Internal Revenue Districts

02 Nov

Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service sy...

Image via Wikipedia

Bob Conlon was my guest on my radio show last night (Tuesday, November 1st).  He’s drafted a very interesting document dealing with the legal requirement that the IRS operate in relation to “Internal Revenue Districts” and the possibility that such “Districts” no longer exist.

If his research is correct, he may have discovered a very strong basis for arguing that the “IRS” has no authority to collect income taxes from individual men and women.

As I understand it, Bob asserts two premises:

1) The Internal Revenue Districts are required by law as a necessary element for the existence of any lawful authority to collect income taxes.  I haven’t researched this issue, but I believe this first premise is true.

2) In recent years, the Internal Revenue Districts have been abolished.  Bob is intelligent and diligent and I presume his second presume is also true–but I haven’t done enough reading to verify.

If both premises are true, then Bob’s conclusion (that the modern IRS is acting without authority and therefore criminally) may also be true.  If so, Bob may have discovered and published a powerful argument that may stop most IRS collection procedures.  If either premise is false, his conclusion also fails.

My own preliminary interpretation of Bob’s information differs from Bob’s premises and conclusion.     While Bob interprets the loss of Internal Revenue Districts to be evidence that the “de jure” IRS is acting criminally when it collects taxes, I’m inclined to read his research as evidence that what passes for the “IRS” today is a conglomerate of private companies (each named “Internal Revenue Service”) that are acting in a private capacity when they try to collect taxes.

In either interpretation, the “IRS” would be acting without authority whenever it tried to collect taxes from individual men and women.

Under Bob’s interpretation, there is still only one “IRS” and it’s acting criminally.  Under my interpretation, there are a huge number of private-company “IRSs” that are acting privately (and with the presumed consent of the “taxpayers).

My notion of a “conglomerate of private companies” is supported by a search for “Internal Revenue Service” on the search engine.  The result is almost 68,000 “U.S. companies” operating under, or closely associated with, the name “Internal Revenue Service”.  As you probably know, the information found at is provided by Dun & Bradstreet and should be reliable.

I’m excited by Bob’s research because, while Bob is completely unfamiliar and mystified by the “The State/this state” hypothesis that I support on this blog, I strongly suspect that the original “Internal Revenue Districts” were intended to exist within the States of the Union (“The State”) and were eliminated when the system shifted over to the territorial venue of “this state”.  I.e., it may be that if the original Internal Revenue Districts were intended to exist within States of the Union, those “Districts” can’t exist “in this state”.  Yet, if Title 26 requires the existence of “Internal Revenue Districts” but they can’t exist in the venue of “this state,” then it might be possible to stop collection efforts.

More, if it were true the “Internal Revenue Districts” of The States of the Union had been eliminated, it would provide huge support for the “The State/this state” hypothesis.

The big questions are:

1) Were the original “Internal Revenue Districts” designed to operate only within the States of the Union–but not the territories?

2) When (if ever) were those original “Internal Revenue Districts” actually eliminated?  If these “Districts” were intended only for States of the Union, the date of the elimination of these districts should approximately correspond to the date when the governments of the States of the Union were rendered insolvent and inoperable.

I’m inclined to believe that constitutional State governments (required to use gold or silver to pay debts under Article 1 Section 10, Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States) ceased to be functional around A.D. 1968 when the silver certificates were last redeemed with lawful (silver) dollars.  If the IR “Districts” could only exist in the States of the Union, then date when the Internal Revenue Districts were eliminated might more or less correspond to the date when those States of the Union were supplanted by territorial administrative districts acting as “this state”.

So, while Bob Conlon has provided us with information that may be extremely important, there is still much to be learned.

If I were dealing with the “IRS,” one of my first responses would be to ask them which “Internal Revenue District” they were operating in and which “Internal Revenue District” did they presume that I was living/acting/working/domiciled in.  I would probably not assert that I am in a particular IR “District” because, if Bob’s research is correct, making such assertion might be construed as a mistake or lie if such “Districts” no longer exist.   But I would absolutely ask questions about those Districts just to see if those questions could make the IRS “flinch”.

Also, note from Bob’s research that the IR “Districts” are required for persons that are not corporations.  If you are, or you represent, a corporation, there may not be a need for an IR “District”.  If so, then I’d be sure to ask the IRS if they presumed that I (“Adask”) was a corporation or that I (“Adask”) represented a corporation named “ALFRED N ADASK”.  Depending on the IRS’s answer, I might then assert that I am not a corporation and I don’t represent one, either.

I’m attaching two pdf files.  One is a pristine copy of Bob Conlon’s research and argument:  IRS Facts and Fraud_v10

The second is a “edited” copy of his original that includes my various highlighting and comments:  IRS Facts and Fraud_v10 EDITED

If you learn anything insightful about the validity or application Bob’s research (and my own interpretation), please let me know.

P.S.  After I posted the previous commentary on Bob Conlon’s research, Bob offered a few corrections:

Hi Al,

I just read your analysis of what my position is on your blog and I want to let you know that your intrepretation of my position isn’t not entirely correct.  While I do believe they are operating outside the law by ignoring existing law,  the IRS position is that they have congressional mandate to eliminate all the districts at section 1001.  Contrary to this however, are the already existing laws that require that they do exist, and that would be the fifteen or so that I’ve listed, not to mention that  Treasury Order 150-02 itself, dated 2001 at paragraph 3 states that the Commissioner himself is”‘subject only to limitations that exist by law.”

