Voluntary Society - Conditioning - Taxes
Jurisdiction by Oath
In all of history there
has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little
understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest
groups still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be
"anti-government." They don't talk much about these roots. Few even
know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this
success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still
well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the
original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means
"spoken." The protest obviously didn't happen here. It occurred in
England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of
the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation.
Here's what happened.
The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the
churches and nobility owned copies, due to the extremely high
cost of paper. Contrary to what you've been taught, it was not the
invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books.
That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no
application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it
was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable
type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable
only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility.
The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old
English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But
unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless.
Land is useful to farming. So that's how the nobility made their
wealth. No, they didn't push a plow. They had servants to do it. The
nobility wouldn't sell their land, nor would they lease it. They rented
it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord
raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay.
But what if you couldn't have moved out? Then you'd have a feel for
what feudalism was all about.
A tenant wasn't a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the
noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble
required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath
of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that
last act to the heirs of his estate). That oath established a
servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a
variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell.
The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce
of his labors to just sustain him and his family. Rent was actually an
"income tax." The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity
of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to
livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or
cow. And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to
keep it fed, that so that the critter is productive. Thus, the tenant
was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a
"personal and dependent deductions."
The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and
unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they'd
also be free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under
a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few
coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He'd learn a trade.
He'd never need to become a tenant farmer. He'd keep what he earned. He
was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven.
The tradesmen didn't need adolescents; they needed someone strong
enough to pull his own weight. They did not take on anyone under 13. By
age 21 he'd have learned enough to practice the craft. That's when the
contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a
journey? No. But, if you pronounce that word, it is "Jur-nee-man." He
was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)." He'd then go to
work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could
ask for more if he felt he was worth more. And he was free to quit.
Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that's quite the norm. But 400
some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. At some
point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he'd be recognized by
the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging him to
take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him,
become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21!
The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice's
father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on
both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds
(means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government
attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.
When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership in
the guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally
swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he'd only work for pay! Once
so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath.
He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very
benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted
Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret.
They'd love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their logo
stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")
Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn't the
wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants.
They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the
tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined
life savings of siblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that
the tradesmen were the market was that they'd also been taught how to
read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know
how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the
priests) nobody else knew how to read.
These men were blown away when they read Jesus' command against
swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a
millennia they'd been trusting that the church - originally just the
Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling
them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out
that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener.
Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years.
Without oaths there'd have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility,
and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was
premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it
violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done
it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and
giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that
was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better
term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the
book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the
millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning.
They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."
In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe
adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of
founding a church. It was considered a State right, there and then. The
church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple
thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the
Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a
statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful
oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say),
"None, except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?
The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of
England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear
words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They
exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them
preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of
speech. But they couldn't establish a church, which followed Jesus'
words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed
what Jesus had commanded. To show their absolute displeasure with those
who'd kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in
church or state any respect. It was the custom to doff one's hat when
he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly
black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors"
wouldn't miss the fact that the hat stayed atop their head. Back then
the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a
superior. "Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and
friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun
"thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We
call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a
judge. One of them had told the judge that he'd better "Quake before
the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent
disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty
funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the
nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican
Church - especially from men who'd been the more charitable to it in
the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn't just the
losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new
"Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed
sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church
But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can't go bankrupt.
It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times.
Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax,
and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a
deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized
this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction,' at least so far as
they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they
didn't have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths
establishing this servitude, there was "no jurisdiction." And they were
right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a
return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.
That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who'd
thought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to them.
As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while
the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them,
well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly,
that proof once made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican
Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren't
enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was
actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The
members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this
movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next
generation would swear an oath. Who'd then farm the lands of the
nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for
subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with
the payment for that use established in the market, not on the
unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their
incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England,
what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained
of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was
the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials.
They'd always held a position of superiority in the society. What would
they do when all of society treated them only as equals?
They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not
an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so
those in government thought. There's an aspect of a monarchy that
Americans find somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two
centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An
expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by
demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone
Why do they jump? Simple. It's a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail
(hey, there's a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is
considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a
Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.
Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that
wasn't possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would
have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one
better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to
the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!
A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a
simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They
opted to obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court,
facing the charge of high treason. An official would take the witness
stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant's oath of
allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no
right to refuse to witness against one's self. He refused to accept the
administered oath. That refusal on the record, the court instantly
judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was
essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to
be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown. In short
order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren't filled
as you'd envision them. The men who'd refused the oaths weren't there.
Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing for that.
There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a married
man in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they
ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted
of a petty crime to have one of his kids stand in for him for 30 or 90
days. That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the
table, without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man
convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to
convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family
would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society.
But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless.
The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent
for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the
children stood- in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational
choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which
child was the least productive to the family earnings.
That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter. Thus, the prisons
of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences
for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the
jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A
strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her
remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true
sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely
ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the
crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high
mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that
the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of other
prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released
to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime.
