"I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered." 
[Mark 14:27, Bible, NKJV]

---

Suffering for God's Glory

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their [DOJ's] part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified. But let none of you suffer [or be wrongfully prosecuted] as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people's matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now
"If the righteous one is scarcely saved,
Where will the ungodly and the sinner [and lying lawyers and tax collectors with a conflict of interest] appear?"

Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator.
[1 Peter 4:12-19, Bible, NKJV]

1.  INTRODUCTION

This article will respond to false commercial speech and allegations directed at C. Hansen by the Department of Justice.  We do not know whether the "C. Hansen" they are referring to in the Complaint is the same one who created some of the works appearing on this website.  Likewise, this article was not necessarily written by "C. Hansen", although a person with a name similar to that is the copyright owner of everything on this website.  Based on the many inconsistencies between the behavior described in the pleading and the actual behavior of people associated with this website, it would appear that the government is either committing fraud or has the C. Hansen associated with this website confused with another person.  Only admissible evidence will be able to determine that.  This website will not defend or address allegations about SEDM directly, because C. Hansen is not authorized to speak for them.  The only reason they might be mentioned here is because we are their friends and we have links to their website and we want to ensure that we aren't associated with any false or illegal activity.  The false allegations made by the public servants in the Complaint constitute:   

1. Libel and slander.
2. "False commercial speech" because keeping people ignorant and uneducated by shutting us down will facilitate further extortion and illegal enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code by the IRS
3. Advocacy of illegal activity.  When the government does anything to mislead the public about what a law says by withdrawing truth (such as this website) from the marketplace of ideas and using words of art in its political propaganda and its publications (such as the IRS publications), it is inciting unconstitutional activity.
4. Malicious abuse of legal process in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1589(3).
5. Violation of due process.  No evidence was presented to support even one of the false allegations made in complaint.
6. Deprivation of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.  Fourth Amendment right to privacy of the parties about which information is sought, even though no evidence was presented of unlawful activity.  First Amendment right to practice religious beliefs and to assemble to fight evil and unlawful behavior.
7. Kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1201.  The "C. Hansen" at this website does not maintain a domicile in any federal judicial district and the complaint can only apply to events that happened on land that is within such a district.  Therefore, they must have the wrong "C. Hansen".  This area includes land only which was ceded to the federal government under an act of the state legislature and/or subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.  Assuming or presuming any other result is a violation of due process and kidnapping, and it is a violation to of the separation of powers doctrine to implement or enforce any federal franchise, including the "trade or business" franchise that is the heart of the income tax, within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK)  for details.
8. Denial of equal protection of the laws under Fourteenth Amendment Section 1, and 42 U.S.C. §1981.  Since the audience for the materials produced by C. Hansen is ONLY "nontaxpayers", and since the IRS not only doesn't help, but persecutes "nontaxpayers" not within their jurisdiction, then by depriving these people of help and educational materials, they are being discriminated against and deprived of equal protection of the laws.
9. A conflict of interest.  18 U.S.C. §208 makes it a personal financial conflict of interest for a jurist, federal employee, attorney, or judge to hear, rule one, or work on any case relating to an income tax that they either pay or receive benefits from.
10. Vexatious, unnecessary, fraudulent, and prejudicial litigation subject to sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)
11. Conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241.

Section 3 of this article will also establish that the attorney who filed the complaint used copyrighted materials off of the Family Guardian Website, and is therefore subject to the terms of the Copyright/Software License Agreement and Disclaimer applying to all such materials.  These terms include:

1. Personally liable for $300,000 out of his own pocket for violating the agreement.
2. Has agreed to substitute himself as the adjudged party
3. Has agreed to pay all attorneys fees and legal fees spent by the defense.
4. Has agreed to pay the alleged defendant an additional $10,000,000 out of his own pocket BEFORE he testifies because he refused to bring alleged errors and incorrect statements to the attention of the website  BEFORE undertaking litigation.  He has also agreed to forfeit 50% of his pay as a civil servant and donate it to the ministry in order so subsidize efforts to educate and help nontaxpayers who have been hurt by this serious and bad faith omission.
5. Has authorized the alleged Defendant to exercise Limited Power of Attorney on his behalf.  See:
   http://famguardian.org/LPOA.pdf

Consequently, the proper Defendant to this lawsuit is the attorney who signed the original complaint, which in this case is "Martin Shoemaker".  The defendant has already served himself by preparing and filing the pleading.  Thank you!  The fee for the services of "C. Hansen" or any member of this ministry to become involved in your lawsuit against yourself is $10,000 per hour, and the Supreme Court says that every man has the right to charge whatever he wants for his services.  It was about ten hours to prepare this article, and to help you by trying to explain to you that you are prosecuting yourself.  Therefore, your bill so far is $100,000.  Pay up NOW or we are going to levy your pay, dude!

If you would like to read the Answer, click here.

2.  RESPONSE TO PRESS RELEASE STATEMENTS

On May 2, 2005, the Department of Justice posted an indictment of a person named "C. Hansen" relating to exclusively free speech appearing possibly on this website.  Below is the press release relating to the alleged indictment.  We have added clarifying language to the government's propaganda to show the extent of their deliberate deception, which they, not us, label as "fraud":

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES TO HALT SAN DIEGO MAN’S ALLEGED TAX-FRAUD SCHEMES

San Diego Man Fraudulently Changed Individuals Citizenship to Evade Income Tax

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department today asked a California federal court to permanently bar C. Hansen, of San Diego, from selling tax-fraud schemes. The civil injunction suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in San Diego, alleges that Hansen markets [the About Us page says we aren't allowed to market] a number of products and services to help customers [church members who are nontaxpayers ONLY] illegally evade federal taxes and obstruct IRS investigations of their illegal activities [using ONLY their Constitutional rights, which even the federal courts admit cannot be converted into a crime or injury]. The government also seeks a court order directing Hansen to provide the government his customers’ names, mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone and Social Security numbers [meaning no one, because the website has no "customers" or people who are "taxpayers" subject to the I.R.C. that are allowed to use the website].

According to the [bogus] complaint, Hansen [on a FREE public domain website which charges NOTHING] helps [educates only but not ASSISTS only by their own example and not by directing anyone] customers [church ministry members who are nontaxpayers ONLY] prepare false tax returns and forms or tells customers not to file a return at all [is free speech a crime?]. Hansen allegedly tells customers [Website members ONLY, not EVERYONE.  The Disclaimer says "you", "we" are defined as the author, and not other readers, and the author does not classify himself as a "customer"] that the federal income tax [under Subtitle A ONLY] applies [may be enforced against] only to federal workers and that wages cannot be taxed [the Disclaimer page, in fact, says that "wages" as legally defined CAN be taxed if earned ONLY by public officers in the national but not state governments]. Courts [that have no jurisdiction within the states nor over the people educated by said website] across the country have repeatedly rejected these arguments, labeling them frivolous [when applied to people in the federal zone only, which we agree with].

