Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005
LINK), Section 2.4.1.
The premise of this section is that all just
powers exercised by government are derived from the consent
of those governed, and that any power exercised by government which
is not based on consent is, by implication, unjust.
This notion originates from the Declaration of Independence, which says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
[Declaration of Independence, emphasis added]
When a government attempts to compel or coerce
persons into doing something, this is called an “enforcement action”.
If they do so through the authority of law, their action is called “distraint”,
if they do so without lawful authority or illegally, then their action
is instead called “duress”. Duress is the use of force without
the authority of law, or unlawfully. A synonym for duress, when
some form of property is demanded as the outcome, is “extortion”.
The main function of the IRS, for instance, is illegal extortion and
therefore organized crime.
We covered many aspects of the nature of what “voluntary”
and “consentual” really mean earlier in the book and you might want
to go back and review the following sections so you can read this section
- Citizenship is involuntary. In sections
4.12.3 and 184.108.40.206 of our
IRS Hoax we established that citizenship must always be voluntary
but it is seldom treated that way by the government, at least as
far as the courts are concerned.
- Voting is involuntary. In section 220.127.116.11
IRS Hoax we proved that voting was involuntary.
- Jury duty is involuntary. In section 18.104.22.168
IRS Hoax we proved that jury service was involuntary.
- Paying income taxes is involuntary. In sections
22.214.171.124 and 5.4.1 of our
IRS Hoax we showed that direct income taxes are involuntary
and amount to slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment
to the U.S Constitution.
- Socialism and communism are involuntary economic systems.
In sections 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 of our
IRS Hoax, we show that idolatry towards government leads to
socialism and communism, and that these economic systems rely on
force and fraud, both of which violate Christian beliefs.
We also showed in section 4.7 of our
IRS Hoax that the purpose of socialism and communism are to
elevate collective or group sovereignty above that of
individual sovereignty and that these systems violate the fundamental
natural rights of individuals.
- Capitalism is the only completely voluntary economic
system. See section 1.8 of our
IRS Hoax, where we quote from the book Atlas Shrugged.
Proof of the existence of duress upon a sovereign
American who claims to be a “nontaxpayer” provides the basis for many
types of legal remedies that can give you the upper hand in court.
Let us summarize a few:
- If the government obtained evidence from you under duress during
an involuntary seizure of your property that it can use against
you, then the evidence is inadmissible in court according to the
Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States.,
232 U.S. 383 (1914), because it was illegally obtained.
- If you were a “nontaxpayer” not liable for a tax but paid the
tax under duress, then you can demand from the court a writ of mandamus
to compel the IRS to return your money. See Austin Nat.
Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 242 (1934)
- If you signed any document under penalty of perjury but were
under duress when you signed it, then you cannot be held liable
for fraud and the document is inadmissible as evidence, even if
you knew you were committing fraud when you signed. The act
of signing any document must be voluntary and
willful in order for you to be held liable for any commitments
or representations you made on the document. Most tax returns
fall into this category, but few people could recognize or explain
the duress that they exposed to in the income tax process, which
is why so few people use this remedy.
In all the above cases, the burden of demonstrating
or proving the existence of duress falls on the party seeking the remedy.
The foundation of our system of free government, according
to the Declaration of Independence, is the “consent of the governed”.
Below is the definition of “consent” from Black’s Law Dictionary:
“Consent. A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily
yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence
or compliance therewith. Agreement; approval; permission;
the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Consent
is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing
as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary
agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient
mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed
by another. It supposes a physical power to act, a moral
power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these
powers. Consent is implied in every agreement. It
is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.
“Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of an interest
shall take place. Restatement, Second, Torts §10A.
As used in the law of rape ‘consent’ means consent of
the will, and submission under the influence of fear or terror cannot
amount to real consent. There must be an exercise
of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral
quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent.
And if a woman resists to the point where further resistance would
be useless or until her resistance is overcome by force or violence,
submission thereafter is not ‘consent’.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 305, emphasis added]
The key word from above is “voluntary”, which is
then defined as follows in the same dictionary:
“voluntary. Unconstrained by interference;
unimpelled by another’s influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself.
Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 33 S.E.2d 171, 174. Done by design
or intention. Proceeding from the free and unrestrained will
of the person. Produced in or by an act of choice. Resulting
from free choice, without compulsion or solicitation.
The word, especially in statutes, often implies knowledge of essential
facts. Without valuable consideration; gratuitous, as a voluntary
conveyance. Also, having a merely nominal consideration; as,
a voluntary deed.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1575]
The goal in proving duress is to show that your
actions were involuntary or compelled under duress, and
that the government exercised its powers unjustly and illegally because
they did so without your voluntary consent.
Your actions and your choices are involuntary or compelled under duress
if they were influenced or compelled or coerced by others without the
authority of law. If we want to show that our consent was not
properly obtained, then all we therefore have to prove is the existence
of any one or more of the following elements:
- Fraud or constructive fraud. If we can show
that our government deceived us in their IRS publications or by
obfuscating the law or by providing incorrect advice on their phone
support line, for instance, then we can show that there was fraud
or at least the appearance of fraud, which is what “constructive
- Duress, which means illegal force. Duress
is force applied outside of the delegated authority or territorial
jurisdiction of the government or the law. An example of force
might be arresting or imprisoning you, stealing your money, instituting
a levy on your assets or a garnishment on your pay, withholding
a government benefit because you refused to do something that the
law couldn’t require you to do, or calling up your employer to slander
you for not paying a sum of money they had no authority to demand
in the first place. As we point out in sections 6.4.1 and
6.4.2, all federal crimes are based on “Acts of Congress” locally
applicable within the federal zone and not within the nonfederal
areas of the Union States. There are very few exceptions to
this rule and no exceptions in the case of the Internal
Revenue Code. If the federal government illegally tries to
assert jurisdiction over you to institute the types of force above
and you live outside of their territorial jurisdiction, which is
limited to the federal zone for most federal crimes, then they have
applied illegal duress and anything you did, including
a tax return, that was influenced by this illegal duress was done
without valid consent. The courts recognize that all contracts
and all affidavits that were executed under the influence of duress
are null and void from the beginning. You only obligation
in order to make them void is that of proving beyond a reasonable
doubt that duress was applied.
- Mistake or error. Proper consent is
informed consent. If we were not full informed
of the consequences of our action or decision at the time we made
it because of fraud or misrepresentations by the government, then
our consent was not voluntary and therefore not consentual.
- Fear about the consequences of not signing or consenting
and originating from duress. For instance, if we were
threatened by the person who would benefit from us consenting that
we would be physically harmed or our property rights would be invaded
if we did not sign, and if these forms of coercion were instituted
without the authority of the law or our previous consent, then we
could not be acting without the influence of others and therefore
could not be acting voluntarily.
The purpose of this section is therefore to show
you how the government institutes duress illegally so that you will
be able to identify relevant evidence to prove the existence of it and
thereby be in good standing with the court to claim a proper legal remedy.
First, lets start off with a definition of the
word “duress” form Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page
duress: “Any unlawful threat or
coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to
refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or
would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes
his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would
not yield if acting as free agent. Head v. Gadsden Civil Service
Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So.2d 516, 519. Application of such
pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will, and
takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply
with unjust demands of another. Haumont v. Security State
Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2,6.
A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion
is void. Also, if a party’s manifestation of assent
to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party
that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is
voidable by the victim. Restatement, Second, Contracts §§174,
As a defense to a civil action, it must be pleaded affirmatively.
Fed.R.Civil P. 8(c ).
As an affirmative defense in criminal law, one who, under
the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human being to harm
him (or to harm a third person), commits what would otherwise be
a crime may, under some circumstances, be justified in doing what
he did and thus not be guilty of the crime in question. See
Model Penal Code §2.09. See also Coercion; Economic duress;
Extortion; Undue influence.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page
The key word above is “unlawful”. If you
can prove the government was acting outside the bounds of its delegated
or lawful authority and outside of its territorial jurisdiction, and
if you were being coerced in the process, then duress definitely
exists. “Distraint” is the application of force or coercion, but
does not necessarily imply that the coercion is unlawful. If distraint
if being used, and you can prove that the distraint is unlawful, then
you have duress. The content of Chapter 5 is the key to showing
what is and is not unlawful as far as the authority of the government
Now lets list some of the activities of the IRS
that are unlawful and which therefore could be described as “duress”.
Before we get into this section, you might want to go back and review
section 2.8.3 of the
Hoax, where we talk about Illegal Acts and and Legal Obfuscation.
With each duress activity listed below, we list the law it violates
and which gives rise to the remedy sought from the list at the beginning
of this section:
- Violating privacy illegally. Our government
does this when federal agencies sharing personal information about
you with other outside federal agencies in violation of the Privacy
U.S.C. §552a(b) and in violation of your wishes. Federal
employers very commonly do this, for instance, with personal information
about individuals, such as with home addresses, social security
numbers, and income appearing on the form W-2. The
only thing federal employers can send to the IRS iw what you put
on your W-4 or W-8 form. If you refuse to put your social
security number or home address or even your full name on these
two forms, federal employers violate the law at the end of the calendar
year by sending to the IRS, which isn’t even an agency of the federal
government, information that you never put on these forms or authorized
them to disclose, including income, your home address, and your
social security number.
- Violating the First Amendment. The First Amendment,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.”
The way the IRS violates the First Amendment, for instance, is by:
2.1. By using the Anti-Injunction Act and the Full Payment
Rule to force nontaxpaying Americans who have been illegally assessed
or distrained or forced to bribe the government in order to have
the right to litigate to protect their property rights.
The Seventh Amendment gives us a right to a trial by jury
to protect our rights, and yet the government has tried to turn
this right into the equivalent of a taxable privilege using the
Anti-Injunction Act and the Full Payment Rule by forcing people
to pay the alleged tax owed before they can litigate.
This prejudices their other rights in the process, because
after most people pay the alleged tax owed, they have no money left
to hire an attorney to get it back! See sections 3.4.2 and
126.96.36.199 for further details on this scam.
2.2. Forcing you to commit idolatry by paying the first fruits
of your income to the government. See section 1.9.1
IRS Hoax for details.
2.3. Subsidizing illegal or anti-biblical activities with
your tax dollars, such as abortions, illegal income tax collection,
drug asset forfeiture enforcement (violates the fourth Amendment),
idolatry, and most importantly, SOCIALISM (see section 1.9.2
- Ignoring requests for refunds, even when taxes were paid
under duress. Forcing you to litigate to get your money
back when you apply for a refund by either completely ignoring your
request or applying frivolous return penalties that the government
will wrongfully tell you that you must pay under the Anti-Injunction
Act before you can sue in Federal District Court to recover.
This has the effect of prejudicing your property rights.
- Threatening expensive and prolonged legal action against a nontaxpayer
who doesn’t file or pay income taxes in order to make them volunteer
to be a taxpayer, because it is too expensive and complicated to
hire a lawyer and litigate to defend your Constitutional rights.
- Sending “Notice of Levy”,
IRS Form 668-A(c
)(DO) to nonfederal employers or outside of the federal zone
or federal United States.
§6331(a) says levy may only be made on federal employers and
no one else, and yet the IRS sends this form to private employers
without a warning saying that if they are NOT a federal employer,
they should disregard the form. They then illegally
threaten private employers outside the federal zone into honoring
these bogus Notice of Levy forms by threatening audits or enforcement
actions on the employers who don’t honor this against their employees.
- Using the ignorance of the fear of the financial institution
or employer receiving the lien to coerce them under color of law
to honor the lien. Threatening or harassing private
employers with penalties or an audit who refuse to honor levies
or liens that the law says they don’t have to honor under
- Unilaterally instituting collection activity against a nontaxpayer
outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority,
which is limited to the federal zone or federal United States.
The IRS may not institute collection activity outside of
these territorial limits or on nonfederal land inside the 50 states,
unless the person claims to be a “taxpayer” who is liable for the
tax, and the only entity who can make them liable is themselves.
We have a voluntary system. This violates
- Sending numerous anonymous and threatening letters to a nontaxpayer
telling him that he is liable but not citing any legal authority
in violation of
- In most IRS correspondence, not citing legal authority for whatever
determination is made, which implies that there is no legal authority.
Then when you write them asking for the stattue or regulation
giving them the legal authority for the action they are taking,
they don’t respond, and thereby default and admit no authority.
- Assessing “frivolous return” penalties against Americans in
violation of their First Amendment Right to Petition the government
for redress of grievances and their right of free speech and in
violation of 26 CFR §301.6671-1(b). In the process
of penalizing, not identifying specifically why the return is frivolous
or even what the definition of frivolous is, which violates due
process of law under the Fifth and Fourth Amendment.
- In the response to a tax return filing, citing as authority
a federal district court case against a U.S. citizen when the person
they are corresponding with is not such a citizen
and is not subject to the jurisdiction of federal government because
they live outside the federal zone. This contradicts
§255 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.
It is always a violation of law for any government to impose
distraint or do enforcement outside of its territorial jurisdiction.
- Congress writing laws that do not clearly confine or explain
the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government, and the
federal courts refusing to discuss such issues in a court of law
in order to illegally expand their jurisdiction beyond the borders
of the federal zone.
- Instituting collection activity absent a valid assessment or
an established liability in violation of
- Illegally levying social security benefits in violation of
- Instituting a continuing levy that exceeds 15% of the pay of
the recipient in violation of
- Levying nonfederal payments absent a court order, in violation
- Deceiving or lying to a “nontaxpayer” or natural person by saying
that they are liable for a tax or penalty when in fact they are
not because of the definition of “person” in the IRS section dealing
with penalties, as defined in 26 CFR §301.6671-1(a). (Fraud
18 U.S.C. §1341)
- Garnishing or levying a person’s pay without a court order or
a due process hearing, even though the person requested the due
process hearing. (Violates Fourth and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
- Using the color of law to commit extortion or coerce cooperation
out of an otherwise sovereign American nontaxpayer. (Violates
- Making the process of minimizing one’s tax liabilities so burdensome,
complex, and time-consuming that persons who are lazy or less intelligent
will just throw up their hands and pay the maximum amount to avoid
the hassle. This devious approach encroaches on people’s
right to privacy under the fourth amendment.
- Demanding an examination against persons who refuse to file
or assess themselves under Subtitle A.
188.8.131.52 of the IRS’ Internal Revenue Manual clearly lists those
income tax forms for which the IRS is authorized to execute Substitute
for Returns (SFRs) and this section does not include
any 1040, 1040NR, 1040EZ, etc form. The IRS knows that
since they can’t legally complete a Substitute For Return (SFR)
using 1040 forms, they will try to harass or threaten “nontaxpayers”
into becoming “taxpayers” using an audit or exam. The
IRS won’t tell you that you aren’t required to show up at these
exams, indicate whether you have records, or bring records or cooperate
in any way whatsoever because of your Fifth Amendment rights.
Instead, they will try to exploit your ignorance and fear
and intimidate you into incriminating yourself and giving them records
they can use to prosecute you and penalize you.
- Judges being the subject of conflict of interest in the execution
of their IRS job, in violation of
- Judges being biased in the hearing of your tax case in violation
of 28 U.S.C.
- Agencies of the federal government writing regulations to implement
statutes that exceed the scope of the statute. For instance,
the Treasury Department wrote
26 CFR 1.1-1 to implement
§1 nowhere uses the word “liable” nor does it create a tax liability,
but the implementing regulation for it does, so it is illegal and
fraudulent on its face, and then the IRS goes out and cites this
illegal regulation as its authority for using distraint to illegal
collect Subtitle A income taxes.
The above instances of duress are clearly enforcement
actions, because they directly or indirectly impact sovereign Americans.
One of the simplest ways to prove the existence of unlawful duress
is to obtain a copy of the pocket commission of the IRS agent who instituted
the enforcement action. He must have an enforcement pocket
commission to institute enforcement actions. This means
that the serial number of his pocket commission must have an “E” at
the beginning, meaning “enforcement” rather than an “A”, meaning “administrative”.
See the following link for more information on pocket commissions:
Another easy way to prove that the agent involved
is acting outside of his delegated authority and therefore acting unlawfully
is to examine the Department of the Treasury Organization Chart, which
shows that the IRS does not fall under the Undersecretary for Enforcement
because it is simply not an enforcement agency and only administers
a voluntary tax, or should we say “donation” program. See
the following link for more information on a diagram of the organization
of the Department of Treasury: