? ABSOLUTELY! Why would you even want to go there
and argue about it? That’s the end of the case cite.

“Now never the less the defendant’s may attempt to introduce evidence to establish that wages or other gains
do not constitute income within the internal revenue code. Evidence in support of such a frivolous claim
should be excluded on grounds of relevancy and inconsistency with the law.” Now you good little public
fools probably think that she means the internal revenue code when she says, “you’re argument will be
inconsistent with the law” but that’s a code, HELLO, internal revenue code? So what inconsistency with the
law is she talking about? Well she must be talking about the inconsistency with the LAW OF THE
CONTRACT.

Which is, “Do you have a Stipulation by way of a private administrative process?” No therefore the law of
the case is that the IRS code is valid. You see you didn’t break the presumption in a private administrative
process FIRST. I can go on and on and on with this. It’s absolutely mind blowing but what I think I am going
to do now is just skip over to a couple of issues that are a little different because these are tending to show
you the same pattern that she’s using.

“Any evidence which attempts to suggest the 5th amendment prohibition against self compelled incrimination
is a defence to the failure to file a tax return” Ok the 5th amendment does NOT justify the refusal to file a
return. Ok refusal to file a return is silence also a FORM OF ARGUMENT. Can the 5th amendment cover a
REFUSAL? Well a refusal is a dishonour so the 5th amendment cannot protect you from the effect of a
dishonour. It goes on to quote a case, U.S Vs SULLIVAN which held the PRIVILEGE and that of course is
the 5th amendment, you see that’s why Barton does not have constitutional rights.

They just told you here that the 5th amendment is a privilege, WE DON’T ACCEPT PRIVILEGES HERE
OVER IN THE PRIVATE SIDE as living men and women of substance but it says, ‘The privilege does not
justify an outright refusal to file income tax”. KEY WORD OR PHRASE! Again look to the adjective,
OUTRIGHT? OUTRIGHT REFUSAL? Ah but if you didn’t file after a proper redraft which the other side
STIPULATED to then it wouldn’t be an outright refusal would it? It would be according to a stipulation. Oh
these guys are good. I keep saying, “These guys are good we just have to get gooder”.

You see they let you believe in the movie THE FIRM that the government goes and gets all these bright
attorneys before they even graduate and then the law firm picks them up after that. Well if you watch a
beautiful mind you’ll see that they’ll get the brightest mathematicians who learn to put things like this in
patterns to help the attorneys that work for the government, WORD these tests so cleverly that you really
cannot afford to give up your discernment through the brainwashing of the public fool system. You cannot,
you MUST retain it. And if you have to retain it by studying this in the PRIVATE after you get out of
school then that’s the way to do it.

A celibant court called the attempt to use the 5th amendment prohibiting compelled self incrimination as a
defence to the failure to file a tax return “an extreme if not extravagant application of the 5th amendment”
and that’s because you can’t cover up crime by silence. Your silence is a dishonour, you are presumed guilty
when you don’t redraft and come back with a counterclaim and the only way that you can get out of that is to
put in your arguable CCI HUMBLE AND LOW in procedure and let THEM be the ones to go into the
dishonour, which they will do gladly because they don’t want to touch your tar-baby.
Got some things here on reliance defence, I met the man who started that he’s from Hawaii. Last I heard was
Jack talking about he and his wife having been arrested and released and I think it went to trial and it got
overturned and now I think they were charged again. Don’t quote me on that I am not real sure how the
whole thing ended up but he had people go to college professors and get affidavits that they read something
and they believed it and it was just a reliance defence.

You see again a DEFENCE is something that you bring up at a TRIAL and the reason she is saying I want
this evidence excluded is because it may unduly confuse the Jury on what the law requires. In other words
you never got a stipulation AT THE BEGINNING and therefore you have NO contract therefore the ONLY
law of the case right now, which could change in a different case tomorrow is that it doesn’t matter what you
relied on you STILL had a DUTY to pay. And that’s true of the strawman I would say because I don’t think
the strawman, being incompetent has anyway to determine the validity on anything it relies on.

Ok she quotes a case cite here the UNITED STATES VS TRAEGER. “The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in excluding documentary evidence including Federal court decisions which appellants have
claimed to have read in forming his opinions regarding the tax laws. Evidence such as this is likely to
confuse the jury on the distinction between questions of law which are for the court to decide and questions
of fact which are for the jury.” Now there it is in black and white, it’s perfect.

