Two legal cases...

...which impact greatly on the question of "freedom" in America



Case #1 asks: "Who owns the gold and silver in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank?"


Case #2 asks: "Can the IRS seize property on the 'authority' of an anonymous rubber stamp?"




Case #1: K. Biegeleisen vs. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

(Index # : 97 Civ. 0379)

Background of the case:

The purpose of this suit was to determine whether or not the American people are sovereign in this country, or whether the federal government has quietly established itself as a de facto dictatorship, as many evangelical Christians, patriots, and libertarians allege.

The case was initiated following a New York Times article which disclosed that the Federal Reserve Bank ("the Fed") has at least 9,000 tons of gold bullion in the basement of its branch at Liberty Street, New York. The whereabouts and magnitudes of its other gold and silver holdings have not been discussed publicly, but are evidently substantial.

Although it has been highly publicized that foreign countries store gold in that same basement, it cannot be denied that a great deal of the gold and silver down there must consist of bullion that formerly circulated as currency of the United States of America, expropriated during various "emergencies". The most famous of these was the bank "panic" of 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a "bank holiday", followed immediately by a highly questionable act of Congress which made it a crime to possess any gold other than jewelry. Americans were ordered -- on pain of severe fine and imprisonment -- to hand over their gold, in return for which they were given pieces of paper money bearing the title "Gold Certificate". Each of these bills bore the inscription "redeemable in gold" -- a promise which obviously could never have been kept.

The Gold Certificates were progressively replaced by Silver Certificates, "redeemable in silver" -- a claim which goes beyond all reason, into the realm of the absurd. During my childhood, most dollar bills were still called "Silver Certificates"; the Gold Certificates were long gone.

Now, the silver certificates have long-since been replaced by "Federal Reserve Notes" which are not redeemable at all. Furthermore, the silver has been removed from our coins.

We now have an all-paper "currency" with base metal "coins", and the gold and silver is unaccounted for. It is presumed, by the average American, that our gold and silver is in Fort Knox, which, in reality, only has a relatively small amount of "show gold" for the benefit of tourists. Where is the rest? And who owns it?

This lawsuit presumes that most of the bullion which underwrote the currency of the United States of America -- the richest nation in the world -- is in the basement of the Federal Reserve Bank, and at other undisclosed Fed strongholds. The suit is over two years old, and at no time during these proceedings has this presumption been refuted by the Bank in any way.

The question is: "Who holds the title to all that gold and silver?" There are three possible answers:

  1. The citizens of the United States hold the title. The Supreme Court noted, in the nineteenth century (U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 1882), that the people of the United States are, collectively, the "sovereign" here, with all the rights formerly enjoyed by the King of England. If the people own the gold and silver, and it is merely being held in trust for us by the Fed, then there is no problem, and this case can be put to rest.
  2. The Federal Reserve Bank holds the title. Note that the Fed is a private, for-profit money-lending institution. If they claim to own this gold and silver, then questions arise. Who sold it to them? How did they pay for it? It was expropriated from the United States, within which the only constitutional legal tender is gold and silver coin (Constitution, Article I section 10). How can one pay for gold and silver with "more" gold and silver? You wind up with the same thing! And if not gold and silver, then with what could it have possibly been purchased? And if it wasn't paid for (and believe me, it wasn't), then how can they "own" it?
  3. The "United States" holds the title. It may seem obvious to presume that the gold and silver of the United States is owned by the "United States". Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court declared, in 1945 (Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652), that there are two "United States"! One (the one we are taught of in school) consists of 50 states united by and under the Constitution, within which all constitutional law is preserved. If this "United States" owns the gold and silver, then it's the same as saying that the gold and silver are the property of the popular sovereignty, i.e. the citizens of the United States collectively, and there is no problem.

The other "United States", however, consists of the territories, possessions, and persons under the jurisdiction of the federal government, within which there are no constitutional rights! (Click on "Hooven v. Evatt" above). This latter "United States" is governed by Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution which establishes a virtual congressional dictatorship over it. The Supreme Court has declared, in no uncertain terms, that constitutional rights do not exist in this other "United States".