What I believe to be more critical than that is the fact that the very law they use as the reasoning to eliminate districts, i.e., RRA98, is the very law that establishes congressional mandate for the district director position to be maintained, and this can be found at section 3445 of P.L. 105-206, highlighted on page one of my document.   I think you missed this point entirely and this would be my 1st point.  My second point is that people who file are actually violating law by the very act of filing!  26 USC section 6091.  6091 is not broken UNTIL a 1040 form is filed!   Does that make sense? 

Moreover, I am not saying they do not have the authority to collect taxes from individuals because Tttle 4 section 111 would give them that authority.   The question is “from who?” do they have the authority to collect taxes, private sector or public sector individuals?.  Read my Liberty for Dummies document, that makes the point more clear. 

I am not mystified by the ‘state/this state’ argument, so the statement you made about my understanding of it is not correct.   I am familiar with the definition of ‘united states’, and ‘state’ in as it written up in 26 USC section 7701.  I just don’t put as much emphasis on it as you do because it doesn’t point to any provable identifiable lawbreaking.  The destruction of congressional mandate regarding the district director because that position is required by Public Law, does however.  Congress specifically demands the written approval of the district director  on certain levies in RRA98 so eliminating that position, as the IRS has done, is a big fat no-no.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear those points up.

Best Regards,

Bob Conlon


Tags: , , , ,

44 responses to “Internal Revenue Districts

  1. davidmerrill2

    November 2, 2011 at 8:50 PM

    The districts were formed in 1789 by the Judiciary Act. By August of 1790 the districts were obliged to the ‘obligations of the United States’.

    Therefore it is very unlikely that the districts no longer exist. The state districts and the Federal Reserve districts are the same thing.

    • Don

      November 2, 2011 at 9:31 PM

      don’t make no diffurnce no how.

  2. Al Thompson

    November 2, 2011 at 11:47 PM

    There is no body of law in the United States that is reliable or dependable. The IRS is simply a collection agency out of Puerto Rico..or whatever. Having studied this nonsense since 1999 the fact is that the liability for any income tax comes from the point of a gun. The gun is held by the “gubbermint” and if you don’t pay they will shoot you or put you in prison. There is no cognizable law in what we know as the United States. The written laws of the “United States” are plain bull shit. The constitution is bull shit, the bill of rights is bull shit, and the courts are bull shit. That’s all you need to know. The written law that doesn’t support God’s law is total bull shit. I hate to be so graphic, but that’s the way it really is and there’s no changing it because you can’t fix stupid and you can’t fix evil. It’s time to flush the whole system down the toilet and start over. If you try to use any of it, you’ll just come up empty every time. The text of these so-called laws is so convoluted that it seems to be intended to drive a man completely insane. It isn’t worth reading. The internal revenue laws were repealed at 53 Stat 1. That doesn’t stop the jerks from collecting it. If you don’t pay, you go to prison. Well, you say: “They can’t do that!” Well, they did that, now what are you going to do?
    This system will eventually collapse on its own. No one will have to do anything, it will eventually collapse. Best thing to do is to get out of the way.

    • davidmerrill2

      November 3, 2011 at 6:22 AM

      The hope is that through studying history one can find peaceful remedy. By understanding the ‘saving to suitors’ clause of 1789 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, including its amendments in 1933 one can master the reproducible mental models to understand the trust structures in place and prosper.

      Title 12 USC §411 is codification of §16 of the Fed Act and it shows current law. “They (FRNs) shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand…”

      One may demand lawful money and avoid endorsing private credit from the Fed.

    • jay

      November 4, 2011 at 4:27 PM

      i think you hit the nail on the head al. i dont think there is “fixing” anything. im not one of those guys that have been studying this for years like some of you, i guess you can say i woke up about 4 years ago. i think of myself as a pretty positive person, but there is no solution other than a total collapse, period.
      we have gotten soo far away of what we were intended to be, there is no going back. like you, i believe something better will come up out of the ashes. but until then, im just getting prepared in the way of food, and whatnot.
      i also have very little faith or hope in american society. 95 % of them know something is wrong, and know that it will get worse, but are not interested in specifics. i think the new craze now is kim kardashian’s 72 day marriage or some b.s. like that.. im not one of those guy either that wants to have civil war in this country.. just like the first one, everyone will come out a looser. the guns would be turned on the wrong people, not the ones that are truly responsible for the bull shit.
      we have turned our backs on God, regardless of your faith or belief, call it the universe if you like. we are decadent, slothfull, pridefull, and any other deadly sin you can think of. although im not a fan of jeramiah wright, perhaps he was in fact correct stating “our chickens are coming home to roost”

      • Don

        November 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM

        jay-You are SO right.

      • Joe Skelton

        January 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

        Certain titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 46, 49 and 51.

        This is evidence that Title 26 is not positive law.

  3. john sebastian thomas

    November 3, 2011 at 6:51 PM

    The “districts” established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 are/were “judicial” districts, i.e., the District of Colorado, the District of Oklahoma, etc. Cf: Title 28, Part 1, Chapter 5

    The Act of 1862, 12 Stat 432, established “convenient collection districts” at Sec. 2 Collection Districts were reaffirmed by Sec. 3650 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and became “Internal Revenue Districts” at Sec. 7621 in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954

    The elimination of revenue districts first came to light in U.S. v. Springer, Doc. 71, pg. 4:

    The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 abolished internal revenue districts
    as of October 1, 2000 (not the latter part of 1999 as asserted by Defendants). See
    Testimony of David C. Williams, Inspector General, Treasury Inspector General for Tax
    Administration, dated May 8, 2001, Implementation of the IRS Restructuring and Reform
    Act of 1998, Joint Hearing Before Committees of the United States Senate and United
    States House of Representatives. The fact that Internal Revenue districts were abolished
    does not affect the propriety of venue in the Northern District of Oklahoma.