So if the PRIVATE ADMINSTRATIVE PROCESS is DONE EARLY then it’s the court deciding isn’t it.
Before any indictment is possible, do that. See the court is the DATA INTEGRITY BOARD to hear both
sides of the ARGUABLE CCI and if they find that you have some reliance, for example I know two people
who relied on former tax agents and former FBI agents regarding certain things regarding the IRS code –
Trust me! If you were to raise those in your arguable CCI UP FRONT, UPON PROOF OF CLAIM that ex
agent so and so didn’t tell me this upon proof of claim that I didn’t rely on this, upon proof of claim that this
isn’t the letter written by that agent to tell me this, upon proof of claim that I would have acted differently
had agent so and so told me something else, upon proof of claim that agent so and so wasn’t under educated
or misinformed by his trainers at the government, upon proof of claim that if he knew he was misleading me
and it wasn’t a deliberate setup. That’s a big tar-baby! Remember always ask them for something they don’t
want to produce. We’re testing that right now so we’re going to see where that goes. I have a feeling that it’s
going to be pretty successful as far as going around the DIB cycle. Alright almost done here!

She talks about the defendants are UNITED STATES citizens each is a PERSON as defined by the code
required to file accurate Federal income tax returns. She just told you the presumption she is preceding on
because you NEVER broke that presumption at the DIB hearing. So her law of the case IS WHAT
STANDS. You can’t go in there and argue this to a jury now. First of all name one person on the jury who
would know whether or not the defendant is a UNITED STATES citizen?

When she said the defendant’s a UNITED STATES citizen each of the persons as defined by the code require
to file an annual income tax return. She’s giving you her presumption and she’s saying you know what you
didn’t break this presumption, so you CAN’T change it now in front of a jury, how are you EVER going to
prove to a jury you’re NOT a U.S citizen? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PROVE YOU’RE NOT A
PERSON? It’s simply going to be your presumption. You needed to get their STIPULATION first but I
would take this sentence even a little further in my arguable CCI because I found another ADJECTIVE here
– “required to file ACCURATE Federal income tax returns.”

Hey, LET THE RECORD SHOW I would be happy to file ACCURATE Federal income tax returns IF
YOU PROVIDE ME with EVERY SINGLE RECORD you maintain on the CHARGED ENTITY”

Do you think there’s one person in the entire government who knows EVERY single record that’s kept on
every single strawman? I talk about a case at the workshop of a 33 year old chiropractor who had her IMF
file decoded and it came back saying that she was collecting a railroad pension and selling drugs in Puerto
Rico. First of all we know that chiropractors don’t use drugs and secondly if she’s 33 years old how is she
collecting a railroad pension. She would have had to begun working for the railroad when she was still in the
womb for crying out loud. So we know that’s not her. So we could do a beautiful CCI based upon PROOF
OF CLAIM, that’s me.

ON PROOF OF CLAIM those records aren’t for the STATE CREATED ENTITY known as a FRONT.
UPON PROOF OF CLAIM that unless you provide me with the <forced>for obtaining every single record
maintained on this entity and ASSURE ME through the PERSON who created the RECORD that it is
accurate, that I am able to comply with filing an accurate tax return.

I teach at the workshop EVERY TAX RETURN you fill out is INACCURATE! They could blind fold
themselves and randomly pull as many tax forms out of a barrel and charge every one there with perjury
because you couldn’t possible know what all the records are. Anyway that’s just how you get some of that
arguable CCI in and then she goes down to

“Defendant argued the District court lacked jurisdiction over him because he is solely a resident of the State
of Michigan and Not a resident of any Federal Zone and is therefore not subject to any Federal income tax
laws.” What’s the KEY WORD here? ARGUED! He “argued” that the district court lacked jurisdiction
over him because he is solely a resident of the State of Michigan and Not a resident of any Federal Zone.

Why didn’t he take all the up in his arguable CCI. LET THE OTHER SIDE GO INTO DISHONOUR BY
ARGUING THE OPPOSITE OR not producing a RECORD, the failure to produce or recreate a record or
being SILENT on it,. Getting his STIPULATION and then HE is the one that creates the ice cube tray. And
again after she quotes this case cite she makes this statement.

