Source: http://freedom-school.com/tax-matters/index.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:40:46+00:00

Document:
all items presented in public interest without prejudice - no liabilty for any use - unauthorized use prohibited.
F.Y.I.: It is an unconstitutional violation of due process of law for any judge or prosecutor to "presume" that one may be a franchisee called a "taxpayer" without any supporting evidence. All such presumptions also amount to the establishment of a religion by the government, because they amount to a belief that either is not supported by evidence or is not required to be supported by evidence.
Further, if Federal courts can’t make declaratory judgments relating to federal taxes, then how can they decide that one may be a "taxpayer" who is subject to the franchise agreement to begin with? If they are enjoined from declaring people "taxpayers", then they can’t enforce the franchise agreement against anyone because they can’t determine who is subject to it.
Understand the legal reality, namely that "taxpayer" means "fiduciary" and that has to be asserted at what may be the one and only time to compel "them" judicially to prove up the basis for their purported claim, namely the necessary trust agreement on which their claim depends.
Ye say, "Yea!" or say, "Nay"?
Anyone may arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; He is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the Treasury; There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [Federal Income Taxation] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."
Are You One Required To File IRS 1040 Forms?
Rahm Emanuel Doesn´t Pay Taxes, So Why Should You?
...from 1998 IRS Oversight Hearings: "Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers´ belief..."
(1) Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers´ belief that the tax laws they follow apply to everyone and that the Internal Revenue Service will respect and protect their rights under the law. These are fundamental principles of voluntary compliance.
(Emphasis added - above curiously missing from current issue.) Are you a believer in voluntary compliance? Laws are mandatory on [those] the subjects of them. Compliance is only voluntary where it is not mandatory. Think about that for a while.
F.Y.I.: As it appears, the IRS has no jurisdiction to apply their ´special laws´ for the District of Columbia over American Nationals [nonresident alien non-individuals] who derive no income that is effectively connected with the conduct of ´the performance of the functions of a public office´ [trade or business as defined at 26 USC §7701(a)(26)] within the ´District of Columbia´ [the United States as defined at 26 USC §7408(d)] or participate in any federal franchise scheme.
The Internal Revenue Service is the National Government´s tax bill collection bureau. The statutory laws it operates under are found in Title 26 of the United States Code. This is also referenced as the IRC or Internal Revenue Code. The IRC statutes were created by Congress.
The only group that the IRS is authorized to deal with are those identified in 26 USC §7701(a)(14) to be ´Taxpayers´. The IRC shows that the term ´taxpayer´ means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. There is no issue with their authority to address ´Taxpayers´ but one needs to understand that their statutory laws are applicable only toward those who are ´Taxpayers´ or just as commonly the IRS uses the term "U.S. persons" as ´Taxpayers´.
"Revenue laws relate to ´taxpayers´ [legal fictions created by the Congress, officers, employees, certain U.S. citizens, resident aliens, elected officials of the national government, and those who operate in a representative capacity in behalf of the national government such as via a federal franchise established by the Social Security Act of 1935 by being engaged in the conduct and performance of the functions of a public office called a ´trade or business´ within the District of Columbia referenced as ´the United States´] and NOT to ´Non Taxpayers´ [American Nationals a.k.a., non-resident alien non-individuals who have no physical or statutory domicile within the District of Columbia and do not derive any income from being engaged in the conduct of a trade or business within the District of Columbia].
The latter are without their scope of revenue laws. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws."
If ´they´ lie, mislead, misspeak, misdirect you from the judge´s bench, what makes you think the pastor/priest/rabbi doesn´t do the same from their pulpit?
What manner of "employee" might you be?
Consider U.S. v. Bass, 784 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1986), the trial judge instructed Bass´s jury that Bass qualified as an "employee" relevant to chapter 24 of the IRC just because he was a commonly-defined employee. However, Bass never disputed being a commonly-defined employee; he simply argued that he was not a statutorily-defined "employee" and said that whether he qualified as the latter was a matter for the government to try to prove and his jury to decide. The 5th circuit said, "You betcha´!" and reversed Bass´s nine-count conviction.