Guess which "United States" you live in! The one with "constitutional rights"? Not a chance! You live in the other one! If you file an income tax return, or if you pay into or receive Social Security, then you have unknowingly acceded to federal sovereignty, and -- believe it or not -- you have no constitutional rights other than those the government "magnanimously" grants you!

If this other "United States" owns the gold and silver, it is the same as it being owned by the Federal Reserve Bank, since no one in Congress -- no one who intends to be re-elected, that is -- will dare challenge the Bank's possession.

Outcome of the case

The case was originally brought as a class-action suit in the New York State Supreme Court, on behalf of the citizens of that state only. The reason for bringing the case in state court, rather than federal court, was that federal court implies a federal jurisdiction, in which, as we have already mentioned, there are no guaranteed constitutional rights.

The U.S. Attorney's office immediately emerged as the attorney for the Fed. However, when the case came up on the court calendar, it was defended by a young man named Scott Corrigan, who identified himself as an attorney for the Bank.

It wasn't until about a year after the case was dismissed (I'm giving away the end of the story!) that I learned that the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York -- without a doubt the most powerful of the twelve branches -- was named Gerald Corrigan. I never checked the genealogy, but I have always presumed Scott was a close relative. I guess I should be honored that they took my case so seriously.

The case was removed forthwith to Federal Court, and the Fed made a motion to dismiss. The motion was argued on Halloween day, 1997 -- a curious choice of dates. To nobody's surprise, the motion was granted. The following two (2) grounds were cited:

1) The court said that the question could only be asked by a plaintiff with "standing". By this, the court meant that an individual, like myself, who was no more aggrieved than any other individual, had no "controversy" with the Bank. In the absence of a personal "controversy", the court alleges that it has no Article III jurisdiction, and can't hear the matter.

This point of view would appear to rule out any class action suit. It seems quite evident that the court has chosen to employ a bizarre and inappropriate interpretation of Article III to avoid addressing the question that has been put to it.

In plain English, we're being told "the question can't be asked"!

(2) The court said further that "it's too late to ask the question"! Previous cases were cited, which purport to prove that when the courts have left things a particular way for a "long time", they must be left that way, even if the previous court decisions were wrong!

In plain English, the court is saying that if the wealth of the United States is falling into the hands of foreign bankers, it's too late to do anything about it. "Let's just let bygones be bygones"!

The case was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which, not surprisingly, upheld the lower court decision (momentous issues are rarely undertaken by the lower courts). If a case this difficult is to be heard at all, it must be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.

Due notice is taken of the politically sensitive nature of the case. If the court were to state that the bullion is the property of the people, it would have the wrath of the Bank to deal with. It the court dared to say that the bullion is the property of the Bank, the people might physically revolt.

The court evidently recognizes that it cannot get out of its predicament by saying that the bullion is the property of the "United States", since there are two "United States", one representing the interests of the people, and the other representing the interests of the Bank. Assigning the bullion to either "United States" will cause the other "United States" to become enraged.

Not answering the question at all, however, merely establishes that the Bank is the de facto owner of all of Americas gold and silver, by the doctrine of adverse possession. This, in effect, grants a "license" to the Bank to seize the wealth of the world's richest nation without just compensation to its citizens. Some would dare call such a thing 'treason'.

It is my opinion that God will not allow this to happen.

After the appeal, the court assessed me a relatively small amount of money to cover the Fed's legal fees. I knew that if I appealed to the Supreme Court, that

  1. The Supreme Court would not agree to hear the case, and
  2. I would be assessed a much larger amount of money to "cover their legal fees" (i.e., to discourage me from asking them any more questions).


Money is nothing for the Fed, because they, if effect, print it. But I'm dangerously short of cash. So I let the case die.