“People who sell tax scams enrich themselves at the expense of their customers and law-abiding Americans who pay taxes,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service are working vigorously to stop the promotion of tax fraud.”

The suit also alleges that Hansen peddles a “Citizenship Administrative Program,” which he fraudulently claims will enable customers to repudiate their U.S. citizenship in favor of “American National citizenship” and thereby remove themselves from the federal income tax system. Hansen allegedly charges $2,000 for one person or $2,700 for a couple for this purported service. A federal court in Colorado enjoined a similar tax scam in 2003. More information about the Colorado case is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv03641.htm.

The Justice Department has sought and obtained injunctions against a number of tax-scheme promoters. More information about these cases is available on the Justice Department website at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2005.htm. More information about the Justice Department’s Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax.

At the same time as they launched the attack on us, they also targeted two other high profile groups:  Save a Patriot and the Free Enterprise Society.  FES was posted the same day on the DOJ website and SAPF was attacked on May 12.  Both of these organizations are listed on the Family Guardian "Getting Help" page.

Below is a rebuttal of untruths in the above Propaganda Release, point by point.  Issues not addressed do not constitute a default or admission of any kind:

1. FRAUDULENT STATEMENT #1:  "The Justice Department today asked a California federal court to permanently bar C. Hansen, of San Diego, from selling tax-fraud schemes."
   
    THE FACTS AND LAW: A "fraud" is legally defined as a willful misrepresentation of the truth.  Family Guardian tells people repeatedly throughout its materials that they should NEVER lie or misrepresent anything to anyone.  "Willfulness" is a prerequisite to every federal tax "crime".  Below are just a few examples where we specifically mention that people should NOT lie or deceive anyone:

   a.  "WARNING!:  NEVER, EVER willfully commit fraud under penalty of perjury on any government form.   This is a criminal offense that will land you in jail.  "  Click here and read the Federal and State Tax Withholding Options for Private Employers, section 21.2.1.

   b.  "This section establishes that one should never lie or commit fraud on their tax return or aid in committing fraud against the United States".  Click here and read this statement in Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005, section 2.2.12.  In this section, we also suggest that the government should be prosecuting private employers who compel people to submit a W-4 that misrepresents their status on the form, or which they know is the wrong form because the W-8 is the right form in their case.

   c.  Most of Great IRS Hoax Chapter 5 shows "you", which the Disclaimer says is "us", how to avoid misrepresenting one's status on federal forms.  It is designed to prevent, not encourage fraud on federal forms.

   d.  The About Us page says:

   "We do not advocate violence or terrorism or threats or unlawful activity of any kind against anyone, and especially by our government.  The focus of this website is to promote the lawful and Constitutional administration of our country's tax and legal systems and to discourage unlawful activities of every kind, mostly by the government."

   The above mission is completely inconsistent with committing fraud or willful crime of any kind.  Furthermore, no one from the government has ever even once provided credible evidence that would rebut the content of the Tax Deposition Questions, which are the foundation of the position on this website, in spite of the fact that Family Guardian BEGS them to do so in the About Us page as a means to improve the content of this website.  By the sin of omission in refusing to constructively help us improve and correct any inaccuracies or false statements that might remain on this website, they have become active participants in spreading any inaccuracies that might remain on this website because of their silence.

   Furthermore, the statement indicates that C. Hansen is "of San Diego".  His "domicile" is NOT San Diego.  San Diego is NOT the place he "intends" or consents to inhabit permanently. His chosen "domicile" is Heaven and no place on earth.  This fact is clearly established in the article entitled "Why 'domicile' and  income taxes are voluntary." and also in his Answer to their complaint.

2. FRAUDULENT STATEMENT #2:  "Hansen markets a number of products and services to help customers illegally evade federal taxes and obstruct IRS investigations of their illegal activities."
   

   THE FACTS AND LAW: The Disclaimer page on both SEDM and Family Guardian state that none of the educational materials available are available to "taxpayers", "U.S. citizens", "U.S. residents", or those engaged in a "trade or business" and that only "nontaxpayers", who are persons that are not subject to the Internal Revenue Code, may obtain or use any of the educational materials.  The first item in the Copyright/Software/License Agreement also says that none of the information available on Family Guardian may be used to accomplish an unlawful purpose.  We have no control or influence over people who are abusing free speech found on this website or using it in violation of the license agreements and it is unfair and unreasonable to hold us responsible for the abuse or unauthorized us of our protected religious, political, and not factual speech.

   Since none of the people who are authorized to read the information here are "taxpayers", then they can have no liability for tax by definition and it is legally and physically impossible to reduce the tax liability of a person who is not liable to begin with.  Below is the definition of "tax shelter" that proves this:

   "Tax shelter.  A device used by a taxpayer [and "taxpayers" are not allowed by our Disclaimer to use this website] 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."
   [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1462-1463]

   Consequently, it is impossible to help a person with no tax liability to "evade" a tax that he has implied and stated under penalty of perjury that he is not liable for or subject to.  It is a violation of the Copyright/Software License Agreement to:

   • Educate or otherwise help people who are "taxpayers".

   • Use the materials or information available here for an illegal or unlawful purposes.

   • Hold us responsible for any inaccuracies.

   • Conduct litigation against us for inaccuracies without first notifying us of the inaccuracy and giving us a chance to fix it.

   • Act as a witness or informant against us in any litigation directed against this ministry.

   Furthermore, the IRS is only allowed to help or deal with  "taxpayers" and so it is impossible to interfere with enforcement actions against "nontaxpayers" unless the IRS is violating the law.  It says that in their Mission Statement in IRM Section 1.1.1.1. 

   Internal Revenue Manual, Section 1.1.1.1  (02-26-1999)
   IRS Mission and Basic Organization

   1.  The IRS Mission: Provide America’s taxpayers [not "nontaxpayers"] top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all [taxpayers only].