    At 09-cr-00043, N.D.OK

    The Tenth Circuit has twice found against the revenue district argument:

    Further, Springer devotes a considerable portion of his brief to the theory
    that the IRS has no authority to collect taxes outside of Washington, D.C., see
    Aplt. Br. at 17-24, ignoring authority recognizing such arguments as patently
    frivolous. See, e.g., Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir.
    1990) (rejecting jurisdictional tax-protester argument as “completely lacking in
    legal merit and patently frivolous”); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629
    (10th Cir. 1990) (“For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that
    the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United
    States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves; efforts to argue
    otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous.” (citations omitted)).

    At CA10, 10-5037,

    Defendants first contend they committed no crimes because no government
    entity exists outside of Washington, D.C. with the lawfully delegated authority to
    collect taxes or enforce federal tax laws. As we understand their argument,
    defendants believe the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to collect taxes
    only within the territorial limits of Washington, D.C. See Aplt. Revised Opening
    Br. at 10 (citing 4 U.S.C. § 72 (“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.”)). To accommodate this geographic
    restriction, defendants contend, Congress granted the President, pursuant to
    26 U.S.C. § 7621, the power to establish internal revenue districts, headed by
    district directors, to exercise the Treasury Secretary’s authority beyond
    Washington. See Aplt. Revised Opening Br. at 8-9. However, Congress passed
    the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (“RRA”),
    Pub. L. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, which, among other things, abolished internal
    revenue districts and district directors. See Aplt. Revised Opening Br. at 11
    (citing the RRA and asserting that “[w]ithout [internal revenue districts and
    district directors] there could never have been any proper delegation of authority
    outside the District of Columbia from the [Treasury] Secretary to any U.S.
    Attorney.”). Consequently, defendants claim, there is no legally authorized entity
    to collect taxes or enforce the tax laws, and no criminal offense stemming from
    their failure to pay taxes. See id. (“Without [internal revenue districts and district
    directors] the indictment failed to allege an offense in all Six Counts because no
    law required Springer to deliver any Form 1040 . . . to any place required by
    law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

    These types of spurious delegation arguments were rejected as frivolous
    before the RRA was enacted, see, e.g., Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440,
    1448 (10th Cir. 1990), and they have been rejected as frivolous since, see, e.g.,
    United States v. Ford, 514 F.3d 1047, 1053 (10th Cir. 2008). The Secretary of
    the Treasury is authorized under 26 U.S.C. § 6091(a) to promulgate regulations
    prescribing “the place for the filing of any return, declaration, statement or other
    document.” Internal revenue districts are “now defunct,” Allnutt v. Comm’r,
    523 F.3d 406, 408 n.1 (4th Cir. 2008), but 26 C.F.R. § 1.6091-2(a) requires
    individuals to file returns with “any person assigned the responsibility to receive
    returns at the local Internal Revenue Service office that serves the legal residence
    . . . of the person required to make the return.” Otherwise, if so instructed,
    individuals or corporations must file returns with a specifically designated
    internal revenue service center. Id. § 1.6091-2(c).

    At CA10, 10-5055,

    Don’t try this at home, folks! There’s a huge amount of risk involved in challenging the jurisdiction or authority of the IRS to administer any of its revenue-collecting functions.

    • davidmerrill2

      November 4, 2011 at 8:56 AM

      Thank you for the AFFIRMED convictions (linked) from Lindsay SPRINGER. They demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the facts in application. I followed the prior SPRINGER work though Robert LAWRENCE. That flopped too and for the same reasons. The Notice is the mechanism. Robert LAWRENCE stood before the Tenth Circuit on the 1994 PRA when the Notice on the 1040 is the 1980 PRA. So the Justices only heard that they did not have to Hear Robert.

      “Don’t try this at home.” – really means don’t try this at all.

      The components originate there in your post though; beginning in 1861 by and large. The Priestcraft.

      The Territory of Colorado was not properly formed (30 Days) before Congress adjourned for the “Civil” War.

      The monuments work out quite well mathematically.

    • Bob Conlon

      November 4, 2011 at 9:53 AM

      The statement that RRA98 abolished district directors is patently false and an obfuscation of the facts. Section 3445 of P.L. 105=206 establishes the congressional mandate that the position of district director exist. The secretary does not have the constitutional authority to destroy Public Law nor does he have the constitutional authority to create law, which he has attempted to do through treasury order, regardless of what Mr. Williams testified.

      Moreover, Section 1001 of RRA98 directed the commissioner to:

      (2) eliminate or substantially modify the existing
      organization of the Internal Revenue Service which is based on a
      national, regional, and district structure;

      nowhere does the act use the term ‘abolish’ or ‘eliminate all’ but instead says ‘or substantially modify’

      The secretary admits he is bound by existing law in the treasury order that was issued to eliminate the districts and re-create the new structure. That treasury order itself was cancelled in 2006. ( ) TD 21-01 is now in effect and the new structure does not have any legal basis to exist, but since when the did the brigands over at the ‘entity’ ( ever respect the rule of law?