Case #2: K. Biegeleisen vs. Kim Albert & and Mary Ross

(Index # : 97-6336 )

This case was an attempt to force the government to accept responsibility for its actions. That's the way it used to be in the nineteenth (see U.S. vs. Lee, which we cited above), but things have changed! The immediate issue is the pretend-signing of IRS liens and levies by signature stamps; these stamps bearing the names of alleged revenue officers who, when push comes to shove, cannot be located, and who may, in fact, be entirely fictitious. The purpose of this subterfuge is the avoidance of liability, since one can't (successfully!) sue a fictitious revenue phantom.


Background of the case


In 1989, the LORD caused me to know that I had to change the way I lived. I was a physician, with a high-profile, high-income practice in New York City, and I was made to see that not all my money was being earned in a morally acceptable manner.

For example, I was heavily dependent upon advertising and public relations. I discovered, through years of experience, that medical advertising only "pulled" when the ads were misleading. Patients simply did not respond to honest advertising. Conversely, the more misleading the ad, the greater the public response was. When I realized this, I vowed to discontinue all advertising and public relations. This caused me to "lose money".

I was also dependent upon questionable health insurance filings. I was hardly alone in this. To this day, the great majority of doctors behave as if it was their duty and obligation to exaggerate health insurance claims, or to even lie outright. Rest assured, the insurance companies lie right back.

When I began to grasp the sheer magnitude of the fraud which had come to permeate "third party" medicine, I ceased filing all questionable claims, regardless of the financial consequences. In fact, I terminated all contractual relationships with insurance carriers. Many of my patients left my care, seeking other doctors who would "work" with their insurance. This caused me to lose more money.

There were several other changes I made, which I really shouldn't discuss here. They involved other people, and I have no business "confessing" other people's wrongdoing. Suffice it to say that each such change removed an iniquity from my medical practice, and all of them caused me to "lose money".

In 1991, I had been at my peak financially, grossing somewhere between $600,000-$700,000 per year, but spending most of it just to stay in business. I was running a medical society, which gave me great notoriety, but cost me a lot of money. I was publishing scientific papers, but paying for my own research. Additionally, I was laying out over $100,000 a year in rent, over $100,000 a year in salaries, and over $100,000 on medical supplies. My personal "net income" was therefore actually quite low, and the entire operation was ever-so-finely balanced in terms of cash flow.

Now, by 1992, I had fully implemented the above-referenced moral changes. Sure enough, I lost money. The gross income of the practice dropped precipitously that year, to about $430,000, but all the overwhelming expenses remained. My expenses exceeded my income! It was financially disastrous.

For the next 5 years, the practice gross dropped every year. This precipitated a series of financial crises. The first, and worst of these involved the IRS.

I was, by that time, filing totally honest tax returns (fool that I had become), but, in the face of precipitously declining income, I had no money to pay many creditors, including the IRS.

At the end of 1992, I "owed" the IRS $30,000, which I couldn't pay.

After a year, the $30,000 had grown to $60,000, just from penalties and interest. However, because my practice was still, in 1993, declining precipitously, I was unable to pay any part of the tax "due".

There came a point where I was summoned to a meeting with an IRS revenue collection agent. I no longer had enough money to hire an accountant or attorney to represent me, so I went down alone.

At IRS headquarters, the agent asked me what I proposed doing about the $60,000 tax "due". I proposed paying $1,000 per month for 60 months. I thought that was a very reasonable offer. After all, if one borrows $60,000 from a bank, the repayment is typically over 5 years. Medical equipment leases, of which I had taken out many, were also usually 5 years in length. So I thought that my offer to pay the $60,000 over 5 years was a standard offer, and a reasonable one.

To my shock and horror, the IRS agent not only refused, he positively scoffed! He said he would accept no offer that didn't result in full payment within 6 months!

I advised him that no such thing was possible. He said "then we'll take your house".

Now, when I was younger, I had learned (or thought I had learned) that in bankruptcy, the court can't take your house. So I said to the IRS agent: "You can't do that. In the worse case scenario, I'll have to file for bankruptcy, and you won't be able to take my house", to which he responded, very calmly and matter-of-factly, "Oh, yes, we can".