   The federal courts have also said on this subject:

   “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.”
   [Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d, 585 (1972)]

   Therefore, it is literally impossible to interfere with the proper administration of the tax codes (not "laws" but "codes"), because they can't be lawfully enforced against "nontaxpayers", who are defined everywhere on this website as persons who are not subject to the I.R.C. or federal law.  Their statement is willfully fraudulent.  Family Guardian and all affiliates of Family Guardian tell "you", which means only "us", in all of Family Guardian's writings, that "you" [us] can and should use "your" Fifth Amendment and other Constitutional rights to ensure compliance with the Constitution and enacted law by our public servants.  This is not only our God-given right, but our DUTY according to the Declaration of Independence.  If you [us] don't have any rights because you are either a "taxpayer" or a federal "employee", then we also say that "you" [us] shouldn't be using this website.  Yes, exercise of Constitutional rights can and does make life difficult, laborious, inconvenient, and even costly for public servants, because it is INTENDED to do so.  This was the legislative intent of the Constitution, in fact!:

   "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind." 
   [James Madison, Federalist Paper #10]

   "The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government [and the IRS], the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
   [Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting);  see also Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

   The exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be turned into a crime:

   "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
   [Miller v. US, 230 F.2d 486, at 489]

   Furthermore, the About Us pages of both the Family Guardian and SEDM state that "advertising or marketing" is NOT allowed.

   1. Family Guardian About Us page, Section 12, item 9:  Family Guardian will NOT engage in "9.  Advertising or marketing. All of our nontaxpayer members will be introduced by referrals from satisfied Members and through hits on our public website. We will not offer any kind of affiliate program or commission structure to anyone, because we believe this compromises the integrity of our message."

   2. SEDM About Us page, Section 8, Item 9:  SEDM will NOT engage in  "9.  Advertising or marketing. All of our nontaxpayer members will be introduced by referrals from satisfied Members and through hits on our public website. We will not offer any kind of affiliate program or commission structure to anyone, because we believe this compromises the integrity of our message."

3. FRAUDULENT STATEMENT #3:  "Hansen helps customers prepare false tax returns and forms or tells customers not to file a return at all".
   
   THE FACTS AND LAW #3:  First of all, the Family Guardian website has in the past had example tax returns that C. Hansen filed for himself only, but these are only for his own use and he doesn't tell anyone to do anything with them or advocate them to either file or not to file.  This is confirmed by section 12, Item 7 of the About Us Page, which specifically prohibits preparing returns or advising in the preparation of returns.  The only reason readers would believe ANYTHING on the Family Guardian website is because what they have independently read the law for themselves and believe they understand what is written there, not because Chris says anything, because he explicitly says NOT to trust anything he says.  The only basis for reasonable belief is documented in the " Reasonable Belief About Tax Liability" (OFFSITE LINK) pamphlet.  The Disclaimer prohibits anyone from relying on anything we say as fact or truth.  The example return does not appear in the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005 or anyplace else, because Family Guardian doesn't want it connected with commercial speech and thereby censored.  Several links on the website specifically say we do not provide legal advice, that "you" [us] shouldn't trust anything we say, and that "you" [us] are responsible for making all your own decisions.  Furthermore, the Disclaimer page identifies "you", and "we" as the author ONLY, and not other readers.  Therefore, it is literally impossible and fraudulent for anyone to claim that we advise anyone but ourselves to do anything.  What we have done is the equivalent of posting our own personal journal and playbook on the web for all to read and review and comment on so they can be continually improved, but not advised anyone to do anything but us personally.  If it is a crime to publish one's personal journal and personal documents on the web or in a book, then Anne Frank, Bill Clinton, and just about every President who wrote and published his memoirs should have gone to jail by now.  Below are a few examples of statements from this website and others that proves our point.  These statements have been posted on the Family Guardian website virtually from the beginning:

   a.  "This website and the educational materials on it were prepared for the use of the author only by himself.  Any use of the terms "you", "your", "individuals", "people", "persons", "we recommend", "you should", "we" or "our readers", "readers", "those", "most Americans", "employers", "employees", and all similar references either on the website or in any verbal communications or correspondence with our readers is directed at the author only and not other readers.  The only exception to this rule is the Copyright/Software License Agreement below, which applies to everyone EXCEPT the author or ministry.   All the author is doing by posting these materials is sharing with others the results of his research and the play book he developed only for use by himself."  Click here for the statement.

   b.  "The data on this website is the collaborative experience, contributions, and research of various websites, legal books, tax documents, researchers, associates, attorneys, CPA's, etc. and does not constitute legal advice.  These materials have been prepared for educational and informational purposes and are intended only for "nontaxpayers" who live outside the federal zone.  If you are a "taxpayer" or you live inside the federal zone, then instead please consult http://www.irs.gov for educational materials."  Click here for the statement

   c.  "The materials on this site are not legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Legal advice involves applying the law to your specific and unique situation, which is your responsibility and not our responsibility. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between the author(s) and the reader. [. . .] You must validate and verify the accuracy of this information for yourself with your own research, legal education, experience, and the advice of a competent attorney and/or tax professional (if there is such a thing).    Readers should not act upon this information without first getting fully educated using the materials provided here and elsewhere.  They are also advised to consult professionals in this area . . ."  Click here for the statement

   d.  "The About Us page of your website says you don't prepare tax returns for anyone.  Are there any educational materials elsewhere which might help me to submit tax returns that won't jeopardize my status as a "nontaxpayer" and "nonresident alien" and "non-citizen national" under federal law?"  Click here for Frequently Asked Question 5.3

   e.  Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005, section 2.5.4.12:

   Since:

   1.        Filing requirements and change frequently, and we need a way to communicate current requirements in a timely, electronic manner.

   2.        We could easily come under fire for instructing people how to file, especially because “nontaxpayers” should NOT file at all.

   3.        It is incompatible with the Mission of those who offer this book to be instructing people how to file tax returns.

   Then we have decided to offer the example return on a FREE website and no include it in this book.  You can obtain an example form from the FREE website below:

   http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr.htm

   Look at item #8.1 through 8.6 on the left area for free examples.  The State return example is item #8.1.  Item 8.1 contains the refund example that C. Hansen uses.  This section should not be construed as advice about whether or how you should file or not file, but simply a pointer to free information that may prove useful should you make the independent decision on the subject.

   f.  "Neither Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) nor any of the ministry officers or volunteers or non-federal workers are authorized to involve themselves in any of the following activities, because they are of questionable character or may easily be misconstrued in a court of law as being either illegal or crassly commercial, even if they in fact are not:. . . . 7.  Preparing tax returns for others or advise others in the preparation of returns.  All our members prepare their own returns, and the only type of return they are allowed to prepare and not violate our Member Agreement is a 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ return that has no tax liability listed."  Click here for About Us.  See section #8, item #7.

4. FRAUDULENT STATEMENT #4:  "Hansen allegedly tells customers that the federal income tax applies only to federal workers and that wages cannot be taxed. Courts across the country have repeatedly rejected these arguments, labeling them frivolous."
   
