"The proud have forged a lie against me, but I will keep Your
precepts with my whole heart. Their heart is as fat as grease,
but I delight in
It is good for me that
I have been afflicted, that I may learn
statutes. The law of Your mouth is better to me than thousands
of coins of gold and silver."
119:69-72, Bible, NKJV]
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness [both
in the government and in their personal lives], for they shall be
Matt. 5:6, Bible, NKJV]
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of [government
Therefore be wise as serpents
and harmless as doves. But beware of men, for they
will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues
[government "churches" called District Court]. You will be
brought before governors and kings [and "priests" of the
PAGAN, state-sponsored Civil Religion of Socialism called "judges"]
for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.
But when they deliver
you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For
it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak: for
it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks
in you [and THROUGH you]. Now brother will deliver
brother to death, and a father his child [using
NUMBERS]; and children will rise up against parents and cause
them to be put to death. And you will be hated by all for
My [God's] name's sake.
But he who endures to the
end [and fights against
government and for
justice] will be saved."
10:16-22, Bible, NKJV]
As many of you know, the Dept. of Justice filed
a Civil Complaint against C. Hansen in the U.S. District PseudoCourt
in San Diego on March 11, 2005 asking for a permanent injunction stopping
him from doing things that he continues to insist, under penalty of
perjury on the record, that he has never done and never will do, such
as preparing or assisting in the preparation of
giving legal advice, offering
franchisees called "taxpayers",
etc. The articles documenting the persecution and malicious prosecution
Well, the Federal District PseudoCourt in
San Diego, which is clearly under hostile control by
communist officers, has finally spoken with their forked tongue
through their propaganda mouthpiece, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, and
this article will review what they said, why it was fraudulent, and
why the order is irrelevant and doesn't affect not only Hansen, but
Family Guardian either. The Bible says not to circulate a "false
report", and therefore we cannot provide the PseudoJudge's clearly "false
report", "false advertising", and "false commercial speech" about Hansen
without clarifying why it is false and all the evidence supporting why
it is false.
"You shall not circulate a false report [or false Court Ruling].
Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
23:1, Bible, NKJV]
Even though the order named
SEDM, we aren't authorized
to speak for SEDM at all
and won't be addressing the impact on them in this article. You
will have to visit their website for that. Our guess is that they
probably won't even mention the order, based on what they told us via
email. After posting this article, we searched their website about
a week later with one of the internet search engines and found a link
to this article below, at the beginning of section 10:
Hansen does not own the website domain for Family
Guardian or SEDM and this article was not written by him. It is
provided for informational purposes only mainly to illustrate just how
corrupt the government, the Courts, and the DOJ have become, and not
to comply with any external requirement. It is precisely this
kind of corruption and the desire to expose and oppose it, in fact,
that explains why this website exists in the first place.
The injunction was pursued under the guise of "protecting
the public" so your public dis-servants would at least LOOK noble in
their pursuit, but everyone knows the real goal of the government from
the beginning appears to have been mainly political. This has
always been and always will be a free speech website that is physically
outside the "United
States" and for which all of the contributors and participants have
no domicile within the forum or consensual contractual relationship
with the government which might bring them within the jurisdiction of
the government. Consequently, it has always been and will always
be outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Mafia. Even if it were
in the "United
States", it would STILL be outside their jurisdiction because this
website doesn't do anything commercial, has no customers, and does not
do any business of any kind within the forum that might result in a
surrender of sovereign immunity pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2) . This is a religious fellowship and
ministry that focuses on and always has focused exclusively on religious
and political beliefs and opinions, and not facts. The government
knows this, and since they couldn't stop the message without a commercial
nexus, they took the usual approach of trying to "slander and shoot
the messenger" so people wouldn't want to read the message. The
trouble is, that doesn't work either because Hansen isn't the messenger.
He's just one of several contributors to the Family Guardian fellowship
who have provided some of the content posted on this website and he
doesn't own the website domain or the copyright or act as the website
administrator. We wouldn't be naive enough to reveal who those
people are, because the focus of EVERYTHING on this website is "anonymous
pamphleteering", which is a protected Constitutional right:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have
played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v.
California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have
frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names.
4 Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying
the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide
whether or not to disclose her true identity.
The decision in favor of
anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation,
by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve
as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may
be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in
having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably
outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition
of entry. 5
Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other
decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a
publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by
the First Amendment.
The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary
realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects
the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott
certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory
employment practices. 362 U.S. 60 . Writing for the Court, Justice
Black noted that "[persecuted
groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been
able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously
or not at all." Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England's
abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and
he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification
of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published
under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart
from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas
will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity.
Anonymity thereby provides
a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that
readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not
like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric,
where "the identity of the speaker is an important component of
many attempts to persuade," City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. ___,
___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have
sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in
Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's
reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy
of political causes. 6 This tradition is perhaps best exemplified
by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience
without fear of retaliation.
[McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n,
___ U.S. ___ (1995)]
Below is a long list of the many underhanded, dirty,
and/or illegal tricks they used throughout the litigation that many
of you should be on the lookout for in your own litigation:
- No foundation for any of the evidence was provided and therefore
everything cited as authority by the PseudoCourt was simply inadmissible
Hearsay excludible under the
Hearsay Rule, F.R.E. 802. No personal knowledge was demonstrated,
there was no oath or affirmation. The witnesses also used
IRS or DOJ "pseudonames", and no state ID was ever used to verify
their true identity. This made them the equivalent of "anonymous
witnesses" and "absentee witnesses" not accountable for ANY of their
statements, and here is what one court said about the travesty and
injustice of this approach:
“From the scant information available it may tentatively
be concluded that
the Confrontation Clause
was meant to constitutionalize a barrier against flagrant abuses,
trials by anonymous accusers, and absentee witnesses.
That the Clause was intended to ordain common law rules of evidence
with constitutional sanction is doubtful, notwithstanding English
decisions that equate confrontation and hearsay. Rather, having
established a broad principle, it is far more likely that the
Framers anticipated it would be supplemented, as a matter of
judge-made common law, by prevailing rules of evidence."
v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970)]
“No nation can
remain true to the ideal of liberty under law and at the same
time permit people to have their homes destroyed and their lives
blasted by the slurs of unseen and unsworn informers.
There is no possible way to contest the truthfulness of anonymous
accusations. The supposed accuser can neither
be identified nor interrogated. He may be the most worthless
and irresponsible character in the community. What he
said may be wholly malicious, untrue, unreliable, or inaccurately
reported. In a court of law, the triers of fact could
not even listen to such gossip, must less decide the most trifling
issue on it.”
[Jay v. Boy,
351 U.S. 345 (1956)]
- The Pseudojudge and the witnesses made hundreds of unsubstantiated,
presumptions which resulted in a violation of due process and
rendered a void judgment. All of these
were based on nothing more than an opinion poll of LYING IRS agents
and DOJ employees with a criminal and financial conflict of interest
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208. The criminal conflict
of interest springs from them being a beneficiary of the very tax
that was at issue in this proceeding. Some of these presumptions
2.1 That Hansen maintained a
or residence within the United States Judicial District where the
court is. He declared under penalty of perjury in the Answer,
Docket #05, that he did not. The PseudoCourt was reminded
in the Answer, Docket #05 that Hansen was a nonresident but not
"alien" and a national but not a citizen pursuant to
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and
8 U.S.C. §1452.
26 U.S.C. §7408(b)(6) can only lawfully be applied to "kidnap"
a person's legal identity and move it to the District of Criminals,
a foreign jurisdiction, against "citizens and residents" of the
"United States" (federal zone), which Hansen does not satisfy.
All such persons are federal instrumentalities and employees, pursuant
20 CFR §422.104 and
26 U.S.C. §6331(a) and Hansen does not fit this criteria either.
Click here for details.
2.2 That Hansen maintained a
or residence within an internal revenue district subject to the
jurisdiction of the court hearing the matter. He declared
under penalty of perjury in the Answer, Docket #05, that he did
not. Pursuant to
Order 150-02, Executive Order 10289, and
26 U.S.C. §7621, the only remaining internal revenue district
is the District of Columbia and
26 U.S.C. §7601 says that the only place the IRS can enforce
is in internal revenue districts.
2.3 That Hansen was the author of the specific materials that
contained allegedly false information. He denied this during
the 25NOV2005 deposition.
2.4 That all of the speech sought to be enjoined was "factual",
when the speech itself specifically says that it its not factual
in the applicable Disclaimers. See
Family Guardian Disclaimer
Disclaimer. The PseudoJudge committed perjury on this
subject in his order by claiming that Hansen stated that the speech
in question was factual. This was pointed out to him in the
Petition to Amend and the Criminal Complaint filed against him and
he refused to address it.
2.5 That the intended audience for the speech was OTHER than
the speaker or author himself or herself. The
Family Guardian Disclaimer
Disclaimer both say that the ONLY authorized audience for the
speech is the speaker or author, and not any third party.
Therefore, it is irrational and unreasonable to presume that he
intended to give advice or direction to any third party, even if
he were the author, which he is not.
2.6 That the speech injured a specific person, even though
not a single injured party was ever identified.
2.7 That the specific person or persons injured maintained
within the United States Judicial District and Internal Revenue
district which was subject to the jurisdiction of the court and
therefore was a "protected person". This requirement was not
only never proved, but never even suggested by the Plaintiff.
2.8 That the alleged injured parties suffered the injury directly
because of reliance upon the specific speech alleged to be false
and that all the specific statements alleged to be false were directly
and individually connected to the specific injury.
2.9 That alleged injured parties had a basis to believe that
the speech upon which they were relying was "factual", which is
simply not true. The Family
Guardian Disclaimer and
both say that all the speech on the websites and all communications
to, from, or about the authors is NOT factual.
2.10 That Hansen knew or should have known that the alleged
factual speech was false. Hansen presented the
Reasonable Belief about Income Tax Liability to the Court and
asked them to find something wrong with it, because that was the
basis for his belief. They ignored the document, leaving him
with nothing more than the political opinion of an Article IV de
facto judge as his only basis for COMPELLED belief, with an implied
threat that if he didn't go along with what the judge believes,
then he would be penalized, harassed, and destroyed. They
also ignored many different questions that Hansen had about why
the speech in question was allegedly false, leaving Hansen in a
state of "cognitive dissonance" about whether or how or why to comply
with the Pseudocourt's Opinion.
2.11 That there was "commerce"
directly connected to the specific speech in question. This
is false. Donations to a religious ministry that are connected
with religious and political speech and beliefs cannot lawfully
be classified as "commerce" within the meaning of federal jurisdiction.
Click here for details.
2.12 That Hansen "purposefully availed" himself of "commerce"
within the federal zone and the legislative jurisdiction of the
States" by targeting specific persons who were residents, domiciliaries,
persons" within the federal zone. This is a requirement
of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine. The
SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001,
Family Guardian Disclaimer,
Disclaimer all specific forbid such persons from reading or
using the materials or becoming Members.
2.13 That Hansen was the "beneficial
owner" of the alleged commerce. Only
franchisees called "taxpayers"
can be "beneficial owners" and Hansen indicated in the Answer, Docket
#05, that he was a "nontaxpayer". Since the government never
rebutted this, then they agree that they have no standing to proceed.
2.14 That Hansen was the "person"
26 U.S.C. §6671(b).
2.15 That the Court had jurisdiction to enforce the I.R.C.
within states of the Union against persons who are
instrumentalities, agents, or officials such as Hansen.
Click here and read section 6 for details.
2.16 That there was any basis whatsoever for the statements
contained in the affidavits submitted by the government's witnesses.
2.17 That Hansen advised and participated in the activities
alleged by the false opinion testimony of the government's biased
witnesses. No neutral, disinterested third parties ever confirmed
that they were advised or personally assisted by Hansen.
2.18 That the persons revealed in the Paypal summons were
Members of SEDM. The
page specifically recommends that those who don't have credit
cards, which is probably most of the members, should use the cards
of others, who in many if not most cases are
franchisees called "taxpayers"
and who are NOT Members.
2.19 That Hansen was personally responsible for every use
of the materials appearing on any of the websites in question by
third parties. Hansen was never proven to be the author of
anything and the only thing supporting a contrary conclusion is
biased opinion testimony that is inadmissible pursuant to
F.R.E. 610. Furthermore, none of the websites in question
have ANY control over how the materials posted therein are used.
Hansen pointed out in the Deposition, 25NOV2005, that he doesn't
control what 280 million people do with the materials on the websites
in question. Those who download the information from our website
can and usually do
modify them in unauthorized ways that are in violation with prevailing
law, the Disclaimers, the Copyright License Agreement, and the Member
Agreements. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that EVERYTHING
that a third party submits to the government originates from, is
entirely authorized by, and is consistent with our
That is why the Disclaimers specifically say that users and readers
MUST assume complete, exclusive, and personal responsibility for
whatever they decide to do with the materials they obtain from the
websites in question.
All of the above constitute
false presumptions from biased witnesses that are not evidence.
A presumption is not evidence, but simply a device used to establish
the burden of proof. None of the above presumptions can be
used to prejudice constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Click here for details. In short, the PsuedoJudge abused
the evils of democracy to destroy the rights of the accused in what
amounts to a religious inquisition:
"The very purpose
Bill of Rights
was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and
[including IRS officials
and federal judges] and to establish them as legal principles
to be applied by the courts.
right to life,
liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom
of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not
be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections
[including opinion polls of IRS agents with a conflict of interest
who are money launderers for the SHAM trust de facto government]."
[West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v Barnett,
319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)]
- They illegally rammed a Magistrate judge down the throat of
Hansen in violation of
28 U.S.C. §636. That section requires that Magistrate
judges preside ONLY by mutual consent of the parties. Hansen
repeatedly pointed out to the PseudoCourt that he did not consent,
and even filed a
Petition to have the Magistrate dismissed from the case, which
the tyrant PseudoJudge refused. He also attached the
Federal Pleading Attachment (OFFSITE LINK) documenting his complete
lack of consent to the magistrate to most of his pleadings.
Since both the judge and the magistrate ignored these attachments,
then the attachments say they agree with their content that Hansen
doesn't have to obey the orders of the PseudoJudge or PseudoCourt.
Hansen wouldn't obey the magistrate and demanded that the PseudoJudge
place the orders AFTER he demonstrated his
Article III authority.
- The PseudoJudge completely ignored
all the requirements
for issuing injunctions. For instance, the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt
has ruled that no one may ask for an injunction without FIRST exhausting
their administrative remedies. By doing so, they also tacitly
admitted that no private party who is not the government but who
is proceeding against the government needs to honor these requirements
EITHER. The courts must provide equal protection to ALL, which means
apply the SAME criteria for issuing injunctions to ALL.
The corporation contends that, since it denies that interstate
or foreign commerce is involved and claims that a hearing would
subject it to irreparable damage, rights guaranteed by the Federal
Constitution will be denied unless it be held that the District
Court has jurisdiction to enjoin the holding of a hearing by
the Board. So to hold would,
as the government insists, in effect substitute the District
Court for the Board as the tribunal to hear and determine what
Congress declared the Board exclusively should hear and determine
in the first instance.
The contention is
at war with the long-settled rule of judicial administration
that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or
threatened injury until the pre- [303 U.S. 41, 51]
scribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.
That rule has been repeatedly acted on in cases where, as here,
the contention is made that the administrative body lacked power
over the subject matter.
Obviously, the rules requiring exhaustion of the administrative
remedy cannot be circumvented by asserting that the charge on
which the complaint rests is groundless and that the mere holding
of the prescribed administrative hearing would result in irreparable
damage. Lawsuits also often
prove to have been ground- [303 U.S. 41, 52]
less; but no way has been discovered of relieving a defendant
from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact.
[Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.,
303 U.S. 41 (1938)]
 In support of that
contention the following cases were cited: Ohio Valley Water
Co. v. Ben Avon Borough,
253 U.S. 287, 289 , 40 S.Ct. 527, 528; Bluefield Water Works
Co. v. Public Service Commission,
262 U.S. 679, 683 , 43 S.Ct. 675; Phillips v. Commissioner,
283 U.S. 589, 600 , 51 S.Ct. 608, 612; Crowell v. Benson,
285 U.S. 22, 60 , 64 S., 52 S.Ct. 285, 296, 297; State Corporation
Commission v. Wichita Gas Co.,
290 U.S. 561, 569 , 54 S.Ct. 321, 324; St. Joseph Stock
Yards Co. v. United States,
298 U.S. 38, 51 , 52 S., 56 S.Ct. 720, 725, 726.
 The rule has been
most frequently applied in equity where relief by injunction
was sought. Pittsburgh &c. Ry. v. Board of Public Works,
172 U.S. 32, 44 , 45 S., 19 S.Ct. 90; Prentis v. Atlantic
Coast Line Co.,
211 U.S. 210, 230 , 29 S.Ct. 67; Dalton adding Machine Co.
v. State Corporation Commission,
236 U.S. 699, 701 , 35 S.Ct. 480; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. State
266 U.S. 265, 269 , 270 S., 45 S.Ct. 80, 81; Federal Trade
Commission v. Claire Furnace Co.,
274 U.S. 160, 174 , 47 S.Ct. 553, 556; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co.,
274 U.S. 588, 592 , 593 S., 47 S.Ct. 720, 722; Chicago,
M., St. P. & P.R.R. Co. v. Risty,
276 U.S. 567, 575 , 48 S.Ct. 396, 399; St. Louis-San Francisco
Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission,
279 U.S. 560, 563 , 49 S.Ct. 383, 384; Porter v. Investors'
286 U.S. 461, 468 , 471 S., 52 S. Ct. 617, 619, 620; United
States v. Illinois Central Ry. Co .,
291 U.S. 457, 463 , 464 S., 54 S.Ct. 471, 473, 474; Hegeman
Farms Corp. v. Baldwin,
293 U.S. 163, 172 , 55 S.Ct. 7, 10; compare Red 'C' Oil
Mfg. Co. v. North Carolina,
222 U.S. 380, 394 , 32 S.Ct. 152; Farncomb v. Denver,
252 U.S. 7, 12 , 40 S.Ct. 271, 273; Milheim v. Moffat Tunnel
262 U.S. 710, 723 , 43 S. Ct. 694, 698; McGregor v. Hogan,
263 U.S. 234, 238 , 44 S.Ct. 50, 51; White v. Johnson,
282 U.S. 367, 374 , 51 S.Ct. 115, 118; Petersen Baking Co.
290 U.S. 570, 575 , 54 S. Ct. 277, 278; Pacific Tel. & Tel.
Co. v. Seattle,
291 U.S. 300, 304 , 54 S.Ct. 383, 384. But because the rule
is one of judicial administration-not merely a rule governing
the exercise of discretion-it is applicable to proceedings at
law as well as suits in equity. Compare First National Bank
of Fargo v. Board of County Commissioners,
264 U.S. 450, 455 , 44 S.Ct. 385, 387; Anniston Mfg. Co.
301 U.S. 337, 343 , 57 S.Ct. 816, 819.
 Dalton Adding Machine
Co. v. State Corporation Commission,
236 U.S. 699 , 35 S.Ct. 480; Federal Trade Commission v.
Claire Furnace Co.,
274 U.S. 160 , 47 S.Ct. 553; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco
274 U.S. 588 , 47 S.Ct. 720; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry.
Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission,
279 U.S. 560 , 49 S.Ct. 383. Compare Western & Atlantic
R.R. v. Georgia Public Service Commission,
267 U.S. 493, 496 , 45 S.Ct. 409, 410, and case sited in
note 1, supra.