      Bob Conlon

  4. davidmerrill2

    November 4, 2011 at 10:31 AM

    I suppose I should amplify my point with the fact that fiat money began on the SW Corner of the Golden Rectangle.

    This is information in custody of the Mason Library. (NW Corner).

    I have never gotten into the 1921 and subsequent details because it is of no consequence. The law builds upon the history and if you understand the history you may apply the law, expecting reproducible mental models to fabricate.

  5. PhotoMaineAC

    November 4, 2011 at 11:43 AM


    Slavery….is the obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant, 1892, Websters Dictionary!

    It is your signature that give them the ability to control you!

    • Al Thompson

      November 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM

      Even worse than the signature is signing anything under the penalty of perjury. That’s where the feudal bond occurs because of the oath. Anyone who takes an oath for any reason, breaks God’s commandment and severely compromises himself. However, it’s all done under a fraud. So, if you want to look at it under natural law, there’s no contract under a fraud. People are always told to sign this or that because they think it is required. No, it really is a forced contract; and that’s no good either. Can’t really participate in the economy without it. People need to work to feed themselves and their families.

      The whole government and religious systems are total bull shit. As a matter of fact, they might not even rise to the level of bull shit. I may be insulting bull shit. At least real bull shit serves the purpose of helping to reconstitute the soil, whereas most governments and religious systems are completely worthless and destructive.

  6. Bob Conlon

    November 4, 2011 at 4:45 PM

    It would behoove every American to file an affidavit stating that signing the 1040 form under perjury is not possible since the 1040 form is fraudulent on its face. At the top of the form it refers to the cancelled designation, “Internal Revenue Service” and this is no longer a true fact, so the affiant is aware that everything on the form is not true and correct.

    26 USC section 6091 requires every individual to file in the internal revenue district where they live or work.—-000-.html

    This law is not broken UNTIL a form is filed, since the ‘entity’ claims the districts no longer exist, thereby giving another reason why an affidavit should be filed, stating that the filer is aware that filing the form will violate federal law.

    Perhaps we should all apply for exemptions, since the justice department is handing out exemptions like they were candy for the health care law.

    Bob Conlon

    • davidmerrill2

      November 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM

      I think that very Retro, Bob;

      I am not sure that I have made myself very clear how ineffective contesting the IRS districts are. The point is that you should work from a position of diversity. Whether they are IRS districts or judicial districts or there is no difference, Act of 1790. You should approach (appear) from being a man on the land, outside the scope of admiralty and outside the federal reserve districts.

      I will show you an example. This couple had to recover from two years of Pete HENDRICKSON’s Cracking the Code zero-income returns. Two years each was for $20K in frivolous filing fines.

      “When the Wife published the initial default judgment at the RoD as is typical, the Judgment did not have any USDC markings on it yet. There was an attorney who overheard the conversation and offered his wrinkley nose advice to index the judgment as a Notice, not a judgment; Pages 4-7. This never sat right with the suitor couple. So at the time of the above R4C on the judge’s order to show cause Wife prepared the second default judgment, Page 1 and after a few weeks contemplation it arrived in the mail, a properly FILED foreign judgment in the USDC. Now you see, it is ready to be published at the RoD and this time properly indexed as a Judgment.”

      • Bob Conlon

        November 5, 2011 at 10:57 AM


        Have you read the document Al posted, “IRS facts and fraud”? I am not contesting anything. I simply make the observation that contrary to the treasurer’s action of eliminating the internal revenue districts, there are still at least 15 laws that require the existence of the districts.

        This is a legal fact and quite the quandary for the fraudulent taxing scheme currently being conducted by the federal government.

        Treasury order does not and cannot supercede congressional mandate.

        We have an adversial court system in this country. The courts will not address an issue not contested and brought before it. If anyone ever filed using the legal argument that that laws exist that require the districts, and can find a way to introduce those laws into legal evidence, then I’ll betcha ya dollars to doughnuts they would prevail.

    • Al Thompson

      November 4, 2011 at 10:02 PM


      An affidavit assumes that one signs under “the penalties of perjury.” You’re jumping from the frying pan into the fire. There is no solution in taking an oath. Remember, perjury is lying under oath. The oath is a major part of the problem. It breaks the commandment by saying not to take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Oath takers are liars. Oath taking is only possible by God; not man. Oath taking is an attempt by man to usurp the place of God, which of course is impossible. How can anyone take an oath and expect anything good to come from it?

      If you go to my website at go read the Book of Enoch and do a word search on the oath. This book was used by the early Christian church and I believe that it correctly represents the place of the oath.

      In addition to the Book of Enoch, you’ll find The Didache, Epistle of Barnabus, and the Acts of Pilate which specifically forbid the oath or teach against it. These were used by the early Christian church but were removed by…you guessed it…the Roman Catholic Church.

      If you want to fix a lot of problems, get rid of the oath and stop using interest in the banking system along with keeping the rest of God’s commandments. We simply cannot prosper with a government (or whatever it is) that as a matter of “law” violates God’s laws. That can never work and we can see that it isn’t working now.

      No more affidavits, just let your yes be yes and your no be no; end of story.

      • davidmerrill2

        November 5, 2011 at 8:00 AM

        Good point Al;

        I read a great treatise about as paper books became available in price that suppression by the Catholic priests was exposed in Matthew 5 and James 6. I think you point is best expressed with the first written consitution as the Babylonian Jews conquered Jerusalem and the Israeli Mind.