High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists,
rapists, etc., had all been set free. That had a very profound effect
on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road.
Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the
crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how
they'd exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to
venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those
meetings they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they
were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name,
they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from
starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and
nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the
refusal to swear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental
demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus' words didn't
bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it.
The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and
ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real
felons, before the government was removed from office under force of
arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in
lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what
they'd been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also
prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head."
Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600
years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!
When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in
droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves
and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation.
That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong
influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the
Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were
incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to
those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution
is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document.
Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the
United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A
refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a
treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of
Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a
criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been
COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it's the
opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can't be
criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do
something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted
about three years. You see, if it were not a crime to fail to do
something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING
- save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.
Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to
support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to
enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these
people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an
official "fail" to perform his lawful duties, he'd evidence in that
omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION.
Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of
perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of
office, who were in office only by their oaths. And that's still the
situation. It's just that the government has very cleverly obscured
that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income.
As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in
advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late
19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax
wasn't apportioned, and couldn't be apportioned, that because of the
fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather
than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States
according to the census. But the income tax wasn't absolutely
abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of
federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed.
You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the
court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that
wouldn't be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment
didn't apply. Make sense?
Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of a court is to
answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a
person needs standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has
occurred which affects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the
Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers
demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question
couldn't have come up.
Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO
taxing his outside income, that from sources within a State. Could have
been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had
a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms
of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income
from the benefits he derived by being an officer.
That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is
pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office,
it's far easier to just reduce the benefits up front! Saves time. Saves
paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming
back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of
office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was
dropped by Congress. There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court
ruling. The first is to have the court reverse itself. That's a very
strange concept at law. Actually, it's impossibility at law. The only
way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the
Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior
conclusion at law was derived. Because it was a Supreme Court ruling
nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to
the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the
The 16th Amendment allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever
source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it
doesn't say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court
has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That's
absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only
the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit
of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax
officers' incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other
sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the
statutes enacted thereunder don't have to say whose incomes are subject
to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That's
logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to
file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by
monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only
exist under the broad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.
Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim that
you are an officer of that government. Yeah, you're saying, "Man, I'd
never be so foolish as to claim that." I'll betcha $100 I can prove
that you did it and that you'll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a
tax form, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.
Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed.
You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of
perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury
you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's
common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be
under oath, right? Right. There's no other way, unless you pretend to
be under oath. To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically.
There would be no oath. Hence it's a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on
making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is
to claim that you're under oath. That claim could be true, could be
false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false
claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.
You've read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and
penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did
you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can't even be
placed in jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.
The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn't you just
state that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single
criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true.
There's a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be
twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a
conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for
life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That's why
you call them civil servants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath
spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury
(especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into
signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren't under oath
enabling the commission of perjury. You can't be twice penalized for a
single criminal act, even for a perjury. Still, because you trusted
that the government wouldn't try to deceive you, you signed an income
tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where
there was none.
Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe that
you are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to
have income and you'll be charged with "willful failure to file," a
crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!
Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed)
before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matter
all the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his
income from criminal activities, that information would later be used
against him on a criminal charge. If he didn't list it, then swore that
the form was "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and
convicted of a perjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse
to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to
each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide
testimony against himself. That should have been the end of the income
tax. In a few years everyone would have been refusing to provide
answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the
"tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the
use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of
Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the
notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made
and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the
Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on
which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on
the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the
taxpayer's oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s
and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for
Sullivan had no current relevance.
There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal
income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court.
The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and
assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a
person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single
criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has
jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction
arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.
However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant should
take the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth,
and then truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is
not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the
signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under
claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical
perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a
person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which
contradict one another.
The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he
truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then
duty bound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his
ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I'm) under
penalties of perjury" and "I'm not a federal official or employee"
would be the sole evidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal
employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last
statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause
was a FALSE statement. Can't have that proof on the record, can we?
About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful
failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in
full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a
few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to
mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren't federal
persons. Unfortunately, they didn't tell the court that while under
oath. A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials
where the defendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters,
that he isn't a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded -
at least that's surely what he'd try to claim if the issue were ever
raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the
witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand,
but does so without an oath. As he's not under oath, nothing he says
can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury
clause" on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost
always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it
all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs
his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he's under an oath
which if perjured may bring him a duality of penalties. It's still a
matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn't changed in over 400
years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch
able to command us to action. In the United States of America, you have
to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are
subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the
income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you
volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form,
probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign
a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subject
to jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior
signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file
trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you
knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man
owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he
receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He
receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In
addition to a return of some of those benefits, Congress can also
demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the
16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were
ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would
diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers
(including you) would vanish to zero. It's still the same system as it
was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don't
immediately realize it. Yes, it's a jurisdictional matter. An
Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a student of the Constitution,
have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You've wondered who are persons
"subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the
alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper
The claimed purpose of the 14th Amendment was to vest civil
rights to the former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from
chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that
precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But
it took a little more than the amendment. The former slaves would need
to perform an act, subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the
United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that
After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves
were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they
couldn't vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty
peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they
weren't about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The
Federal government found a way to force that.