 Such contentions
were specifically rejected in Bradley Lumber Co. v. National
Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 97; Clark v. Lindemann
& Hoverson Co., 7 Cir., 88 F.2d 59; Chamber of Commerce v. Federal
Trade Commission, 8 Cir., 280 F. 45; Heller Bros. Co. v. Lind,
66 App.D.C. 306, 86 F.2d 862; and Pittsburgh & W. Va. Ry. Co.
v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 52 App.D.C. 40, 280 F. 1014.
Compare United States v. Los Angeles & S.L.R.R. Co.,
273 U.S. 299, 314 , 47 S.Ct. 413, 416; Lawrence v. St. Louis-San
Francisco Ry. Co.,
274 U.S. 588 , 47 S.Ct. 720; Dalton Adding Machine Co. v.
State Corporation Commission,
236 U.S. 699 , 35 S.Ct. 480; McChord v. Louisville & Nashville
183 U.S. 483 , 22 S.Ct. 165; Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Camp,
5 Cir., 74 F.2d 200, 201.
The government sought to enjoin the activities
of SEDM. Not once did the government: 1. Prove with
evidence that Hansen was the person responsible for SEDM;
2. Contact Hansen about the content of the
SEDM website; 3.
Administratively inform him of any false information contained thereon
and offer him an opportunity to correct it; 4. Meet with
Hansen and show him what they thought was false and injurious and
offer him an opportunity to fix it; 5. Prove with evidence
that there were any activities by SEDM other than speech which is
not enjoinable. Instead, the only
meeting they ever had with Hansen
was on July 10, 2003. At that meeting, SEDM didn't even
exist so they couldn't even have talked about it at that time or
handled the problem administratively before pursuing litigation.
He emphasized this in his
Answer, Docket #05 and in the
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, which the PseudoJudge
completely and prejudicially and illegally ignored. Furthermore,
at that meeting, Hansen offered in good faith to spend a week in
the office of IRS Attorney Nicolas Richards going over everything
he thought was false with the Family Guardian website so that it
could be corrected by the appropriate parties. All of the
IRS employees in the room refused that opportunity and thereby were
estopped from complaining later. As "public
officers" who have a fiduciary duty to the public, their silence
and omission on such an important occasion was incompatible with
duty of good faith, fair dealing, and full disclosure and therefore
must be counted as an estoppel in default and a nihil dicit judgment
Click here for an article proving this. This also means
that the PseudoJudge had no standing to pursue this injunction and
that he was proceeding with "unclean hands" in contempt of the law
and the Constitution, which is Supreme Law of the Land.
This was made very clear to him in the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and yet he conveniently
and self-servingly ignored everything having to do with this matter
and illegally proceeded to issue an injunction based on perjured
information that he himself introduced into the record and which
was based entirely and only upon false "opinions" of an IRS agent
that are inadmissible under
F.R.E. 610. Hansen said he cannot cooperate with the result
of such illegal activities by the PseudoJudge, and to do so would
constitute misprision of felony on his part. What they did
was the equivalent of spanking a child's bottom before the parent
even tells him what he did wrong. Would you raise your kids
that way? Somebody needs to call Child Protective Services
on these tyrants. In addition to the above, there were many
other serious omissions by the PseudoJudge and the U.S. attorney
in satisfying the requirements for obtaining injunctions, including:
that their request satisfies the Strict Scrutiny Standard.
The "strict scrutiny" standard of constitutional review applies
where the violated interest is a fundamental personal right or civil
liberty, such as the right to interstate travel.
Marrujo v. New Mexico State Highway Transportation Department,
118 N.M. 753, 756-58, 887 P.2d 747, 750-52 (1994), we explained
the traditional three-tiered standard of review adopted by most
U.S. courts in assessing facial constitutional challenges: "strict
scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny (also known as substantial,
heightened, or high review); and minimal scrutiny (also known
as the rational[-]basis test)."
Id. at 757, 887 P.2d at 751. Cummings urges that we evaluate
this statute under a strict-scrutiny standard of constitutional
Strict scrutiny applies when the violated interest is a fundamental
personal right or civil liberty--such as first amendment rights,
freedom of association, voting, interstate travel, privacy,
and fairness in the deprivation of life, liberty or property--which
the Constitution explicitly or implicitly guarantees. Strict
scrutiny also applies under an equal protection analysis if
the statute focuses upon inherently suspect classifications
such as race, national origin, religion, or status as a resident
[Cummings v. X-Ray Associates of New Mexico, P.C., 121 N.M.
821, 918 P.2d 1321 (N.M. 05/31/1996)]
“The second reason
speech-restricting injunctions are at least as deserving of
strict scrutiny is obvious enough: they are the product
of individual judges, rather than of legislatures -- and often
of judges who have been chagrined by prior disobedience of their
orders. The right to free speech should not
lightly be placed within the control of a single man or woman.
And the third reason is that the injunction is a much more powerful
weapon than a statute, and so should be subjected to greater
safeguards. Normally, when injunctions are enforced through
contempt proceedings, only the defense of factual innocence
is available. The collateral bar rule of Walker v. Birmingham,
388 U.S. 307 (1967), eliminates the defense that the injunction
itself was unconstitutional. Accord, Dade County Classroom
Teachers' Assn. v. Rubin, 238 So. 2d 284, 288 (Fla. 1970).
Thus, persons subject
to a speech-restricting injunction who have not the money or
not the time to lodge an immediate appeal face a Hobson's choice:
they must remain silent, since if they speak their First Amendment
rights are no defense in subsequent [512 U.S. 794] contempt
proceedings. This is good reason to require the strictest
standard for issuance of such orders.”
[Madsen v. Women's Health Center Inc.,
512 U.S. 753 (1994)]
Demonstrate that there
is no remedy at law, and that equity is the only remedy.
Injunctions may only be pursued as a last resort when there is no
remedy at law:
“Since in a true libel situation, an action at law for money
damages will lie, the petitioner must sustain the burden of
proving that the legal remedy is inadequate. See Murphy
v. Daytona Beach Humane Society, 176 S.2d 922 (Fla.App.1965).
In this area, however, it is generally not difficult to establish
that inadequacy, since it is the highly unusual case in which
the amount of damages from a libel can be calculated.”
[Injunctions in a Nutshell, John F. Dobbyn, p. 77; West Publishing,
Must show the specific
statements or behavior that are false, prove who the speaker is,
and prove that the speaker intended the statements to be factual.
The plaintiff never proved that Hansen was the speaker and Hansen
never admitted being the speaker. They never proved that the
speaker intended for the speech to be factual, and therefore susceptible
to being true or false. The only alleged "evidence" before
the court was political beliefs and opinions that identified
themselves as not factual
or admissible under Fed.Rul.Ev. 610.
“6. Equity will not issue an injunction which cannot
be reduced to terms specific enough to inform the respondent
of what is required.
Because an injunction carries with it the threat of the criminal
contempt sanctions of fine or imprisonment for its violation,
equity courts have adopted a principle analogous to the rule
that one cannot be convicted of a crime unless the statute defines
clearly and definitely what the defendant can and cannot do.
In certain cases, because of the nature of the fact situation,
it is impossible for the court to frame an injunction that will
accomplish the purpose of the order and at the same time adequately
inform the respondent of the specific acts that are commanded
[. . .]
In this area, discretion meets and
overlaps constitutional limitation. If the order is so
vague or uncertain that it would be a denial of due process
to enforce it through contempt sanctions, it is beyond the power
of the court to enter the order, and if entered it is completely
[Injunctions in a Nutshell, John F.
Dobbyn, p. 95; West Publishing, ISBN 0-314-28423-0]
Demonstrate that the target
of the injunction is subject to the statute cited as authority.
Some statutes are positive law while others are not. Those
statutes which are not positive law become “private law” or “special
law”. If the government wishes to cite “private law” or “special
law” as its authority for instituting an injunction, it has the
burden of proving, as the moving party, that the target of the injunction
is subject to said statute based on consent voluntarily procured
and proven by a writing of some kind. The government never
proved, using statutes from the statutes at large, that the sections
they cited as authority, IRC 6700, 6702, 7402, and 7408, were enacted
into positive law. If they weren't enacted into positive law,
1 U.S.C. §204 says they are merely "prima facie law", which
is a fancy way to say they were "presumed" to be law. The
U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt said that all presumptions that prejudice
constitutionally protected rights are impermissible.
(1) [8:4993] Conclusive presumptions affecting protected
A conclusive presumption may be defeated where its application
would impair a party's constitutionally-protected liberty or
property interests. In such cases, conclusive presumptions
have been held to violate a party's due process and equal protection
rights. [Vlandis v. Kline (1973)
412 U.S. 441, 449, 93 S.Ct 2230, 2235; Cleveland Bed. of
Ed. v. LaFleur (1974)
414 US 632, 639-640, 94 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-presumption under
Illinois law that unmarried fathers are unfit violates process]
Group Practice Guide-Federal Civil Trials and Evidence, paragraph
8:4993, page 8K-34]
Must satisfy the minimum
contacts doctrine and one aspect of the diversity of citizenship
statute. Hansen was a nonresident but not "alien" not
engaged in a "trade
or business" with no earnings from the "United
States" (government) similiar to that defined in 26 CFR §1.871-1(b)(1)(i)
in the context of these proceedings. As such, he was a "stateless
person" as described by the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt in
Newman-Green v. Alfonso Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989).
Since neither the PseudoCourt nor the Plaintiff argued
against this, then pursuant to
Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), they agree that he is not a "U.S.
Person" and is not subject to any provision of the
Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, they could not lawfully apply
any part of the I.R.C., which is "foreign law" not from his domicile
as required by
Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 17(b), to Hansen and had to satisfy
the Minimum Contacts Doctrine below, as well as one of the provisions
for Diversity of Citizenship found in Constitution Article III and
28 U.S.C. §1332. Neither the PseudoJudge nor the plaintiff
ever did this, which meant they were making a false and unsubstantiated
presumption that Hansen was a "U.S. person" which adversely impacted
the constitutional rights of Hansen and therefore amounted essentially
to Treason. They were essentially conspiring to undermine
the Separation of Powers by "presuming" that Hansen was a "public
official" engaging in commerce with the government. this
criminal conspiracy is thoroughly documented in the pamphlet "Government
Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers". You will
note that according to the provisions of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine,
the defendant must "purposefully avail" himself of commerce within
the forum and that the Disclaimer
for this website and the
both specifically prohibit anyone domiciled or "resident"
within the "United
States" as defined in
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) from reading or using
these websites, thereby making the "purposeful availment" element
impossible for the Plaintiff to satisfy and rendering Hansen judgment
In this circuit, we analyze specific jurisdiction according
to a three-prong test:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully
avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in
the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates
to the defendant's forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802
(9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th
Cir. 1987)). The first prong is determinative in this case.
We have sometimes referred to it, in shorthand fashion, as the
"purposeful availment" prong. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.
Despite its label, this prong includes both purposeful availment
and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied by purposeful
availment of the privilege of doing business in the forum; by
purposeful direction of activities at the forum; or by some
Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d
1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006)]
There wasn't a single in-person hearing in over a year of litigation.
The entire case was conducted by correspondence. Hansen never
once was given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
Hansen insisted that the 30NOV2005 deposition include an alternating
opportunity to ask questions in BOTH directions and the Magistrate
PseudoJudge (imposter of the SHAM trust that is the de facto "United
States" government, a
private corporation masquerading as a "government") refused
him this opportunity and thereby interfered with discovery and criminally
obstructed justice. This is a violation of "due
process of law", which requires a "hearing" where the accused
may face his accusers, ask and get answers to questions.
process. [. . .] An orderly proceeding wherein
a person with notice, actual or constructive, and
has an opportunity
to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court
having the power to hear and determine the case.
Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 Ill.2d 405, 259 N.E.2d 282, 290.
Phrase means that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
property or of any right granted him by statute, unless matter
involved first shall have been adjudicated against him upon
trial conducted according to established rules regulating judicial
proceedings, and it
forbids condemnation without a hearing. Pettit
v. Penn, LaApp., 180 So.2d 66, 69."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
We have never
doubted, therefore, that
the Confrontation Clause
guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses
appearing before the trier of fact. See Kentucky v. Stincer,
482 U.S. 730, 748 , 749-750 (1987) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
For example, in Kirby v. United States,
174 U.S. 47, 55 (1899), which concerned the admissibility
of prior convictions of codefendants to prove an element of
the offense [487 U.S. 1012, 1017]
of receiving stolen Government property, we described the operation
of the Clause as follows: "[A]
fact which can be primarily established only by witnesses cannot
be proved against an accused . . . except by witnesses who confront
him at the trial, upon whom he can look while being tried, whom
he is entitled to cross-examine, and whose testimony he may
impeach in every mode authorized by the established rules governing
the trial or conduct of criminal cases." Similarly, in
Dowdell v. United States,
221 U.S. 325, 330 (1911), we described a provision of the
Philippine Bill of Rights as substantially the same as the Sixth
Amendment, and proceeded to interpret it as intended "to secure
the accused the right to be tried, so far as facts provable
by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him
face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence,
and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-examination."
More recently, we have
described the "literal right to `confront' the witness at the
time of trial" as forming "the core of the values furthered
by the Confrontation Clause." California v. Green, supra,
at 157. Last Term, the plurality opinion in Pennsylvania v.
480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987), stated that "[the Confrontation
Clause provides two types of protections for a criminal defendant:
the right physically to face those who testify against him,
and the right to conduct cross-examination."
v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)]
"The Court has consistently
held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before
a person is finally deprived of his property [418
U.S. 539, 558] interests. "
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539; 94 S.Ct. 2963; 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)]
"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity
to be heard". Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385,394 (1914).
The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner."Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552(1965).
In the present context these principles require…timely and adequate
notice detailing reasons…, and an effective opportunity to defend
by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting arguments
and evidence… These rights are important in cases...challenged…as
resting on incorrect or misleading factual premises or on misapplication
of rules or policies to the facts of particular cases."
almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions
of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and
cross-examine adverse witnesses. E.g., ICC
v. Lousiville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94
(1913) 503 US L.Ed 2nd 391(1992), Willner v. Committee
on Character and Fitness,
373 U.S. 474,496-497 (1959)"
[Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254 (1970) (emphasis added)]
The PseudoJudge illegally and prejudicially excluded ALL evidence,
all affidavits of Hansen from his
Final Ruling, and cited irrelevant caselaw as his authority
for doing so. Below is what the TYRANT said:
“This evidence is not properly before the Court.”
[Judgment, Docket #91, p. 9]
To justify the above, the PseudoJudge used
three obscure cases:
“Cf Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters. Inc.,
397 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Under our 'sham' affidavit
rule, 'a party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit
contradicting his prior deposition testimony."') (quoting Kennedy
v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262,266 (9th Cir.1991));
Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410,419 n.2 (9th Cir.
2001) ("A party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact
to survive summary judgment by contradicting his earlier version
of the facts.").”
[Judgment, Docket #91, p. 10]
The PseudoJudge HAD to do this, because if
he hadn't, his ruling would have been COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL and
COMPLETELY inconsistent with the evidence before the PseudoCourt
and completely incompatible with the requirements for issuing a
Summary Judgment. Since he was ruling on a Summary Judgment
FRCP Rule 56, which can only be invoked where the parties agree
on ALL the facts, and since they didn't agree on ANYTHING, he had
to throw out evidence from one of the two parties, and of course
that would have to be Hansen, because they can't allow a lowly little
peon without a law degree to win against the biggest and meanest
and most dishonest and underhanded law firm in the Country with
the deepest pockets without spending a dime or participating in
their corporate monopoly by hiring one of their lawyer hitmen.
There is a HUGE problem with using these cases cited by the PseudoJudge,
however, because they all relate to the situation where a witness
CONTRADICTED earlier testimony, and the only case in which it was
invoked was to exclude not ALL testimony of a witness, but only
the specific statements that contradicted themselves. In effect,
the Court invokes an
estoppel that excludes evidence which contradicts itself, and
this makes sense. However, the PseudoCourt: 1. Never properly
applied this provision of law by proving that any of the statements
made by Hansen ever contradicted themselves, and even the U.S. Attorney
never suggested that throughout the proceeding; 2. The principle
CANNOT be invoked against a party who validly asserts a Constitutional
privilege such as Fifth Amendment or First Amendment, in answering
questions posed to it.
"It is an unconstitutional deprivation of due process for
the government to penalize a person merely because he has exercised
a protected statutory or constitutional right. United
States v. Goodwin,
457 U.S. 368, 372 , 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2488, 73 L.Ed.2d 74
[People of Territory of Guam v. Fegurgur, 800 F.2d 1470 (9th
“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void
in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and
[Pennoyer v. Neff,
95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878)]
cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information
that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed
when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide
relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick,
[497 U.S. 62, 95]
392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968).”
[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois,
497 U.S. 62 (1990)]
"Due process of law is violated when the government vindictively
attempts to penalize a person for exercising a protected statutory
or constitutional right."
[United States v. Conkins, 9 F.3d 1377, 1382 (9th Cir. 1993)]
This was a violation of the
SEDM Member Agreement which most of the government's witnesses
were subject to because they downloaded or obtained privileged and
licensed materials that made them subject to the agreement.
Section 6, Item 5 of the
SEDM Member Agreement says that anyone who uses the materials
in litigation against any member of the SEDM ministry stipulates
to admit into evidence and admit as truthful and accurate everything
on the SEDM website and agrees to be the Substitute Defendant.
Even if Hansen's submissions were lawfully excluded from evidence,
they would still have to be included based on the Member Agreement.