“This argument is completely without merit and patently frivolous.” Ok you discerning people, what’s
completely without merit and patently frivolous? The fact that he’s solely a resident of the State of Michigan
and not a resident of any Federal Zone or that the District court lacked jurisdiction on him? No! The thing
that’s without merit and completely frivolous is “THIS ARGUMENT” It’s just mind blowing she’s just
giving us every bit of ammunition that could ever be used and so if you have one of these sitting in your
home right now because you have been SELECTED to be TESTED – TAKE THESE SENTENCES
APART! Dismantle them and then go down and buy that “three pounds of discernment” and in start looking
at what they’re telling you.

This is beautiful here, she has a tenth circuit case, she wouldn’t quote it though but she says, we quote the
following a tenth circuit opinion in which the court was responding to an identical tax protestor argument.
One of the sentences says, “Defendant’s Memorandum wisely ignored 18 USC 32, 31 which explicitly says,
“Federal District Courts with jurisdiction over all offences against the laws of the UNITED STATES,
defendant also conveniently ignored article one, section 8 of the States constitution which empowers
congress to create, define and punish crimes irrespective of where they are committed.”

She is trying to tell you, look folks we’re doing our job we’re telling you that no-one is exempt from
committing a crime and we’re going to stop them if they have. You think that you can run and hide in a
private sandbox no matter what you do just because you’re a living man. Like I said, living men commit rape
and murders. We are here to protect you’re unalienable rights. We have to stop these people so that they
don’t commit the murder on you or your child that’s what we’re here for. So if we bring you in to be tested
you CANNOT say you don’t have any jurisdiction over me. You don’t have any right to look to see whether
or not I’ve done anything wrong because if you could do that so could John Wayne, so could John Speck so
could John Peterson.

You see they DO have a right to do it but ALL THEY HAVE JURISDICTION IS OVER THE
OFFENCES, so if you show through you’re arguable CCI that you could NOT possibly have committed an
OFFENCE by asking them to ESTABLISH their PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE or a WITNESS who
UNDER his FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY claims that he can identify you then jurisdiction
DOESN’T attach. So it’s scary to think that you’re going around, some of you are going around telling the
government you don’t have a right to question me, I can do anything I want. You know what even you’re
creator doesn’t give you that power. This case cite goes on;

“Efforts to argue that Federal jurisdiction does not encompass prosecution for Federal tax evasion has been
rejected as either silly or frivolous by a myriad of courts throughout the nation” WHAT’S BEEN
REJECTED? “EFFORTS TO ARGUE”! Efforts to establish the burden of proof on the OTHERSIDE,
just efforts to argue that. What they have NOT said is more important than what was said.

You see, efforts to argue that Federal Jurisdiction is not involved are rejected as untrue and is false and is
unsubstantiated. That sentence goes on to say or the next sentence goes on to say, “in the face of the uniform
authority it DEFIES gratuity to argue that the District court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the government
case against the defendants.” Now listen to that, did they say it was incredible that the UNITED STATES
District court lacked jurisdiction? No! What defies gratuity is to ARGUE THAT as well as to argue anything.
How many times have they been telling us that so far? They’re pretty consistent so far I would say.

Then they go down and they quote another case cite, “In 75 years the Supreme Court has recognized that the
16th amendment authorizes the direct non-apportioned tax upon UNITED STATES citizens, through the
NATION, not just in Federal enclaves”. Yep wherever that citizen goes the admitted obligation goes with
them. You see UNLESS YOU ESTALISH UPFRONT WHO YOU ARE AND GET THEM to swear that
you are a U.S citizen or to produce a record, producing a record or failing to recreate the record the court
MUST CONSTRUE CONTRARY TO THEIR POSTION. Where are they going to get a record that you
volunteered to be a U.S citizen? When that part is sustained by the Judge, you’ve created the ice cube tray.
Your law is the law of the case and then as I say the case goes away because theirs nothing for the Judge to
be able to have the Jury put the facts onto as a template later. This is the U.S attorney writing.

