Documents and supporting information in this section are intended to help you to do a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for getting a copy of your IMF Master File, and other information attached to your Legal Body.in this case your SSN. Before starting, watch this video.

These documents are educational, not legal advice, originally from Sovereign Living, a website that has now been taken down. Note, the Authors of this material have given permission for their use and reproduction as Educational material only - This is Not Legal Advice.

It is self-evident that innumerable people have engaged in endlessly diverse efforts to combat what they believe is unwarranted or illegal intrusions on life rights made by the IRS. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the copious litany of deceits and malfeasances, as well as illegal and unlawful actions, process, and procedures, which may be perpetrated by the Service, very few of the issues raised, or the manners in which they are deployed, ever succeed in prevailing. It is also self-evident thatIRS taxation and enforcement procedures has caused untold suffering to innumerable people.

The point of this article is, therefore, to answer the following questions:

1. Why do so few actions undertaken with the intent of prevailing against the Service succeed in practice, notwithstanding the efficacy of the issues raised?
2. What issues have been found in practice to work when one truly has been defrauded?
3. What practical processes must be done to proceed properly and ensure success?

To understand how best to proceed, it is necessary to know the rules of the game that is being played. People who go against the system must realize that the whole thing is a game, and, like all games, there are operational rules that define what the game is. To act without knowing the game one is playing and the rules that make the game what it is, is like showing up on a basketball court in full football regalia and wondering why the playing area is so small, the floor is so hard, the ball is round instead of oblong, and what those silly hoops are at each end of the court.

Some of the fundamental rules to understand for formulating an effective strategy of action are:

A. General rules

1. All law (of every kind, any culture, and any jurisdiction) is contract.
2. The rules of contract law are universal and essentially timeless; they are what make an interaction able to be labeled a “contract” as opposed to something else, such as a fraud, con, or irrelevant interaction with no definable basis for acting in any particular way.
3. The Ten Commercial Maxims,[1] which are essential principles/rules stemming from ancient times, underlie all law of the world.
4. The jurisdiction of law that prevails in the world today is overwhelmingly the private contract law of the Law Merchant of the Powers-That-Be and their multitudinous corporate entities (of which all governments consist), residing most fundamental in and from the Vatican. This is private, voluntary, international contract law, within a private jurisdiction that created and owns the law forum.
5. To succeed with the IRS or any other aspect of law we must know the jurisdiction in which the processes are transpiring and the underlying rules applicable to that jurisdiction on which we can depend for our procedures to have teeth.
6. The only thing to which those in the System appear to pay any attention is: “Can whatever this fellow is doing hurt me?” It must be presumed that, as in “love and war,” all things are fair game—and the System does not appear to be the practice of love.
7. The universal rule in legal/commercial matters operational today is the same in essence and principle as has existed for thousands of years. That is, if you have a dispute with your brother, you act as follows:
1. First go to him and do your best to work it out;
2. If that doesn’t work, take two or more witnesses and try and work it out with the assistance of the witnesses;[2]
3. Finally, and only after having done your best to resolve the differences by the above procedure, you go to the judges (take it to court).

B. Specific rules re IRS

1. Through the 1998 Reconstruction Act, the District Director was replaced with Territorial Managers, which had the effect of rendering the Director's office vacant and establishing the presumption that the records retained by IRS concerning taxpayers are presumed to be valid. Taking the position of the director out of the loop means that there is no longer anyone to hold accountable for verifying the accuracy of the IRS records. The Managers have no such responsibility, leaving the entire matter running on computer-driven automatic with the presumption that the existing records are accurate and no one in the Service obligated to ensure their validity or change them if they are incorrect.
2. Based on the above considerations, the entire IRS system is now automatically form-generated and operated by computer after an initial human input. As is common knowledge, the “names” on IRS notices are almost always phony—not the names of real people at all. In other words, none of the notices one receives bear ascertainable identities of people for anyone to hold responsible.

The crux of the entire matter—the key and solution to the riddle—is based on the union of the following principles:

1. The power in law is in the (undisclosed) presumptions, not in the “law,” “facts,” etc., which are rabbit trails to lure us into the woods and off-point, resulting in defeat. If, say, an underlying, undisclosed presumption is, “We always win and you always lose,” what difference does it make if you point out all manner of ways why what they are doing is against their own policies, procedures, statutes, laws, etc. The unrevealed/unrebutted presumption has not been destroyed and hence dominates the process, rendering moot everything you do otherwise. In this case the underlying presumption is that you are a business with income over $10 Million a year by engaging in an excise-taxable activity.
2. In accordance with the commercial process, we can rebut a core, underlying presumption only by holding some specific, living being responsible for his/her actions. This is accomplished by ascertaining the specific action of that being that is causing the problem and results in the money moving, i.e., gain to some at the expense of a loss to others, and confronting them properly to cause the removal of the offending information.
3. Until and unless the erroneous information on the computer that constitutes the source of the operational presumptions (such as the entry of an Activity Code of 532, manufacturing pistols or revolvers) remains unrebutted and removed from the records that drive the computer, the presumption that the records are accurate prevails, and the computers—which operate only on the basis of the data entered in them—will automatically continue to crank out the forms, notices, liens, levies, etc.
4. It is crucial to obtain a copy of the IMF and related records and have those files decoded. After decoding, act to correct the false information on the file so that the source of the incorrect information responsible for generating all the computer-generated notices, forms, etc., is removed. That stops the mindless mechanical generation of the forms.