I walked out of that meeting in a something of a state of shock, not knowing what to think. I was married, with 2 children, and I lived in a very fashionable suburb of Westchester County, just north of New York City. Could they really take my house? I didn't know!

So I retained the services of a lawyer, an elderly gentleman who had worked for the IRS all his life as a collection attorney. He was now retired, and in his retirement he had gone to work for the public, negotiating "offers in compromise". An "offer in compromise" means that the IRS either agrees to reduce the amount "due", or else agrees to a more lenient payment plan than they would admit to publicly.

My new lawyer, in spite of his decades of experience within the IRS, was unable to cut a deal with them! After 4 wasted months of fruitless negotiations they finally told him: "We're not going to make any deal with your client. He's a doctor. We'll get our money!".

No explanation was given for their refusal to show any compassion. They never accused me of lying, cheating or stealing, or of hiding money, either here or "off-shore". Yet I felt I was being treated with all the contempt due to a criminal. Apparently, my "crime" was that I was a doctor, and in this country, doctors are supposed to "have money". So whenever a doctor showed up at the IRS "without money", he was presumed to be a liar and a cheat.

To reiterate the "score" at this point:



There were other personal financial disasters going on at this time. Because of the falling income, I was forced to give up my office. It was a large office. Although I was a solo practitioner, I had 5 treatment rooms, one of which was a fully-equipped vascular laboratory with a full-time board-certified technician. I had a staff of 5-6 people working under me.

I lost it all, including the medical equipment.

Eventually, I was forced to file for bankruptcy. I couldn't afford the legal and accounting fees for Chapter 11, so I filed for Chapter 7.

It was then that I learned that in the United States, there exists a creditor who says that your alleged debt to him is non-cancelable: The IRS! So the bankruptcy provided no relief at all!

For reasons I won't bore you with, I decided that it would be dangerous to try to hold onto my fancy house, so I sold it.

Guess who showed up at the closing? They did! There was a very substantial profit in the sale, and federal and state tax collectors, without a shred of legal paper to legitimize their activities, "invited" themselves to the closing and walked out with all the money.

That house was the only thing of value I owned in the world. Being naive, I hoped against hope that they would realize that there was nothing else to take, and just go away. No such luck!

Next, they began seizing bank accounts. I had a savings account with the grand total of $900 in it. They took it. I had a personal checking account with $1,100. They took that. All my personal checks bounced.

The only thing I had left in the world was a business checking account at Citibank, from which the bills of my medical practice were paid. It had an average balance of $1-2,000 (although thousands of dollars went in -- and right back out again -- every month). They took it.

So all my business checks bounced. Since I couldn't keep a checking account any more, I had to begin asking my patients to pay in cash. Do you know what patients think when you demand cash? They think you're a tax cheat, with millions of dollars stashed away in a secret off-shore bank account!

Do you remember the last line of the movie "I Was A Fugitive From A Chain Gang"? If you are a movie fan, you certainly will. The movie was unforgettable. It was about a totally honest and decent man who was falsely accused of a burglary, and who wound up spending his whole life fleeing from the false "justice" which pursued him relentlessly wherever he went. Finally, he was driven underground to survive. He ran into his former fiancee in a dark alley at the end of the movie. "How do you live?", she yelled out as he began to flee from her. "I steal!" was the immortal reply.

I had become just like that, at least in appearance. The IRS was treating me like a criminal, and because of it, my patients were being falsely led to the same conclusion. And I knew that the IRS knew that this happened, and that they wanted it this way. It was part of their program of torture, to expropriate more money from people.

The result was that I lost more patients, and wound up with even less money.

At that point, I had to sit down and think very seriously about what to do with the situation:

There was no easy way out. So I decided to commit suicide, to save my family from total financial ruin (please note that this was before the LORD had impressed me into His service -- I shall never contemplate such a wrong decision again). I had $1.7 million in term life insurance, and I presumed that would be enough to save them. I ordered materials from the "Hemlock Society", but decided instead to kill myself by inhaling nitrogen gas, which is odorless, tasteless, and, supposedly, painless.