It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to
become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to
the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren't about to do
that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an
unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right
to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the
Constitution. The vast majority of them didn't have the slightest idea
of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!
Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist,
these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their
assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by
Quakers! Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an
OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively
among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously
refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of
the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the
former slaves. The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal
officials, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by that
oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of
their office, save what was then extended under the 14th Amendment.
There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40
acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.
Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always
will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge
or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is
forwarded under the oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the
oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a
warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause.
Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that
person should be charged with a perjury. It's all about oaths. And the
one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be
extended is ... perjury.
You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable
when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction"
means. You didn't WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of
perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it
voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn't realize the
import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a
MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake.
Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were
under an oath of office, a perjury of which could bring you dual
penalties. You just didn't give those words any thought. What do you do
when you discover you've made a mistake? As an honest man, you tell
those who may have been affected by your error, apologize to them, and
usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a
demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes. You
really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain
that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income
tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury of
which might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you've never sworn such
an oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made
this mistake on every tax form you'd ever signed. But now that you
understand the words, you'll most certainly not make that mistake
again! That'll be the end of any possibility that you'll ever be
charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it's only as
simple as it's supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty
simple matter. Either you are subject to jurisdiction, by having really
sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren't under oath, and abolish
all the pretenses, false pretenses you provided, on which the
government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction
fails and you become a freeman. A freeman can't be compelled to perform
any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties,
should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the
part of the definition abolished here.
It's a matter of history. European history, American history, and
finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from
you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history
you know. If you know that you've never sworn an oath of office, and
now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are
free. Truth does that. Funny how that works.
Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at
all." That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal
society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers
bound by oath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who'd farm those lands
in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths?
Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to
obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with
"sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He'd
"tear down the temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus
stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!
The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question
attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in
the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An
adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence,
responding, "You have so said."
He didn't "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the
judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said
that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet.
But in his heart he'd said so. That's what this trial was all about.
Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath.
In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the
PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn't
Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesus
off to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power
might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel
with Jesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid
of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection
of Rome." Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would
need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him.
Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of
"person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the
civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate
administered that oath to Caesar. Jesus stood mute, again refusing
jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He'd never before met a man
who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were
considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were
sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an
unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the
official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he
would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to
which he was sworn, he had to do so. The law, neither Roman law nor the
law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn't
kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a
mob, demanding His death. How's that for chaos? Jesus was put to death
because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn't do that. Only a
mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus
proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there -
the law has no ability to touch a truly free man. A mob can, but the
result of that is chaos, not order.
In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or
fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is
chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as
the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend
the people establishing it - all of those people - and not because they
owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite
reason, because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance
under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few
decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all
of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths
and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least
the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led
by churchmen who still uphold the terms of that European treaty. They
still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it's a
"lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but
more so, for we now have the Words of Jesus to read for ourselves.
Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don't
name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous
members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that
they could file false lawsuits against Jesus' followers, suits that
they couldn't answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary
command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves
what today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a
coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle
out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That
wasn't a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!
It's rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian
and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps
inadvertently obeying one of Jesus' commands out of a self-preservation
instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step.
You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in
self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It's all
a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can't
abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can
go to no one on earth. We can't serve two masters. No one can. As
Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and
allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his
father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and
to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That's certain.
As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even
affirmations, this writer honestly can't envision. Certainly it would
have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial
instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in
1786, I can't envision a functional government without the use of
oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device
to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The
Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to
advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes,
unwittingly violating Jesus' command. When the British crown attempted
to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus' own
death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a
compelled oath and an offered oath.
The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos
as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical
premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that
chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use
oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.
Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We
ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for
precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus
envisioned, without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with
murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without
someone bringing a complaint, sworn complaint, before a Jury (a panel
of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the
civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision
what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can't, you still have to obey His
command. That will set you free. As to where we go from there, well,
given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial,
which functioned without oaths, I guess we won't see how it will
function until it arrives.
Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE
claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You
claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth.
It worked 400 years ago. It'll still work. It's the only thing that'll
work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason
extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell
this Truth and it will set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government,
then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you
for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you
are keeping what you earn, the market will force them to realize that
you aren't the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the
American people understand what is written here, income taxation will
be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The
government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation
would swear an oath? Then there'd be no servants! No, the income tax
will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That's only
money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government
will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the
knowledge lost to the obscure "between the lines" of history, they can
run the same money game. Pass this essay on to your Christian friends.
But save a copy. Will it to your grandchildren. Someday, they too will
probably need this knowledge. Teach your children well. Be honest; tell
the truth. That will set you free - and it'll scare the government
Home | Conditioning
| Taxes |