Republic Magazine "The Federal Income Tax Scam"
Fifteen commonly held BELIEFS that MOST Americans BELIEVE to be " true for a fact"
Penalties & Interest & Lie to the Clients.
AUDIO: Interview with Phil Hart, Author of " Constitutional Income"
"The Internal Revune Code is not positive law, it is special law."
Irwin Schiff´s material is presented for informational purposes only - reader is advised to use any of the material at one´s own risk.
Irwin Schiff: How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn´t a pictorial introduction to basic economics.
DEFINITION OF "FEDERALLY PRIVILEGED WORKER"
Is Anyone Required To Have A Social Security Number?
If the Government Owns a Third of Your Labor, Are You Free?
Federal Income Tax Page as found on Original Intent who´s objective is "Restoring the Republic...one Citizen at a time"
U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long: Federal District court in Tennessee, case NO. CR-1-93-91. Complete transcript.
Decoding The IRS´ Individual Master File By Albert J. Wagner. C.P.A.
What´s Really Taking Place in a "Willful Failure to File" Trial Anyhow?
R U a Taxpayer or an authorized agent?
Stop by your local IRS office, bring some ID, and request a "Record of Account" for the "Taxpayer"
its free and it contains what they are aware of.
...no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated.
Definitions of a dollar from various sources.
The term "United States" means Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and other "owned" territories of the U.S.
The term "State" (capitalized) means one of those places listed above.
The term "state" (not capitalized) refers to one of the 50 states or another country.
The word "income" does not mean wages, tips, salaries, and other compensation for labor according to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Also see Black’s Law Dictionary. Income is the "returnv in money from using your capital to make money, i.e., profits and interest. Even then it must be earned in the corporate United States.
Have available or obtain a form of identification (for example, passport, driver license, etc.) with no social security number.
Go to a bank where you are not known.
Indicate that you want to open a non-interest-bearing account.
Indicate that you do not wish to provide a social security number or taxpayer identification number and that, according to the Privacy Act, it is illegal to demand one. If necessary, ask that the bank representative consult their supervisor or legal department.
If the bank representative still refuses to open the account, fill out both copies of the Constructive Notice, signed by both you and your witness.
Hand one of the copies to the bank representative.
If the bank representative still refuses to open the account, then find a lawyer to sue the bank representative personally, as well as the bank.
For anyone asking for your SSN. It is very powerful.
Internal Revenue Service is only authorized to collect an Income Tax from corporations.
Did someone say, "Due Process"
Not familiar with the Form W-8BEN?
"Nonresident alien individual. Any individual who is not a citizen or resident alien of the United States is a nonresident alien individual. An alien individual meeting either the "green card test" or the "substantial presence test" for the calendar year is a resident alien. Any person not meeting either test is a nonresident alien individual. Additionally, an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty, or an alien individual who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa is a nonresident alien individual. See Pub. 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, for more information on resident and nonresident alien status."
DISCUSSION: A key word here is "individual" - in common language might be presumed to be an [individual] man or woman; Title 26 defines the word differently and it is not what one might think; see section # 3. Check it out for yourself. Familiarize yourself with the information found in the New Hire Paperwork Attachment Also, do you have a ´green card´ or "substantial presence" within the [corporate] United States? Are you a "resident" anywhere?
One does need to know just who one is or one may be presumed and taken for whatever someone else wants that one to be.
Title 26 C.F.R. Sec. 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of Sec. 31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970.
(b) Form and duration of agreement. (1)(I) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.
(c) A statement that the employee desires withholding of Federal income tax, and applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(I) of Sec. 301.6361-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedures and Administration)), and (d) If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement. If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the request shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee´s Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer a request for withholding under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer. (iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and an employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made. (2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon.
However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first ``status determination date´´ (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.
and whatever it has it has stolen.
"Me, I´m competent to make informed decisions."
The filing of a withholding agreement (W-4 or W-9) is voluntary [26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(b)].
A voluntary withholding agreement may be terminated at any time by the worker or the hiring entity [26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2)].