But what about the soul?

There came a very dark night when I sat in a closet, in prayer and meditation. There was a dread in my soul which I would have a hard time describing to you. It didn't seem right. I was looking death in the eye, yet I hadn't committed any capital crime. All I had done was to stop running misleading advertisements, and to stop filing questionable insurance claims and tax returns. Isn't that what we all proclaim, publicly, is "the right thing" to do? Why did I have to die for doing the right thing, when the world was filled with thieves who were benefiting immensely from doing wrong? It didn't seem fair at all.

Furthermore, I had a disturbing vision. I noted that, thus far, the IRS had taken everything it wanted, without any obvious due process of law. Whenever they wanted anything of mine, they just reached out their hands and took it. What if, after my death, they came in and took all of the $1.7 million in insurance money? I didn't "owe" them anywhere near that much, but couldn't they just take it anyway?

They could say, for example, that there were "damages". Hadn't I subjected them to "pain and suffering" by forcing them to summon me to unpleasant meetings, and by causing them to have to generate multiple pieces of paper from their poor, tired-out over-worked computers? Surely, they had "damages" due!

So, the vision was this: I was physically dead, but my soul was conscious in the next world. The LORD forced me to look back to the earth, and to see that the IRS had indeed taken the entire $1.7 million. So now, instead of merely having no money, my children had no father and no money! They were suffering badly, and I could not stop myself from seeing it. Nor could I do anything about it, anymore. I was dead!

That was the last straw! I decided to take action! I was aware of a book called "Vultures in Eagle's Clothing", by Lynne Merideth, a Christian patriot who made this promise to her readers: "Never pay another dime in income tax". I had no idea what she was talking about. I knew nothing whatsoever about taxes, law, or the Constitution. I only knew that my life was over unless I took action. I was desperate.

So I bought the book. She recommended, in the introduction, reading it through at least twice. I did that. Here, in a very condensed form, was what I learned:

As you can well-imagine, all thoughts of suicide were quickly dispelled by this book. It's one thing to offer one's life to save one's family. But to offer one's life to save an ancient system of privilege; a system which was supposed to have been rooted out by our war of independence against England, is another matter altogether.

Since that time I have studied law, taxes, history, finance, and the Constitution of the United States. I have read, with great care, the key Supreme Court decisions which bear upon the questions of "income tax" and "sovereignty".

I also read the Bible continually, where the truth about usury has been known, and taught, for thousands of years. (But we still don't listen).

After having performed these studies, I was again attacked by the IRS. I had, out of dire necessity, opened up another checking account, this one at Chemical Bank. I had to be very careful to not leave too much money in it, since the IRS serpent was obviously ever-ready to strike. Sure enough, at a time when there was a grand total of about $800 in the account, they struck. My funds were frozen, and the bank informed me that in 2-3 weeks, the money would be handed over to the IRS.

I inquired as to who, in Chemical Bank, was in charge of monitoring these sorts of liens, levies and seizures, and was referred to the Chemical Bank Vice President in charge of that department. I phoned her, and read the law to her over the phone. I then followed that up with a certified letter.

The law I read to her was the law stating that, by the IRS' own regulations, all lien and levy papers had to be signed by an assessment officer, under penalty of perjury. (If you look at the last line of a 1040 tax return, you will see that this is the same requirement which is laid upon taxpayers when they file). There were other requirements as well, but I made a particular issue of the signature.

Why? Because, as I stated above, all property seizures done in satisfaction of alleged "personal income tax" liabilities are illegal. Congress never passed any legislation empowering the IRS to seize the property of United States citizens, unless they are involved in federally-regulated taxable businesses such as sale of alcohol, tobacco or firearms. Without so-called "implementing regulations" (i.e., laws prescribing punishments for alleged tax offenders), the IRS can accuse anyone of anything, but has no power to torture those who refuse to humble themselves before it. No legal power, that is.