“The defendant has made a claim that he or she is not a PERSON subject to the internal revenue code.”
KEY WORD- CLAIM! You see a CLAIM if a defendant claims it, IT’S ONLY A PRESUMPTION. Why
can’t you bring that into a court? IT’S NOT A FACT! YOU CAN’T PRESENT YOUR
PRESUMPTIONS TO A JURY AS A FACT, but why would you bring it in that way when you can raise
the opposite with your arguable CCI SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO THEM AGAIN.! -

She (attorney) makes this last statement in this section, “Defendant’s were and are a PERSON subject to the
income tax laws of the UNITED STATES” and people pull their hair out and go, “no, no, no I’ve told you a
dozen times no.” Well that is YOU telling them. How can you argue first of all that the DEFENDANT is a
PERSON? Isn’t the DEFENDANT the Strawman? Didn’t THEY create the strawman? Didn’t THEY make
IT subject to the income tax laws? So do your ARGUABLE CCI to separate yourself from the Strawman.
Where’s your PERSONAL KNOWLEDGGE that the Strawman is NOT subject to the income tax laws?
Where? Who would want to try to prove that? I mean that’s what’s going on in the hundred land. Why even
try?

Just OFFER to step in as the MAN OF SUBSTANCE, show the RECORD establishing YOU ARE the
MAN OF SUBSTANCE and LET THEM show you it’s not true. And further let the show you it’s not true
that you don’t have access to the ASSET that will stop the debt from being augmented or increased.

Ok, I’m on this last issue now. I told you that this is the BEST ONE. This is the most fun. This is the one
where she gives away the house. It’s here argument that, it’s her ARGUABLE CCI that tax experts cannot be
allowed in and in this one she has opened the bag and now we can see the TIGER inside.

She starts off by quoting a case called UNITED STATES vs. Curtis, it says, “Normally a Judge’s knowledge
of the law is presumed to be sufficient”. Ok for those of you that have been to the honour/dishonour
workshop, you UNDERSTAND the difference between a Judge in his judicial capacity and in his ministerial
capacity. He IS in his ministerial capacity when you get a STIPULATION from the other side. No judge can
overturn a stipulation in fact it is reversible error if he tries. So you have the opportunity to use this judge as
a DIB HEAD. Why is his knowledge of the law presumed to be sufficient? Because as the DIB HEAD,
he is the ONLY ONE who heard your ARGUABLE CCI, the oppositions ARGUABLE CCI, for the
supporting evidence or RECORD for each and KNOWS which one he sustained. Folks that’s what this
is telling you! If you think for one minute that this case is telling you that a Judges knowledge of THE LAW
means he knows everything that’s in one of those volumes on the shelves on the law library better than
anybody else, go stick you head back in the sand.

What they are telling is that the judge’s knowledge of the law is that he UNDERSTANDS for the purposes of
THIS CASE what HAS BEEN STIPULATED to, whether it’s been stipulated to by a DIRECT agreement,
explicit or implicit through a dishonour either through the failure to produce or recreate a record which is
either argument or silence or some other dishonour. You see that’s why using this judge as a DIB head give
this court case credibility. Normally the judge’s knowledge of the law is presumed to be sufficient. HELLO,
SUFFICIENT IS AN ADJECTIVE.

It doesn’t say SUPERIOR! It doesn’t say magnificent, it simply says sufficient. HE ONLY NEEDS TO
KNOW WHO’S IN HONOUR AND WHO IS IN DISHONOUR. Whose RECORD should he sustain
and whose record should he NOT sustain and he KNOWS that failure to produce or recreate a record
means it CANNOT be sustained.

She goes on and says, “The sixth circuit also noted that an EXPERT is supposed to interpret and
analyze factual evidence. They DO NOT testify about the law because the judge’s special LEGAL
KNOWLEDGE is presumed to be sufficient and it is the judge’s duty to inform the jury about the law
that is relevant to their deliberations” If you disagree with my theory after hearing this PLEASE contact
Caleb or Jack and let them know what it is you think that I am misinterpreting in this sixth circuit case cite. I
think that this is so beautiful that this is the culmination of the Black and White of it.

It says that, “an expert is supposed to interpret and analyze factual evidence. They do not testify about the
law because the judge’s special legal knowledge is presumed to be sufficient” “Special Legal knowledge?”
Why did we have to put the word SPECIAL in there? That’s an adjective! Special perhaps because it pertains
only to this case? And if that red shirt is red in our case today it could be blue in somebody else’s tomorrow?
That’s exactly what their telling you and once that law is established through that DIB cycle either through
your ignorance and your silence, the way Eddie Kahn and Barton Buhtz have been failing to produce or
recreate a record or produce their arguable CCI then the other side is the one WHO GETS TO CREATE
THAT ice cube tray and THAT’S the jury instruction that the judge gives them as the law of the case to hang
the case on folks.

