March 08, 2013


TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER V > § 1692 is an act of Congress designed to protect natural persons ,1692a  The term “consumer” means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt, from abusive collection agency practices, see exhibit 1 of 9 pages;

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is incorporated in Delaware as a collection agency for a Puerto Rico company; INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE (IRS) /// For Profit General Delaware Corporation /// Incorporation Date 7/12/33 /// File No. 0325720, see exhibit 2 of 3 pages;

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is not a part of the United States government, see: Diversified Metal Products v. T-Bow Co. Trust 158 F.R.D. 660/ IRS 93-405-E-EJL, see exhibit 3 of 3 pages;

Several Corporations involved with the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE are also unlawfully acting under color of law as government agencies, see exhibit 4 of 1 page.


Notice for the agent is notice for the principal applies under this notice.

Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.”  Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).

Your silence stands a consent, and tacit approval, for the declarations of facts and conclusions here being established as fact, as a law matter and this affidavit absent timely rebuttle, will stand as final judgment in this matter.

Failure to reply with-in thirty days, establishes you are in agreement with the foregoing and are thusly legally estopped pursuant to: Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932, 1906, silence activates estoppel. 

I, Your Name Here, hereby reserve the right to amend this document, and am the only party authorized to assert the right to make amendments to this document as necessary, and in order that the truth may be ascertained and these proceedings justly determined.

Should any party possess information that will controvert and overcome this Declaration with specificity, please advise Me in writing by DECLARATION in AFFIDAVIT FORM within 30, days from receipt hereof and thereby, provide Me with your timely rebuttle, proving with particularity by stating all requisite actual evidentiary fact and all requisite actual law, and at no time in reliance on mere presumptive facts and personal conclusions law, that this Affidavit by Verified Declaration is substantially and materially false sufficiently for changing materially my declaration.

The Undersigned, I, Your Name Here, do herewith declare, state and say that I, Your Name Here, issue this with sincere intent in truth, that I, the undersigned am competent by stating the matters set forth herein, that the contents are true, correct, complete, and certain, admissible as evidence, reasonable, not misleading, and by My best knowledge, by Me, the undersigned. 

This document and all others pertaining to this issue may be recorded and thusly may be used at the discretion of its issuer for any and all matters as so allowed under Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and others, including, without limitations, the jurisdiction of the State of Arizona and the United States of America.

By my hand, this sixth day of November, 2007, Your Name Here.

 Signed: _____________________________________,                

 All Rights Reserved

Your Name Here
c/o 1234 W. Freedom Way
Phoenix, Arizona republic
near [85000]


Arizona state Republic                        )

                                                            ) ss.                           JURAT

Maricopa County                                 )

On the ___ day of ________, 200__, Your Name Here personally appeared before me and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed hereto and acknowledged to me that he executed the same under asseveration, and accepts the facts thereof.  Subscribed and affirmed before me this day.  Witness my hand and seal this ____ day of __________, 200__.

Notary Signature

My Commission expires on the ____ day of ____________, 20____.

Affidavit is 2 pages                    Exhibit is 16 pages                             Document number 2

                           certified mail number 7007 0710 0003 8330 1234


For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 7/12/33
File No. 0325720

Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 9/13/14
File No. 0042817

For Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 3/9/83
File No. 2004409

Non-profit Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 4/19/89
File No. 2193946

For-profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date 8/22/80
File No. 0897960

For-profit Delaware Statutory Trust
Incorporation Date 10/24/95
File No. 2554768

For-Profit General Delaware Corporation
Incorporation Date: 11/13/89
File No. 2213135



 A new concept that might be worth studying:

 Following are 4 concepts that when studied together may be an important part of the puzzle that have been recently discovered.

1) Nihil dicit judgement: This court order is actually higher than a default judgement and leaves no room for an appeal.

2) There is no accusation in civil court, therefore the word charge is synonymous with the word bill in civil court.

3) The IRS is a debt collection service.

4) Debt collection is covered under Title 15 chapter 4 sub-chapter V section 1692, not Title 26.