When the above rules are properly invoked in practice, you can raise the crucial issues of law that cannot be declared frivolous. Changing the record in the computer in accordance with the errors of law, statutes, and facts appears to be the only way to proceed that they can’t overcome. The issues raised are the only ones that consistently win when things go to court. If we use any other arguments, they know in advance that we are basically fair game.

Many believe, the Constitution does not allow direct tax on individuals without capitation, meaning that all taxes that are not direct taxes requiring capitation are excise taxes—taxes imposed on businesses for engaging in profit-making, excise-taxable activities.

It is also widely know (see video above) that there is no section of the IRC that requiresan “ordinary American” not involved in an excise-taxable business, to file a form or pay income taxes. What triggers the mischief is the unrebutted presumption operating on the record that you are a taxpayer. Then the computer automatically generates an endless barrage of automated forms that plague you like “hosts of gnats and hornets.”

It is crucial to locate the transaction codes/forms 424 and 425. The 424 is where the data is located and was entered on the record in the computer that classifies you as a “business entity earning in excess of $10 Million a year” in excisable activities. The 425 is the code used to remove or change information contained in the record via the 424.[3]

It appears that there is not any way to proceed other than to deal with the form-driven system by utilizing forms to correct the underlying record responsible for the endless stream of automatic, computer-generated notices. Since the entire system is form-driven, there are no letters we can send that will stop the form-driven aspects of the Beast until we can get that file corrected so that the computer stops automatically sending out the notices. The PRA and Taxpayer Reform Act of 1986 require that forms be used for everything. In addition, the following items are germane:

1. It appears that all IRS personnel are “on their own,” and do not have the support/backing of the Service. Everything they do is as private individuals. If they get into trouble, the IRS will not come to their rescue. It would seem that there is a rather rapid turnover of IRS personnel as people find out they have been working for the Service under the delusion that they had official backing.
2. The particular bureaucrat that placed the erroneous information on the record is the unique free-will being that must be held accountable for his/her actions—not someone that was not involved in the process. They have acted on their own, and in an ultra vires capacity, by placing erroneous, fraudulent data on the public record. This constitutes a violation of innumerable sections of Title 18 USC, the criminal code.
3. As part of the intergovernmental IMF system, the IRS cannot be sued without its consent. One may wish anyone lots of luck obtaining such consent.
4. Bureaucrats deal only with what is familiar to them and is embodied in their job description. To send letters, affidavits, etc., to bureaucrats—especially ones who aren’t liable and cannot be made so—and expect them to then act unilaterally to execute whatever forms are necessary to change the record on our behalf, is manifestly unrealistic in the extreme. Such endeavors are not only not within their job description, but not something said job description would even authorize them to do.

Thus, in practice the first step consists of sending the Service Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain the records that provide concrete evidence from which to proceed. These records will include the 424 and 425, concerning which we need to know:

1. The full legal name, title, badge number (if any), and viable contact parameters for reaching the party responsible for executing each form;
2. The full legal name, title, badge number (if any), and viable contact parameters for reaching the party responsible for entering each form on the record;
3. All bonding details concerning each of the above-referenced parties, including all information on whom to contact to make a claim against the bond(s).

Through FOIA we can also obtain/determine that there was a transaction code Form 425, then we can ask for the information that was removed, as well as the party’s name, title, badge number, contact parameters, and the date the information was placed in the file that is causing the problem. Once we have that particular party’s name and position, and the information they placed in the file, we have something we can challenge, and we know whom to challenge for what. What they did is the source of the fraud. All ensuing problems were caused as a direct result of what that person placed in that file. If he still works for the IRS, then he can be contacted directly and placed on the hot-seat for placing the information there and be held responsible either to substantiate its validity or remove it (“put up or shut up”). Otherwise he will be held liable for civil or criminal charges for committing fraud.

In other words, what matters is the origin of what generates the automated, computer-generated forms. To stick the stiletto point to the nerve where the crux of the matter resides we must get to the ultimate commercial record where two things can be determined:

1. Details concerning how/why/where the money moves, i.e., the record specifies who pays and who gains;
2. Who is personally responsible (data does not enter itself—someone does it—and, because it causes commercial damage to someone, renders the party entering the data in the record responsible for those actions).

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 301 IRS is required to prove their claim that you are obligated to file and pay a tax. When they go after people for “willful failure to file” we must make them prove their allegation. The proof they must produce is the law that requires us to file a form and pay a tax. This is the penalty side of the equation.

The courts have ruled that all of the arguments usually used, such as citizenship, absence of any implementing regulations, and on and on, are “frivolous.” The reason for this is that the core of the record, from which everything is generated, is where the problem is—not in the administrative enforcements of the implications. The basis of the difficulty must be resolved, not the effects/symptoms. The underlying, unrevealed, and unrebutted presumption(s) that constitute the source of the exercise of power must be neutralized. Otherwise, the operational presumption from which the power derives stands unaddressed and is thereby in full force and effect.

We must remember that the power is in the underlying, operational underlying presumptions. You have to get down to where the record is that generates their forms where there is someone that made that entry. That is a real being, so he is commercially accountable. Nothing happens until you get to where the money moves—where someone gains and somebody else loses. If there are insurance companies involved, with underwriting or bonding involved, then you have some big guns on your side because such companies will not pay claims for actions done in violation of law. They don’t insure against malfeasance.

If one proceeds by using the usual arguments, all IRS needs to do is to point to prior case history and say, “This has been declared ‘frivolous,’ therefore we don’t need to hear it,” and one is dead in the water before even starting. All they have to do is look at the heading of a documents and see if we are using a frivolous argument anywhere in our paperwork. If we are off-point anywhere, we are fair game and they will come after us because they know that we’re likely to use those same arguments if they challenge us.

But when you start hitting the nail on the head, including rebutting all assumptions and presumptions that are inherent in their notices (such as the presumption that you are a “taxpayer”), you start winning. For example, if they call you a “taxpayer,” require that they provide you with what taxable excise-tax activities the IRS has you listed as doing. Then if they wish to proceed, you can also inform them that you have obtained a copy of your IMF and determined that it contains erroneous information, such as referring to you as a “business.”

Because the records are presumed to be accurate, they don’t need to do anything. All the burden of proof has been placed back on us to obtain the file. They have left us with no provision for correcting the erroneous data other than to challenge the person that put the false information on the record and threaten him with civil or criminal liabilities for intentional wrongful acts. This individual is personally liable in the commercial process because he, as a free-will being, entered on the record the erroneous 424 as a result of which unjust enrichment accrues to some party and another experiences damage/loss.

We must therefore go against the individual responsible—not against those who are not liable and cannot be held accountable. We can’t go against the Service, per se. As a subset of the Intergovernmental IMF banking system, IRS can’t be sued without its consent. Neither can we go against other officers, agents, or employees of the Service, since per the 1998 Reconstruction Act, the Territorial Managers, et al, are devoid of obligation to contest the existing records or change them. The net result of these facts is that we must:

1. Identify the problem;
2. Ascertain the origin from where the liability derives;
3. Identify the identity, title, and contact parameters of the unique being that is personally responsible, i.e., who initially executed and lodged in the records the 424 with erroneous information that are the source of the computer-generated claims;
4. Send properly prepared paperwork to the above-referenced culpable person;
5. Engage in the commercial/legal process that will bring closure to the process in your favor.

We opinion and understanding of legal principles is that the procedure is correctly followed by:

1. Fulfilling the administrative process on the private side by “first going directly to your brother to work it out”;
2. Establishing stipulations (agreements) on the private side between the parties (you and the responsible party that entered the erroneous 424 on the record), thus eliminating all controversy and dispute and removing from the equation anything for a court to hear or entertain against you;
3. Securing a bonded witness on the public side by using the notary to send out notices for you once the private side has been finalized, whereby your adversary has now established his stipulations on the record on both the private and public sides;
4. Exhausting administrative remedies;
5. Obtaining commercial res judicata and, via the use of the notary, administrative and judicial res judicata that leave no dispute/controversy for your adversary to take to court;
6. Enabling you to take the matter to court for a court judgment in your favor, inasmuch as your administrative process (all on the notarial record) is conclusive and irrefutable. You must necessarily thereby secure an automatic ruling in your favor from the court, since in order for your adversary to show that a dispute still exists that the court can hear and entertain he would have to prove the impossible on the court record, namely that he responded properly and in a timely manner to your administrative procedure on both the private and the public side. Since the notarial record to the contrary is what is established on the record of the case, and your adversary cannot invalidate that by proving the impossible, your judicial win should be automatic.

Knowing in advance that they can’t support their acts and allegations, if the party responsible still works for the Agency he/she will be very motivated to correct the erroneous information for which he can be held personally liable.

There is no immunity for acting outside the scope of their authority, for committing illegal, unlawful, and ultra vires acts. You might be able to go in under a TRO and stop them from moving against you until the responsible party deals with the matter. Even administratively it has teeth. To get a court to order an injunction, make the case that the activity code stating that you are a business earning domestic income in excess of $10 Million a year by engaging in an excise-taxable activity was entered in error, and hence everything must be unwound from the beginning and monetary refunds and awards must be issued to you (actual and compensatory damages plus interest and penalties) and that the IRS be enjoined and estopped from engaging in any taxation activity against you thenceforth unless it can prove that you expressly applied for permission and license to engage in an excise-taxable activity that would require that you file a form with the IRS.