So I knew that no IRS agent would sign his/her name to the Chemical Bank levy. To do so, under penalty of perjury, would be perjury! I presumed the lien would be removed when their bluff was called.

I made it absolutely clear to the Chemical Bank Vice President that if she cooperated with the levy, and if it was carried out with due process of law (meaning a proper assessment signed by a live human being), that I would step aside and not interfere. But I also made it absolutely clear that if she cooperated with the levy in the absence of a properly signed assessment, I would have no choice but to sue. She said she would check with a Chemical lawyer, but in a letter she sent me subsequently, she made no mention of any legal consultations, saying rather that she had considered the matter, and concluded that the levy was "lawful".

A few weeks later, the $800 was indeed seized. I sued the Vice President personally, and I also sued "Mary Ross", the name of the elusive revenue officer stamped at the bottom of the computer printout which was purportedly the "authority" behind the levy.

I initiated the suit in New York State Supreme Court, for the reasons given above in the Federal Reserve case (i.e., if your case is in federal court, then it is assumed that you are a federal "subject", and that you have no constitutional rights! See Hooven vs. Evatt).

The suit accused the bank Vice President and the shadowy IRS figure "Mary Ross" of conspiring to deny my 4th and 5th amendment rights, and of failing to conform to the signature requirements of 26 U.S.C. 6065.

To make a long story short, the United States Attorney's Office immediately took up the case for "Mary Ross", and moved the case into Federal Court, as was done in the Federal Reserve case above.

The "government" made a motion to dismiss, which, of course, was granted.

The court, in granting the motion, relied on several specious lines of reason:

  1. They claimed that a "signature stamp" from an IRS agent was somehow the legal equivalent of the agent's "signature", even though that would not be true for you and me.
  2. They claimed that the signature provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6065 only pertained to citizens filing tax returns, and not to IRS employees, even though the law makes no such distinction.
  3. They claimed that the 4th and 5th Amendment protections against property seizure without due process of law were superceded by "the need of the government to raise revenue", even though the Constitution proclaims no such priority.

In fact, a signature stamp is not a "signature". As a physician, I have been taught and reminded, from medical school to the present time, to never entrust any employee, no matter how dear to you, with a signature stamp. The potential for fraud is simply uncontrollable, and no one has invented a remedy to prevent it. In other words, in the field of medicine, a signature stamp is considered to be an instrument of fraud.

Nevertheless, "we the people" have apparently given a big, fat signature stamp to the IRS, which they are now using to steal our homes.

A real, human signature on a levy is a testament, equivalent to testimony under oath, which says that prior to the seizure of a man's property, all necessary precautions have been taken to ascertain that the levy is appropriate, and that it has been carried out in a lawful manner.

In contrast, a signature stamp is a testimony to nothing at all! It's just a piece of rubber. Consider this: The secretary who employed the stamp can deny having done so. If a problem arises, that's exactly what he or she will do. Even if you can prove the identity of the secretary, he's sure to say "I was just following orders". What about the senior IRS collection officer? He'll do the same thing -- deny responsibility. "Go after the secretary!", he'll say. "I never authorized this levy!".

What if the levy turns out to be a mistake? Who's responsible? Not the secretary! He's "just following orders"! Not the senior collection officer either. He'll say "It's just a signature stamp, it's not my signature"! How do you like that? Talk about "having your cake and eating it"!

This, of course, is presupposing that you can even find the collection officer.

Recent federal legislation extends broad legal immunity to federal agents who commit crimes while acting in "good faith". This, as stated above, is a marked departure from American law of the nineteenth century (see U.S. v. Lee). If, today, an IRS collection error is perpetrated by signature stamp, and if the property of the accused is destroyed before the error is corrected, who's responsible? No one! Who makes reparations for the harm done? No one! There are no reparations! Federal agents, we are told nowadays, always act in "food faith", so why should they be burdened by reparations? Are they not "honorable men"?