   THE FACTS AND LAW #4:  We don't have any "customers".  All of the participants of Family Guardian are Church Members who may only be "nontaxpayers" and "nonresident aliens".  To associate these Users with the status of begin either "customers" or "taxpayers" amounts to "compelled association" in violation of the First Amendment.  The Family Guardian  Disclaimer specifically says that "taxpayers" and those who need or use deductions to reduce their tax liability are NOT allowed to use this website.  Why is the government trying to punish us for association with and helping people who aren't even allowed to use the materials here and have no way to contact us for help this website?  This is a free speech website that is not connected with ANY activity, much less commercial activity. 

   Next, let's list all the places where "wages" are discussed on this website, based on a search:

   1. The Great IRS Hoax book, section 5.6.7.
      

      "It is strictly true that “wages” are taxable under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, but “wages” as defined in 26 CFR § 31.3401(a) can be taxable only when received by those who volunteer by submitting a W-4 form.

      Most people dig themselves a deep hole and literally jump into it by never bothering to distinguish between the layman’s definition of “wages” and the legal definition, and we must be very careful in all our communications to distinguish which of these two definitions we are referring to.  If you haven’t figured this out by now, we emphasize repeatedly throughout this book that “presumptions” will get you into a heap of trouble in the legal field and that they are also a sin condemned in the Bible that you ought to avoid.

      [. . .]

      So how do our public dis-servants turn “compensation for labor” into something that fits the legal definition “wages” above so it can be taxed?  Once again, you have to dig deep into the regulations to find the secret:

      26 CFR Sec. 31.3401(a)-3   Amounts deemed wages under voluntary withholding agreements.

      (a) IN GENERAL.

      Notwithstanding the exceptions to the definition of wages specified in section 3401(a) and the regulations thereunder, the term "wages" includes the amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section with respect to which there is a voluntary withholding agreement in effect under section 3402(p). References in this chapter to the definition of wages contained in section 3401(a) shall be deemed to refer also to this section (Section 31.3401(a)-3).

      (b) REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES.

      (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, the amounts referred to in paragraph (a) of this section include any remuneration for services performed by an employee for an employer which, without regard to this section, does not constitute wages under section 3401(a). For example, remuneration for services performed by an agricultural worker or a domestic worker in a private home (amounts which are specifically excluded from the definition of wages by section 3401(a)(2) and (3), respectively) are amounts with respect to which a voluntary withholding agreement may be entered into under section 3402(p). See Sections 31.3401(c)-1 and 31.3401(d)-1 for the definitions of "employee" and "employer".

      So the bottom line is, if you fill out a W-4  and request voluntary withholding, even though you don’t fit the legal definition of an “employee”, then you consent to treat your earnings as “wages” as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) which are subject to tax under the I.R.C. Subtitle C!  That’s why we also don’t recommend filling out W-4  Exempts and instead prefer to use the W-8 form. "

      [Great IRS Hoax, section 5.6.7]

   2. Rebutted version of the IRS "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" pamphlet, sections I.B.1.

      "There is not question that “wages”, as legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a), are taxable and are “income”.  We agree with the IRS that anyone who uses this argument is wrong and deserves all the persecution they will inevitably get if they try to litigate this in a federal court.  The regulations, in fact, say that a person who fills out a W-4 has signed a contract which requires him to include the earnings associated with the W-4 as “gross income” on a tax return.  Therefore, all “wages” subject to this private contract become taxable by private agreement, even where there is not territorial jurisdiction:

      § 31.3402(p)-1  Voluntary withholding agreements.

      (a) In general.

      An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1) of §31.3401(a)–3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder. See §31.3405(c)–1, Q&A–3 concerning agreements to have more than 20-percent Federal income tax withheld from eligible rollover distributions within the meaning of section 402.

      It is therefore pointless to argue that “wages” are not taxable, because they are, but only to those who are either engaged  in a “trade or business” or who have elected to be treated as though they are by voluntarily signing an IRS form W-4."

      [Rebutted Version of the IRS "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, section 1.B.1, p. 30, version 1.13]

   3. Rebutted version of "Tax Resister FAQ", questions 2.3 through 2.5.

      "Assuming he means the legal definition, his comments are absolutely correct, but they are incorrect if he means the common definition.  26 CFR §31.3401(a)-3(a) proves that a person who voluntarily signs and submits a W-4 earns "wages" as legally defined. . .It is "wages", as legally defined, that are therefore taxed under the I.R.C.  The W-2 form, which is an "information return", reports receipt of "wages" as legally defined.  The W-2 is filed by employers pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6041, which says that payment of amounts of $600 or more that are connected with a "trade or business", must be reported on information returns.  Therefore, all "wages" as defined in the I.R.C. constitute "trade or business" earnings that indeed are taxable under the I.R.C."

   4. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Cites by topic: "WAGES"
   5. Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 2
      

      “Wages” as legally defined ARE taxable and are “income” and you should avoid this argument.  However, the flip side is that you can’t earn “wages” unless you volunteer on a W-4, as you will learn below."
      [Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, Section 2, p. 8]

   What the above references consistently reveal is that Mr. Shoemaker is involved in "false commercial speech" about Family Guardian, and that he, not us, needs to be enjoined.  Mr. Shoemaker's false statements are "commercial speech" because they are intended to maximize government revenues resulting from widespread misapplication of the Internal Revenue Code and the violations of rights and the Constitution that they facilitate.  By seeking an injunction against what amounts to nothing but religious and political speech found on this website, Shoemaker therefore seeks to remove information about government abuses that might help prevent these violations of rights and government deception and thereby increase the flow of what amounts to stolen money.  He is using false allegations that we are engaged in illegal activities in order to obtain sanction from the court to do discovery about matters that are irrelevant to this investigation, so that he can use it to attack and persecute those who are engaged in the speech.  The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that it is this type of abuse of persons who are exposing government fraud and illegal activity which the First Amendment was designed to prevent:

   "In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press [and this religious ministry] was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. In my view, far from deserving condemnation for their courageous reporting, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other newspapers should be commended for serving the purpose that the Founding Fathers saw so clearly. In revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam war, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do."
   [New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1970)]