If this case doesn’t convince you, I give up! YOU SEE AN EXPERT IS NOT A PARTY. He has NO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE to raise in any ARGUABLE CCI anyway. It isn’t the same law relevant to
all jury deliberations. They’re NOT talking about rules like civil rules of procedure or California penal code
section 187 about murder. They’re ONLY talking about the LAW OF THE CONTRACT, which is the law of
the case which you OBTAIN in a STIPULATION through the PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

How can an EXPERT who wasn’t in on a DIB hearing help the judge with the law? The law of the case
which the STIPULATION are obtained through in the PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS therefore
NO experts are necessary is true. Where does she quote that?

She has a case, U.S vs. BARNETT. “Further more and any EXPERT opinion is unhelpful to the jury
because it does not explain a defendant’s understanding of the law which may the defence of any reliance or
of good faith belief. Exclusion of documents is appropriate when defendant is allowed to TESTIFY as to their
content and effect in forming his beliefs”

What does an expert know about that? So she is saying that no tax experts are necessary and she is absolutely
right. If you established the law of the case regarding taxes early upfront, you DO NOT need tax experts, so
she does and can exclude them. Then she writes herself as her ending paragraph.

“This court answers questions of law; the jury answers questions of fact. The jury is bound by its oath
to follow the law as stated as explained and defined by this court. The opinion by any such legal expert
does not make any question of fact more or less probable and thus is not relevant. Evidence which is
not relevant is not admissible. Thus defendant and his or her attorney, if any should be instructed that
the use of experts is prohibited” And she ends with the most beautiful thing of all, the Federal rule of
evidence 402.

“Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible and 401 define relevant as ‘Evidence having
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”

Now you see why at the beginning before the judge, all this has to happen, the defendants have done their
CCI they would be the one doing the in Limine prohibiting the prosecution raising the issues of law the DIB
head sustained in their favour. Now I want you to know one thing, this is a 21 page memorandum or points
of authority. In Federal courts the limit is 15 pages, you are supposed to go to the judge and request his
permission if you’re going to do more than 15 pages. So I think that she risked the wrath of the judge by
going over the limit in order to help these defendants. Well how would I use it?
I would thank her for the hints that I missed before, I would use it in the case it if was already going on or to
GET A PRESUMPTION AHEAD OF TIME broken, if the case hasn’t started yet. I would APOLOGIZE for
misunderstanding her attempts to help me to figure out what the indictment was, which NOTHING MORE
than ARGUABLE CCI. I would show her that I now have an understanding about the DIB CYCLE and
HONOUR AND DISHONOUR and I would request a trial de-novo if I was already convicted where I would
agree to participate this time instead of accuse them of crimes. I would tell them that I am bringing in m
Louisville slugger no matter how late the date and Jack just told me something that I told him, the basis of
what this document was;

He said that THIS ATTORNEY WAS THE WATCHMAN ON THE WALL and now that’s she told them
up front and a second time, first in the indictment and now secondly through this Motion in Limine, all of the
things that they need to do she has clued them, she can proceed. I thought that was very, very insightful and
so I hope this has helped all of you in one way of another. Even to be more discerning if you ever do get
tested this way and if you already are engaged to figure out how to proceed from here on out so thank you
for listening.

Jack Smith We thank Vic for providing this Monday night download for everybody. I hope everybody
understands where you’re going and what you’re saying on this. What you’re really summing up is that IF
YOU DON’T DO YOUR ADMINSTRATIVE PROCEDURE BEFORE ONE IS IN FRONT OF A
MAGISTRATE IN COURT, YOU BASICALLY HAVE NOT GOT A REMEDY IN THAT COURT.
Like scripture says in the New Testament if you go before the magistrate and you have not yet settled with
your brother the magistrate is going to throw the book at you and basically what you’re teaching the people
here this evening by this download is that the people that went into court thinking they’re going to have their
day in court under the common law to present the case don’t understand the rules of procedure that their in
Admiralty/Maritime, you have got to have your PRIVATE AGREEMENT with your brother before the
judge can see or hear anything that’s going on and if you don’ have that you DON’T have a REMEDY!

Victoria Joy Absolutely! And what’s even worse they’re going in there under constitutional rights. It’s
frightening the lack of knowledge that’s out there.

Jack Smith Absolutely! Once again I appreciate this information and message and we’ll get it out to the
people. Thank you very much!

Victoria Joy Thank you and everybody have a blessed, blessed Christ birthday.

PRIVATE AGREEMENT Vs DISHONOUR