 Combining all of these facts into one concept creates a heretofore unused defense that appears to be valid.

When the IRS charges someone with willful failure to file under civil law they are really billing the victim. The victim then tries to fight using the Constitution and/or Title 26 without ever really requesting a verified assessment of the debt under Title 15,which gives the IRS the ability to be granted a nihil dicit judgement against the victim in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, making the bill lawful. Once the bill is deemed lawful the IRS gets to claim the victim is fraudulently refusing to pay a legal debt and therefore converts the refusal to pay into some kind of criminal act.

  In reality, since the IRS is nothing more than a debt collection service the victim can demand the IRS to verify the assessment, which the IIRS can’t, and if the IRS could, the victim can make the IRS take the action to the jurisdictional district the alleged debtor is in.

These are all recent discoveries and have been used minimally, yet separately. I am attempting to combine all 4 into one complete concept in a way the average man can use as a defense against the terrorist.

 I am getting a lot of calls and e-mails on Title 15 so I will try to explain our concept again. Use this with the previous explanation and people interested should understand the concept with very little research.

The first rule of winning in court is to win before court. The second rule is to make the other party argue about something other than the case at hand. IRS attorneys know this, so should we.

Going to court and arguing about taxes using Title 26 is ineffective for the following reasons.

1) Title 26 is used by the government to determine the tax. see Title 26

2) The IRS is a debt collection service, not a government agency. see Diversified Metal v. T-Bow trust/IRS

3) The bill issued by the U.S. TREASURY (under Title 26) becomes a debt collected by the IRS (which has to follow Title 15).

4) If you fight the IRS under Title 26, you are fighting something they have nothing to do with. It is like contesting the electric bill to the mail man, he will just think you are a nag and he can’t do anything about it anyhow.

5) The bill has already been adjudicated under nihil dicit judgement and stands if not contested under Title 15. You can not contest the bill under Title 26 since that is the government code on how to figure the bill, not the bill itself.

6) Demanding the IRS verify the assessment (read as bill) requires them to cease and desist (under Title 15) until the supply the docs.

7) The IRS can not supply the requisite docs and therefore you have beat them before court. see rule 1

8) If you go to court you can argue the correct issue, the bill, not how they determined the bill, thusly you can win by arguing the right argument. see rule 2

9) You can force the IRS to do the action in the judicial district, ie the court nearest the debtor, which they will not do, and therefore you won’t go to court. see YHWH’s scriptures.

a) See; TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 76 > Subchapter A > § 7408

§ 7408. Actions to enjoin specified conduct related to tax shelters and reportable transactions

(d) Citizens and residents outside the United States

If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in, and does not have his principal place of business in, any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated for purposes of this section as residing in the District of Columbia.

I know this seems over simplified, but a cursory study of unsuccessful IRS litigation against their victims will lead one to determine that one of the common denominators of acquittals is that somewhere or somehow the victim did some type of assessment request that was never affirmed. This is diametrically opposed to all the victims that lost using Title 26 and the absence of applicability to the code.

In summary, just like a charge in a traffic ticket, don’t fight the law and their reasoning, deny the bill and require them to prove it exists as a matter of record, before they make it a matter of record under nihil dicit judgement because you didn’t deny it.



A contractOR (government under Title 26) issues you (contractEE) a bill through their third party collection service (IRS), you do not respond. Third party collector service, whose actions and remedies are defined in Title 15, goes to court ex-parte and receives a nihil dicit judgement. You get dragged into a foreign court (USDC) and attempt to fight the contractOR and their rules for issuing the bill under the Constitution and/or Title 26, neither of which applies, since it is the bill being discussed not the entity that issued the bill or how said entity determined the amount. Any attorney would tell you this is a waste of time. You (contractEE) must first void the bill under the appropriate code (Title 15) and demand the case be kept in the proper jurisdiction (nearest judicial district).

In essence, Title 26 applies to the government entity that determined the bill and Title 15 applies to the collection agency attacking you for payment. Its almost incomprehensible to believe that legally Title 26, THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE has little to do with the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. This appears to be a well orchestrated word trick.