        Neh 10:28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one having knowledge, and having understanding;
        Neh 10:29 They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes…

      • Bob Conlon

        November 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM

        Signing a 1040 form knowing that it does not contain truthful information, is in itself perjury. A person cannot be compelled by the government to commit a crime.

        I believe an affidavit stating this fact would be in order, you do not. So on that, we differ.

        Bob Conlon

  7. Bob Conlon

    November 4, 2011 at 9:46 PM

    john sebastian thomas,

    Your statement in the dicta which you logged Nov 3rd attributing to the secretary the power to promulgate regulations prescribing the place of filing is misleading in the fact that you fail to cite the very first part of para (a) of 6091.

    The secretary only has authority from congress when “not otherwise provided for by this title….” and since congress specifically addresses the issue of where to file in para (b), your argument is moot since place of filing is provided for by this title at para (b). See 6091 a and b below.

    26 USC 6091
    a) General rule
    When not otherwise provided for by this title, the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe the place for the filing of any return, declaration, statement, or other document, or copies thereof, required by this title or by regulations

    b) Tax returns
    In the case of returns of tax required under authority of part II of this subchapter—

    (1) Persons other than corporations
    (A) General rule
    Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a return (other than a corporation return) shall be made to the Secretary—

    (i) in the internal revenue district in which is located the legal residence or principal place of business of the person making the return, or

    (ii) at a service center serving the internal revenue district referred to in clause (i),

    as the Secretary may by regulations designate.

    Bob Conlon

    • Alvis Jenkins

      December 1, 2017 at 8:10 PM

      Bet you don’t know what the word “return” implies, because if you did, you would know that the American people are not returning anything back to the Government of which the Government never paid in wages?

      • Adask

        December 2, 2017 at 9:29 AM

        You’re right. I don’t know. But I suspect that we are expected to “return” some portion of income or profits derived from the privileged use of the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

      • mjday47362

        December 2, 2017 at 10:40 AM

        People in general have no idea the United States corporation does not exist any longer. It’s done, over and the land mass is up for grabs. I think that is what Trump is trying to do….secure our nation and not tell the people what is really going on. Most would call him a liar if he said the nation went bankrupt a long time ago or the nation was founded by Free Masons, not men of some god they found in a book created by other men how are also liars………and them proceed to twist truth and turned it to a book of allegory.

        Here are a few facts to look over and contemplate!

        The United States does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States. No more reorganizations. After over 200 years of operating under bankruptcy its finally over.

        The Pope can abolish any law in the United

        America is a British Colony and America is not the United States…all caps.


        The United States Government was not founded upon Christianity.

        Everything in the “United States” is For Sale: roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water, prisons airports etc.

        The “United States” did not declare Independence from Great Britain or King George.

        We have been living a lie all our lives.

        What if I told you the earth is not a Globe/planet in a place called Space? What would you think? Crazy me….right? Do some research friends.

        ALL we have been told for ever so long is a lie.

  8. davidmerrill2

    November 5, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    “Have you read the document Al posted, “IRS facts and fraud”? I am not contesting anything. I simply make the observation that contrary to the treasurer’s action of eliminating the internal revenue districts, there are still at least 15 laws that require the existence of the districts.”

    You will not find any judge or tax attorney who will let you coach him about Title 26. The only way to win is not to play (stay out of the Contract – non-endorsement).

    Here is an example:

    They contemplated it enough to see that he forgot his $125 NY School Tax Credit.

    Here is his NY zero income refund.

    The page I thought you might like is Pages 11-13:

  9. Al Thompson

    November 6, 2011 at 5:43 AM

    If the internal revenue laws were repealed in 1939 at 53 Stat. 1 then this conversation is completely out of context. You shouldn’t discuss anything else until that problem is resolved. Now, it could be that a completely different entity is using the tax code under the same name: i.e. the United States.
    But it’s easier to address the repeal. In addition, the tax only applies to human beings. There’s no such thing as a human being. The tax applies to livestock or human beings. A human being is a man who is a ancestor of a monkey. Evolution is one big lie and I don’t consider myself human.
    So, if you aren’t livestock, then why study that which doesn’t apply to you? Before you can even get close to understanding the tax code or any of the federal codes, you have to read the definitions of terms for each section. This alone will drive a man completely insane; it’s a type of an intellectual hell.

    My experience in court leads me to believe that even if all of us could prove the fraud with all of our ducks lined-up, there would still be no legal relief. The people who hold the guns (government ) pointed at our backs do not want to know the truth. Satanists don’t like the truth. Evil people like the lie and they like to apply their lies to steal from other people.

    I’ll repeat myself again. There is no useful body of law in any worldly government on this planet, with the exception of God’s commandments. I try to operate on those and it makes my life easier. I actually have a standard of behavior that I can achieve if I do not allow any evil influences to overcome me. God’s commandments actually get good results, the other legal stuff is just bull .
    All government as we know it today is simply an extortion racket. Only bad things will come from it.

    • davidmerrill2

      November 6, 2011 at 9:50 AM

      I know of many people who get full refunds according to law. Many of these examples have plenty of correspondence included where the IRS actually figures that out so there will be no demands for the money back.