The PseudoCourt interfered with the right to contract of the parties
by excluding this evidence. This proceeding, ladies and gentlemen,
was therefore an INQUISITION, not a legal proceeding. It was
designed to shield Attorney Shoemaker, the U.S. Attorney, from a
follow-on lawsuit for malicious prosecution. What the PseudoJudge
effectively did is frequently demonstrated by immature and spoiled
two year olds, who when confronted with an obligation plug their
ears with both hands and contemptuously yell at the top of their
voice: "I don't have to listen to you, I can't hear a word
you say, and I'm going to do whatever I want. Neener....neener.....neener!"
What parents should do with this sort of rebellious spoiled child
is spank their bottom, but who can spank a peevish judge's bottom?.
We would expect far more out of such a learned person than this
kind selfish, immature rebellion.
[of the law by the PseudoJudge IMPOSTER] is as the sin of witchcraft,
is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
He also has rejected you from being king [or a person who has
ANY authority to be telling ANYONE what to do].”
Sam. 15:23, Bible, NKJV]
By excluding all evidence of the accused, he
denied the accused the right to defend himself or rebut any of the
charges against him. This is a violation of due process of
law which, like most of the other behavior exhibited by the PseudoJudge
and the Plaintiff in this case, once again renders nothing but a
"This court has held more than once that
a statute [or judge
made law as in this case] creating a presumption which operates
to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)]
- The PseudoJudge's political opinion [not judgment, but political
opinion] politically enjoined activity that there was no evidence
even existed. There was no evidence before the PseudoCourt
of any activity, and no third party ever admitted receiving any
kind of "advice or assistance", much less paying for it.
The PseudoCourt can
only enjoin activity that it has evidence to prove is ACTUALLY HAPPENING
at the time the order is issued, and not which it PRESUMES is happening.
All presumption which prejudices constitutionally protected rights
is a violation of due process of law that renders any judgment resulting
from it a VOID JUDGMENT. See the pamphlet
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction,
Form #05.017 (OFFSITE LINK) for details on this SCAM.
Only the false PRESUMPTIONS of government employees who were biased
and receiving stolen property, was illegally used as evidence, and
none of these statements were based on personal knowledge, but instead
only on religious and political beliefs and speech received by the
IRS that are not factual, not actionable, and not admissible as
Fed.Rul.Ev. 610. The government's employees who made the
bogus affidavits furthermore never proved that Hansen directly sent
any alleged correspondence to the IRS, or was responsible for sending
it in or advising others to send it in, and he specifically denied
that he did at the 30NOV2005 deposition under penalty of perjury.
Therefore, the PseudoJudge had no basis to believe that any of the
activities falsely allegedly attributed to Hansen were initiated
by him, that they were done consistent with the
Disclaimers, which specify
that the materials can only be read and not used by any third party.
A declaration of a government witness based on inadmissible evidence
that is based on religious and political beliefs and statements
that are not factual or actionable is simply a "belief", not a fact
that can lawfully be admitted before any tribunal. Therefore,
no activities were or could be enjoined by the PseudoJudge's false
- The PseudoJudge applied
standards to the alleged defendant than it applied to the IRS itself.
Hansen repeatedly pointed out in the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment that the
Disclaimers applicable to
the speech and alleged activities invoke the same protections as
the IRS itself enjoys in
IRM 18.104.22.168.8, where it says that none of the IRS publications
are trustworthy. So on the one hand, the IRS can say and do
anything it wants, but when a private person asserts the same right
using an even more potent disclaimer that makes their speech equally
non-actionable and non-factual, suddenly it is the duty of the TYRANT
judge to involuntarily reclassify non-factual speech to make it
factual so he can fulfill a personal agenda to maximize his personal
retirement, benefits, jurisdiction, and authority. Hypocrite!
This is a denial of the equal protection of the law in violation
of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click here for an
article on this monumental, hypocritical form of injustice.
- The PseudoJudge deliberately created a vague opinion that did
not completely or unambiguously specify its terms, and which is
for vagueness". The purpose for this tactic was to effect
an act of terrorism by abusing the ignorance of the defendant to
manufacture or induce false beliefs and cooperation through omission.
9.1 The opinion cited sections of a "code" that the PseudoCourt
never proved, but only PRESUMED were "law".
1 U.S.C. §204 says that the I.R.C. is only "prima facie" evidence,
which means "presumed" evidence. This kind of presumption
cannot lawfully be cited against anyone who is party to the Constitution
and protected by the Constitution if it would injure their rights.
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for details. Therefore, there
was no basis to believe that the code created any obligation against
anyone who didn't individually consent to it. In effect, he
was quoting from a state-sponsored "Bible" of the
New American Civil Religion called Socialism, and he was acting
as a "Priest" of that religion by refusing to prove with evidence
that the people consented to enact the provisions of the code he
was citing into positive law. The PseudoCourt was challenged
to do this in the Petitions to Dismiss repeatedly and refused its
duty, and therefore agreed that they were practicing RELIGION AND
WITCHCRAFT, not law, by refusing to prove that each section they
were citing as authority was individually enacted into positive
9.2 The opinion used words that are not defined in the I.R.C.
or implementing regulations and which both the judge and the Plaintiff
positively and repeatedly refused to define, such as "customers"
[who in fact can only lawfully be
franchisees called "taxpayers"], "advertising" [which means
making factual promises intended ONLY to induce a commercial transaction],
"tax". Remember, a lawful tax can only be used to support
constitutionally authorized functions of government and what the
PseudoCourt currently calls a "tax" does not act as a lawful tax,
because it is paid to persons who are not rendering constitutionally
authorized services to the government.
for details on this SCAM.
9.3 The opinion could only relate to activities occurring
within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, which
is primarily the federal zone, which as used here includes the District
of Columbia (26
U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10)), federal areas, maritime jurisdiction
and not within any state of the Union. The states enjoin exclusive
legislative jurisdiction within their own borders in any areas that
are not federal areas. Therefore, the order could only pertain
to activities of the defendant within those areas and cannot affect
activities within a state of the Union. This is because Subtitle
A of the I.R.C. can only apply to these areas and not to a state
of the Union. It can be extended through the operation of
private law to states of the Union, but only by explicit, informed,
consent of Hansen, which the government was challenged to produce
and never produced. Therefore, extraterritorial jurisdiction
within states of the Union does not apply until said evidence is
produced. The federal government cannot act extraterritorially
except in the case of its own statutory "U.S.
8 U.S.C. §1401 situated abroad under
26 U.S.C. §911 and its own instrumentalities wherever located.
Even in the case of its own instrumentalities, those instrumentalities
MUST be created and maintained extraterritorially pursuant to an
EXPRESS congressional authorization found in
4 U.S.C. §72. Since the IRS has no statutory authority
to exist outside the District of Columbia, it may not lawfully operate
there, as provided by
4 U.S.C. §72.
9.4 The PseudoJudge's opinion could only relate to activities
of the defendant with "taxpayers"
subject to the I.R.C. The IRC cannot and does not regulate
activities of those not subject to it, including "nontaxpayers",
who incidentally are the only persons authorized by the applicable
Disclaimers to read any of
the materials that were the subject of the suit.
9.5 The PseudoJudge's opinion could only relate to specifically
identified allegedly false arguments portrayed therein, and not
to ALL speech or activities of the defendant. Lawful activities
are protected and may not be enjoined, but the PseudoJudge, by not
mentioning this, hoped to create the false presumption that ALL
activities could be enjoined. The opinion could only authorize
a permanent injunction against the specific false arguments in the
case of persons who are "taxpayers" subject to and therefore protected
by the I.R.C., and not all persons or even "customers". Once
the allegedly false speech is eliminated, no activities related
to anything else could be enjoined.
9.6 The opinion could not restrain any speech, because none
of the speech in question was authorized by the applicable
disclaimers to be used for
an unlawful purpose.
9.7 The opinion cannot restrain political or religious activity,
speech, or beliefs, which are the only types of activities authorized
to be accomplished as a result of reading the materials posted on
the websites in question. Therefore, the order did not really
enjoin ANYTHING, even if Hansen were the proper party, which he
The order did not
relate to "commerce"
that is within federal jurisdiction, and therefore did not enjoin
any kind of commercial activity by any party. The only kind
of commerce subject to federal regulation, pursuant to
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, is commerce
among the several States and with Foreign Nations. None of
the alleged commerce at issue is this type of commerce, because
SEDM Member Agreement section 7 says that Members are required
to stipulate the following, which puts them outside of federal jurisdiction.
If questioned about my physical location during the time that
I was talking with, emailing, or donating to the ministry, I
will specify that all such events were conducted entirely outside
of federal jurisdiction in a
foreign state and are therefore irrelevant and not discoverable
in any federal court. I can lawfully do this regardless
of where the actual transaction occurred because this trick
is also used in the Internal Revenue Code as well, in
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and
26 U.S.C. §7408(d ) and the ministry is entitled to equal
protection of the laws.
Below is the definition of "commerce"
in the federal sphere, and note that it does NOT include any activities
that are the subject of this proceeding.
As used in the Constitution,
the word 'commerce' is the equivalent of the phrase 'intercourse
for the purposes of trade,' and includes transportation, purchase,
sale, and exchange of commodities between the citizens of the
different states. And the power to regulate commerce
embraces the instruments by which commerce is carried on. Welton
v. State of Missouri,
91 U.S. 275 , 280; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States,
175 U.S. 211, 241 , 20 S.Ct. 96; Hopkins v. United States,
171 U.S. 578, 597 , 19 S.Ct. 40. In Adair v. United States,
208 U.S. 161, 177 , 28 S.Ct. 277, 281, 13 Ann. Cas. 764,
the phrase 'Commerce
among the several states' was defined as comprehending 'traffic,
intercourse, trade, navigation, communication, the transit of
persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph,-indeed,
every species on commercial intercourse among the several states.'
In Veazie et al. v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 573, 574, this court,
after saying that the phrase could never be applied to transactions
wholly internal, significantly added: 'Nor can it be properly
concluded, that, because the products of domestic enterprise
in agriculture or manufactures, or in the arts, may ultimately
become the subjects of foreign commerce, that the control of
the means or the encouragements by which enterprise is fostered
and protected, is legitimately within the import of the phrase
foreign commerce, or fairly im- [298 U.S. 238,
299] plied in any investiture of the power to regulate
such commerce. A pretension as far reaching as this, would extend
to contracts between citizen and citizen of the same State,
would control the pursuits of the planter, the grazier, the
manufacturer, the mechanic, the immense operations of the collieries
and mines and furnaces of the country; for there is not one
of these avocations, the results of which may not become the
subjects of foreign commerce, and be borne either by turnpikes,
canals, or railroads, from point to point within the several
States, towards an ultimate destination, like the one above
Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 123 (1868)]
- The PseudoJudge tried to make Hansen look like he wasn't cooperating
with discovery as a justification for the foregoing exclusion of
evidence. In fact, he LIED about this too by not even addressing
Hansen's extensive efforts to cooperate described in the
Opposition to the Motion for Default Judgment, Docket #69.
He said that Hansen would not respond to questions at the Deposition
and therefore was deserving of sanctions, but at the same time he:
- Never implied that Constitutional privileges of
Fifth Amendment were not properly asserted at the Deposition.
- Never explained why the 700 page Amplified Deposition Transcript
provided to the USDOJ on Feb. 22, 2006 by Hansen DIDN'T answer
all remaining questions the government had. That transcript
properly asserted all Constitutional privileges.
- Didn't explain the points raised in the
Opposition to the Motion for Default Judgment, Docket #69,
whereby Hansen showed that it wasn't that he didn't want to
answer questions that explained why he didn't show up to the
second oral deposition, but the fact that he was properly asserting
his First Amendment right to choose HOW he communicated with
the government by electing to save expense and facilitate a
more thorough response to the questions by insisting on a Deposition
Upon Written Questions, which is authorized under
Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 31. The
First Amendment gives us a right to choose HOW we communicate
with our government. There is no reason why the PseudoJudge
should penalize Hansen for asserting his right to conduct the
Second deposition in WRITING only, and he violated the
First Amendment by punishing Hansen for asserting the right
to answer questions in writing. Even if he had not asserted
the Fifth Amendment in response to the government's questions,
as long as he asserted the First Amendment right to NOT speak,
he cannot be lawfully penalized as the PseudoJudge attempted
to do by excluding ALL of his evidence.
Just as there
is freedom to speak, to associate, and to believe, so there
is freedom [RIGHT] not to speak, associate, or believe.
“The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking
are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual
freedom of mind.’” Wooley v. Maynard (1977).
Freedom of conscience dictates that no individual be forced
to espouse idealogical causes with which he disagrees: “[A]t
the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that the
individual should be free to believe as he will, and that
in a free society one’s beliefs should be shaped by his
mind and by his conscience, rather than coerced by the State.”
Abood v. Detroit Bd. Of Educ. (1977)
[First Amendment Law in a Nutshell, Second Edition, pp.
266-267, Jerome A Barron, West Group, 2000; ISBN 0-314-22677-X]
freedom of thought
and expression “includes both the right to speak freely
and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”
Wooley v. Maynard,
430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 1435, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)
(BURGER, C.J.). We do not suggest this right not
to speak would sanction abuse of the copyright owner's monopoly
as an instrument to suppress facts. But in the words of
New York's Chief Judge Fuld:
thrust of the First Amendment is to prohibit improper
restraints on the
public expression of ideas; it shields the man
who wants to speak or publish when others wish him to be
quiet. There is necessarily, and within suitably defined
areas, a concomitant freedom not to speak publicly, one
which serves the same ultimate end as freedom of speech
in its affirmative aspect.”
Estate of Hemingway v. Random House, Inc.,
23 N.Y.2d 341, 348, 296 N.Y.S.2d 771, 776, 244 N.E.2d 250,
& Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S.
539, 559, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985)]
Certainly, "public expression" as
described above includes a public event such as litigation.
The court proceeding is a public record, all the officers who conduct
the litigation are public officers, the alleged offense that the
government was prosecuting Hansen for could only pertain to "public
officers" engaged in a "trade or business", etc. Therefore,
the First Amendment can and should be invoked by the Alleged Defendant
to prevent being wrongfully associated with the duties of a public
office and to prevent the government from wrongfully asserting eminent
domain over his private property and labor without compensation
by servicing the needs of this meritless suit in violation of
18 U.S.C. §654.
- The only witnesses the government had were all government employees
whose checking accounts were receiving the proceeds of extortion
and unlawful activity. They were acting as money launderers
for the government, and yet the government used them as their ONLY
witnesses. All of the witnesses and even the PseudoJudge were
and in receipt of money from the very tax that was at issue in the
proceeding. This is a violation of
18 U.S.C. §208 and
28 U.S.C. §455. The most basic element of due process,
impartial decision makers, impartial witnesses, and an impartial
judge, was therefore violated. There were
third party, non-government witnesses who had anything adverse to
say about Hansen. The government's case was about protecting
the flow of plunder, not protecting innocent Americans they exist
ONLY to serve, because there were no third parties at all who ever
complained about anything on any of the websites in question or
about being injured by it.
- Throughout the proceeding, Hansen submitted a number of petitions
to the PseudoCourt. Not a single thing he ever asked for was
granted, and EVERYTHING the U.S. Attorney asked for was granted.
In fact, in the case of the petition for sanctions, the PseudoMagistrate
granted the U.S. Attorney further discovery that he never even asked
for. Is THIS what you call EQUAL PROTECTION and JUSTICE?
This is hypocrisy and favoritism towards those who worship the
Civil Religion of Socialism and the PseudoJudge "Priest", not
JUSTICE. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Attorney was granted
things he never specifically asked for or proved were even necessary,
in the case of further discovery against Hansen and at Hansen's
expense, as a punishment for properly and timely asserting constitutionally
guarantees rights and privileges. This was prejudicial and
without justification and a violation of the oath of the judges
to support and defend the Constitution.
- After a year of discovery and after deposing three non-governmental
witnesses, the government never found even one witness who ever
said that Hansen had prepared or advised in the preparation of tax
returns for them, given them any legal advice, made any promises
or assurances about any of the information or services allegedly
available on the websites it sought to enjoin, or did anything unlawful,
false, or even commercial. They also never obtained affidavits
from any private, non-governmental witness attesting that this had
They knew they had no evidence,
so they got the IRS agent Gordon to make up an affidavit, which
was nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion from a person with
no personal knowledge of Hansen, and who HATED Hansen based on the
last meeting they had together. That affidavit was inadmissible
as evidence under
Federal Rule of Evidence 610,
and yet the PseudoCourt based nearly the entire final judgment on
that one inadmissible "opinion". That's what you
call "establishing a religion" in violation of the
First Amendment. The PseudoCourt became a "Church" and
proceeded upon belief and opinion rather than fact. Unbelievable!
- The government used as proposed evidence information downloaded
from the websites that was over a year old and which was irrelevant.
Most of it was not in existence at the time the
Answer, Docket #05, was filed. Hansen kept pointing out
to them, in the
Judicial Notice, Docket #44, at the Deposition on 30NOV2005,
and in the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Dockets 71 and 72
that they HAD to use the very latest copy of the evidence in order
to grant an injunction because injunctions are based on ONGOING
activity that refuses to stop, and they refused to do this without
any explanation or justification at all. They also maliciously refused
to acknowledge or recognize any efforts or cooperation at all on
the part of either Hansen or Family Guardian, because the only thing
they were interested in was SLANDER, not justice. That's why
we call them the Dept. of Justice. Maybe we need to change
that name to "Dept. of Terrorism and Injustice". Their presumptuous,
malicious, self-serving, hypocritical, arrogant behavior constitutes
terrorism. Instead, they insisted on using old, outdated,
prejudicial evidence that did not represent what was actually available
on the websites in question, either at the time the Answer was filed
or presently. Since they wouldn't at any time tell Hansen
exactly what was either factual or wrong, in effect they were prosecuting
him for committing things that they refused to tell him about.
How could the materials ever be improved if not only the DOJ, but
the IRS consistently refused their Constitutional duty to provide
notice" of exactly what conduct they expected at the administrative
level, BEFORE pursuing a legal remedy. Earth calling DOJ!
Saying that a person is "under investigation" but not allowing for
even one Court hearing, any opportunity to ask and get answers to
even the most basic questions, and being unwilling to show him the
evidence or offering him a chance to fix it is what COMMUNISTS do.
They call you in and tell you "we're watching you and you better
shape up!", but don't tell you why. That's terrorism, not
justice. Saying you are "under investigation" is about as
helpful as telling you your position is "frivolous", and then not
bothering to explain why or respond to any of your correspondence.
It's TERRORISM, plain and simple. The United States government
is a terrorist organization! This is the same thing the PseudoCourt
did: accusing Hansen of putting out false information, while not
naming even one thing within over 5,000 pages of case files and
11,000 pages on the websites in question that is both factual and
Title 28: Judicial Administration
PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
§ 0.85 General functions.