In the presence of such irresponsible legislation, the signature stamp empowers federal agents to commit any and every conceivable crime with complete impunity. This includes murder. Is this what the government has in mind for us?

The ultimate farce in the government's position is that there does not appear to be any such person as "Mary Ross", the defendant in this case. In several papers I presented to the Court, I made the accusation that she was a fictional character, and no one has yet denied that. I have diligently attempted, on repeated occasions over a two-year period, to locate a person by the name of "Mary Ross" at IRS centers across the country, to no avail. A close acquaintance of mine who works for the IRS informs me that it would be pointless to pursue this inquiry in any event, since the IRS routinely uses the signature-stamp names of people who have long since re-located or even gone into retirement!

In the case of "Mary Ross", I suspect even worse. It looks suspiciously like a fictional name, derived from taking the name of the creator of the American flag (Betsy Ross) and combining it with Mary, the mother of Jesus. I have stated this suspicion in my court papers, and the defendants have not seen fit to deny it.

The long and the short of it is that the IRS, having succeeded in its dream of making itself all-powerful and generally immune from all prosecution for its crimes and errors, has conspired against America by creating fictional characters to bear the brunt of the public's outrage. What difference does it make if Mary Ross exists or not? If she did exist, she would be IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION!

To state it from the IRS point of view: "Why should we allow ourselves to be subjected to the stress and indignity of being sued by outraged taxpayers, when THE LAWSUIT IS GOING TO BE DISMISSED ANYWAY?! Isn't it simpler for all parties involved if we just create an imaginary character to bear the brunt of taxpayer rage, since the taxpayer can't win under any circumstances?".

Yes, that's simple. Really simple. Unfortunately, it's illegal, immoral, and it's TREASON. Even if the rubber stamp bears the name of a real person, its use is still illegal if that person is dead, retired, or relocated to an office other than the one the levy comes from.


Outcome of the case


Against all logic and decency, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of this case. Therefore, I had to bring it all the way to the Supreme Court.

So I wrote up my Petition for Writ of Certiorari. I was just about to send it in, when I got a "brainstorm". I tore out the sheets on which my signature was required by the Rules of the Supreme Court. I replaced them with blank signature lines. Then I stamped them with my own signature stamp, which I had to take out of "mothballs"!

Would these learned justices accept my signature stamp as a "signature"? After all, the court, up till then, had steadfastly maintained that an IRS rubber stamp was the same as a human signature. What about my rubber stamp?

To my astonishment, the Court Clerk fell for my trick! He returned my Petition, with a hand-signed letter demanding that the Petition be signed!

So, in the Supreme Court, a rubber stamp was not a "signature", after all.

I re-wrote my entire Petition, making the Supreme Court Clerk's own letter "Exhibit A". The new brief pointed out, in plain language, that their own rules denied the propriety of a rubber stamp in their own court!

What would they do now?

What they did was almost unbelievable. They returned my Petition again! The reason? The Petition was now signed, but one of the signatures was in the wrong place!!

So I tore up the Petition again. Their second letter became my new "Exhibit B", and the brief was now built almost entirely around the stringency of their own signature requirements.

"Surely", I thought to myself, "these learned justices will not disgrace themselves by denying my Petition for Writ of Certiorari now, at the risk of being perceived as total hypocrites!" I sent the revised Petition in.

Guess what! The Petition was indeed denied!


Verily, we live in a nation of near-total hypocrisy!



















"Article III jurisdiction"


Article III of the Constitution (click to read the original text) simply lists a series of types of controversies which the courts have jurisdiction over. A straightforward reading of Article III does not reveal the logic which causes the court to cite it in this case.

After careful consideration, we may confidently conclude that the court's position is this: When they say they have no "Article III jurisdiction", they're simply saying that I have no more of a complaint against the Bank than any other American.

In other words, they're claiming that only a person who has been particularly badly injured by the Bank can sue them. If your injury was the same as everyone else's, you can't sue! According to their use of language, you have "no controversy" with the Bank unless your injury was particularly severe.