Me, I am not aware of any section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) or its enabling regulations that requires me, an individual American NOT involved in a revenue-taxable activity, a non-taxpayer, to file a Form 1040 or pay [so-called] 'income taxes'.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT ORDERS: DELEGATION ORDERS: T.D.s have no force or effect of law on the general public.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in Thatcher v. Powell, 19 U.S. 119, 6 Wheat. 119 (1821) that no public officer can take any action affecting your property ""unless authorized so to do by express law, "and that the person invested with such a power, must pursue with precision the course prescribed by law, or his act is invalid""
Are you aware that the IRS can take property from people without a court order?
Are you aware that governments cannot exercise powers the people do not have and hence cannot grant to governments?
Can one conclude, therefore, that if the IRS has the "right" to take property without a court order, it is because [originally] the Citizens also have such a right?
Then the question is, if the IRS can take property without a court order, how does an average Citizen go about doing the same thing?
As you may also be aware, using the Courts to deprive others of property is expensive and [seemingly] takes forever.
Any information that can be supplied on how to avoid lengthy court battles [and thereby lessen judicial burden], and use mere letters, like IRS´s notices of lien and notices of levy will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your thoughtful and timely response.
26 C.F.R. §301.6331-1 Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes Sec. 301.6331-1 Levy and distraint.
How can the IRS use Form 4340 as evidence to make you liable for tax?
it bites with stolen teeth, and bites often.
It is false down to its bowels.
Jim Shaver Shut Down the Fraud!
F.Y.I.: Congress defines the term "taxpayer" at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(14) as "any person subject to any internal revenue tax." What is a "internal revenue tax" one may ask? Notice "internal revenue tax" is not found defined anywhere in the tax codes of the United States or anyplace else.
Hey Mr. IRS TAXMAN; Tax Code §§ 1402(b), 3121(e) 3306(j), and 42 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2), define "citizen" and they do not mention me - an American, and after a diligent search I find there is no statute that mentions my citizenship as a subject of the Tax Code. if anything, I’m only named in regulation 26 CFR 1.1-1 by the U.S. Treasury. This appears to violate the 16th Amendment that you guys seem to rely on which says that only Congress may lay and collect income taxes. Now, how say you?
Hey Mr. IRS TAXMAN; after a diligent search I find I find that § 83 of your Tax Code is violated when the value of my personal services is taxed as gross income, because, I find, only "the excess over the amount paid" is gross income. Now, how say you?
Where the Government fears the People - you have rights.
Concerning a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien"
Me, I am not aware of any such CIVP "Kind of Tax(a)" as showing.
I am aware that the IRS can only issue a levy and relating "Notice of Levy" against federal employees 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a) without implementing regulations, as required by, 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2), 26 C.F.R. § 601.702(a)(1), 31 C.F.R. § 1.3(a)(4), and 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a)(1). I find nothing that goes to "John H Doe" being a federal employee.
The Notice of Levy Form, Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service Form 668-Y(c), does not appear to have a valid OMB Control number. It is my belief that, under the provisions of the Paperwork reduction Act (PRA), this form may only be used within the government and may NOT be issued to the general public. The general public is also told in the act that such a form may safely be disregarded and is "bogus" if issued without a valid OMB control number. That said and as it stands, I find the "Notice" item so said above to be bogus.
Please take notice that neither a Federal Tax Lien or a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" cannot and should not be issued until an Abstract of Judgment, which is signed by the clerk of the court summarizing a judgment that was duly signed by a judge, is firstly obtained by the IRS. As respondent, I am not in possession of nor aware of any such Abstract.
I rely on this, "Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not distraint." as found in Flora v. U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960).
I am aware of and do rely on this, a "Notice of Federal Tax Lien", IRS Form 668(Y)(c) issued without an accompanying "Abstract of Judgment" cannot and should not be honored by the recipient. Any recipient who does honor it is opening themselves up to civil liability and a tort. This includes county records, title companies, attorneys, etc. Federal law cannot and does not protect parties who engage in such tortious activities because federal law has NOT JURISDICTION within states of the Union.
I am aware of and do rely on this, "Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid." as found in Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 297 (1904).