(l) Exercise Lead Agency responsibility in investigating
all crimes for which it has primary or concurrent jurisdiction
and which involve terrorist activities or acts in preparation
of terrorist activities within the statutory jurisdiction of
the United States. Within the United States, this would include
the collection, coordination, analysis, management and dissemination
of intelligence and criminal information as appropriate. If
another Federal agency identifies an individual who is engaged
in terrorist activities or in acts in preparation of terrorist
activities, that agency is requested to promptly notify the
includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons
or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian
population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political
They tried to disestablish a church
or religious fellowship, in violation of the
First Amendment, by calling its members "customers" and then
trying to reclassify the exclusively religious and political beliefs
and activity and speech it engages which specifically identifies
itself as not factual or actionable into "factual" speech and therefore
subject to government regulation. If Hansen were to cooperate
communist nonsense, then he would afford precedent for the federal
judiciary to invade, destroy, and persecute any religious or political
group whose views it doesn't like. Shoemaker is either dangerously
ignorant or dangerously evil in pursuing this injunction, and either
way, he ought to be behind bars for even trying.
- At the Deposition of Hansen held on 30NOV3005, the Magistrate
illegally ordered him to appear in violation of
28 U.S.C. §636 and said he couldn't bring any witnesses and
yet they brought one. That deprived him of the equal protection
of the law in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- U.S. Attorney Shoemaker conducted a deposition of one of the
witnesses on Nov. 9, 2005 in Los Angeles. During that deposition,
he maliciously and openly destroyed evidence submitted by the witness.
Martin Shoemaker, the DOJ attorney, didn't like the witnesses testimony
at all, so he probably called the IRS afterward so they could "work
him over" and get some bargaining power. Immediately after
that deposition, IRS Agent Adelina Weber unlawfully tampered with
the witness by instituting unlawful collection of over $80,000 against
the witness, in order to discredit him as a witness and get leverage
to coerce him into testifying against Hansen. This is highly
illegal and a violation of
18 U.S.C. §1503 and
18 U.S.C. §1512 that could land both Weber and Martin Shoemaker
in jail for about ten years each.
- Hansen filed a Cross Complaint against the PseudoJudge and the
U.S. Attorney. The PseudoJudge wouldn't allow it to be filed
and rejected it. The excuse he used was the order of a Magistrate
who had no authority to preside under
28 U.S.C. §636. This is a violation of
California Code of Civil Procedure 428.50(b), which says that
Cross Complaints can be filed at any time without leave of Court.
Since this was a diversity of citizenship case under Constitution
Article III but NOT
28 U.S.C. 1332, they have to follow the state's rules and the
PseudoCourt didn't, so the PseudoJudge is a CRIMINAL.
- The financial information they obtained was illegally obtained
26 U.S.C. §7602 indicates that the IRS, and by implication the
DOJ, only have enforcement authority in "internal revenue districts".
Hansen stated under penalty of perjury that he does not reside in
an internal revenue district, and Treasury Order 150-02 says that
the only remaining internal revenue district is the District of
Columbia. Their discovery was illegal because it did not confine
itself to the "United
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) defines as the District of
Columbia and the territories of the United States and no part of
the exclusive jurisdiction of any state of the Union.
- The PseudoJudge knew he had to grant the summary judgment, because
if IRS Agent Gordon, THE LIAR ever got up there and had to answer
specific questions about his malicious and self-serving LIES, he
would have disintegrated on the witness stand. As long as
he didn't have to answer for his lies or explain them, the government
could slip their dirty little stiletto into Hansen in the dark and
outside of the light of a jury scrutiny or public inquiry and scurry
off with only a few whimpers and no larger consequences. This,
ladies and gentlemen, is the cut and run behavior of COWARDS and
TYRANTS. This is TREACHERY, not JUSTICE.
"Getting treasures by a lying tongue Is the fleeting fantasy
of those who seek
21:6, Bible, NKJV]
- Hansen asked for a jury trial and the PseudoJudge refused, so
the PseudoJudge was the only jurist, and he certainly wasn't a peer
of Hansen as required by the
Seventh Amendment. He was a a federal
franchisee called a "taxpayer"
and a government henchman, and not the sovereign
Article III judge contemplated by the founders who was outside
of influence by the other branches of government. He doesn't
reside on federal territory within the district and for that, he
is guilty of a high misdemeanor. The only thing it would take
to unconstitutionally reduce his salary is getting the Secretary
of the Treasury of the IRS pissed at him and levy his pay if they
didn't like the way he ruled.
“In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’s
SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.”
[Alexander Hamilton ,
The Federalist, No. 79]
What is more important than the words in the ruling
is what they DID and what they DIDN'T SAY AND DO. Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), a party faced with evidence
of his own wrongdoing who fails to controvert it admits it and defaults
to it. The only exception to this rule is if the party against
whom the allegation is rendered is protected by the Constitution, in
which case he cannot be punished for asserting a Fifth Amendment right
of freedom from self incrimination. You will note that the government
as an artificial entity is NOT protected by this prohibition and therefore
is amenable to an equitable estoppel, whereas this is NOT true of Hansen.
Hansen's voluminous pleadings ensured that there were plenty of things
the government admitted by their failure to deny.
- Most of the pleadings and petitions and responsive documents
submitted to the PseudoCourt had the
Federal Pleading Attachment (OFFSITE LINK) attached. That
document specifically asks the PseudoCourt and the Plaintiff to
remain silent on all facts and legal conclusions that they agree
with. Since they were silent on nearly every issue raised
by Hansen, then they agreed to everything. It doesn't matter
what the ruling says, but what it
What it doesn't
say must be consistent with what it does say in order to be realistically
enforceable. Therefore, it is a void judgment and all statements
made by Hansen are therefore admitted by the PseudoCourt and the
Plaintiff and there is no controversy in this case at all.
- At least two times, Hansen told the government to be very specific
about identifying exactly what is both factual and false in the
information they sought to enjoin.
Neither the PseudoCourt nor the DOJ
ever pointed to even one thing anywhere on either Family Guardian
or SEDM that they
could prove specifically with evidence was both factual and false.
All they ever did was throw accusations and slander at Hansen that
they had no physical evidence to support. They abused the
court as a political rather than legal vehicle, and the PseudoJudge,
as a willing accomplice, became a priest of the
Civil Religion of Socialism (OFFSITE LINK) wearing a black robe
and chanting in Latin or with words that few people but the priests
know. Instead of waiving an incense bowl like the Catholic
church does, he waived his gavel. Instead of an altar or a
cross, he uses his bench. Instead of a Bible, he uses the
Internal Revenue Code, which, like the bible, is private law that
only applies to those who BELIEVE they are subject to it and therefore
consent to it. The U.S. Attorney was the deacon who helped
him conduct his worship service. They wanted to "shoot the
messenger", but they couldn't shoot the message, because it's right
out of their own mouth! They'd have to call themselves liars
if they discredited the message, and enjoin their own behavior and
activities. The Disclaimer
specifically states that you aren't allowed to trust anything we
say, and that the only thing you can trust is documented in the
Reasonable Belief pamphlet (OFFSITE LINK), which is the U.S.
Supreme PseudoCourt, the Statutes at Large after January 2, 1939,
and the Constitution. The fact that people relied on these
exclusive sources of belief and were injured by them is an admission
that the de facto corporate "United States" government is violating
the law. By their universal silence, the tyrants who handled
this case admitted that everything on Family Guardian and SEDM,
which were the two websites they sought to enjoin, is accurate and
truthful. You can bet that if they could have found something,
they most certainly would have pointed it out after a year of litigation
and putting us under the microscope of their best minds and strategists,
but they couldn't. Therefore, these websites are exonerated
and now have the government's stamp of approval. Thank you,
District PseudoCourt and Department of Justice for confirming what
we always knew, which is that everything on these websites is accurate,
but of course not factual or actionable.
- Not once did either the PseudoCourt or the DOJ ever call anything
on this website or anything in any of Hansen's pleadings "frivolous".
That's probably because he defined the word in his
Answer as "truthful, accurate". They didn't want to tell
him he was right!! Hee...heeee.....heeee!! The case file is
probably five huge boxes and over 5,000 files and not once did they
call one thing that Hansen ever said or wrote as "frivolous" or
- When Hansen used arguments about jurisdiction that they didn't
want to deal with, the PseudoCourt consistently responded with silence,
Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), means agreement and a default judgment/equitable
estoppel against the party.
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for exhaustive proof of this.
This was true of the following arguments on jurisdiction:
- The term "person",
for the purposes of tax injunctions, is defined in
26 U.S.C. §6700(b) is defined as "an officer or an employee
of a corporation". That corporation is a public corporation
called the United States government. Hansen pointed this
out several times, and raised it in the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The
PseudoCourt was silent and therefore agreed with him.
The US Attorney did not come back with what was asked for, which
was a statute expressly including him in the group of people
who are "persons". Instead, he quoted a bunch of irrelevant
caselaw, as though alleging that judges had the authority to
legislative and thereby extend the definition, which they certainly
4 U.S.C. §72 requires that all "public offices" be in the
District of Columbia for the purposes of federal jurisdiction,
and that anyplace else requires that Congress "expressly extend"
those offices with enacted law. Well, they never did this
in the case of states of the Union so they can't operate there.
On two occasions, Hansen raised this issue and demanded the
enactment of Congress that "expressly extends" enforcement of
the I.R.C. to states of the Union. The PseudoCourt was
completely silent and the US Attorney could not produce the
statute either, so he agreed with Hansen that he had no jurisdiction
to proceed. The Second time Hansen raised this argument
in the Petition to Dismiss, the PseudoCourt dismissed the
Petition to Dismiss, Docket #81 and 82, because they knew
they didn't have an answer for this quagmire. The third
time he raised it was in the Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment, which the PseudoCourt again refused to deal with or
even mention in their order.
- The last petition filed in the case was the
Petition to Amend the Pleadings, Docket #92 filed by Hansen.
- Contains a Default Judgment, attached as Exhibit 3.
That default judgment contains a summary of all the things the
PseudoCourt and the USDOJ were silent on, and therefore agreed
to pursuant to
Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6). You are encouraged to
read that judgment. You are also encouraged to read the
memorandum of law entitled "Silence
as a Weapon and a Defense in Legal Discovery" (OFFSITE LINK),
section 7, which proves why equitable estoppel may be lawfully
asserted against "public officers" such as the Judge who, through
silence, omission, and nonfeasance, refuse the affirmative Constitutional
duties imposed by their oath of office.
- Reveals that the PseudoCourt's "Opinion" (not "ruling",
but "political opinion") is "void
for vagueness" and must be amended to define the terms it
is using and to answer several important questions that leave
the Defendant in a state of "cognitive dissonance" and unable
to reasonably comply.
Based on the above and based on the dishonorable
behavior of the PseudoJudge in this case, the Court of Public Opinion
finds and declares the following facts:
- That the government has enjoined itself from publishing law,
because the only thing people reading the websites in question are
told they can rely upon is the printed law. This is confirmed
by section 9 of the
SEDM Member Agreement. You will note that this agreement
also says that Members may not trust or believe anything that anyone
in the website says or does. If the law is an inadequate source
of belief that deceives people into being injured to the point where
an injunction is considered necessary, then the injunction can only
be directed at those who write and publish the United States code.
- That employee Lorenz was acting in an
Article IV territorial capacity while deceiving and lying to
the public by implying that he is an Article III judge. The
original Answer demanded an Article III judge and the PseudoJudge
made no attempt to prove that he was an Article III judge.
Click here for details.
Article IV Legislative (and NOT Judicial) Branch federal employee
and franchise administrator (but not constitutional "judge") Lorenz
knew or should have known that he was engaged in a conspiracy against
rights based on omission,
presumption, and breach of fiduciary duty. Very few among
the many issues or controversies addressed in the
Answer or the subsequent Petitions to Dismiss were addressed,
and therefore the de facto PseudoJudge shirked his fiduciary duties
and thereby denied justice to Hansen.
- That this entire proceeding amounts to a
of Attainder, because the Pseudojudge and the Pseudocourt are
an Article IV tribunal in the Executive Branch that was not exercising
Article III Judicial Power . A Bill of Attainder is any penalty
imposed by the Legislative or Executive Branch rather than an Article
- That because de facto PseudoJudge/employee Lorenz disallowed
the admission of ALL evidence submitted by Hansen from the very
beginning of the case because of the lawful assertion of Constitutional
privileges by Hansen, then Hansen is
to exclude all statements and all evidence provided by employee
Lorenz of the Kangaroo PseudoCourt for asserting the SAME privilege.
You will note that Hansen submitted at least three Petitions to
dismiss and a very long list of questions and issues (in the Answer,
the Petitions to Dismiss, and the Petition to Amend) the PseudoCourt
had to answer and deal with in its "opinion" to properly address
all the issues before it, and that it responded with silence, which
was a "Fifth Amendment" response that produced a default judgment
against employee Lorenz and the Kangaroo PseudoCourt. If employee
Lorenz can punish Hansen for silence for lawfully asserting First
And Fifth Amendment in answer to questions, then Hansen is entitled
to equal protection
of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 by
removing from evidence EVERYTHING that employee Lorenz said
about his conduct as a basis for reasonable belief about what he
said, did, or should do. What is good for the goose is good
for the gander.
- That Executive Branch employee Lorenz (Article
IV "justice") unlawfully issued the injunction by completely
ignoring all of the requirements documented above in section 2,
thus producing a
judgment that cannot and will not be obeyed or honored, even
if it was directed at the correct party, which it was not.
- That the U.S. Attorney was engaged in a pattern of fraud,
malicious prosecution, involuntary servitude in violation of the
Thirteenth Amendment and
18 U.S.C. §1589(3), and conspiracy against rights of Hansen
in violation of
18 U.S.C. §241 and
42 U.S.C. §1983.
- That by ignoring the requirements of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine,
the domicile and citizenship of Hansen, and his status as a nonresident
but not alien nontaxpayer not engaged in a "trade
or business", de facto PseudoJudge (but not "judge") Lorenz
is guilty of:
8.1 Making a false and prejudicial and unlawful
that Hansen is a "U.S.
person" with a
in the District of Columbia/federal territory, which amounts to
kidnapping and identity theft in violation of
18 U.S.C. §1201, 18 U.S.C. §1028, 18 U.S.C. §654, and 26 U.S.C.
7701(a)(39). When confronted with this accusation, he
silent and therefore admitted his own wrongdoing and breached
his fiduciary duty as a "public
8.2 Violating due process and rendering a void judgment because
engaging in presumption.
- That the content of the Criminal Complaint attached to the
Petition to Amend the Pleadings documents the infractions of
he, the IRS agent, and U.S. Attorney Shoemaker, for which the Court
of Public Opinion demand a grand jury be convened to prosecute and
terminate the perpetrators of this criminal conspiracy.
- That every issue of fact or law raised by Hansen to which PseudoJudge
Lorenz and the Plaintiff were silent on constitutes a default judgment,
equitable estoppel, estoppel by laches, retraxit by tacit procuration,
and breach of fiduciary duty by these public officers for which
they are guilty of Subornation of Perjury and become accessories
after the fact to conspiracy against rights in violation of
18 U.S.C. §3 and 4.
- That the IRS and the federal government knows or should know
that they have no lawful authority to enforce any provision of the
Internal Revenue Code within any state of the Union because:
11.1 That the federal government may not lawfully establish
or enforce federal franchises or public offices within states of
the Union on OTHER than federal territory. The I.R.C. Subtitles
A and C are franchise taxes upon such public offices and all "taxpayers"
are public officers within the government. See:
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a "Public Officer"
For Federal Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008 (OFFSITE LINK)
Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
11.2 There are no implementing regulations published in the
Federal Register as required in order to enforce the Internal Revenue
Code, in the case of a person domiciled in a state of the Union
who is not a "public officer" or federal instrumentality.
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for details.
11.3 The I.R.C. is only enforceable against domiciliaries
of the District of Columbia or against federal "public officers"
and instrumentalities. The tax is a tax upon a "trade
or business", which is defined as "the functions of a public
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26).
4 U.S.C. §72 says that all "public
offices" can ONLY be situated in the District of Columbia except
as expressly provided by law. When the PseudoCourt and the
U.S. Attorney were asked for the positive law enactment of Congress
expressly extending to states of the Union the "public offices"
that are the subject of the
I.R.C. Subtitle A tax, they were silent, thus admitting that
the tax cannot be enforced in states of the Union. See the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment for details.
11.4 The IRS can only enforce the I.R.C. in internal revenue
districts, and Treasury Order 150-02 abolished all internal revenue
districts except the District of Columbia. See:
Federal Jurisidiction, Form #05.018 (OFFSITE LINK)
In short, the government's silence constitutes
estoppel and a default judgment against the government for all the
above findings of fact by the Court of Public Opinion. In this
"What you DO or DON'T DO speaks so loudly we can't hear and don't
believe a word you say."
“Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied
representation of the existence of the state of facts in question
, and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation.
When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances
that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the
party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the
other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel.”
[Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)]
What the PseudoCourt has demonstrated, by their
very deliberate silence, omission, and careful choice of words, is that
they are JUST as careful in their use of the words "taxpayer"
and "tax shelter"
(an INVESTMENT offered ONLY to "taxpayers") as President Clinton is
about his use of the word "sex". Do you know what the meaning
of the word "is" is?
SNAKE and SERPENT
that has infiltrated the de jure United States government and turned
it into an atheistic, for profit private corporation and SHAM TRUST
speaketh with forked tongue:
"For false christs and false prophets [of the
NEW AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION OF SOCIALISM, which is the NEW PAGAN
FALSE GOD] will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible,
even the elect."
13:22, Bible, NKJV]
"The coming of the lawless one [Satan,
who has infiltrated the de jure government to make it into a
de facto instrument
of injustice and PLUNDER that is a SHAM TRUST] is according
to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because
they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they
should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not
believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
Thess. 2:9-12, Bible, NKJV]
Towards the end of the lawsuit, the DOJ
launched a "one-two punch" in apparent hopes of throwing Hansen off
guard. Discovery ended at the beginning of February so they launched
a wave of motions to end the case quickly. First they filed a
Motion for Default Judgment,
Docket #64 and
65 on Feb. 13 (just before Valentine's day") to distract him, and
then four days after that, a Motion for Summary Judgment,
Docket #67 and
68 on Feb. 17. The Motion for Summary Judgment they do in
all their tax injunction cases, but the Default Judgment was a new tactic
for this case that we hadn't observed before.
Hansen timely responded with a barrage of Opposition
briefs. When it came time to rule on these motions, the PseudoCourt
dragged its feet for almost two months after the scheduled hearing date.
PseudoJudge Lorenz was supposed to rule on the Summary and Default motions
on March 27, and it took them until June 1 to rule: 65 days late.