Thus, if "everyone" has been robbed by the Bank, then only "everyone" can sue! This means, in practice, that it becomes a political matter, and only Congress (who theoretically represents "everyone") can deal with it.

 Although it cannot be scientifically proven, there is abundant circumstantial evidence that all key congressional posts are held by people whose elections were funded by the Bank. We can therefore confidently predict that Congress will not, between now and the time we all die of old age, touch a hair on the Bank's head.

All theory aside, actual historical experience shows that Congress has not spoken so much as a word against the Bank. And the only President who has stood up to the Bank, namely John F. Kennedy, died quickly. I'm sure that was just a "coincidence".


















Vultures in Eagle's Clothing


By Lynn Meredith    (We The People)


This book may be difficult to find, since Lynn was arrested shortly before the posting of this web site. She is facing 85 years in prison for teaching the truth. Since 85 years in jail is living death, it can accurately be said that she is about to be martyred in a fraudulent federal pseudo-trial.

Lynn's great book, "Vultures In Eagle's Clothing", will undoubtedly be available regardless of her personal fate. If you search the web for the book, you'll undoubtedly find it.

"Vultures..." was a concise and highly entertaining history of the downfall of freedom in the United States, from the early battles over the formation of a British-style central bank in the United States to the final establishment of the income tax-Federal Reserve system, after which freedom in America never had a chance. She shows precisely why the income tax is illegal, immoral and unconstitutional. She also shows that not a penny of personal income tax money goes anywhere other than into the pockets of wealthy bankers. The poor? Whatever appropriations are voted for them must be financed by new money, which is printed from plain paper, and loaned to America at interest. The only way such abomination can continue is if the citizen is ignorant. Read "Vultures..." and your ignorance will be dispelled.





















Our Fraudulent "National Debt"

Ronald Reagan, correctly assessing the gravity of America's financial situation, convened the Grace Commission, which gleaned the cumulative wisdom of thousands of America's top business leaders. Their report, released in the mid-1980's, revealed some shocking statistics. Chief among them was the statistic about income tax. Grace Commission projections showed unequivocally that by 1995, the interest on the National Debt would exceed all the incoming tax revenues combined!!! Do not pass this statistic by if you do not grasp the full implications of it!

The Grace Commission report can be ordered by telephoning 1-800-USA-DEBT, but you have to buy the whole thing. It's over $1000. Alternatively, you can read: Harry E. Figgie, Jr. Bankruptcy 1995: The Coming Collapse of America and How to Stop It. Published by: Little, Brown and Company, 1992, 1993. I'm sure there are other books on the subject as well.

















4th and 5th Amendments

(From the Bill of Rights)


Article [IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article [V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.


























Ruby Ridge

Acts of murder by irresponsible federal government agents have become almost commonplace. One of the best-known cases, the infamous "Ruby Ridge" case, arose when a man named Randy Weaver -- a purported white supremacist -- was charged with illegal sale of firearms. He had been entrapped in a federal "sting" operation.

Weaver was a Christian fundamentalist, but, unfortunately, he was associated with the infamous "Aryan Nation", a group whom the public regards as being equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan. That made Weaver an easy target, since there was little public sympathy for his plight.

He was arrested on the gun charge and released on bail. He retreated to his home on the hill called "Ruby Ridge", and fortified it. When he didn't show up for trial, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (the "ATF" -- hated almost as much, if not more, than the KKK!) besieged him in his home. There was an armed standoff.

Several days into the standoff, Randy Weaver's wife came out on the front porch to smoke a cigarette. She was carrying a baby in her arms. A federal agent very calmly took aim, and fired. Randy Weaver's wife and child were killed by the bullet.

The agent was accused of murder, but he was acquitted. He was, after all, a federal agent "acting in good faith". As such he was immune from prosecution!

The really amazing thing about this case was that Randy Weaver was eventually acquitted of the gun charge. So the murders of his wife and child were not merely outrageous, they were totally unprovoked and without the slightest legal justification.