I am aware of and do rely on this, that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), codified in 15 U.S.C., Chapter 41, Subchapter V, also requires that all imputed debts, whether tax related or otherwise, MUST be validated with the original debt instrument upon demand of the [alleged] debtor within 30 days. This Act requires in 15 U.S.C. §1692g(a), among other things, that the debt collection has an obligation to validate any imputed debts. Tax debts constitute "debts" for the purposes of this provision, and section 3466 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 makes the IRS Subject to the Provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
"Me, I don´t accept this offer."
"Me, I don´t consent to this ...."
How the IRS traps you into liability by making you a fiduciary for a dead "strawman"
Notice: 26 C.F.R. §301.7701-6 Definitions; person, fiduciary.
"NOTICE: For purposes of this and relating communication the terms "Frivolous" and "Meritless" shall mean truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law and legal precedent."
Are you a citizen of the United States / US CITIZEN / TAXPAYER?
F.Y.I.: "Slater´s protestations to the effect that he derives no benefit from the United States government have no bearing on his legal obligation to pay income taxes. ... Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability."
I want to express my thanks to the IRS for the professional, lawful, timely, quick, and efficient processing of so said Form 1040NR for the so said year 2004 mentioned in your Letter 3176(SC))(Rev.7-2007) dated January 12, 2008, as received.
The 1040 is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief -- please refer to the signed jurat, and the signed jurat on the attached Form 4852.
Please take notice that I am not a "Taxpayer" and kindly stop addressing me as such.
For purposes of this and relating communication the terms "Frivolous" and "Meritless" shall mean truthful, accurate, and consistent with prevailing law and legal precedent.
Your offer of contract is being returned to you unsigned and without recourse.
May I remind you of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant; and 26 U.S.C. § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States; and 18 U.S.C. § 872. Extortion by officers or employees of the United States; and 18 U.S.C. § 876. Mailing threatening communications. I hope you are not willing to participate or perpetrate any of these offenses.
This letter and any and all relating or attaching documents and reply may become part of the Public Record and will be used for and as competent evidence in any administrative or judicial proceedings at law, or equity as may occur regarding this issue. ALL of these documents must be maintained in Claimant´s Administrative File.
The "Willful Failure to File" Scam!
Let´s all get this straight. I am NOT a tax protester!
Recipient does not have a voluntary withholding agreement in place, and therefore does not earn "wages" as legally defined under 26 C.F.R. §31.3401(a)-3(a).
The amounts reported on the W-2 should not have been reported at all, and even if a form had been sent in, Block 1 of the W-2 (wages, tips, and other compensation) should have been zero.
William Wallace Lear´s matter - served for information purposes only.
Robert A. McNeil´s matter - served for information purposes only.
More propaganda "In denial: Why file tax returns?"
Well, it seems that the federal extortion machine won´t be hanging one of their most prizes trophy heads on the wall just yet. A judge has granted Wesley Snipes bail pending appeal, which means he stays out while his conviction is appealed, which could take a year or two, or more.
All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States.
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.
Statute requires that the Secretary of the Treasury have express lawful authority to operate outside of D.C., and it is under that Office that the IRS operates. Tax Code § 7621 is not that permission. This authority to operate does not exist, at least no denial of this by the DOJ is made in federal court.
"Gee, Mr. IRS agent, are you even allowed to talk to me?"
CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) [ Footnote 23 ] "There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced."
In Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, the Supreme Court ruled: "Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power #& Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 409; United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60, 70, and see generally 74 U. S. 7 Wall. 666." Federal Crop Ins. Corp v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947).
Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1940): "Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority," 113 F.2d, at 286.
Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1981): "Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation," 644 F.2d, at 1383.
Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1981): "All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large * * * [I]t is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government´s behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority," 650 F.2d, at 1100.
In re Benny, 29 B.R. 754, 762 (N.D. Cal. 1983): "[A]n unlawful or unauthorized exercise of power does not become legitimated or authorized by reason of habitude." See also, Umpleby, by and through Umpleby v. State, 347 N.W.2d 156, 161 (N.D. 1984).
n. A habitual tendency or way of behaving. See synonyms at habit.
Steve Miller: Social Security: Mark of the Beast!