Part of that delay may have been giving the U.S. Attorney time to write
the PseudoCourt's order. This is highly illegal, but it happens
all the time and it sure looks like it was done in this case, based
on the style and format of writing in the
Ruling, Docket #91.
As you read the Article IV Kangaroo PseudoCourt's
"Political Opinion", keep the following in mind:
- The "Gordon Dec." means the affidavit of the IRS agent attached
as Exhibit 1 to the
Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #68. This is the same
IRS Agent who:
- Who has no personal knowledge about Hansen and therefore
is unsuitable as a witness.
- Who met with Hansen only once on July 10, 2003, during which
time the materials he sought to enjoin didn't even exist.
This is a violation of stare decisis on the subject of injunctions,
which says that agencies must exhaust their administrative remedies
completely before they can pursue an injunction.
- Whose statements in the affidavit are opinions and not facts
Fed.Rule.Evidence 610 and who provided no physical or third
party witnesses who could confirm even one of the presumptuous,
prejudicial, and false things that he said in his affidavit.
In that capacity, he's acting as a "priest" for the government
church called District PseudoCourt, not an unbiased purveyor
of truth or justice. In this church, they practice witchcraft
and human sacrifices. The "Bailiff" supervises the altar
of Baal where the sacrifices are conducted to the false god
called the PseudoJudge, whose every word becomes "law".
- The ruling directs disclosure of "customer lists". Well,
the only thing that "customer" can mean in the context of "tax
shelters" is "taxpayers".
A device used by a taxpayer
to reduce or defer payment of taxes. Common forms of tax
shelters include: limited partnership interests, real
estate investments which have deductions such as depreciation,
interest, taxes, etc. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 limited
the benefits of tax shelters significantly by classifying losses
from such shelters as passive and ruling that passive losses
can only offset passive income in arriving at taxable income
(with a few exceptions). Any excess losses are suspended
and may be deducted in the year the investment is sold or otherwise
disposed of. "
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
“Revenue Laws relate
to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers . The latter are
without their scope. No procedures are prescribed for
non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights
or Remedies in due course of law. With them[non-taxpayers]
Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither of the
subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”
Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]
The PseudoCourt knew or should have known that
they only have jurisdiction over
franchisees called "taxpayers",
that the Disclaimer on all
the affected websites excludes "taxpayers" from the authorized audience,
and that Hansen does not talk or associate with or educate
franchisees and public officers called "taxpayers",
because this was made clear to them in the Answer, Docket #05 repeatedly.
They didn't use the word, in hopes that Hansen would wrongfully
interpret the word "customers" to include "nontaxpayers".
All of the tax injunction orders we have ever read require disclosure
of lists of "taxpayers",
but the PseudoCourt deviated in this case from their "MO" because
they knew that "nontaxpayers" were the only audience in this case.
You will note that the Family
Guardian Disclaimer and the
Section 1, both say that "taxpayers"
aren't even allowed to visit those websites and that they should
go to http://www.irs.gov
for information. The PseudoCourt refused to define the term
"customers" in their "void
for vagueness" ruling, but it is very clear what they meant
by that word: "taxpayers".
The only real "taxpayers"
who could possibly be affected by the order are therefore Barbara
Cantrell, the DOJ secretary, and IRS Agent David Gordon, who both
perjured themselves in obtaining the materials on the websites in
question by obtaining and reading them as "taxpayers",
while fraudulently and knowingly portraying themselves as "nontaxpayers".
Apparently, the only
"taxpayers" naive or presumptuous enough to use this website that
we are aware of all work for the government. Does that surprise
you? Therefore, the government already knows who the real
"customers" are, and all of them are listed in the
Motion for Summary Judgment as witnesses. Church
or religious fellowship members who engage in sharing religious
beliefs and opinions that are not factual and not actionable, even
if they make donations to the ministry that they are part of, cannot
lawfully be classified as "customers" without disestablishing a
church in violation of the First Amendment. Neither can the
soliciting of donations to such a ministry lawfully be classified
as "selling" or "advertising". The fact that donations to
a religious ministry are made, does not change the nature of the
speech that the ministry engages in. Any attempt by the USDOJ
or the PseudoCourt to reclassify the strictly religious and political
speech and opinions of the ministry as "factual" and actionable
- Is an unlawful attempt by the government to disestablish
a Church or religious group and bring it under government regulation
as a presumed "business".
- Is a violation of the
- If effected universally, would authorize the federal government
to invade and regulate every church and political party, and
political group in the country in violation of the
What the PseudoCourt did to skirt this issue
was use the vague and undefined word "customers" to describe what
actually are members of a church or religious group, and then essentially
issue a vague ruling that obtusely petitions the Defendant, under
"color" but without the actual authority of law, to help them to
convert the religious ministry or fellowship into a business engaged
in "factual" and "actionable" speech that they could regulate.
Hell will freeze over before that would ever happen and before Hansen
would ever help the government destroy churches and regulate religious
groups or churches as though they are government corporations!
They ought to burn in hell for even obtusely suggesting that.
It is also worth noting that the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt has also
said that the government may not compel the disclosure of "membership
lists" of purely political and religious fellowships such as Family
Guardian and SEDM:
of speech and a free press, the right of peaceable assembly
was considered by the Framers of our Constitution to lie at
the foundation of a government [361 U.S. 516,
523] based upon the consent of an informed citizenry
- a government dedicated to the establishment of justice and
the preservation of liberty. U.S. Const., Amend.
I. And it is now
beyond dispute that freedom of association for the purpose of
advancing ideas and airing grievances is protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion
by the States. De Jonge v. Oregon,
299 U.S. 353, 364
; N. A. A. C. P. v.
357 U.S. 449, 460 .
Freedoms such as these are protected not only against
heavy-handed frontal attack, but also from being stifled by
more subtle governmental interference. Grosjean v. American
297 U.S. 233 ;Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319 U.S. 105 ; American Communications Assn. v. Douds,
339 U.S. 382, 402 ; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, supra; Smith
361 U.S. 147 . "It is hardly a novel perception that
compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy
may constitute [an] effective . . . restraint on freedom of
association. . . . This Court has recognized the vital relationship
between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations.
. . . Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many
circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of
association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs."
N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama,
357 U.S., at 462 .
On this record it sufficiently
appears that compulsory disclosure of the membership lists of
the local branches of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People would work a significant interference with
the freedom of association of their members.
9 There was [361 U.S. 516, 524]
substantial uncontroverted evidence that public identification
of persons in the community as members of the organizations
had been followed by harassment and threats of bodily harm.
There was also evidence that fear of community hostility and
economic reprisals that would follow public disclosure of the
membership lists had discouraged new members from joining the
organizations and induced former members to withdraw. This repressive
effect, while in part the result of private attitudes and pressures,
was brought to bear only after the exercise of governmental
power had threatened to force disclosure of the members' names.
N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama,
357 U.S., at 463 . Thus, the threat of substantial government
encroachment upon important and traditional aspects of individual
freedom is neither speculative nor remote.
v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960)]
- There isn't a single truthful thing they said about Hansen in
Opinion, Docket #91, and they had no physical evidence to back
anything up or anything admitted that was said by anything other
than a biased government witness with a financial conflict of interest.
He was convicted on
presumption, not evidence. That's witchcraft and
state-sponsored religion in violation of the First Amendment, not
justice. In the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Hansen in fact
accused Attorney Shoemaker, the U.S. Attorney, of practicing religion
rather than law, in his pleadings. If you would like to know
why presumption may not be used to convict a person, see
Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Expanding Federal Jurisdiction,
Form #05.017 (OFFSITE LINK). You can see a detailed list
of all the false statements in the
Opposition Brief, Docket #72, Aff. of Material Facts, Section
3.1, p. 7. The
Petition to Amend the Pleadings, Docket #92, demands evidence
that backs up each of the PseudoCourt's presumptuous statements,
and that the Ruling be modified to point out either the evidence,
or lack thereof. Without evidence to back up EVERYTHING in
the Ruling, then the PseudoCourt is really just functioning as a
political body that is part of the Executive Branch, which is
a violation of the
Separation of Powers Doctrine and a tortious usurpation by the
PseudoJudge for which he could be held personally liable.
- The PseudoJudge perjured himself in his
Ruling, Docket #91. He knew that he couldn't get past
square one on the injunction unless factual speech existed.
The very first element he has to prove is that the speech is factual
in order to get an injunction, because it can't be false and therefore
enjoinable without being factual. The
Family Guardian Disclaimer
SEDM Disclaimer both say that nothing on either website, and
no communication between readers and those associated with the websites,
is factual other than the disclaimers themselves. This was
the case long before the Complaint was even filed and the government
knew this or should have known this at the time they filed the Complaint.
This knowledge creates a perception that U.S. Attorney Shoemaker
is guilty of malicious prosecution. Copies of these disclaimers
were included with the
Opposition Brief, Docket #71 and 72. Therefore, the speech
not only can't be enjoined, but it's also not even admissible as
evidence in PseudoCourt under
Federal Rule of Evidence 610. That's why the government
couldn't lawfully even quote anything off any of the websites it
sought to enjoin in order to prove that there was false speech on
these websites. The reason it took the PseudoJudge 60 days
after the hearing to publish a ruling is because he had to invent
a way around this HUGE problem. The best he could come up
with is to perjure himself on the PseudoCourt record by attributing
statements to Hansen in the
Opposition Brief, Docket #71 and 72, that in fact were NEVER
made, and thus commit perjury as a "public
officer". For doing that, he is now a felon and could
be removed from the bench. Hansen has filed a Criminal Complaint
against the PseudoJudge and the U.S. Attorney that will hopefully
accomplish that. The PseudoJudge accused Hansen of claiming
that the statements at issue are "factual" and then at least appears
to quote Hansen's
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #72.
Defendant contends his speech is "exclusively religious"
and comprised of "political statements that are factual, not
Docket #91, p. 17]
Then there is a footnote that says the following
57. Opp’n Br. At 9 [p. 9]
Then you look at the portion of the
Hansen Opposition Brief, Docket #72 that it refers to, and here
is what it says:
5 None of the third party depositions revealed any
evidence of any activity, much less illegal activity, by the
Alleged Defendant. This includes:
A. Preparing or advising in the preparation of tax
returns by Alleged Defendant.
B. Alleged Defendant corresponding with the government
on behalf of any third party.
C. Giving of any advice.
D. Making any assurances about the effectiveness of
any of the information in question.
E. Factual speech on the part of the Alleged Defendant.
Everything on all the websites and all speech connected with
them is identified in the Disclaimers, Exhibits 1 and 2, as
exclusively religious and political statements that are not
factual, not actionable, and which are therefore protected by
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
to Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket #72, Mem. Law, p.
9, para. 5]
Can you see how the PseudoJudge LIED and how it
is easy to prove this using the PseudoCourt's own record, which is a
public record? If you read through the above
Hansen Opposition Brief, Docket #71 and 72 which is over 300 pages,
you will see that over 30 times, Hansen emphasizes that none of the
speech in question is factual or actionable, that it is religious and
political statements and beliefs that are not actionable. Search
it electronically yourself and prove this to yourself. Use the
"Ctrl-F" key inside your Adobe Acrobat reader to do the search.
Show us even one place where Hansen said the speech in question was
factual. IT DOESN'T EXIST. THE PseudoJudge, WHO IS YOUR
PUBLIC SERVANT, IS A CRIMINAL AND MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH!
As a matter of fact, you might want to file a Criminal complaint against
him using the free materials available on SEDM:
Criminal Complaint Against
Public Officers, Litigation Tool #08.002
Now, without further adieu, here are is the Motion
for Summary Judgment, Hansen's Opposition, the PseudoCourt's final ruling,
and the Petition for Reconsideration that was filed immediately after
Judgment was entered.
The last item above, the Petition to Amend the
Pleadings, functions as a "Jury Entertainment Package", in case the
USDOJ decides to get cute and pursue a criminal contempt order against
F.R.Crim.Proc. 23(a) and the
Sixth Amendment allow any defendant in a Contempt proceeding to
Demand a Jury. The Petition to Amend the Judgment is a Court Record
and therefore a Public Record. Therefore, it may not be excluded
from evidence under the
Hearsay Rule, F.R.E. 802, in any trial involving the PseudoCourt's
The Petition To Amend declares that the PseudoCourt's Political
Opinion is "void
for vagueness", and, like all the government's behavior up to this
time, fails to give Constitutionally required "reasonable
notice" of exactly what behavior was both factual AND false and
therefore injurious, proves that the PseudoCourts basis for "reasonable
belief" is arbitrary and unreasonable, and provides a long list
of questions to be answered by the Plaintiff and the PseudoJudge in
order to clarify the impact of the ruling. It warns that if the
PseudoJudge does not answer the questions so that the implications of
the Order can be fully understood, then the PseudoJudge will have a
future opportunity to explain why he didn't to the Jury who will soon
be assembled in a contempt hearing, in which the Government is going
to have to prove why the "void for vagueness" order was not obeyed.
Lastly, we note that the above Ruling:
- Is not an "Order" for
Hansen, because he isn't the "person" defined in
26 U.S.C. 6671(b).
When statutory proof AND evidence was demanded from the government,
both the PseudoCourt and the USDOJ were silent, and therefore agreed
that he wasn't this "person". It is only an order that pertains
to those acting as "public officers" of the federal corporation
called the "United States", and therefore the "person" described
26 U.S.C. §6671(b). Since Hansen is a "private person"
and not a "public official", the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt says Congress
has no jurisdiction over such a person:
“The power to "legislate generally
upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power
to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action
officers"], was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at
15. See also United States v. Reese,
92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris,
106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman,
190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings
of these early cases might have been superseded or modified,
see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States,
379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest,
383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' §5 power
as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been
of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507
For details, see the pamphlet "Meaning
of the words 'includes' and 'including'" and answer the questions
at the end if you feel like arguing about this point.
- Is directed at the
government witnesses as the Substitute Defendants.
The Family Guardian Disclaimer
SEDM Disclaimer and the
SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001 all say that the government's
witnesses, and NOT Hansen, are the proper defendants to this case.
These agreements make anyone who uses the licensed information available
on the website into Substitute Defendant's if they testify against
any other Member or reader of the materials. Consequently,
the proper audience for the PseudoCourt's Order are the exclusively
government witnesses who became Members of SEDM and therefore Substitute
Defendants in connection with the privileged, copyrighted, and licensed
materials available on that website. This would include IRS
Agent David Gordon, and Barbara Cantrell. You will note,
for instance, that the fellowship bookstore checkout process at
SEDM is structured
such that the person obtaining information from the fellowship bookstore
is forewarned at least three times
in big red letters that by proceeding further, they
consent unconditionally and perpetually to be bound by the
SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001.
- Is not directed at
Hansen Personally. You will note that the Hansen
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Dockets 71 and 72,
identifies Hansen on the first page as "Fiduciary for Substitute
Defendant", which we just showed in the previous step is the government's
witnesses. Since neither the PseudoCourt nor the Plaintiff
disagreed with this, then they agree under
- Is irrelevant to Hansen,
even if it did refer to him personally. Hansen can't
obey an order that pertains to SEDM, because he has no authority
as an officer of that religious fellowship in which to obey.
For all the foregoing reasons, the PseudoCourt's
Political Opinion is really just an injunction against IRS Agent Gordon,
who is the substitute defendant by private contract found in
SEDM Member Agreement, to stop lying to people. Now THAT'S
MY KIND OF COURT ORDER: An order that tells the IRS to QUIT LYING!!
Haa....haaaa....haaaa!! Thank you DOJ!
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it
is written, 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness'”
Cor. 3:19, Bible, NKJV]
"For it is written: ' I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'”
Cor. 1:19, Bible, NKJV]
"This is the way of those who are foolish, And of their posterity
who approve their sayings."
49:13, Bible, NKJV]
"The wise shall inherit glory, But shame shall be the legacy
3:35, Bible, NKJV]
"He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind, And the
fool will be servant to the wise of heart."
11:29, Bible, NKJV]
"He catches the wise in their own craftiness, And the counsel
of the cunning comes quickly upon them."
5:13, Bible, NKJV]
The media publicity and the lessons learned in
the litigation have been very positive for the Family Guardian website.
Below is a summary of the effects.
- Family Guardian website
traffic has doubled over the last year of litigation.
This is because of the DOJ media publicity and because the materials
here have been improved to make them more useful to all of you in
the litigation process such as this one.
Website Disclaimer has been
Considerably Strengthened, Based on the Way DOJ Attacked It.
2.1 Now it better
emphasizes and explains the issue of factual speech to identify
everything on this website as "not factual and not actionable".
Speech must be factual before it can be enjoined or become actionable
in court. Otherwise, it is a religious and a political belief
that is not admissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 610. Therefore, the government's
ability to pursue any future injunction is completely destroyed.
This website has always been exclusively non-factual and non-actionable
religious opinions and beliefs, but now we have the words and the
authorities to properly describe what we are doing and properly
and timely invoke the requisite
First Amendment protections upon it so that we don't end up
in anyone's cross-hairs.
Disclaimer page now better
describes the intended audience. This helps steer away
those who might bring reproach upon us and helps show, consistent
with the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt
in International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310 (1945), that we do not target anyone within the
jurisdiction of the "United
States". Below are the requirements that a party must
meet in order to become subject to federal jurisdiction as a nonresident
defendant, such as the
nonresidents but not aliens who are the only proper audience
of this website and who run this website.
In this circuit, we analyze specific jurisdiction according
to a three-prong test:
(1) The non-resident
defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate
some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform
some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege
of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the
benefits and protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates
to the defendant's forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Lake v. Lake,
817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1987)). The first prong is determinative
in this case. We have sometimes referred to it, in shorthand
fashion, as the "purposeful availment" prong. Schwarzenegger,
374 F.3d at 802. Despite its label, this prong includes both
purposeful availment and purposeful direction. It may be satisfied
by purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in
the forum; by purposeful direction of activities at the forum;
or by some combination thereof.
Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d
1199 (9th Cir. 01/12/2006)]
- We have added a free
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid pamphlet. This helps
keep our readers out of trouble. It was previously part of
the now defunct Tax Freedom Solutions Manual and now has been considerably
expanded and improved and made available for free. This pamphlet
has also been considerably improved to specifically address all
of the arguments frequently accused of being "frivolous" by the
IRS and all the arguments used against Hansen in the litigation
described here. Complying with the pamphlet is now listed
as a MANDATORY requirement of being within the INTENDED/AUTHORIZED
AUDIENCE found in the Disclaimer.
