© 1994 - 2009
Against the Grain

A paradox for any court.

ONLY TO BE USED WHEN DRUG INTO COURT. NOT FOR A ATTACK

Can be adapted for administrative challenges but tricky to say the least. Everyone agrees it's right to challenge jurisdiction.

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action."

Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.

IRS is an administrative private debt collector. The US is a corporation that hires IRS to collect it's debt and so do other corporations that are also private that use IRS.

Say they come after you for a individual income tax. . The question is, who is the creditor they are collecting for? It could be corporate United States or it could be corporate Federal Reserve. Who knows. It could be the corporate agency for International Development that they also have a contract with under TDO 91, or could be the BATF under contract. NO one knows who the Creditor is that sicced the IRS on you.

Since the income tax has been solid in stone that it is a excise tax for a privilege, What is the Privilege? To have a privilege there must be a contract. Where is the contract? The court must have this to proceed. This is your mandatory counterclaim in any revenue cause in admiralty that not one patriot has ever used in the history of the patriot community,.... but by one man.... repeating the same thing over and over for decades expecting a different outcome. . He won by the way. This does not go to the merits; you are not demurring to any charge, as it's strictly asking to dismiss for lack of jurisdictional evidence not in the hand of the court.

Ok, this you have to declare and then make them prove to the contrary. You say you are a natural Physical Man. You have a contract with the Lord in Genesis 17. You are a citizen of the household of the Lord stated at Ephesians 2:19. You owe allegiance to no other than the Lord Almighty. Now, they have to produce the contract you have with the creditor they are collecting for if you challenge their jurisdiction that trumps the Contract you have with the Lord. Since you are now a natural Physical Man to the laws of statute they are working with. Then challenge jurisdiction they have over you the Man when their statutes say person and not man is liable.

Hmm ...you can give them this case to prove you can't be under their jurisdiction because you (#1) have no contract with the creditor they can produce with your signature describing the Privilege that subjects you to statute law you agreed to follow and (#2) you can't be a person but a man, and in law the physical man can, and never is cited in any statute. Let's see how would they overcome this case since you have a contract with the Lord that no manmade contract can supercede. IT can if you gave up your contract with the Lord., and became a US citizen or a state citizen. Did the Lord create artificial PERSONS? Did the corporation create the PHYSICAL MAN? Does the Lord lay a tax on you? Does man lay a tax on you? Which one prevails according to the court? Do they now have jurisdiction over a contract they can't produce that carries your signature and that of the creditor that is making a claim on you, the natural physical man? DO NOT USE THIS. This is just for your mind, what there is of it. Don't be a know-it-all to show your knowledge that will sink your ship in a heartbeat. If you do you have joined issue and they have jurisdiction because you gave it to them. ASK, ASK, ASK. Don't argue. MAKE them prove you are not the PHYSICAL MAN standing before them. MAKE them prove there is a contract you and the creditor signed. MAKE them prove you are NOT the Natural Physical man that your LORD made with you, his creation. How can they do that if there is no contract of Privilege. If they can't they lose personam and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

"Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff'd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham's case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin's case.)

ALSO; Excerpted from West Bus.Law

If a party to a contract lacks capacity, an essential element for a valid contract is missing, and the contract is void

How is capacity missing? Are you a MAN that entered a presumed contract with the Creditor whereby you asked for a privilege that took the Status of Man from you and replaced it with a person of artificial character? Can they show it, can they produce it for the court? Do they ever? Has IRS ever given the reason you are liable? NO, because even they don't know. They move on presumption that you can't prove a thing contrary to presumption. You can never prove a negative. HEY, it's all a RICO. Mainly because not one patriot ever got it right and filed the mandatory counterclaim in a tax case. Not even Attorneys know this

Hmm... let's go back to the Informer's works that no one reads and if they do they do not comprehend how to use it. From PERSON. ALL QUOTES ARE THE LAW BOOK

Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. ( Albany Law School ), LL.D. ( Ruskin University ) from La Salle University

"Ortolan's explanation of personality.(45) The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan's treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise: "

"The word 'person' (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man."

"First. Every being, artificial or natural, capable of having or owing rights.

Second. The characters, capacities, qualities or positions which the law ascribed to certain men as individuals-that is, rank, condition, capacity-status."

"The technical term for the second meaning, namely, the position, quality, character which a man bears, is status.

Status is not so broad as person, but always related to physical men."