Here is the silver bullet, check it out.

Title 26 has nothing to do with the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; it only applies to THE INTERNAL REVENUE.

The give away is in Title 26 section 7802 (b)(1)(c)

(b)(1)(c) one member shall be the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue.

Hence, The Internal Revue Code not The Internal Revenue Service Code.

The Internal Revenue and the Internal Revenue Service are two separate and distinct entities.

The Internal Revenue is a government agency and is under the scope of Title 26.

Internal Revenue Service is a private for Profit Corporation and is under the scope of Title 15.

If you look up Internal Revenue Service in the Index of Title 26 you will discover it is only mentioned in a few sections. None of which have anything to do with determining the tax, they only deal with governance, collection and the like.



The following contains a complete reference from Title 26 detailing the distinctions between INTERNAL REVENUE and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. INTERNAL REVENUE deals with taxes on liquor, tobacco and firearms. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE deals with the collection of assessed taxes for the TREASURY and the INTERNAL REVENUE.

This concludes my cursory study of the distinctions. After reading the following listed sections I believe you all will agree with my conclusion that Title 26 does not apply to controversies dealing with the ability of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to collect taxes.

7802 especially (b)(1)(c)
7803 especially (1)(A)
7806 especially (b)

Nowhere in Title 26 is it stated that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has anything to do with assessing taxes,  that is done by either the TREASURY or INTERNAL REVENUE.  The distinctions between the two are far too numerous to accept as a scribners error. The intent becomes obvious while reading the aforementioned sections.



After all the studying I have done on this recent discovery about the THE INTERNAL REVENUE V. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, something just dawned on me that seems to be missing from Title 26. So here I am at 3 am going through the book from cover to cover and it is nowhere to be found. I get a lot of letters and docs from various agents of the IRS and their assorted cohorts and it is always there, but it is not on any of my copies of Title 26.

I have always hated seeing that satanic looking symbol and it usually makes me cringe more than the stupid wording underneath it. Its their logo, some kind of Nazi looking dead eagle. Its everywhere on INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE crap, but it is nowhere to be found in or on the Title 26 book.

Understanding the laws concerning copyrights and trademarks makes me consider this as prima facie evidence my theory is correct. If Title 26 was part of  THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE that logo would be all over the place. The reason it is not is because that would invalidate the logo since it would be used to commit an act of fraud.

This may not seem like a big deal but it would be like McDonalds not putting its GOLDEN ARCHES on its packaging.

Study points:
nihil dicit judgement

       Title 26
IRS logo not on Title 26 book
section 7802 (b)(1)(c)
IRS incorporated in 1933 long after INTERNAL REVENUE already operating
Diversified Metal v. T-Bow Trust / IRS
IR assesses and IRS collects

Title 15 Chapter 41 Sub V section 1692
verified assessment
judicial district



50 Titles and not one is about private corporations

·         Title 1 General Provisions
·         Title 2 The Congress
·         Title 3 The President
·         Title 4 Flag and Seal, Seat Of Government,and the States
·         Title 5 Government Organization and Employees
·         Appendix to Title 5
·         Title 6 Domestic Security
·         Title 7 Agriculture
·         Title 8 Aliens and Nationality
·         Title 9 Arbitration Title 10 Armed Forces
·         Appendix to Title 10 (Rules of Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces)
·         Title 11 Bankruptcy
·         Appendix to Title 11
·         Title 12 Banks and Banking
·         Title 13 Census
·         Title 14 Coast Guard
·         Title 15 Commerce and Trade
·         Title 16 Conservation
·         Title 17 Copyrights
·         Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure 
·         Appendix to Title 18
·         Title 19 Customs Duties 
·         Title 20 Education 
·         Title 21 Food and Drugs 
·         Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse 
·         Title 23 Highways 
·         Title 24 Hospitals and Asylums 
·         Title 25 Indians 
·         Title 26 Internal Revenue Code 
·         Appendix to Title 26
·         Title 27 Intoxicating Liquors 
·         Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure 
·         Appendix to Title 28
·         Title 29 Labor 
·         Title 30 Mineral Lands and Mining 
·         Title 31 Money and Finance 
·         Title 32 National Guard 
·         Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters 
·         Title 34 Navy (repealed) 
·         Title 35 Patents 
·         Title 36 Patriotic Societies and Observances 
·         Title 37 Pay and Allowances Of the Uniformed Services 
·         Title 38 Veterans’ Benefits 
·         Appendix to Title 38 (Rules of Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims()
·         Title 39 Postal Service 
·         Title 40 Public Buildings, Property, and Works 
·         Title 41 Public Contracts 
·         Title 42 The Public Health and Welfare 
·         Title 43 Public Lands 
·         Title 44 Public Printing and Documents 
·         Title 45 Railroads 
·         Title 46 Shipping 
·         Appendix to Title 46
·         Title 47 Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs 
·         Title 48 Territories and Insular Possessions 
·         Title 49 Transportation 
·         Title 50 War and National Defense