- The Citizenship Records
Amendment forms have been completely revised. This
form is the one used by the DOJ as a basis to prosecute Hansen and
may be found by
clicking here. They were falsely claiming that Hansen
offered an Administrative Repudiation Process through SEDM, and
they assumed falsely that this process was based on the original
Citizenship Amendment form available on Family Guardian. The
IRS prosecution referral package sent to the DOJ included several
people's submissions of the form appearing on this website, but
none of them were completed or submitted by Hansen and Hansen declared
under penalty of perjury during the Deposition on 30NOV2006 that
the alleged Citizenship Administrative Repudiation was a dumb idea
and that he was never involved in it and never received any compensation
citizenship amendment form page now points to a free form available
on SEDM and there is no similar form on Family Guardian. The
version of the form is MUCH better than the original posted here
and it, like our now defunct version of the form, is also entirely
free. Therefore, the government has no evidence upon which
to assert that anyone is charging for it because no citizenship
services have ever been offered by either Hansen, Family Guardian,
or SEDM (we are TOLD). We are told by officers of SEDM that
the original Citizenship Administrative Repudiation page on SEDM
was not offered by SEDM, but was a third party referral for which
SEDM never derived any revenues. This is also confirmed by
SEDM Articles of Mission (OFFSITE LINK) which state at
the beginning of section 3 that:
"Any items not listed in the subsequent subsections shall
be provided by an independent third party who provides no support
of any kind to the ministry. The purpose for listing items
on the ministry website that are not identified in this chapter
is to refer individuals to other providers, but no donations,
commissions, or other financial considerations may be generated
by such referrals, as this would compromise the integrity of
Articles of Mission, Form #01.004, Chapter 3, p. 83, version
You will note that Citizenship Administrative Repudiation is
not listed anywhere in Chapter 3 of the Articles of Mission and
never has been. Therefore, the only thing one can reasonably
conclude is that SEDM does not offer and never has offered this
service and that it was offered by third parties who provided no
compensation to SEDM by virtue of making said referrals. Consequently,
SEDM cannot be a proper party to any proceedings involving this
- The Example Tax Return
on this website has been eliminated and now points to a free form
on SEDM. The page can be accessed by
clicking here. This is the only place on this website
dealing with how to file returns and it is FREE, so that it is protected
by the First Amendment. The free
SEDM Federal Nonresident Tax Statement is
than our original form and the package it is submitted with is much
shorter than our original form. Hats off to SEDM for a wonderful
job. Like our original example tax return, this form is free
and therefore protected by the First Amendment.
- We have made our writings
less emotional and more spiritual and informational.
This maintains more of a religious and educational rather than political
flavor to our writings.
- The Anti-Propaganda
Sections of the Website have been Considerably Strengthened.
Now there is a rebutted version of
Dan Evans Tax Resister
FAQ, and the rebutted version of the
IRS Friv. Arguments Pamphlet has been considerably improved
to take into account all aspects of the
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid Pamphlet. This leaves no
room in the future for the government to attack any of the arguments
on this website.
- We have renamed the
Tax Freedom page to "Taxation".
This is appropriate because our goal has always been an honest and
accountable government that respects our rights and property, not
saving money on taxes. This has also had the positive side
affect of attracting more people who are doing things for the right
reason: Love of God and justice, and not "commerce" as our
goal has served to repel "patriot for profit" types who will just
give us a bad name anyway. There is not to be found the phrase
"tax freedom" anywhere on this website, based on a Google website
search, because that is not and never has been our goal and it attracts
the wrong kind of audience anyway. We want people who put
God and justice first, not profit or commerce. Same thing
for SEDM, we are told.
- The FREE Tax Freedom
Forms and Instructions Area has been refocused on a different goal.
Now it is called the
Sovereignty Forms and
Instructions Online. This is more in tune with our historical
goals, which have always been to help people disconnect completely
from the government matrix so they can become sovereign. It
turns out that sovereignty is a MUCH more popular subject as well,
and this has contributed significantly to increasing our traffic
and the interest in other areas of our website.
Sovereignty Forms and
Instructions Online has many new references under "Cites by
Topic", which were submitted as a result of lessons learned during
Sovereignty and Freedom page
has been considerably expanded based on the government's behavior
during the litigation process. We have expanded discussion
of all the things the government agreed with Hansen on by their
silence and failure to rebut.
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for why silence on the part of the
government proves that Hansen was right.
- Hansen donated his
litigation materials to SEDM and they have been published and made
available for free. SEDM has been watching this case
and they have added a whole new area called "Litigation
Tools" that contains some of these materials. Every one
of our their readers can therefore learn from and use these materials
and be blessed from lessons learning fighting a corrupted government
- All of our white papers
have been reformatted and improved to make them useful during litigation.
Now, the title is on the bottom of the page and there is a little
area in the lower right corner for writing the exhibit number.
This is consistent with the way pleadings are, in which everything
has to go in the footer based on the way they are bound with the
two hole punch at the top of each page.
- Our "Why
You are a 'national', 'state national', and Constitutional but not
Statutory 'Citizen'" pamphlet has been considerably improved
and questions have been added to the end. Now, our
readers have even more potent proof that they are "nationals" but
not "citizens" and therefore "nonresidents but not aliens".
Discussion of the differences between "statutory" and "constitutional"
citizens has been added so that people don't
falsely presume that a "citizen" under
8 U.S.C. §1401 is the same as the "citizen" mentioned in Section
1 of the
- Legal Arguments Used
on this Website Have Been Considerably Strengthened.
Being put under the microscope by the Courts has improved the potency
of the arguments used in Family Guardian publications and made them
much better. For instance, the "Positive Law" and "Implementing
Regulations" arguments have been completely repackaged and now both
of them have been focused onto the need of publication in the Federal
Register not only of enforcement regulations, but all laws "having
general applicability and legal affect". You can read about
this revised approach in
IRS Hoax, Sections 5.4 through 22.214.171.124.
- The website has been
depersonalized and transferred to third parties. None
of the pages indicate the names of individual authors. Family
Guardian Fellowship, as a religious fellowship group, is the author.
The website domain owner, the administrator, and the authors are
three or more different people who operate anonymously so that none
of them can become the target of any future persecution. You
will not see any of their names mentioned anywhere on this website.
Contact Us Page has
been improved. Now readers wishing to contact any of
the website authors must unconditionally agree to all of the terms
of the Copyright/Software/User
License Agreement found on the
Disclaimer page. This
ensures that government moles who attempt to contact us will become
Substitute Defendants under the agreement if they later try to testify
- All of the free books
available on Family Guardian that contain tax information now have
an expanded Disclaimer. The new disclaimer now identifies
the entire content of the book as religious and political beliefs
and speech that are not factual and not actionable and not admissible
as evidence pursuant to
In short: Thanks DOJ for helping us improve this
website based on your comments. We like what it has become and
so do the members of this religious and political fellowship, because
the use of the website has doubled. It is so much more relevant
than it was before. You could have achieved the same result administratively
and avoided the fraud, waste, and abuse of probably $200K in taxpayer
dollars by simply approaching us administratively with your suggestions
for improvement and rebuttals to the materials here. You will
note that our
About Us page section 19 has always invited you to approach us administratively,
and you arrogantly refused this, so you paid for it dearly. Now
you need to apologize to all the people you will have to steal
from in order to pay for the extravagant, unnecessary, and wasteful
use of government funds resulting from your bungling of this case and
the needless, malicious, and
presumptuous prosecution you wrongfully undertook against Hansen.
We encourage our readers to call the
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline of the U.S. DOJ to complain about
this abuse of taxpayer dollars.
"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to
shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world
to put to shame the things which are mighty;"
Cor. 1:27, Bible, NKJV]
"The ear that hears the rebukes of life Will abide among the
15:31, Bible, NKJV]
"When the scoffer is punished, the simple is made wise; But when
the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge."
21:11, Bible, NKJV]
"Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you."
9:8, Bible, NKJV]
"Rebuke is more effective for a wise man than a hundred blows
on a [ignorant and
17:10, Bible, NKJV]
"A wise man will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding
will attain wise counsel,"
1:5, Bible, NKJV]
"Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning."
9:9, Bible, NKJV]
"A wise man scales the city of the mighty, And brings down the
21:22, Bible, NKJV]
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe [the lawyer]? Where is
the disputer [SATAN] of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom
of this world?"
Cor. 1:20, Bible, NKJV]
Subsequent to the ruling, the DOJ issued a false
and fraudulent press release:
Click here to view
The content of the propaganda press release reads
WASHINGTON [DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS]- The [IN]Justice
Department announced today that a federal court has permanently
barred San Diego resident ________ Hansen from promoting a
tax evasion scheme. Hansen promotes a number of tax-fraud schemes
using the business names of the Family Guardian and the Sovereignty
Education and Defense Ministry. The civil injunction order bans
Hansen from making fraudulent statements in connection with his
scheme, including the false statements that only federal workers
are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, workers need not submit
accurate withholding forms, and that United States citizens are
not subject to federal income taxes.
The court’s opinion states that Hansen sells products to help
customers evade paying federal taxes and obstruct IRS examinations.
According to the opinion, Hansen assists customers in preparing
false or fraudulent tax returns or tells them not to file at all.
Hansen also markets a “Citizenship Administrative Repudiation” program
in which his customers purportedly give up their “U.S. citizenship”
in favor of “American National citizenship,” which Hansen claims
makes customers no longer liable for federal income taxes. The court
found that Hansen knew or should know that the theories he uses
to urge persons to avoid paying taxes are false or fraudulent. The
injunction was filed on June 1, 2006.
The court’s order requires Hansen to remove from his Web sites
all advertising for his fraudulent tax programs and to post the
permanent injunction order on the Web sites. Hansen must also provide
the government the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers
and social security numbers of those persons who have purchased
All of the following statements within the press
release are absolutely false. The DOJ, not Hansen, should be enjoined
commercial speech" because their press releases are designed to
maximize the flow of unlawful commerce to the federal government:
- FALSE STATEMENT:
"The Justice Department announced today that a federal court has
permanently barred San Diego resident _________________ Hansen from
promoting a tax evasion scheme."
The government never proved that Hansen was a "resident of San Diego"
and he denied that assertion in his
Answer under penalty of perjury. Since they never argued
against that affidavit, they agree and further stipulate that they
are LYING. That statement is an unlawful presumption at best
and a LIE at worst, not a fact that was ever established.
is defined in
26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) as an "alien" with a domicile in the
District of Columbia and he specifically denied in the
Answer being a "U.S.
person", which includes "residents". The federal PseudoCourt
banned the person who Hansen was representing, which is IRS Agent
David Gordon. He was under private contract with Gordon to
represent Gordon, who was the substitute Defendant pursuant to the
SEDM Member Agreement. The government may not lawfully
interfere with the private right to contract or the enforcement
of all the provisions of the contract. Gordon made himself
personally subject to the agreement by virtue of ordering and downloading
the privileged materials on the website. He never denied that
he wasn't, and his affidavit that he downloaded the materials attached
to the Motion for Summary Judgment is proof that he made himself
into a Member subject to the
As a foreign sovereign protected by the
Foreign Immunities Act and a "nonresident
but not alien", Hansen never made a personal appearance before
the PseudoCourt, never consented to the jurisdiction of either the
PseudoCourt or the magistrate. He provided all the evidence
to support this in his Answer, and neither the PseudoCourt nor the
Plaintiff disproved it with evidence or even denied it. Therefore,
he is protected, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6).
This is confirmed below by the Annotated Constitution, Article III:
Once a foreign government avails itself of the privilege
of suing in the courts of the United States [by making a voluntary
it subjects itself to the procedure and rules of decision governing
those courts and accepts whatever liabilities the court may
decide to be a reasonable incident of bringing the suit.
Annotated, Article III, Congressional Research Service]
Since the PseudoCourt never explained what provision of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act was satisfied that might make Hansen subject,
they agreed that he wasn't subject, pursuant to the
Federal Pleading Attachment attached to nearly every pleading
he submitted. Therefore, their ruling was a political ruling
applying to federal territory or franchises, neither of which Hansen
has any involvement in within the context of these proceedings.
- FALSE STATEMENT:
"The civil injunction order bans Hansen from making fraudulent statements
in connection with his scheme, including the false statements that
only federal workers are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, workers
need not submit accurate withholding forms, and that United States
citizens are not subject to federal income taxes."
The only party making fraudulent statements is the Dept. of Justice,
because there is nothing on any of the websites in question or in
the communications about them that is factual and therefore susceptible
of being false or fraudulent. See the
Family Guardian Disclaimer
SEDM Disclaimer. It has been this way since long before
the complaint was filed. The real injunction should be and
is against the DOJ, based on the
SEDM Member Agreement, who made many fraudulent statements about
Hansen. The "opinion" never identified any physical evidence
upon which to identify false statements. Without specific
statements being identified, the "Strict Scrutiny" standard for
constitutional review was not properly invoked and the order is
void because it violates due process of law. None of the alleged
evidence upon which the PseudoCourt relied was admissible as evidence
upon which to make an injunction.
Federal Rule of Evidence 610 says that religious beliefs and
opinions are not admissible as evidence, and the
Family Guardian Disclaimer
Disclaimer both identify EVERYTHING on each of the respective
websites as "religious and political beliefs that are not factual
or actionable". A ruling issued without any admissible evidence
of the actual speech to be enjoined, or proving that it was factual
is nothing but a presumption or an opinion that can have not binding
force or effect because it violates
of law. Courts are not allowed to engage in either "presumption"
or "political questions" because it violates the separation of powers
doctrine and essentially makes the PseudoCourt into a "political
church" and the PseudoJudge into a "priest". You will
also note that as an Article IV court, the PseudoCourt was acting
in this case as an extension of the Executive Branch, not the
Judicial Branch. Rebut
the overwhelming evidence for yourself if you disagree.
Thus, while we do not question that our due process assessment
must pay keen attention to the particular burdens faced by the
Executive in the context of military action,
it would turn our
system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a
citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to
the factual basis for his detention by his government simply
because the Executive [the Judge in this case, by prejudicially
and illegally refusing to admit ANY evidence provided by Hansen]
opposes making available such a challenge. Absent
suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen
detained as an enemy
combatant is entitled to this process.
Because we conclude
that due process demands some system for a citizen detainee
to refute his classification, the proposed "some evidence" standard
is inadequate. Any process in which
the Executive's factual assertions go wholly unchallenged or
are simply presumed correct without any opportunity for the
alleged combatant to demonstrate otherwise falls constitutionally
v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)]
The government never proved any of the following
necessary to even issue such an injunction, all of which are MANDATORY
methods of satisfying the
government's burden of proof in moving forward:
- That Hansen is a "taxpayer"
subject to the Internal Revenue Code.
for an article on this subject.
- That the sections of the Internal Revenue Code cited as
authority in this case, being 6700, 6701, 7408, were enacted
into positive law and are therefore admissible as evidence in
this case. Right now, they are only "prima facie" evidence,
meaning "presumed" evidence, which is inadmissible as evidence
if it violates the Constitutionally protected rights of Hansen.
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
- That Hansen owned the website domains in question.
- That the above three statements were made on any of the
websites in question.
- That they were factual, and that the speaker, whoever that
is, intended for them to be factual.
- That anyone paid money to Hansen personally to obtain the
factual speech in question.
- That the money paid constituted "commerce" within the meaning
of federal jurisdiction, which means that it involved interstate
commerce, where the "States" referred to are ONLY federal territories.
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
- That Hansen was the originator of said speech.
- That the speech was not religious and political statements
or beliefs that are NOT factual and instead are identified by
the speaker as actionable.
- That based on paying to obtain the factual speech and relying
upon it as fact, the party was injured personally and materially
by said reliance.
- That the party who paid the money did so within the territorial
jurisdiction of the protecting court, which means on federal
territory within the judicial district where the case was tried.
- That Hansen maintained a domicile on federal territory within
the exterior limits of the district.
- That Hansen maintained a domicile within an internal revenue
district such that the I.R.C. could be applied against him.
The only remaining internal revenue district is in the District
The government satisfied NONE of the above
criteria for issuing the injunction. In fact, Hansen specifically
pointed out in the
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and the
Petition to Amend the Pleadings that all of the statements or
positions falsely attributed to him above were in fact specifically
rebutted in the
Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid pamphlet. This pamphlet
says it supersedes everything else on any website it is posted on
and it was posted at the time the Answer was filed and the time
the Summary Judgment was granted. Therefore, there is no basis
to believe that he ever advocated these positions at the time the
Complaint was filed or at the time the
Summary Judgment was issued. The Kangaroo PseudoCourt
and the Plaintiff are practicing religion based on
presumption, not law, and this is a violation of the First Amendment
establishment clause. The government is LYING, and this ought
to be quite evident to any reasonably intelligent person.
- FALSE STATEMENT:
"According to the opinion [not RULING, but OPINION, because the
PseudoCourt is in the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
Click here for details], Hansen assists customers in preparing
false or fraudulent tax returns or tells them not to file at all.
Hansen also markets a “Citizenship Administrative Repudiation” program
in which his customers purportedly give up their “U.S. citizenship”
in favor of “American National citizenship,” which Hansen claims
makes customers no longer liable for federal income taxes."
Hansen stated many times in the pleadings and in Deposition Transcript
under penalty of perjury that he has never and will never prepare
tax returns for any third party. The DOJ never disagreed with
this and therefore pursuant to
Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), agrees that it is committing perjury
and making fraudulent statements in the above statement. The
DOJ has the word "opinion" right.
F.R.E. 610 says opinions are not admissible as evidence.
Because the PseudoJudge's ruling is not based on any physical evidence,
it is simply a "religious belief and opinion" and he is practicing
religion. The Church is the "District Court", he is the Priest,
who wears the black robe, the attorneys are his "Deacons", who are
licensed by the Chief Priests of the state supreme PseudoCourt to
conduct the "worship services". The Bench is the Altar of
Baal, and the people who come before him bow down and worship him
by making an "appearance", and thereby voluntarily consenting to
jurisdiction that he does not have and conferring god-like authority
over those before him. Everything that proceeds out of his
mouth, if permitted to go unchallenged or if his superiors refuse
to hold him accountable to the rule of law, becomes "law".
This describes the practice of witchcraft and pagan religion, not
"Law is in every
culture religious in origin. Because law governs
man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning
of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious,
in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns
of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise
in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition
of this religious nature of law.
Second, it must
be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god
of that society.If
law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of
that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court,
senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system.
Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a religiously humanistic
All Man-Made Law is Religious in Nature]
Furthermore, if they really were "tax evasion schemes", then
the IRS would have a remedy at law and would not need to seek an
injunction in the first place.
26 U.S.C. §7201 makes "tax evasion" illegal, and that
is a legal remedy. Injunctions are only appropriate where
there is no remedy at law. By calling it an unlawful "tax
evasion schemes" out of one side of their mouth, and proceeding
to get an injunction that cannot involve violations of law, then
the DOJ just admitted it is LYING because both things cannot be
simultaneously true. The DOJ also lied by saying "Hansen claims...".
Hansen never claimed anything of the sort and the government never
produced any physical evidence linking Hansen to any of the statements
found on any of the websites. This is a presumption, not a
fact. Presumptions may not be used as a substitute for evidence
without violating due process of law and producing a void judgment.
Click here for details. Until physical evidence is produced
from a neutral, disinterested third party that Hansen made the alleged
statements, that they were
or political beliefs and opinions that are not admissible, then
it is presumptuous, prejudicial and it constitutes a serious libel
to claim or allege that Hansen made such statements when he specifically
said during the deposition under penalty of perjury that he didn't.
- FALSE STATEMENT:
"The court found that Hansen knew or should know that the theories
he uses to urge persons to avoid paying taxes are false or fraudulent.
The injunction was filed on June 1, 2006."
The PseudoCourt didn't find any such thing. You can't lawfully
convict a person entirely upon
presumption and absent any physical evidence, and doing so is
an act of tyranny, slavery, and injustice. Presumption and
belief are neither evidence nor a substitute for evidence according
Federal Rule of Evidence 610, and that is all the Kangaroo PseudoCourt
and "PseudoJudge" was operating upon. The de facto PseudoJudge
was practicing religion, not law, so he could duck out of having
a trial or even a hearing and avoid REAL embarrassment for the government
when all of its LIES are exposed on the public record in plain view.
"A presumption is not evidence."
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1185]
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment contained Exhibit
11 attached to the Memorandum of Law, in which the government's
own claims about the basis for "reasonable
belief" were explained and quoted from the law and the Supreme
That pamphlet showed that the only basis for reasonable belief
was the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt and not lower PseudoCourts, the
Constitution, and the Statutes at Large after January 2, 1939.
The PseudoCourt and the Plaintiff were asked to refute the government's
own statements on what forms a basis for
reasonable belief and it could not and did not. Pursuant
Federal Pleading Attachment attached to the
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6) and pursuant to the
fiduciary duty of the U.S. Attorney and the PseudoJudge handling
this case, silence on this important subject is a breach of fiduciary
duty that is unlawful and not permissible and they had a duty to
speak and risked default judgment if they didn't.
Click here for details. Therefore, they defaulted and
agreed with the
Reasonable Belief pamphlet that:
- The only basis for reasonable belief is the rulings of the
U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt, the Statutes at Large after January
2, 1939, and the Constitution.
- The Internal Revenue Code is not a basis for reasonable
belief, because it is only "presumed" to be law ("prima facie")
and the Plaintiff did not prove with evidence that it was in
fact "law" in this case using the sources of reasonable belief
- That the government has rendered it impossible for Hansen
to know what a reasonable basis for belief is, because it contradicted
the prominent government authorities on this subject and the
government's own words, producing a ambiguous order that is
impossible to know or follow and in which the Rule of Lenity
protects Hansen if criminal contempt follows.
This expansive construction of § 666(b) is, at the very
with the rule of lenity
-- which the
Court does not discuss. This principle requires that, to
the extent that there is any ambiguity in the term "benefits,"
we should resolve that ambiguity in favor of the defendant.
See United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347 (1971) ("In
various ways over the years, we have stated that, when choice
has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress
has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the
harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have
spoken in language that is clear and definite" (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
v. United States, 529 U.S. 667 (2000)]
- FALSE STATEMENT:
"The court’s order requires Hansen to remove from his Web sites
all advertising for his fraudulent tax programs and to post the
permanent injunction order on the Web sites. Hansen must also provide
the government the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers
and social security numbers of those persons who have purchased
The PseudoCourt did not issue an order. It issued an "opinion",
by its own admission, and opinions are not admissible as evidence
pursuant to F.R.E. 610. It is a legislative, Article IV, political
court that is in the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
Click here for details. Consequently, it knows that it
can't order anyone to do anything who does not reside on federal
territory and who is not engaged in federal contracts, agency, employment,
or the management of federal property. The "customers"
it is talking about only include "taxpayers"
who are subject to the Internal Revenue Code, and the
Family Guardian Disclaimer
SEDM Member Agreement exclude "taxpayers",
and those engaged in any federal franchise from reading or using
the materials. This was the case at the time the complaint was filed
and continues to be the case now. Consequently, the
"customers" the Executive Branch corporate arbitration board masquerading
as a "court" demanded information about don't exist and never
have existed, with the possible exception of the government's own
witnesses, who are federal "employees" and who had to commit criminal
fraud about their status to even obtain any of the information they
submitted as evidence. The government therefore already has
all the information available about "customers", because it's own
"employees" are the ONLY customers. Members of a church or
religious fellowship who have to sign under penalty of perjury that
they are in full compliance with the
Member Agreement cannot possibly satisfy the requirement to
be a "customer". This was discussed in the Certificate of
Compliance attached to the
Petition to Amend. When the government proves that it
has jurisdiction in this case over persons not subject to the Internal
Revenue Code or any federal law as "nontaxpayers",
and who are the only persons authorized to view or read the materials
in question, then it will have standing to proceed further.
The only proper audience for "tax
shelters" are "taxpayers",
because a tax shelter is defined as an investment which reduces
the existing liability of a "taxpayer".
"The revenue laws
are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection.
They relate to taxpayers,
and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt
is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course
of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they
are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue
v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)]
“Revenue Laws relate to taxpayers
and not to non-taxpayers . The latter are without their
scope. No procedures are prescribed for non-taxpayers
and no attempt is made to annul any of their Rights or Remedies
in due course of law. With them [non-taxpayers] Congress
does not assume to deal and they are neither of the subject
nor of the object of federal revenue laws [and by implication,
any judicial proceeding].”
Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)]
Also notice that the DOJ Press Release did not
provide the addresses for the websites allegedly enjoined. It's
obvious that they did this because they wanted to avoid giving "free
advertising" to these websites and draw yet more attention to the unlawful
nature of this malicious prosecution and their criminal actions to illegally
enforce the Internal Revenue Code against persons outside their jurisdiction.
Following issue of the
PseudoCourt's opinion issued on June 1, 2006, Hansen filed a
Petition to Amend the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). The PseudoCourt issued its opinion on this request
on December 15, 2006. That opinion
- Refused to address the issue of the perjury contained in their
order relating to the nature of the speech as being "factual".
- Ignored all issues raised in the Petition to Amend except for
the exclusion of ALL evidence submitted by the Alleged Defendant
from the record.
You can view the PseudoCourt's amended opinion below:
Court's Response to Petition to Amend Pleadings (12-13-06)
Amended Opinion: Rebutted (12-15-06)
Amended Opinion (12-13-06)
Certificate of Unlawfully Compelled Compliance by Alleged Defendant
Based on the PseudoCourt's amended opinion and
the rebuttals above, it's obvious that the PseudoCourt:
- Has no interest in obeying the Constitution, which protects
religious and political statements and beliefs from persecution
by the government and from being taken out of the category of religious
speech and being put into the category of factual commercial speech,
over the objections of the speakers and contrary to the speaker's
- Isn't the slightest bit concerned about committing criminal
perjury under penalty of perjury in reclassifying speech that specifically
identifies itself as not factual and not actionable into factual
speech that can be regulated. After having exhaustive evidence
presented to the PseudoCourt of its own wrongdoing ON THE PUBLIC
RECORD, it didn't even bother to comment on its own wrongdoing,
much less remedy it.
- Is the only REAL source of "
false commercial speech" in this case. Its perjury on
the record is obviously false and the falsity obviously has the
commercial purpose of aiding the deceiving of Americans into becoming
"taxpayers" by covering up the truth. It ought to cite
itself for contempt of the the Constitution, the Internal Revenue
Code, and the Truth.
- Isn't the slightest bit concerned about obeying the Internal
Revenue Code. The various Petitions to Dismiss and the Petition
to Amend contained a long list of jurisdictional defects that the
Court remained silent on when confronted with the truth, and thereby
admitted their own wrongdoing pursuant to
Fed.Rul.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6). For instance, the Alleged Defendant
contended the following and the court agreed, by its failure to
deal with these issues:
4.1 Hansen does not fit the definition of "person" found in
26 U.S.C. §6671(b). That "person" is an officer of a corporation
or partnership, which Alleged Defendant is not. The rules
of statutory construction do not allow that definition to be extended
by presumption to include anything else, and neither the Plaintiff
nor the PseudoCourt proved otherwise.
4.2 There are not implementing regulations authorizing enforcement,
and that they are required in the case of persons who are not part
of the groups specifically exempted from the requirement found in
5 U.S.C. 553(a) and
44 U.S.C. §1505(a), of which Hansen was not a part.
It is clear to us that the main reason the government
pursued this injunction was not to protect the public, but to protect
it's own unlawful activities against prosecution and exposure.
No one who uses this information has ever complained to us about injuries
sustained as a result from simply reading it, which is the only thing
they are allowed to do with it. The government never produced
even one third party witness who complained about any of the materials
available here or connected them with interstate commerce subject to
federal regulation. What is happening is that people in large
numbers are sending the information on this website into the government
political petitions protected
by the First Amendment, and this massive political effort is causing
IRS and DOJ employees to quit in droves and to lose in court, which
is creating a
retention and morale problem
among agency personnel. That result is one of many political
goals this website has, described in our
About Us page. The
government is simply trying to stop the hemorrhaging of its own personnel
caused by their exposure to the truths contained on this website.
That is why they filter this website from access at their workplace:
They don't want their employees knowing or following the law, but instead
following "procedures" that violate the law. Like former IRS agents
John Turner, Sherry Jackson, and Joe Banister, informed government employees
are beginning to study the law for themselves privately and asking some
very embarrassing questions of their supervisors and are resigning in
disgust when they find out that they are being used essentially as ignorant
pawns in a grand scheme to defraud the very people whose job it is for
them to protect. They are beginning to realize that the ignorance
carefully "manufactured" in them by their duplicitous and criminal supervisors
is being exploited to cause them to engage in unlawful activity, criminal
racketeering, and fraud on a scale that boggles the mind, and that no
one but them personally are responsible for these abuses, should they
Click here to see an admission of this fact by three former IRS
The government is chopping off the hand that feeds
them and undermining their own livelihood by continuing to harass Hansen
or any of the websites it seeks to enjoin in this proceeding.
The goal of this website is to prevent violations of law and tax fraud.
This is the very SAME mission that the Department of Justice at least
SAYS they have and it is the embodiment of the "police
powers" of an independent "foreign
state" called the Kingdom of Heaven. How dumb and malicious
can you get! By trying to enjoin the speech found on this website
and the police powers it enables, the government is trying to enjoin
- Learning about the law.
"Every man is supposed to know the law. A party who makes
a contract with an officer [of the government] without having
it reduced to writing is knowingly accessory to a violation
of duty on his part. Such a party aids in the violation of the
[Clark v. United States, 95 U.S. 539 (1877)]
“One who turns his ear from hearing the law [God's law or
man's law], even his prayer is an abomination.”
28:9, Bible, NKJV]
"But this crowd that does not know [and quote and follow
and use] the law is accursed.”
7:49, Bible, NKJV]
"Salvation is far from the wicked, For they do not seek Your
119:155, Bible, NKJV]
- Volunteering to help the DOJ and IRS do their job by preventing
Americans from violating the law and encouraging and helping them
to obey it.
- Governing their own lives. The purpose of the Constitution
is to enable and protect as much self-government as the Sovereign
people wish to have and to enable them to manage and control their
SERVANTS in government, who are their "contractors", where the Constitution
is the contract. Implicit in their sovereignty is the right
to divorce the state and find a more cost-effective and just source
Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article on this subject.
- Helping to avoid clogging the federal courts with
STUPID legal arguments of people who haven't done their homework.
What judge wouldn't
want to aid such a cause?
- Having an accountable, law-abiding government that is the
the people rather than their tyrannical master, in fulfillment of
the legislative intent of the Constitution of the United States
What the government is attempting to establish
with this proceeding is the equivalent of a "thought crime", in violation
First Amendment. The information and/or activities it seeks
to enjoin are the dissemination of exclusively religious and political
beliefs and opinions that specifically identify themselves as not factual
and not actionable. The "punishment" for the politically incorrect
"thought" and speech is having to endure malicious prosecution and an
unconstitutional "bill of pains and penalties" in violation of
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution at the hands
of a PseudoJudge who has a financial conflict of interest and who is
under the influence of the very unlawful extortion that the speech seeks
to expose and oppose.
“. . .it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment .
. . to subject [a person's] liberty or [475 U.S. 822] property to
the judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal,
substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against
him in his case.”
[Tumey v. Ohio,
273 U.S. 510 (1927)]
"A judge should disqualify himself . . . where he has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party"
[ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(1)(a) (1980)]
The PseudoCourt's "Political Opinion" recommends
(but not "orders") that false advertising be removed from websites owned
by Hansen. Well, the problem is:
- Hansen doesn't own any of the websites sought to be enjoined.
- Nothing on this website can be "false" until it is factual.
The Disclaimer page says nothing
on this website is "factual". The PseudoCourt refused to identify
upon what basis contained on this website it rationally concluded
that anything on this website is "factual". The PseudoCourt's
Political Opinion is therefore completely irrational and makes no
- Neither this website nor the
SEDM website (that
we are aware of) has ever contained advertising of any kind and
has never made promises or assurances about the effectiveness of
any of the opinions and beliefs and information that are the
available there. As a matter of fact, the
About Us page Section 12 specifically prohibits advertising
or making any promises about the effectiveness of anything available
here. It goes so far as to say that anyone who promises you
anything is a "presumptuous fool"!
- When asked during the deposition of Hansen on 25NOV2005 and
on every subsequent occasion what the definition of "advertising"
is, the Plaintiff, U.S. Attorney Shoemaker and the Kangaroo PseudoCourt
have both refused to define it. Since the Internal Revenue
Code doesn't define it either, then it is impossible for Hansen
to know what they mean. His understanding is that it is "factual
speech" intended to induce someone to spend "money"
and since the Disclaimers say there is no "factual speech" on any
of the websites in question, "advertising" is clearly impossible
in the context of these websites or any communications with, to,
or about the authors or ministry members. Hansen pointed out
to the Plaintiff at the 25NOV2005 deposition that the definition
in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition excludes "notes", and that
Federal Reserve Notes are "notes" as defined. Then he asked
how it was even possible to induce a monetary or "commercial"
transaction under said circumstances. Plaintiff Shoemaker
was silent, so he tacitly concurs and stipulates by laches and retraxit
by tacit procuration that there can be no "commerce"
or the alleged "advertising" that produces it as legally defined
without lawful "money",
which the Constitution defines as exclusively gold and silver.
- The Kangaroo PseudoCourt couldn't and didn't point out the existence
of even one specific "advertisement" that promised anything in connection
with any of the websites it sought to enjoin. Hansen also
pointed out in the opposition to the motion for summary judgment
that promises are prohibited on both websites by the applicable
Member agreements. This makes it impossible to know exactly
what they were talking about when they referred to "false advertising".
It has to be factual before you can call it advertising, and there
is nothing factual on this website or the
SEDM website because
the Disclaimers say that nothing
on this website is either factual or actionable.
The determination of
whether it is "factual" is up to the speaker, and not the listener
or reader. Any attempt by the PseudoCourt or the
Plaintiff to redefine the significance of what someone said and
attach a meaning other than what the speaker himself or herself
attributes to it deprives the speaker of ownership or control over
his or her creation, in which case the speech becomes the property
and responsibility of the
rather than the speaker for which he or she can no longer be held
legally responsible without violating the
First Amendment. The protections of the
First Amendment would be unconstitutionally vitiated if the
government could arbitrarily redefine the meaning or significance
of the speech of others, and thereby make them into political or
Therefore, the PseudoCourt's statement was a "political
ruling", not a legal ruling and the PseudoCourt illegally involved itself
questions" which the
of Powers doctrine forbids. The PseudoCourt's own damning, unlawful,
and contemptible behavior simply confirms that it is really within the
Executive and not Judicial Branch, because it clearly is acting
in a "political" rather than "legal" capacity in the context of these
Kangaroo proceedings. It has done nothing but produce "cognitive
dissonance" in Hansen and is incapable of being rationally understood
or obeyed, even if he were the proper party, which he is not.
The ruling was non-responsive to all the facts and evidence before the
PseudoCourt submitted by Hansen, contained perjury by the PseudoJudge,
and therefore was an illegal and irresponsible miscarriage of justice
that constitutes a void judgment.
“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the
rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere."
[Pennoyer v. Neff,
95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878)]
Hansen pointed out in the Criminal Complaint filed
as Exhibit 1 of the Aff. of Matl. Facts of the
Petition to Amend that he would become an
accessory after the fact to the commission of felonies by the PseudoJudge
and the U.S. Attorney if he were to obey any part of the unlawful ruling,
which is therefore moot. He welcomes the chance to explain to
a jury of his peers why the PseudoJudge and the U.S. Attorney are the
ones who belong behind bars for contempt of the Constitution, their
oaths of office,
and the law. That contempt of the law and the Constitution includes
the following and many other infractions described in the Criminal Complaint
- Perjuring the PseudoCourt record by attributing to Hansen statements
that he never made in the order, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §1001 and
18 U.S.C. §1621.
- Violating due process by disregarding the requirements imposed
by the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme PseudoCourt.
See section 9.2 of the following pamphlet::
Nonresident Alien Position,
- Penalizing a litigant for the exercise of Constitutionally protected
rights. This occurred when the PseudoJudge illegally and prejudicially
excluded ALL evidence of Hansen from the record in retribution for
properly asserting constitutionally protected
Fifth Amendment rights. This constitutes a conspiracy
against rights in violation of
18 U.S.C. §241 and a violation of due process of law that renders
a void judgment.
- Involuntary servitude in foisting upon the alleged Defendant
the duties of a "public official" and thereby asserting unlawful
"eminent domain" over his time and resources in responding to this
malicious prosecution, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §1581,
18 U.S.C. §1589(3), and
42 U.S.C. §1994. The Federal Register Act,
44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1) and the Administrative Procedures Act,
5 U.S.C. §553(a), both require that whenever the government
imposes a penalty against a person domiciled in a state of the Union,
they must publish implementing regulations in the Federal Register.
The only exceptions to this rule which it cites are federal agencies,
personnel, federal benefit recipients, and members of the military.