REMEMBER THIS. MAN is the only one that has STATUS. PERSON has CHARACTER ONLY

"We know that all laws emanate from persons and also that they operate against or upon persons(50); that is, all law certainly from laws, and that the principle of classification adopted is the difference in the objects to which the rules relate.

There can be found in the Commentaries of Blackstone no definition of the word person, nor any explanation of the meaning

46 Does not this equal "individuals?" See 10 Harvard Law Rev., 101.

47 Ortholan's History of Roman Law, 567-68.

48 Sandals' Justinian, Int., 27; Austin 's Jur., lect. 12, P.358 49 Galus, 1-9; Austin 's Jur., 358.

addresses persons."

LET ME SPELL IT OUT AGAIN FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME TO THOSE OF YOU THAT BELIEVE WE HAVE A SOCIAL GOVERNMENT YOU CREATED WITH YOUR CONSTITUTION MYTH.

Well as I quoted in my book "The New History of America," the case of Cruden v Neale, where the court states a principle of natural law so clear that it cannot be twisted by any lawyer, that man is only bound by the laws of nature. Here is what the court stated;

" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

By this very principle espoused by the court you cannot be made to "retire elsewhere" because, if anything, you retire from the corporate STATE and live upon the land of the Lord in the geographical place called North Carolina rather than the State of North Carolina . Go back and look at the Hamilton case where they said that you "* * * shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State." Let them keep their corporate State; depart out of it. Isn't that what the Bible tells you "Come out of her?" What do you need it for? To continually be robbed by legal plunder? Not that they are going to stop if you do, because maybe, just maybe, the masses will wake up and want out also, thereby destroying the State's power over you.

You see, the whole game is to control you by making you, the man, into a artificial entity called a "person." In ordinary street language you can use the term person. But the minute you step into ANY legal arena you CANNOT use the term "person." For to do so the other artificial person, the State, can come after another artificial character. As the court stated above "man" is not bound by other men's laws unless he consents. You consent when you answer to any statute containing any reference to person. The clever trick is that the statute 26 USC 7701(a) of the IRC is the definition part and it says "person" means; an individual, partnership, corporation, association. Notice that all terms defining the word "person are corporate fictions. BUT, you say, individual is not a corporate fiction because am I not an individual? Yes you are in average common street terms, but in the legal arena "individual is corporate or artificial by legal definition, because "individual," in and of itself is defining an artificial thing as a "person." So how can it be a natural man? It goes against all reason and logic. The IRC Code Statute only pertains to man, who, as stated above by the Professor, takes on the artificial character and becomes a "person" by legal definition. Therefore he is subject to all the legal disabilities that come with the term person and that means being subject to all the laws of the parent corporation. The parent corporation is the United States, the State is the artificial child and you are the artificial grand child. That is the best way to describe it so you can start to equate terms and meanings.

In Anderson's Business law on the Uniform Commercial Code, I think around the Sixth Edition, it states that when a statute refers to artificial beings, natural people are not to be included. So, 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) uses all artificial characters to describe the artificial "person" and individual. By all reason and logic it has to be an artificial term. Just like a third grade reader shows 5 pictures and asks which one does not belong. The pictures are, a baseball, a bat, a base, a glove and a football uniform. You circle the football uniform as not fitting the idea, but the football clothes is a uniform, the same as baseball clothes is a uniform. Only one uniform fits the scheme while the other is left out, but both are uniforms. The same as individual. It is a "leading word" as the professor stated and has to be further defined the same as individual or person has to be defined. Did not the professor state the term individual and person are one in the same? Did he not also state that it is well settled in law that "person" is always an artificial person? Refresh your memory by finding that part of his statement.

YOU ARE A NONRESIDENT ALIEN if there is no CONTRACT. IT has nothing to do with a geographical place where you live. Those that have read my "Which One Are You" book know what I mean. The IRS placed it there for your way to get out, and not one, so-called patriot, ever picked up on it since the statute and reg was written. I am talking to people that this is a loaded gun ready to back fire on them if they don't know rudimentary functions of what they are dealing with. Never argue Constitution or anything dealing with the corporation called US or State. IT's NOT yours, so get used to it.

FROM "Which One Are You";

ITEM 4. a non resident who is NOT a fiduciary, so you cannot be a person of incidence with respect to a person of inherence; then the income tax is not imposed, under subtitle A, chapter 1 on a non resident alien. So you fit the description under 26 USC §§ 2 (d) & 872.

If you are a nonresident alien that DOES fit one of the 4 items above, then you come under 26 USC § 871 and are taxable. If, as a non resident alien, you make income in the statutorily defined U.S., you are subject to the tax if you carry on a "business or trade" as defined by Congress.

26 CFR § 1.1402 (b)-3 (d) Nonresident Alien. "A nonresident alien individual never has self-employment income.

26 CFR § 1.6015 (i)-1. Nonresident Alien Individuals. (a) Exception from requirement from making a declaration. No declaration of estimated income is required to be made under section 6015 (a) and § 1.6015 (a)-1 by a nonresident alien individual

26 CFR 31.3401 (a) (6) -1 (b). Remuneration for services performed outside the United States. Remuneration paid to a nonresident alien individual... for services performed outside the United States is excepted from wages and hence is NOT SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING .

This is NOT the unless category found in 26 CFR § 1.6015 (i) -1 (1), is it?

Isn't this in agreement with;

26 USC § 3401 (a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration... for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration... paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term SHALL NOT INCLUDE remuneration paid--(6) for such services performed by a nonresident alien individual, as may be designated by regulations prescribed by the Secretary;.

The State chartered company may refer you to 26 CFR § 31.3402 (f) (6) (1), but this is wrong for you are not the employee described in 26 USC § 3401 (c), working for the employer 26 USC § 3401 (d), which corresponds to 26 CFR § 1.1402 (c) 3 (d) and (c) 2 (b). This indicates you are not the "person" described in 26 USC 7343, because you are not to be treated as a resident working for the foreign (State), governments instrumentality within the United States. Therefore, the company is not defined as a government employer.

Title 26 Sec. 3401 C, is Congress' definition of employee, which was published in;

The Federal Register, Tuesday, September 7, 1943 Page 12267 section 404.104 EMPLOYEE;

"... x ... The term `employee' ... SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a state [ "Federal states" remember ] Territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing."

On page 12266 Section 404.102 of the Federal Register, Congress states:

" (g) Compensation paid to nonresident alien individual. ...remuneration for services performed by nonresident alien individuals does not constitute wages subject to withholding under section 1622..."

There are 100 pages of this stuff in my book and this amounts to maybe two pages.

NOW PEOPLE, CAN YOU SEE THE PARADOX YOU CAN PUT THEM IN? YEAH, I KNOW, someone will screw this up as usual and will be tongue tied when the judge asks them a question and you answer, which will prove my point, you ain't using your brain. Yeah, go ahead and answer as a know-it-all and you joined issue and your now a dead meat . That answer just tossed out your counterclaim and your going down. That's called collateral attack when you box them in a corner like a rat and they use it to get out when you join the collateral attack in an answer that is meaningless. He knows what you are doing and he's got to circumvent by collateral attack. Did you ever hear the phrase you convict yourself with what comes out of your own mouth? Does not SHUT up, SHUT up, and SHUT up, ever ring a bell when you are in court or talking with a agency once you got them? You ain't playing softball. You're playing with your life. They have the bullet aimed right at you. One screw up on your part and they shoot you. For the rest of your life they drain all your blood, sweat and tears from that bullet hole.

This ain't no marbles game where you can say, 'If I lose I'm taking my marbles and leaving, boo hoo'. This is the RICO, Mafia, you are dealing with, really the Jesuits from whom the Mafia patterned their operation. If you screw up no one can help you so don't come to me. I may not be here and probably won't be. There is no second try with this. You either do it right or don't even attempt to try it for kicks.

WARNING. Do NOT take this to a lawyer. He will lose his private bar card. May be killed as his boss is the corporator of all bar ASSN.. operating in the world. His sub boss, the Judge, that gave him the private bar card ,as there is no licensed attorney anywhere in the world, controls him to the nth degree. And between them, you lose. They are a monopoly allowed by the owner of the US corporation.

The Informer June 2009

Comment: The people using this will argue with the judge.  That's totally wrong.  
    The Prosecutor is to bring the evidence of jurisdiction NOT the judge.  
   Arguing with the judge ignores the evidence the Prosecutor MUST produce FOR the judge so he has jurisdiction.  That's the Rule of procedural  law.  As I say patriots who cannot comprehend this will always argue with the judge.  When the judge says I have jurisdiction he is saying it on his  own.  So arguing on his terms is a waste of time and one loses all the  time.  That's why the only thing you say to the judge is make the  Prosecutor prove he has jurisdiction to bring it before the court. 
     See  how they will screw up?  It's what right does he have to bring it to the  court?