   These LIARS are trying to use false presumption as a weapon to slander us.  The Family Guardian Disclaimer says that when we are using words in their legal sense, we will surround them with quotation marks.  The question then becomes, where did we say that "wages" were not taxable.  The Disclaimer Page, in fact, says the exact OPPOSITE.  They didn't state it the way we stated it because then they would have to justify their position, which would dig a DEEP hole for themselves.  All the above statements were in the context of ONLY Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, just as is nearly everything on this website is, but the government wants to make us look bad by overgeneralizing to the point of falsely presuming that we mean the entire Internal Revenue Code whenever we say "the federal income tax".  They are doing this because they are trying to make it "appear" like the information available here is wrong.  They know exactly the fraud they are committing.    We try very hard not to use general or presumptuous statements like "the federal income tax" or "the Internal Revenue Code", because such statements are easily misconstrued for personal advantage by the government.  When the IRS wants to deceive people, it does the opposite of our approach, using lots of general, easily misconstrued statements that have lots of undefined or unexplained "words of art" mixed in that don't mean what the readers think they mean, and which the IRS will refuse to define, even when confronted.  This was exactly the tactic they used during the friendly meeting on 7/10/03, in which the IRS met with C. Hansen and tried to get him to answer questions.  When he demanded a definition for the "words of art" they were using in their questions from the Internal Revenue Code, they said they couldn't talk about the law, even thought there was a lawyer present in the room.  This made it impossible for Chris to answer their questions without making probably false presumptions or having to speculate about what they meant, and he explained to them that it was a religious sin to presume under Numbers 15:30 and that they could not compel him to violate his religious beliefs.  Therefore, they eventually had to dismiss the meeting because they made it impossible for him to cooperate with them without violating his religious beliefs, even though he said he wanted to cooperate with them.  A very good example of this devious tactic is their " The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments".  Fighting this kind of bad faith tactic and willful fraud is the main reason for the existence of this website to begin with.  It is deceit in commerce and false commercial speech, because the result is commerce not authorized by the Constitution and results in an unjust enrichment, extortion under the color of law, and THEFT of property by those who speak it.

   "As religion towards God is a branch of universal righteousness (he is not an honest man that is not devout), so righteousness towards men is a branch of true religion, for he is not a godly man that is not honest, nor can he expect that his devotion should be accepted; for,

   1. Nothing is more offensive to God than deceit in commerce. A false balance is here put for all manner of unjust and fraudulent practices [of our public dis-servants] in dealing with any person [within the public], which are all an abomination to the Lord, and render those abominable [hated] to him that allow themselves in the use of such accursed arts of thriving. It is an affront to justice, which God is the patron of, as well as a wrong to our neighbour, whom God is the protector of. Men [in the IRS and the Congress] make light of such frauds, and think there is no sin in that which there is money to be got by, and, while it passes undiscovered, they cannot blame themselves for it; a blot is no blot till it is hit, Hos. 12:7, 8. But they are not the less an abomination to God, who will be the avenger of those that are defrauded by their brethren.

   2. Nothing is more pleasing to God than fair and honest dealing, nor more necessary to make us and our devotions acceptable to him: A just weight is his delight. He himself goes by a just weight, and holds the scale of judgment with an even hand, and therefore is pleased with those that are herein followers of him.

   A [false] balance, [whether it be in the federal courtroom or at the IRS or in the marketplace,] cheats, under pretence of doing right most exactly, and therefore is the greater abomination to God."
   [Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible; Henry, M., 1996, c1991, under Prov. 11:1]

5. FRAUDULENT  STATEMENT #5:  "The suit also alleges that Hansen peddles a “Citizenship Administrative Program,” which he fraudulently claims will enable customers to repudiate their U.S. citizenship in favor of “American National citizenship” and thereby remove themselves from the federal income tax system."
   THE FACTS AND LAW #5:  Hansen doesn't "peddle" anything.  Furthermore, this a free speech religious ministry that is not connected in any way with commercial speech and which offers ONLY free educational materials that are not guaranteed to be useful for any purpose other than religious inspiration and education.  Even if it were connected with commercial speech, neither Family Guardian nor SEDM are located anywhere within the country United States or within the legislative jurisdiction of the federal government.  Look for yourself:

   Family Guardian:  http://samspade.org/t/lookat?a=http://famguardian.org

   SEDM:  http://samspade.org/t/lookat?a=http://sedm.org

   Therefore, it's pointless to try to establish federal jurisdiction over ONLY speech which identifies itself in the applicable Disclaimers as religious and political in nature, not factual, and not actionable.  Free Speech and the Right to Assemble under the First Amendment which is conducted in a foreign country, outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government, among church members who have also stated under penalty of perjury that they are not subject to federal jurisdiction or the Internal Revenue Code cannot be an enjoinable or prohibited activity.  Here is what the U.S. Supreme Court said on the subject of free speech and the right to associate freely as a religious body in the development and maintenance of both it and our God-given rights:

   "This court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present; and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgment of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a state is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence. [274 U.S. 357, 375]   Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak [and educate] as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion [and education] is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. 3 They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss [and educate other people about] freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence [274 U.S. 357, 376]   coerced by law [or the IRS]-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.”  
   [Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]

   These are presumptuous, fraudulent, and frivolous accusations they are making that amount to the exercise of political religion, not law.  Also, neither Family Guardian nor SEDM offer a "Citizenship Administrative Program" from what we could tell by looking at their websites.  This is fraud and "false commercial speech" on their part, designed to maximize revenues for the illegal enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.  Furthermore, the notion that changing one's citizenship as a method for escaping federal tax liability is specifically rebutted and/or readers:

   • Great IRS Hoax, section 4.11.10.4

   • Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid, section 1.5

   • Citizenship and Sovereignty Seminar, p. 47.  (OFFSITE/FOREIGN LINK, SEDM)

   • About Us Page, section 12, item 18:  http://famguardian.org/aboutus.htm

   A search of the Entire Family Guardian website reveals that there is no such thing as a "Citizenship Administrative Repudiation" program.  Ditto for the SEDM website.  Furthermore, the free Great IRS Hoax, section 4.11.10.4 says on the subject of abandoning "U.S. citizen" status to avoid tax liability, the following:

   WARNING!:  Citizenship status is NOT the primary factor in determining your tax liability.  Instead, the following factors primarily determine one’s tax liability under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code: Your domicile.  See section 5.4.19 entitled “Why all income taxes are based on domicile and are voluntary because domicile is voluntary.” The taxable activity you engage in.  See sections 5.6.13 through 5.6.13.11. Changing one’s citizenship status DOES NOT result in eliminating an existing liability for 1040 income taxes under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  We have never made any claim otherwise in any of our materials.  The only affect that correcting government records describing one’s citizenship can have is: Restoring one’s sovereignty.  Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)  and under 28 U.S.C. §1332(c) and (d), a legal person cannot be classified as an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state if they are a citizen of a [federal] state of the United States, meaning a person born in a federal territory, possession, or the District of Columbia as defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d).  This conclusion is also confirmed on the Department of State website at: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_693.html Removing oneself from some aspect of federal legislative jurisdiction.  A “citizen” under federal law, is defined as a person subject to federal jurisdiction.  This is covered in Great IRS Hoax, section 4.11.2, for instance. Making sure that a person’s domicile cannot be involuntarily moved to the District of Columbia.  Both 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39)  or 26 U.S.C. §7408(c ) allow that a person who is a “citizen” or a “resident” under the Internal Revenue Code, should be treated as having a domicile in the District of Columbia for the purposes of federal jurisdiction.  Since kidnapping is illegal under 18 U.S.C. §1201, then a person who is not a “citizen or resident” under federal law needs to take extraordinary efforts to ensure that their citizenship is not misunderstood or misconstrued by the federal government by going back and making sure that all federal forms which indicate one’s citizenship status are truthful and unambiguous.  The process of correcting government forms relating to citizenship is described in section 2.5.3.13 of the Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005. The reason why the last item above is very important is that the term “United States” is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9)  and (a)(10) as being limited to the District of Columbia and the term is not enlarged elsewhere under Subtitle A of the Code.  If it ain’t defined anywhere in the code to include states of the Union, then under the rule of statutory construction, “Expressio unius, exclusio alterius”, what is not specifically included may be excluded by implication.  Therefore, if a person is either a “citizen” or a “resident” under federal law, then they are treated as domiciliaries of the main place where Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code applies, which is the District of Columbia, and become the proper subjects of the code.