In short, those who are "public officials" or federal contractors
or federal benefit recipients are the only ones specifically exempted
from the requirement. Hansen stated under penalty of perjury
Answer, Docket #05 that he was not part of any of the specifically
exempted groups. Since the government never denied this, then
Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), they admitted it. In his
Petition to Dismiss,
Dockets #42 and 43, he demanded proof from the Plaintiff that he
was and implementing regulations which authorized enforcement of
26 U.S.C. §6700,
7408. Since the Plaintiff produced none and the PseudoCourt
was silent on this issue, then pursuant to
Fed.Rule.Civ.Proc. 8(b)(6), they both agreed that they are proceeding
without authority and committing Treason against the Constitution,
punishable by death:
“In another, not unrelated context,
Chief Justice Marshall’s exposition in Cohens v. Virginia, 6
Wheat, 264 (1821), could well have been the explanation of the
Rule of Necessity; he wrote that a court “must take jurisdiction
if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may,
avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution.
We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever
doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended,
we must decide it, if it be brought before us.
We have no more right
to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than
to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would
be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur
which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them.” Id.,
at 404 (emphasis added)
v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980)]
If you want to know more about the MANDATORY requirement for
implementing regulations when dealing with persons domiciled or
resident within states of the Union, see:
IRS Due Process Meeting Handout,
The government would
have been much better off to leave Hansen alone. They obviously
haven't figured out who they are messing with yet. Instead, they:
- Basically admitted, just by initiating this injunction action,
that nothing on the websites they sought to enjoin is illegal.
You can only lawfully pursue an injunction where there is no remedy
at law, and therefore filing such a suit constitutes a formal and
official admission that none of the information or activities sought
to be enjoined violate any law. If the government later tries
to pursue a remedy against Hansen under statutory law, they will
either have to admit that the PseudoJudge in this case was in error
or that the I.R.C. sections they are citing as authority are not
law in Hansen's case because he is not subject to them. Either
way, we win. Thank you, DOJ!
“Since in a true libel situation,
an action at law for money damages will lie, the petitioner
must sustain the burden of proving that the legal remedy is
inadequate. See Murphy v. Daytona Beach Humane Society,
176 S.2d 922 (Fla.App.1965). In this area, however, it
is generally not difficult to establish that inadequacy, since
it is the highly unusual case in which the amount of damages
from a libel can be calculated.”
[Injunctions in a Nutshell, John F. Dobbyn, p. 77; West Publishing,
- Have created a huge res judicata barrier to future injunction
attempts. They shot their load and have no bullets left.
If they pursue an injunction again, they will have to prove that
there has been a substantial
change in the method of operation and the materials contained
on the websites they seek to enjoin again.
- Are actively promoting this and the
SEDM website by maintaining
the article about it on the DOJ Press Releases website that the
most primitive mind can see contains lies. Thank you, DOJ!
Could you also please add a link to this website in
your article to make it little easier for people to find?
Heee. . . .heeeee. . . .heee!
- Put Hansen through law school 101 class
- Through Hansen's successes documented here, they are now helping
us inform others, through this website about how to defend themselves
from the kind of underhanded, unlawful tactics the government uses
in tax injunction cases.
- Through its massive enforcement efforts against tax shelter
promoters, the government has unwittingly shut down all competing
sources of information so that the only thing people have left to
read is the TRUTH found on this website. In so doing, they
have granted us a virtual monopoly offering information about government
corruption relating to taxation. This will do nothing but
grow our "captive audience" of people who have been deprived by
you of the ability to read anything else. Thanks DOJ!
- Wasted probably $200K of "taxpayer"
dollars on litigation and prosecution, that was fruitless and actually
put them in a worse position.
- Are no better off discovery wise than when they started.
They have no new leads, witnesses, or persons they can pursue or
prosecute or have leverage with. They still don't even know
where Hansen lives.
- Showed Hansen where the weak points are in his armor and taught
him how to strengthen it for the next battle.
- With their telling silence on select issues, showed all of America
their weakest and most vulnerable points and the things that they
fear most. That which a man fears most is the thing he
to talk about. They also confirmed the truth of everything
on this website because Hansen asked them in most of his pleadings
and motions to remain silent on everything they agree on.
Click here for the attachment he used that totally boxed them
in if you want to reuse it yourself in your own litigation.
- Have turned the propaganda machine against themselves by showing
their true, dastardly colors throughout this proceeding, and did
so on the public record for all to watch and see and read about
indefinitely into the future. There was nothing "honorable"
about their behavior and especially the PseudoJudge who maliciously
mishandled this case.
- Have developed a HUGE exculpatory body of evidence that Hansen
can use in the future if they try to illegally prosecute him for
tax crimes. That body of evidence is now a Public Record that
cannot be excluded from evidence under the Hearsay Rule or
Federal Rule of Evidence 902. The evidence clearly shows,
silence and omission, that the
who knew or should have known their conduct was illegal was the
PseudoJudge and the U.S. attorney. Thank you, DOJ!
- Have a problem thousands
of times worse than when they started this malicious
prosecution. Look at all the new research on this website
he has donated and shared with everyone that wouldn't have been
there if the government hadn't lifted their sword UNJUSTLY against
him. Every time they mess with Hansen, he works
harder and shares everything he learns with everyone on the Internet,
which makes the government's problem
of times worse. When is the government going to figure out
that the way to minimize their damage is to just leave him alone.
He is like an Africanized colony of bees: When you attack it, the
bees relentlessly follow you out forty miles from the hive and sting
you to death! The key to keeping his productivity low is to
leave him alone. It doesn't take much to keep 3,000 U.S. Attorneys
at the DOJ busy fighting some VERY educated and effective freedom
fighters who are using this website.
- Through the process of litigation, the Plaintiff has repeatedly
notice" of the terms and conditions of the
Family Guardian Disclaimer,
Disclaimer, and the
SEDM Member Agreements, and thereby made themselves subject
to them if they download or use any of the licensed materials or
use them as evidence an any future legal proceeding. That
"public notice" is now a "public record" because it part of the
court record, which is a public record. They can no longer
claim "plausible deniability" or deny being subject. They
know this, which is why they refused to use the latest evidence
off these websites in the litigation.
- As a result of criminal behavior demonstrated by PseudoJudge
in this case, Hansen, others, and Ed Rivera decided to get together
and coauthor a book which exposes the origins of the corruption
and gives Americans everywhere some powerful tools for fighting
it. The book is called "What
Happened to Justice?, Litigation Tool #08.001 (OFFSITE LINK).
This book will hopefully go a long way in preventing the
unlawful pagan idol worship that has been going on in federal
state-sponsored churches called "district court" for the last two
God and Truth, and Justice will prevail.
The Lord will not be mocked, and neither will His humble servants.
These tyrants have awakened a sleeping giant and their problem will
be ten times worse now that everyone knows where the soft underbelly
of the Armadillo is and knows that the Government couldn't point out
even one shred of factual and false speech anywhere on Family
Guardian or SEDM after
putting their best minds in front of the microscope and going over them
with a fine-toothed comb. 5,000 pages of legal pleadings in the
record now and not one charge of frivolous or false from either
the PseudoJudge or the U.S. Attorney. Quiet as a church mouse.
Thank you, DOJ!!! And more importantly, thank you God for protecting
us throughout all of this ordeal from the robbers and thieves who run
the dastardly de facto "United States" government.
"Behold, the wicked brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood [in their pagan,
godless Courts and their
He made a pit and dug
And has fallen into the ditch [this litigation] which he made.
His trouble shall return upon his own head,
And his violent dealing shall come down on his own [deceitful] crown."
7:14-16, Bible, NKJV]
Hansen confided to us that after serving the U.S.
government for 26 years, he is ashamed and disgraced to admit how crooked
and covetous it has become or that he was ever part of it. It's
no wonder that we Americans are hated around the world by so many, why
we need terrorism guards outside of federal buildings, why no one wants
our money anymore, why the Arabs are switching over to the Euro, and
why America is headed for a HUGE financial train wreck soon: Because
our very own government:
- Has centralized all power into the hands of a few in what Mark
Twain calls "the District of Criminals", just as Thomas Jefferson
warned and predicted they would:
"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from
its expression,... that
the germ of dissolution
of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal
Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely
a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining
a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless
step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall
be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated
into one. To this I am opposed."
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331 ]
"When all government,
domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and
will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332 ]
"I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution
of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation
of both [the State and General governments], and never to see
all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn
from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought
and sold as at market."
[Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450 ]
"What an augmentation
of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building
and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all
the State powers into the hands of the General Government!"
[Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168 ]
"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show
by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation
first and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
The engine of consolidation
will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting
and corrupted instruments."
[Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341 ]
judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity,
without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated
[Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307 ]
"There is no
danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government
by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of
the Supreme Court."
[Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421 ]
here for more quotes by Thomas Jefferson like the above.
- Has made an entire country of sovereign Americans into
public officers" in an attempt to enslave them as
and bring them into federal jurisdiction, thereby
DESTROYING the separation of powers doctrine that is the foundation
of our rights and liberties.
for the awful truth.
- Creates endless mountains of debt and makes the people it serves
into involuntary surety to pay for the debt.
- Has turned nearly all Americans into "federal personnel" and
caused these people to unwittingly act as Kelly Girls (temps) for
the federal government on loan to private employers everywhere as
part of a giant private corporate monopoly and Ponzi scheme thousands
of time worst than Enron.
Click here for details.
- Has transformed itself from a
to a predator
that invades other countries on false pretenses, enslaves its own
citizens to pay for the LIE that is the war, and then feeds lies
to the public with impunity.
- Has made Americans into a manufactured commodity who are legally
dysfunctional and easy prey for the nearest government-licensed
attorney, whose only job is to sell you and your liberty down the
for an article on this subject. They are created in the image
of their new "parens patriae": as drones of the corporate
fascist regime who do not question authority and who do exactly
and only what they are told who are fired and become IRS targets
if they don't.
Click here to hear George Carlin's hilarious but true description
of this form of corporate fascism.
- Deceives Americans with "words of art" under the disingenuous
guise of "public protection". See:
- Has created a racket called the Federal Reserve that:
- Has been granted legal authority to effectively COUNTERFEIT
fiat currency. If we do it, we end up in jail and it is
illegal. This violates equal protection of the law.
- Uses its monopolistic power to counterfeit currency as a
way to coerce member banks into becoming agents for the federal
government. See 31 CFR §202.2.
- Abuses its power to counterfeit money to help the government
"invisibly tax" the citizens for any amount of revenue it needs.
- Forces member banks to act essentially as federal employment
recruiters. Those opening new accounts are compelled to
apply for government identifying numbers that make them into
public officers and franchisees for the government and who also
involuntarily become surety to regulate the supply of fiat currency
counterfeited by these member banks. The IRS' real function
is to retire excess fiat currency from circulation, not to fund
the government. They regulate the supply of money the
government just counterfeits whatever it needs. This was confirmed
by Ronald Reagan's Grace Commission Report.
See the following for exhaustive details on
the Federal Reserve SCAM:
The Money Scam, Form #05.041
http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf (OFFSITE LINK)
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
For proof of this impending financial train wreck,
see the following 60 minutes expose in which the Comptroller General
predicts a HUGE fiscal meltdown of the government:
U.S. Heading for Financial Trouble?
Public dis-servants within the de facto govenrment
will be judged by God for turning the bride of Christ into a WHORE.
Prepare yourselves for judgment unless repentance comes soon, wicked
servants in the government:
Alas, sinful nation,
A people laden with iniquity
A brood of evildoers
Children who are corrupters!
They have forsaken the Lord
They have provoked to anger
The Holy One of Israel,
They have turned away backward.
Why should you be stricken again?
You will revolt more
The whole head is sick [they are out of
their minds!: insane or STUPID or both],
And the whole heart faints....
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of
your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Rebuke the oppressor [the IRS and the Federal
Reserve and a corrupted judicial system];
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow [and the "nontaxpayer"]....
How the faithful
city has become a harlot!
It [the Constitutional Republic] was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in it,
But now murderers [and
and socialists, and democrats, and liars and corrupted judges].
Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.
Your princes [President,
Congressmen, Judges] are rebellious,
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.
They do not defend the fatherless,
nor does the cause of the widow [or the “nontaxpayer”] come before
Therefore the Lord
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
"Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries,
And take vengeance on My enemies.
I will turn My hand
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away your alloy.
I will restore your judges [eliminate the
BAD judges] as at the first,
And your counselors [eliminate the BAD
lawyers] as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful
1:1-26, Bible, NKJV]
The order is moot and doesn't affect Family Guardian
at all. This is a free speech website whose content is and always
has been not factual, not actionable, and exclusively religious and
political speech and beliefs completely protected by the
First Amendment. That classification of the speech is by the
speaker. No Court or government official has any lawful authority
to prejudicially and involuntarily reclassify what amounts to "beliefs
and opinions" inadmissible under
F.R.E. 610 and make them factual and actionable so as to bring them
illegally within the jurisdiction of the court.
"And by statutory definition, 'taxpayer' includes any person,
trust or estate subject to a tax imposed by the revenue act.
...Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the
federal courts do not have the power to create nonstatutory taxpayers
for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts..."
[C.I.R. v. Trustees of L. Inv. Ass'n, 100 F.2d 18 (1939)]
If they do, and if it ceases to have the meaning
imputed by the speaker, it also ceases to be the speech of the speaker,
and instead becomes the property and responsibility of the HEARER rather
than the speaker. It ain't our speech and we won't take responsibility
for it unless it has the meaning and significance that we and ONLY WE
attribute to it.
"The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods
of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
[Ellrod v. Burns (1976)
427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 2690]
there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it
is that no official, high or petty [and INCLUDING FEDERAL JUDGES],
can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion,
or other matters of opinion or force citizens by word or act their
faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit
an exception, they do not now occur to us."
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624; 63
S.Ct. 1178 (1943)]
"To permit the continued building of
our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each
individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought,
free from government censorship."
[Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley,
408 U.S. 92, 95-96 (1972)]
of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize
an exception for any test of truth - whether administered by judges,
juries, or administrative officials - and especially one that puts
the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser
357 U.S. 513, 525 -526. The constitutional protection does not
turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas
and beliefs which are offered." N. A. A. C. P. v. Button,
371 U.S. 415, 445 . As Madison said, "Some
degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing;
and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press."
4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In
Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296, 310 , the Court declared:
"In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political
belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of
one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade
others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at
times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have
been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false
statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the
light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses
and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential
to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the
citizens of a democracy."
That erroneous statement
is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the
freedoms of expression [376 U.S. 254, 272]
are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive,"
N. A. A. C. P. v. Button,
371 U.S. 415, 433 , was also recognized by the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sweeney v. Patterson, 76
U.S. App. D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458 (1942), cert. denied,
317 U.S. 678 . Judge Edgerton spoke for a unanimous court which
affirmed the dismissal of a Congressman's libel suit based upon
a newspaper article charging him with anti-Semitism in opposing
a judicial appointment. He said:
"Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the
political conduct of [IRS or government] officials reflect the
obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their
governors. . . .
The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of
appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public
requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct
and views which some respectable people approve, and others
condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact,
particularly in regard to a man's mental states and processes,
are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel
is taken from the field of free debate."
Injury to official
reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would
otherwise be free than does factual error. Where judicial officers
are involved, this Court has held that concern for the dignity and
[376 U.S. 254, 273] reputation of the courts
does not justify the punishment as criminal contempt of criticism
of the judge or his decision. Bridges v. California,
314 U.S. 252 . This
is true even though the utterance contains "half-truths" and "misinformation."
Pennekamp v. Florida,
328 U.S. 331, 342 , 343, n. 5, 345. Such repression can be justified,
if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction
of justice. See also Craig v. Harney,
331 U.S. 367 ; Wood v. Georgia,
370 U.S. 375 .
If judges are to be treated
as "men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate," Craig
v. Harney, supra,
331 U.S., at 376
, surely the same must
be true of other government officials, such as elected city commissioners.
Criticism of their official conduct
does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is
effective criticism and hence diminishes their official reputations.
York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)]
As always, we continue to extend a red carpet to
anyone from the government or private industry who wishes to contact
us to point out any of the strictly political and religious beliefs
and opinions that are not factual or actionable which appear on this
website that might be inconsistent with prevailing law. We have
always encouraged and solicited feedback in improving the materials
posted on this website so that no one is hurt or mislead by them.
"Let the righteous strike me;
It shall be a kindness,
And let him rebuke me;
It shall be as excellent oil;
Let my head not refuse it."
141:5, Bible, NKJV]
However, this invitation is not intended to convey
any intention on our part to depart from the
Disclaimer, which indicates that
everything posted on this website is strictly religious and political
statements that are not factual and not actionable and not admissible
as evidence under
Federal Rule of Evidence 610, except the
Disclaimer itself, of course.
The clear reason why the government has not and WILL NOT accept our
invitation is because if they did, they would:
- Have to admit that they have been violating the law by illegally
enforcing it against parties ("nontaxpayers")
who are not subject.
- Have to surrender "plausible deniability" about the illegal
activities they have been engaging in. This would make their
conduct actionable, fraudulent, and "willful"
beyond that point.
- Generate a huge body of admissible evidence on the court record
that other freedom fighters could use in federal court to put an
end to the illegal operations of the federal courts and the IRS
in unlawfully enforcing the
Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A within states of the Union.
- Have to acknowledge what constitutes a valid source of "reasonable
belief" about one's tax liability based on the
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
(OFFSITE LINK) pamphlet. They would thereby have to admit
that none of their forms, publications, statements, or telephone
advice are admissible as evidence of a "reasonable
belief", not only according to their own publications, but according
to the courts themselves.
Click here for details.
- Be compelled to be personally accountable under penalty of perjury
for every accusation or statement they indicate is false on this
website consistent with the
Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007 (OFFSITE
LINK) pamphlet. They would never allow themselves to be just
as legally accountable as those who submit forms to the government,
whereby all forms require a perjury oath consistent with
26 U.S.C. §6065. This is HYPOCRISY and a double standard
that is abhorrent to the "equal protection of the law" and which
federal courts should have ended years ago.
We'll keep updating and improving the materials
here using your great feedback. If you would like to research
the details of this case for yourself, see the following resources and
- Case History of
C. Hansen-administrative and litigation record
PseudoCourt record. Documents cost 8 cents per page, but everything
is available in electronic format.
SEDM Litigation Tools Page (OFFSITE LINK)-some of the templates
that Hansen used during his litigation, available in editable Microsoft
Lastly, don't thank or praise either Hansen or
Family Guardian for this victory. To Jesus Christ be all praise
and all glory, forever, and ever, and ever. AMEN!!!
"For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD
is our King; He will save [and protect] us."
33:22, Bible, NKJV]
Thus says the LORD: “ Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man
glory in his riches;"
9:23, Bible, NKJV]