Consider that it is not possible for you to "rescind" ‘your’ Social Security number.
First of all the "Social Security number" is not "yours" so you cannot rescind it.
If one does not believe that their signature was/is valid, why would they attempt to rescind it?
Discover the terms, "negation", "abandoned."
This company profile is for the PRIVATE COMPANY Social Security Administration, headquarters located in Baltimore, MD. Social Security Administration´s line of business is administrative social/manpower programs.
The term "employee" 31 CFR §215.2(h)(1)(i) does not include retired personnel, pensioners, annuitants, or similar beneficiaries of the Federal Government, who are NOT performing active civilian service or persons receiving remuneration for services on a contract-fee basis. They are not subject to withholding and have no duty to file any form W-4 or W-9, unless they desire to voluntarily enter into agreements.
Tom Cryer´s matter - served for information purposes only.
ARE YOU WORRIED THE IRS IS GOING TO COME AFTER YOU?
Me, I am a non-taxpayer, a "nonresident alien" not engaged in a "trade or business" with no earnings from the "United States" and defined in 26 C.F.R. §1.871-1(b)(i) whose estate is a "foreign estate" as per 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) and who is specifically exempted from receipt of "gross income", not subject to withholding, backup withholding, and reporting as per the following: 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i), 26 U.S.C. §1402(b), 26 U.S.C. §3401(a)(6), 26 U.S.C. §3406(g), 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(a)(6)-1(b), 26 C.F.R. §31.3406(g)-1(e), 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2(f); further, I am not a Title 26 "individual".
I imagine that King George III said something very similar back in 1775.
Frankly, reading between the lines of the language used, it appears that tax defiance has become a huge problem, probably far larger than the government wants to admit. Indeed, I view this announcement as an admission that the problem has grown to vast proportions.
Now then, let us see how serious the DOJ is in punishing, persecuting, threatening, enlightening those who claim the income tax is in fact illegal. Here is a PDF file of the court transcript from Sullivan v. USA. On page 23, Judge James C. Fox clearly states that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, a claim repeated by many other tax law experts and never successfully refuted by the government.
So, will the DOJ start proceedings against Judge Fox? Or is the dire warning mere posturing to try to delay the long-overdue tax revolt? - M. R.
is sure to be captured by them.
Were you born in Washington, D.C.?
Were you born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa?
Are you now permanently living or working in any one of the areas listed above?
Are you employed by the U.S. Government?
Are you manufacturing or selling alcohol, tobacco, or firearms?
Are you a naturalized citizen of the United States?
Were you born in one of the 50 states or do you have a Social Security Number and are being asked to pay income taxes?
If your answers for #1 - 6 are NO and your answer to number 7 is YES, then you qualify as being an non-taxpayer, i.e.: Tax-Exempt for "individual income tax reporting" for the rest of your life according to the Constitution and the IRS codes. You are defined as an American Citizen / a free inhabitant / an American National.
If you answered YES to any of the questions #1 - 6, and your answer for number 7 is NO, then you are defined as a federal citizen/taxpayer / CITIZEN/TAXPAYER.
"I move to strike everything after "defendant" as unresponsive, irrelevant, incompetent, immaterial, and prejudicial."
"I believe that the prosecution is exhibiting bias, prejudice, interest, incompetence, or corruption - how say this Court?"
Come this far... and you still need help?
NOTICE: Presented entities and unknown author(s) are not affiliated with Freedom School.
This is the fine print that´s so important. Freedom School material and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring, interception, recording, reading, copying or capturing by authorized personnel of all activities. There is no right to privacy in this system. Unauthorized use of this system is prohibited and subject to criminal and civil penalties, including all penalties applicable to willful unauthorized access. Consider, 18 U.S.Code §1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers.

References: §7701
 §7408
 §7701
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §301
 § 7701
 § 411
 § 83
 § 6331
 § 553
 § 601
 § 1
 § 1505
 v. 
 v. 
 §1692
 §301
 § 1512
 § 7214
 § 872
 § 876
 §31
 § 7621
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §215
 §1
 §7701
 §861
 §1402
 §3401
 §3406
 §31
 §31
 §1
 v. 
 §1030