   A search of the SEDM website reveals that the pamphlet " Citizenship and Sovereignty Course, Form #12.001", on p. 58 also says the following on the subject of abandoning U.S. citizenship for tax purposes.  Notice there is no mention of escaping tax liability:

   WARNING: Citizenship is NOT the major factor determining tax liability. The major factors are: “domicile”: See: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm The excise taxable “activities” one voluntarily chooses to engage in. See, for instance: The “trade or business” scam: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/TradeOrBusinessScam.htm Great IRS Hoax, sections 5.1 through 5.1.11 Therefore, anyone who promises to eliminate your tax liability by changing or correcting your citizenship status is simply mistaken and you should NOT listen to them!

The most revealing thing about the above is what they DIDN'T mention or attack on this website.  These are the things we will focus on in the response to this SLANDER and LIES by the U.S. government, because we know these are the things they don't want to talk about.  These are the soft underbelly of the Armadillo.  For instance:

1. They didn't mention even a single person who was injured or complained because they don't have any.  This is a mud-slinging, democrat style political campaign and witch hunt, and not a valid legal proceeding, as we clearly show in the Great IRS Hoax, section 5.4.3.6.
2. They avoided referring to this as a religious ministry or a first amendment assembly or a free speech issue, because they don't want to mobilize the public against their lies.
3. They didn't attack the Family Guardian stance on citizenship, which is a major theme on this website.  They didn't say that people born in states are NOT "nationals" but not "citizens" as this website exhaustively proves.
4. They didn't mention the Master File Decoder (OFFSITE LINK), because they know their whole case will blow up in their face if this comes up in trial and the jury sees just how fraudulent their internal practices really are.
5. They didn't define the terms they are using, because they want to encourage and exploit false presumption of the general public as a means to perpetuate political propaganda relating to the income tax.  The amplifying language which we have added to their release above shows this tactic clearly.  Click here (OFFSITE LINK) for an article that shows how the government illegally tries to expand jurisdiction using "presumption".

3.  GENERAL COMMENTS

Below are general comments about the false allegations made in both the press release and the Complaint filed with the court:

1. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:

   1.1 No injured parties are identified.

   1.2 The jurisdiction where the alleged harm was committed is not identified.

   1.3  There are no witnesses of any kind, nor is their domicile identified as being within federal jurisdiction, as required.

   1.4  The Complaint is not signed under penalty of perjury and therefore does not count as admissible evidence.

   1.5  The complaint does not meet the requirements of Local Rule 7(f).

   1.6  The attorney who signed the complaint cannot act as a witness, according to the Supreme Court in Lovasco.

   1.7  The complaint does not establish a compelling state interest to override freedom of religious and political association for all the affected parties.

   1.8  The domicile of the Alleged Defendant establishes the forum law to be applied, which is Heaven in this case.  See:  http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Articles/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm.  Neither state nor federal law may be cited as authority in the pleading.  See FRCP Rule 17(b) and 28 U.S.C. §1652.  Since the forum state law is not cited, then there is no claim.

2. It is literally impossible for any of the people who might have allegedly been hurt to be within the jurisdiction of the federal government.  The Disclaimer statement restricts use of the materials to those who are "nontaxpayers", "nonresident aliens", and people who are not "taxpayers", "U.S. citizens", "U.S. residents", or "U.S. persons".  It's ridiculous to suggest that a government has lawful authority to protect or represent those outside of its jurisdiction and who are not subject to the Internal Revenue Code to begin with.
3. Every single instance of alleged false commercial speech must meet the following requirements or there is no claim:

   3.1  The activities to be enjoined must be clearly established as "commercial" and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction.

   3.2  The activities must relate to interstate or foreign commerce, in order to establish federal jurisdiction under Const. Art. 1, Section 8,Clause 3.  The materials in question do not meet this requirement.  The SEDM Member Agreement (OFFSITE LINK), for instance, says in section 7 the following:

   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(c ) and the ministry is entitled to equal protection of the laws.

   3.3  Each false claim must be identified as harming a specific, flesh and blood individual. Without an identified victim and a quantifiable injury for each instance of alleged false commercial statements, there is no claim.

   3.4  The origin of each allegedly false statement MUST be tied to a specific publication that was offered "for sale".  The publication must come WITHOUT a disclaimer of any kind and instead should have a guarantee of specific results.  None of the publications available on Family Guardian fit that description.

   3.5  The false statement must be tied to a positive law statute which constitutes admissible evidence rather than prima facie evidence.  Since 1 USC §204 says the Internal Revenue Title is NOT positive law, then the moving party has the burden of showing for each code section that the provisions of the code section are positive law.  They must do so by referring to the specific positive law section of the Statutes at Large from which the Code Section was derived and prove that section from the SAL was: 1.  Positive law rather than special law; 2.  Applied within the territorial jurisdiction of place where the alleged false statement was made.

   3.6 They must prove where the alleged false statement was made, and show that the location of the act was within the judicial district.  Neither the Alleged Defendant nor anyone who might read or use the materials in question may reside on federal property or within any United States Judicial District or Internal Revenue District.  This is a requirement of the SEDM Member Agreement (OFFSITE LINK), for instance.

   3.7 Prove that C. Hansen made the false statement.  The fact that a statement appears on this website or on the telephone or via email does not prove that the author made it.  There are many materials on this website that were prepared by other authors, and this includes materials that are copyrighted by this author.  It is presumptuous and a violation of due process to assume that C. Hansen said EVERYTHING that appears on this website or that he made the specific false statement identified because he copyrighted it.  Remember also that the Family Guardian About Us page provides admissible evidence that we are a fiduciary for God.  We also have indicated that much of the material appearing on this website was donated by others, and there is no reasonable way to determine exactly who made the statement, even for the person who posted the article, whoever that might be.