      Consider the initial conditioning you have to endorse private credit from the Fed. Because the whole contract with the Fed bears your signature bond, it all seems like a racket. You actually sign the agreement. Now wonder you cannot find any remedy from there…

      Somebody just paid me in US Notes in the form of FRNs. He did not bond himself with a first lien by the Treasury:

      • Al Thompson

        November 6, 2011 at 12:34 PM

        This is what I talk about by being out of context when you talk about things. You said something to the effect “full refunds according to the law.” What law? If I tell you that all internal revenue laws were repealed, then again, that has to be settled first. All of the other internal revenue laws were repealed making the one you just quoted irrelevant. Are you talking about positive law or non positive law? Do you know the difference? Now we get into some real nonsense.
        The signature bond that you speak of is based upon a fraud and it becomes an unjust bond. When you talk about the Treasury, you are talking about the one in Puerto Rico.
        When I say the system is twisted, I really mean it. This is why I think people put too much authority on writings. Just because someone wrote it down, doesn’t make it true nor does it have any authority. Generally speaking, you really don’t know who wrote what. You don’t know what is true or false unless you have other supporting information.
        If a writing doesn’t impart the complete truth or understanding, the writing is completely worthless. You can point to all of the legal books you want, but they are ultimately bull shit because these so-called laws are simply twisted.
        Although I’ve studied this nonsense for over 20 years, I still wouldn’t know enough to actually use it. For instance, in the internal revenue code, I believe there are at least 25 various definitions for the term United States. How is anyone going to know one from the other? The intent is to distort what is going on and at the same time disclosing what they are doing perhaps to show that people “volunteered” to do it. These laws are total bull shit. Writings can be very dangerous because they take on an authority that they may not deserve.

        Writings can be just a distraction if they are not truthful and informative. If they are intended to distort the mind, then they are worthless.

      • davidmerrill2

        November 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM

        “This is what I talk about by being out of context when you talk about things.”

        By “law” I mean §16 of the Federal Reserve Act (1913) and Title 12 U.S.C. §411. If you endorse private credit from the Fed instead of redeeming lawful money then you get what you ask for.


        David Merrill.

        These are US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes.

        This is a FRN awaiting redemption:

      • Al Thompson

        November 6, 2011 at 7:51 PM

        If I am not mistaken, Title 12 is non positive law. Which means that it isn’t bona fide law with a statute and the code together. Title 12 doesn’t even rise to the level of bull shit. It is only a policy statement and just like any other corporation, the policy may be changed at the whim of a corporate executive.

        Title 26 is also non positive law. The codes are only prima facie evidence of the law. There has to be a statute somewhere in order for it to be positive law.

        There’s supposedly a big difference between positive law and non positive law. But then again, we would have to once again jump into the codified cesspool and try to reason something that is completely unreasonable.

        Once I saw that the internal laws were repealed, there was nothing more to say. The rest of it is a complete fraud.

        I read up on Lindsey Springer and while he may be correct, there is no body of law that he can use for his benefit. I saw he got 15 years which is a lot. So the, engaging these people is very destructive. I did it, and I spent 5 years in federal prison.

        This country is a feudal slave state usurping God’s laws. It is another bad version of the Roman Empire. That’s why I call it stupid and evil. Can’t fix or reason with either one.

  10. william disbrow

    November 6, 2011 at 10:55 AM

    the fact the IR districts do not exist is true; they haven’t since 2000 or 2001. this was discovered in court by a guy named Lindsey Springer, who, according to the latest data i have is currently incarcerated in Big Spring, Texas. his register # is 02580-063. He discovered a great many things in his fight with them, so they did their voodoo and got him imprisoned to shut him up the way they do just about everybody. the biggest for me was how to revoke your election to be a taxpayer with a second codocil nd figuring out i did not have to contract with them for anything.

  11. Adask

    November 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM

    Same thing is true of advertising.

  12. Bob Conlon

    November 6, 2011 at 11:54 PM

    Filing a lawsuit in federal court will be the best 350 dollars ever spent. Filing a complaint with the postmaster general regarding mail fraud when one receives anything through the mail from the ‘blob’ entity a.k.a. IRS will also give these bozos a good case of heartburn.

    • Al Thompson

      November 7, 2011 at 12:21 AM

      I don’t think the IRS is going to get heartburn. I suggest that you read “Adventures in Legal Land”.
      by Marc Stevens

      The bottom line is that the government resorts to violence to get its way. They saw, they came,
      and we get screwed. There is never any good reason to start a court action against the government. It would be a complete waste of $350.00. Just ask Jesse Ventura who recently attempted to get a remedy for is TSA issue.

      Before my trial (lynching) in Jan. of 2005, I had read this book over about five or six times. It was very well written and most of everything he wrote came to pass in my case one way or another. I was able to function better and I wasn’t really surprised by much of anything.

      In most federal cases, the judge will hide exculpatory evidence from the jury insuring the defendant’s conviction.

      The best one can do is to mitigate the damage. Once a court case starts; so does the damage to the defendant. When you go to court, you are in damage control. I wrote all kinds of motions only to have them ignored. I did writs of habeaus corpus, never got a hearing. The justice system is yet even more bravo sierra.

      I highly recommend the book. This is a must read if you’re even thinking about going to court.

    • davidmerrill2

      November 7, 2011 at 5:54 AM

      I have helped hundreds of people with hundreds of federal counterclaims in admiralty called Libel of Review (LoR). I have derived the intellectual property from a book called “Are You Lost at C?” Integrating the redemption of lawful money from the Federal Reserve Act, which is law, has been a very powerful augmentation of remedy.

      Finding remedy, including full refunds for operating outside the federal reserve districts is comprised of three major components.

      1) Identifying yourself properly – Alfred Norman.
      2) Record-forming; an evidence repository in the “exclusive original cognizance” of the US – the LoR.
      3) Redeeming lawful money.

      It is unanimously agreed that expressing this diversity “outside the Federal Reserve districts” is the best money spent ever!

  13. Bob Conlon

    November 7, 2011 at 9:52 AM

    If I’m not mistaken Al, weren’t you the defendant? Have you ever been the plaintiff? Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. That also holds true in a court of law.

    • Al Thompson

      November 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM

      Yes, I was the defendant but if I was the plaintiff with a good case against the government, I’d get the same rotten result. A case in point is Jesse Ventura.

      What most people don’t understand is that you can’t get good fruit from a bad tree. The tree is corrupted from the oath, and it’s all downhill from there. If you’re unfortunate to go to jail, then your problem is even worse. One inmate told me in his 18 years in prison he saw only one man get out
      on appeal. I saw one get relief down from 17 years to 4. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, but it is very rare.

      It doesn’t matter if it is a tax, drug, or any other case, once you’re in the slammer, you are a prisoner or captive.

      But to start a case in federal court is like asking Satan to make a righteous judgment. You could imagine my frustration is standing before the judge and saying: “Congress repealed the internal revenue laws.” One judge told me to “shut up”. Another told me: “Thompson, you’re going to pay your taxes.”

      Another judge told me: “You are the poster boy for ignorance of the law.” So I asked him which law made me liable for the income tax? He didn’t answer that. I think he was telling me that there’s no way I can win; you’re screwed. He was right. From that point on, I was on damage control. So, intellectually, the whole process is so retarded that it doesn’t deserve any man’s attention. I don’t have time for this. Some of you who are interested in this may not realize just how corrupted are the religious and political systems.

      Going to court is nothing more than a dog and pony show to make the public think it is usable. It is not. Any of the so-called “Patriot” games that are played in court are utter nonsense and they don’t work.

      Another thing this junk does is that it torments the mind. I used to go to sleep in jail and all of the various processes were going around in my mind and it was enough to drive me insane. I thought I would be safe in the courts when I embarked on this merry-go-round but I was wrong.

      I don’t want to discourage you but you have to be realistic. Again, the system is stupid and you can’t fix stupid.

      • Adask

        November 7, 2011 at 12:28 PM

        The courts are not quite as grim as you suggest. In A.D. 2002, I was arrested without warrant on Texas, extradited to Missouri for two felony counts of non-support of a child and held in a level 5, maximum security jail for 344 days. Each felony count carried a maximum penalty of 5 years in the slammer. But through a little knowledge and the grace of God, I’d made a move (qualifying my signature on the waiver of extradition) that prevented the county from trying me. They wouldn’t even give me a probable cause hearing. In the end, they simply released me. It’s hard to point to 344 days in jail as a victory, but it was in this regard–I am still not a convicted felon today.

        After I was released, I was in the process of suing the parties responsible for my false arrest when I was added as the 7th defendant in a “manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance” (colloidal silver) case. Each defendant was threatened with fines of $25,000/day ($9 million/year) by the Texas Attorney General. The first 3 defendants (husband, wife and their corporation) spent $160,000 on attorney fees, went bankrupt, divorced and left Texas for parts unknown. The next three defendants (man, his corporation and his trust) asked me to help. I volunteered to fiduciary for his trust. The Attorney General added me as a defendant. I read the law and discovered that the drug laws on which the case was based presumed all people to be animals in violation of our freedom of religion. I crafted a freedom of religion defense and the Texas Attorney General dropped the case after investing 6 years and nearly $500,000 in pretrial investigation, litigation and hearings.

        In both cases, I never got to trial. I “won” both cases in the pre-trial stage. That’s important. If you can’t stop ’em before you go to trial, you’re pretty much screwed insofar as “trials” are actually “sentencing hearings” about 98% of the time.

        Nevertheless, while the deck is stacked against any defendant sued or charged by the government, victories are possible. The “system” does play by certain rules–but not the rules we’re led to believe. If you can find those “unspoken” rules, you can sometimes succeed.

        I never sued the persons responsible for my false imprisonment. That failure galls me to this day. However, the statute of limitations on the first “false imprisonment” case (on Missouri) expired while I was tied up defending against the Texas Attorney General case. I didn’t have enough brains and energy to deal with both cases at the same time. I had to choose between suing the Missouri offenders and defending against the Texas Attorney General. I chose to defend against the Texas AG and “won” (they dropped the case), but I simultaneously lost my chance to sue for false imprisonment in Missouri.

        These cases aren’t the kind of victories that you might see in a movie, but they were victories nonetheless.

        Victories against the government are difficult and unlikely, but they can and do occur.

      • Al Thompson

        November 7, 2011 at 12:56 PM

        Obviously, I have a more jaundice view of the system. I think you used some kind of religious defense that may actually work or at least get them to leave you alone.

        In my case, I actually was acquitted of conspiracy as that’s what I focused on the most in my defense. The prosecutor was extremely pissed that I won against that charge, but he got me on two others. I still can’t figure out why he was so angry. My mistake was not being thorough enough on all of the other charges.

        But by the time my trial (lynching) came to pass, my wife had divorced me, my business collapsed,
        and my whole life was turned upside down. At that point, I had already lost because my wife of 32 years just couldn’t take this kind of pressure. Losing my marriage wasn’t worth the effort, not in a chicken-shit system like this one.

        But these courts are like anything else, sometimes you’ll become fortunate. If you throw enough crap up against the wall, some of it might stick. But to voluntarily go in there to start something, well, in my opinion, there’s no point.

        I think another way to describe this is that the justice system imposes an intellectual vertigo that causes intellectual nausea. The absurdity of the justice system to me is extremely offensive. There are very few of us who can even think about using it effectively.

        I got to this point when I tried an appeal and the “court” wouldn’t let me handle my own case. They pushed two esquires on me who would have taken my case in a direction that just would not work.
        In fact, had I pursued their line, I could have received even more time. I fired the esquires and sat in prison with no recourse. I would never let an esquire handle my case.

        I hate to be a stick-in-the-mud but it is just not a good idea to start anything. It’s better to stay out of the cesspool.

  14. Bob Conlon

    November 7, 2011 at 11:18 AM


    I’ll take a look at the book you reference. Have you ever read the Ultimate Taxpayer’s Defense Manual?

    Take a look here:

    and here:

    Bob Conlon

  15. Bob Conlon

    November 7, 2011 at 2:14 PM


    There is hope. TAke a look at what the citizens of Vernon, NJ did..

    Also, take note of what sheriffs are doing in CA and OR.

    Perhaps your suffering (and others) has helped lead to an awakening in America of oppressive government that we are all suffering under.

    I am going to send the IRS FActs and Fraud document to the sheriffs so they might take a legal interest in stopping lien filing at the county courthouses, which they absolutely have the power to do. Local sheriffs have the power to stop this $hit. I believe they just need the knowledge of what’s wrong and how to stop it.

    They need to know that constitutional due process is violated on every lien filing as the district director is required to determine the lien parameters in Code of Federal Regulations and that the district director’s approval in writing is required for certain levies P.L. 105-206 and 26 USC 6334.

    Don’t give up yet.

    Bob Conlon

    • Al Thompson

      November 7, 2011 at 2:39 PM

      I don’t know if you are talking to me or Al Adask, but the Sheriff will never back up anyone on any
      of these liens. The counties get too much money from the feds. They won’t bite the hand that feeds them. I knew one sheriff who threw 5 IRS agents in jail for trespassing, but that was a long time ago. Obviously, he’s no longer a sheriff.

      Frankly, I don’t really don’t know how to fix it; it’s above my pay grade. My inclination is just to let it rot and collapse on its own. But I’m now an old fart, crusty, and I don’t give a crap. Maybe you young guys can do something..I don’t know. How do you stop people from being idiots?

      Talking to a government type is the same as talking to an idiot. How do you reason with someone like that? The cops enforce the judges’ orders as if they are gods.

      It’s going to take a massive change of heart for people to get a better government. That’s why I just focus on God’s commandments and forget about the rest. If everyone followed them, we wouldn’t need much of a government.

  16. Al Thompson

    November 20, 2011 at 2:13 PM

    To davidmerill2

    None of what you filed really means anything, other than by using sworn documents will mean that the whole process is cursed. I seem to be like a broken record when I say not to swear any oaths, or use any sworn document. It will cause a man nothing but problems. UCC process is just evil and it is unusable. There aren’t any laws to back you up. All of that kind of stuff I’ve seen is just nonsense that could get you anywhere from 10-30 years in federal prison. I met quite a few of them when I was there. What this stuff does is present a false hope of a remedy when none exists. If the government is structurally evil, then what good is going to come from it? These groups of thugs will not honor any of your paperwork. A false hope for a solution is useless and it will not get you from point A to point B.
    I almost went for the UCC stuff, but at some point I had to stop using broken tools.

    If the government cannot honor its own laws and make them clear and understandable, then there is a form of anarchy instead of lawful government. A lawful government would honor their own rules and laws and apply them fairly. This does not happen and that’s one of the reason why I think the Constitution is completely useless and is in fact inoperative. UCC is bull shit contracts and they will get you into more trouble. I don’t pay attention to any of it. There’s no point. If I read government material, I have no idea whether it is true or false. Without that information, why should I even look at it?

    If Al Adask is correct in stating that the “laws” reflect that the government considers men, women, and children as animals, then why would anyone take their laws seriously? I don’t anymore. Their laws apply to animals, and if you use their laws, you’re essentially assuming the status of an animal. The government is hideously twisted and the people who try to work with this nonsense get frustrated because they think one thing when something else is true. And this is the problem, because you don’t have enough truthful information to do anything. And even it you did, if the “government” doesn’t like it, they will simply discard it and do what they want to you. The government is nothing more than a satanic creep show.

    The papers that you displayed will not work to your benefit, in my opinion.

    So at this point, I don’t know what the government is talking about because every time I have asked they won’t answer. OK, I get it. They don’t want to say, so I don’t want to know anymore. I just don’t care. I want information that I can use and benefit from; not stonewalling.

    If you keep filing sworn documents, then that will really bite you in the rear end. The dumbest thing a man can do is to swear oaths, because once you have done that, the rest is downhill. Nothing gets better because it is offensive to God.

    Swearing oaths is extremely dangerous and every man should stop doing it.

    • davidmerrill2

      November 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM

      What it means is that a State of the US, Colorado will not pay up its debts. On August 2 Congress approved raising the debt ceiling so Standard & Poors would have been liable for besmirching the Good Faith and Credit of the US by lowering its Credit Rating for no reason. What I showed you is the logical reason they would do so.

      The oaths of office that the lien stand on were properly published fungible fidelity bonds.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s