 How it works.

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE gives you their docs that you fill out, or they fill out. They then give the docs to THE INTERNAL REVENUE which says, “oh look this guy owes us this money”. THE INTERNAL REVENUE  then gets a nihil dicit judgement making the debt valid and turns the bill over to the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, a private for profit collection agency, for collection. You then fight THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE on the validity, which was already covertly adjudicated, under Title 26. The judge considers you insane since he knows Title 26 has nothing to do with THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and ONLY concerns itself with THE INTERNAL REVENUE. Which would be like taking something you bought at WALMART back to KMART.

This is also exactly what ALL other debt collection companies due for their vendors.


Lectlaw: JUDGMENT BY NIL DICIT, is one rendered against a defendant for want of a plea. The plaintiff obtains a rule on the defendant to plead within a time specified, of which he serves a notice on the defendant or his attorney; if the defendant neglect to enter a plea within the time specified, the plaintiff may sign judgment against him. NIHIL DICIT. He says nothing. It is the failing of the defendant to put in a plea or answer to the plaintiff’s declaration by the day assigned; and in plea or answer to the plaintiff’s declaration by the day assigned; and in this case judgment is given against the defendant of course, as he says this case judgment is given against the defendant of course, as he says nothing why it should not. Vide 15 Vin. Ab. 556; Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t. nothing why it should not. Vide 15 Vin. Ab. 556; Dane’s Ab. Index, h.t. Nihil-dicit judgement: a judgment entered against a defendant who has failed to make an effective answer (as because the answer is withdrawn or does not respond to the merits of the plaintiff’s case)

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1045                                                              Nihil Dicit.  He says nothing.  The name of the judgment which may be taken as of course against a defendant who omits to plead or answer the plaintiff’s declaration or complaint within the time limited.  In some jurisdictions it is otherwise known as judgment “for want of a plea”.  

Judgment taken against party who withdraws his answer is judgment nihil dicit, which amounts to confession of cause of action stated, and carries with it, more strongly than judgment by default, admission of justice of plaintiff’s case.  See also Nil dicit judgment



Just for information:

November 5 , 2007 was the day that some guy, through a serious of rather bizarre discoveries and epiphanies made a great discovery, really YHWH slapped some sense into this guy. That discovery being nothing more than a simple word game; THE INTERNAL REVENUE  and THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE are two distinct and separate entities.

When all the lawyers decide to quit defending their education and their own opinions and open their eyes to the simple fact that Title 26 has nothing at all to do with THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and from its very beginning the confusion was purposeful and done with malice aforethought.

I have received so many reports from all over the country from people who now know why the IRS is leaving them alone. These people, some by accident and some on purpose required the IRS to verify the assessment, some with and some without mentioning Title 15. Regardless, once these people demanded the verification the IRS went away.

My advice to everyone is to treat the IRS like it is what it is, a private debt collector. None of us would use Title 26 to argue against a credit card company’s collector service and in all reality that is all the IRS is. Their incorporation documents confirm this.

Don’t forget, there is no accusation in civil court, charge in civil law means bill, nothing else. Treat a bill as a bill.



This might clear things up, but if you have no background in law it might be more confusing. Read it until you understand it. When you do understand it you will be able to follow their road map to destruction, or get off the path. It might help to go down and read the summary first if you have no background in law.

THE INTERNAL REVENUE (IR) deals with the THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) under Administrative law (E).  This allows the 2 separate entities to communicate privately and off the record. They can also do financial dealings without reporting to the court or the other parties. It also keeps those pesky human and Constitutional rights out of the case since Administrative law (E) is under the executive branch and not the legislative branch.

The IRS deals with a person’s strawman under Administrative law (E). We want them to deal with us under Private law (B), which will cause them to name and hold accountable the actual human being that is attacking you, but they created the strawman so they would not have to. As long as you use Title 26 which is under Administrative law (E) you are treated as a corporation (corporation don’t have human or Constitutional rights). When you invoke Title 15, which deals with natural persons (which do have human and Constitutional rights) the IRS loses authority because they will now be treated by the court as what they are, a private for Profit Corporation. Under Private law you can deal directly with the human, and his real name, that is attacking you rather than the whole corporation. By dealing with the IRS under Administrative law (E), you can not invoke the natural person concept since it is not included in its definitions. Also, since Administrative law (E) is part of Public law (A), any conviction can be moved to another section of Public law (A) called Criminal law (F). But, when dealing with the IRS under Title 15 you are considered a natural person and can invoke Constitutional law (D) if they try to violate your rights. Remember, the IRS agents use pseudonyms to keep us from going into Private law (B). A good rule to follow is if the IRS is trying to stop it, you should try and start it. Private law (B) can not be moved to Criminal law (F) since they are under different legal concepts.

                                                     Summary                                                                          This is very, very important:                                                                                                     If you invoke Title 26 you stay under Administrative law (E) and you can not use Constitutional and/or human rights as your defense since they do not exist in Administrative law (E), which is for corporations.  The RS has the authority under Administrative law (E) to move the proceedings to Criminal law (F) since both laws are relegated under Public law (A). If you invoke Title 15 you have moved over to private law (B) and are to be considered a natural person, human being, and have Constitutional rights. Plus the IRS can not move a case form Private law which is its own entity to Criminal law (F) since that is under Public law (A).

Definitions of laws:

In general terms, public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population, whereas private law involves interactions between private citizens. Generally speaking, private law is the area of law in a society that affects the relationships between individuals or groups without the intervention of the state or government. In many cases the public/private law distinction is confounded by laws that regulate private relations while having been passed by legislative enactment. In some cases these public statutes are known as laws of public order, as private individuals do not have the right to break them and any attempt to circumvent such laws is void as against public policy.

A) Public law is the law governing the relationship between individuals (citizens, companies) and the state. Constitutional law, administrative law and criminal law are sub-divisions of public law.

B) Private law is that part of a legal system which is part of the jus commune that involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts or torts, as it is called in the common law, and the law of obligations as it is called in civilian legal systems. It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between natural and artificial persons (i.e., individuals, business entities, non-profit organizations) and the state including regulatory statutes, penal law and other law that effects the public order.

C) Corporate law refers to the law establishing separate legal entities known as the company or corporation and governs the most prevalent legal models for firms, for instance limited companies  Technically, a company is a juristic person which has a separate legal identity from its shareholding members, and is ordinarily incorporated to undertake commercial business.

D) Constitutional law deals with the relationship between the state and individual, and the relationships between different branches of the state, such as the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

E) Administrative law refers to the body of law which regulates bureaucratic managerial procedures and is administered by the executive branch of a government and to the body of law that defines the powers of administrative agencies; rather than the judicial or legislative branches (if they are different in that particular jurisdiction). This body of law regulates international trade, manufacturing, pollution, taxation, and the like. Also called regulatory law, it is the body of law that arises from the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law. Administrative law expanded greatly during the twentieth century.

F) Criminal law involves the state imposing sanctions for crimes committed by individuals so that society can achieve justice and a peaceable social order. This differs from Civil law in that civil actions are disputes between two parties that are not of significant public concern.