   3.8  The moving party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that there has been a good faith, persistent administrative attempt to persuade the target of the injunction that they have notified the target of the false information and provided evidence to support their allegation that it is false, and that the target refused to evaluate or correct indications that the information was erroneous.  Judicial review of agency decisions and the injunctions that result from them may be attempted ONLY AFTER good faith efforts to remedy the situation are demonstrably futile.  See Title 26 Appendix, Rules 231 and 232, which require exhausting administrative remedies before proceeding in court against a party.  This ensures that the courts are not clogged with frivolous or unnecessary litigation, and that the legal process is not abused to financially burden, terrorize, enslave, politically slander, or harass those who are engaged in activities that some public servants may not like.

   Without satisfying ALL of the above requirements, any court ordered injunction would simply amount to terrorism, because it would be impossible for the defendant to deduce exactly what speech is false and what exactly is hurting people that must be amended or removed.  An injunction against unspecified speech has the same chilling practical affect as an injunction against ALL speech, because it is a naked show of tyrannical force without the authority of law and in violation of the First Amendment protections for speech which identifies itself as political and religious and not factual or actionable.  All such "prior restraints" against unspecified speech amount to the equivalent of terrorism.  This type of terrorism, in fact, is commonplace against many other freedom advocates based on an examination of the government's legal tactics in each case.  Click here for details. 

   The reason the Dept of Justice and Slander did not identify any witnesses is because the Disclaimer and  Copyright/Software License Agreement says that anyone who acts as a witness volunteers to substitute themselves as the adjudged party in any litigation attempted against this website or any User, and to pay $300,000 to the copyright holder BEFORE they can testify.  The U.S. Supreme Court has also said that the government has no authority to interfere with such a contract.  See the following:

   "Independent of these views, there are many considerations which lead to the conclusion that the power to impair contracts [either the Constitution or the Holy Bible], by direct action to that end, does not exist with the general [federal] government. In the first place, one of the objects of the Constitution, expressed in its preamble, was the establishment of justice, and what that meant in its relations to contracts is not left, as was justly said by the late Chief Justice, in Hepburn v. Griswold, to inference or conjecture. As he observes, at the time the Constitution was undergoing discussion in the convention, the Congress of the Confederation was engaged in framing the ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory, in which certain articles of compact were established between the people of the original States and the people of the Territory, for the purpose, as expressed in the instrument, of extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, upon which the States, their laws and constitutions, were erected. By that ordinance it was declared, that, in the just preservation of rights and property, 'no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said Territory, that shall, in any manner, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously formed.' The same provision, adds the Chief Justice, found more condensed expression in the prohibition upon the States [in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution] against impairing the obligation of contracts, which has ever been recognized as an efficient safeguard against injustice; and though the prohibition is not applied in terms to the government of the United States, he expressed the opinion, speaking for himself and the majority of the court at the time, that it was clear 'that those who framed and those who adopted the Constitution intended that the spirit of this prohibition should pervade the entire body of legislation, and that the justice which the Constitution was ordained to establish was not thought by them to be compatible with legislation [or judicial precedent] of an opposite tendency.' 8 Wall. 623. [99 U.S. 700, 765]   Similar views are found expressed in the opinions of other judges of this court."
   [Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878)]

4. No speech was specifically identified anywhere on this or any other website that was provably false.  All they could offer was unsupported allegations and presumption.  This is abuse, not an exercise of justice.
5. The complaint is defective because it did not establish territorial jurisdiction.  The defendant must maintain a "residence" within the judicial district in order to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court.  "Residence" can only exist for "aliens" under 26 CFR §1.871-2(b). Since C. Hansen is not an alien but has evidence to support that he is a "nonresident alien", and because he does not live on land ceded to the federal government by an act of the state legislature, then it is impossible for him to have a "residence" within the judicial district.  Likewise, he has notarized evidence of a declared domicile that puts him OUTSIDE of any federal land, outside of "San Diego", outside the "State of" California, and outside of the United States of America.  The Complaint didn't even attempt to allege that he is within the judicial district, because they know based on previous litigation that this is simply NOT the case.  Therefore, neither territorial nor in personam jurisdiction have been established and the complaint is fatally defective.
6. Accomplishing an injunction will result in the OPPOSITE affect to the IRS and will not affect the readers at all.  If the IRS enjoins distribution any of the materials through the SEDM ministry which C. Hansen might have wrote, then he has said that he will cause other unidentified third parties to make them available for FREE on an offshore website.  This will considerably broaden, not shrink the audience for the materials, and it will also mean that "taxpayers" will have an opportunity to download the free speech materials.  This consequence would definitely NOT be in the best interests of the IRS and yet would be impossible to legally prevent without violating the First Amendment and committing treason punishable by death.  Currently, the SEDM Member Agreement ensures that such materials CANNOT get into the hands of "taxpayers", supposedly to protect the materials from being abused to the injury of any third party.  Therefore, those who are asking for this injunction are being foolish and presumptuous and ought to be told to drop the suit or be fired!  It looks like they are trying to help the government, and yet the government is looking a gift horse in the mouth because of vindictive spite.
7. The press release and pleadings cited absolutely no one who has ever complained about or been hurt by this website, because there aren't any and never will be any.  The only people who are adversely affected are those who are willfully engaged in illegal and unconstitutional and Treasonous activity, most of whom ironically work in the IRS and the Dept. of Justice, and these people deserve to be adversely affected.  All people who fit this description are working in the government right now.  If our public DIS-servants won't prosecute people like that, then we as their Masters have a legal duty to right the situation by whatever lawful means are available to us and by exercising our God-given, inalienable rights.
8. Absolutely no evidence was provided to support any of the allegations.  If you look at other similar vexatious and unmeritorious pleadings on the DOJ website against similar activity, most include evidence of the activity.  The reason they didn't include any evidence is that they would have to come under the provisions of the Copyright/Software License Agreement in order to obtain such evidence.  The license agreement would require them, if they were federal employees or informants for the government, to basically commit fraud by indicating that they do not work for the federal government and are "nontaxpayers" and persons not subject to the I.R.C. or within the territorial jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code.  The Copyright/Software License Agreement would also require them, if they cite any of the Family Guardian materials, to stipulate to admit ALL of them into evidence, which would prejudice the case against them.  Therefore, they are proceeding without evidence, without witnesses.  This is a witch hunt and political campaign, not a court trial, and the tactics are documented in section 5.4.3.6 of the Great IRS Hoax.

9. Throughout both the pleading and the press release, the typical word "taxpayer" was conspicuously removed from other similar cases and pleadings and replaced with "customer" instead of the more correct words "nontaxpayer/ministry member".  We don't have any "customers", because this is a free speech religious ministry that doesn't sell anything.  All we have are "church members", and the only church members allowed by the Family Guardian Disclaimer are people who are "nontaxpayers", "nonresidents", who have no earnings connected to any taxable activity including a "trade or business", and "nationals but not citizens" who not subject to federal law.  The Dept. of Justice didn't want to make themselves look stupid, so they used "customer" instead of the more correct work "nontaxpayer".  Thieves and liars, these people are.  They are the ones who need an injunction on them for misrepresenting what others are saying to further their own commercial and political agenda and effect their equivalent of "false commercial speech". 28 CFR 0.85(l) identifies such actions as "terrorism":

   "Terrorism 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 or social objectives."
   [28 CFR 0.85(l)]

10. The Complaint stated that C. Hansen blames "a judicial conspiracy to protect and expand the income tax" as the reason why his alleged theories cannot find significant support with federal caselaw.  This is absolutely not the case.  This is clearly shown in the Family Guardian Frequently Asked Questions section, Question #1.1, and there are many very valid reasons for this.
11. The judge assigned to the case is a Magistrate Judge named "Nita L. Stormes".  Both parties must consent under 28 U.S.C. §636 in order for the Magistrate judge to participate and Alleged Defendant does not consent.  Magistrate judges only have jurisdiction within the federal territory of the district.  No implementing regulations published in the federal register authorize them to operate outside of federal territory within the district.  "C. Hansen" is not required to accept the jurisdiction of such a judge and probably won't.
12. The press release did not mention that this is a religious ministry and a church, because they don't want this to look like religious persecution and a violation of the First Amendment, even though they plainly and obviously know it is.  Notice, for instance, that unlike most other cases, where the word "taxpayer" is used in describing those who are harmed, they used the word "customer", instead, and did so probably knowing that the only people who can use this website are "nontaxpayers".  They knew they would be laughed out of the courtroom by the jury if they admitted that the real audience are "nontaxpayers" and church members.  Like the spoiled little, deceitful BRAT they are, they are tip-toeing around and hiding from the truth and hoping that YOU, the American public, won't notice and hold them accountable for the Treason against the Constitution and your sacred rights.  Once again, the About Us page and several other references identify Family Guardian website is a charitable and religious ministry, and not a business, nor does it involve itself in any commercial activity nor associate with anyone who comes under federal jurisdiction.  We survive on donations and good graces of others only.  Any donations provided are NOT used and not allowed to be used for funding anything directly connected with the donation.

The entire Complaint lists the following specific allegedly false statements about information that C. Hansen has been allegedly "selling" to people.  In fact, if you look at the reference in the right column, Family Guardian agrees with the legal of the government and actually help the government by advise people not to do it.  Neither Family Guardian nor C. Hansen have never made any of these alleged false statements that the government is accusing them of making, in fact.  Even if they had, everything on this website identifies itself in the Disclaimer as religious and political speech that is not factual or actionable, and therefore whatever we did say is entirely irrelevant to any Court.  Furthermore, this site nor any of its affiliates have ever advocated any of the obviously false and injurious positions incorrectly attributed to Family Guardian:

Incidentally, the free Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid publication also prominently appears in the following important places in order to warn users so that they don't create needless extra work for the IRS or state taxing authorities by using frivolous, or false arguments that contradict positive law or the stare decisis of the Supreme Court:

1. Taxation Page, under "Articles", under the subheading "Secular tax articles".  Click here for the direct link.
2. Tax Fraud Prevention Manual, Form #06.008, Chapter 4. (OFFSITE LINK)
3. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, opening page (on the right)
4. SEDM Liberty University page, item 5.14 at http://sedm.org/LibertyU/LibertyU.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
5. SEDM Response Letters Frequently Asked Questions page, question #20 at http://sedm.org/SampleLetters/RespLtrFAQ.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
6. SEDM Federal Response Letters page at http://sedm.org/SampleLetters/Federal/FedLetterAndNoticeIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)
7. SEDM State Response Letters page at http://sedm.org/SampleLetters/States/StateRespLtrIndex.htm (OFFSITE LINK)

We also searched the entire Family Guardian website electronically using the provided Search button in order to locate the specific statements allegedly attributed to C. Hansen in the Complaint.  The results are summarized  below, along with the location where they appear, if they could be found.  This information is important, because it determines whether the statement might be presumed to be classified as "commercial speech" because connected with an item that might be available on a website other than Family Guardian.  It also determines the circumstances of the listener or hearer, such as whether they are subject to the Copyright/Software License Agreement and/or some kind of member agreement at another site:

Based on the above, it is evident that the "witness", who in this case is the attorney who prepared the pleading, is subject to the Copyright/Software License Agreement at Family Guardian and is a public servant.  Therefore, he is:

1. Personally liable for $300,000 out of his own pocket for violating the agreement.
2. Has agreed to substitute himself as the adjudged party
3. Has agreed to pay all attorneys fees and legal fees spent by the defense.
4. Has agreed to pay the copyright holder an additional $10,000,000 out of his own pocket BEFORE he testifies because he refused to bring alleged errors and incorrect statements to the attention of the website BEFORE undertaking litigation.  He has also agreed to forfeit 50% of his pay as a civil servant and donate it to the ministry in order so subsidize efforts to educate and help nontaxpayers who have been hurt by this serious and bad faith omission.

4.  EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH DEMONSTRATED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DATE

This section shall give several examples of bad faith demonstrated by the government to date, in chronological sequence.  Evidence of bad faith is important, because it establishes the malicious and deceitful motives of the government, the hypocrisy demonstrated, and the deprivation of rights and equal protection.  It also prejudices the governments position should they decide to pursue this case in equity.  Everyone who proceeds in equity must have "clean hands" and bad faith definitely does not constitute "clean hands".

5.  ITEMIZED REBUTTAL OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint is nothing but unsupported false allegation, libel, false presumption, and a violation of due process because not supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Presumption absent evidence is a violation of due process of law and when instituted in a legal proceeding, constitutes malicious abuse of legal process and therefore slavery, involuntary servitude, and forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1589(3) when a person is compelled to respond to it in order to protect his God-given rights.  Like the press release, no evidence or even witnesses was provided.  When Eddie Kahn was indicted, they had a long laundry list and several footnotes pointing to affidavits from mostly dissatisfied clients.  NOTHING was provided in the case of Family Guardian case, because no one we know of has ever complained about the strictly religious and political and educational materials available here.  Below is an itemized rebuttal to specific false allegations in the Complaint.  Note that the failure to rebut something below that appeared in the original complaint does not constitute an admission that it is true: