Public v. Private Employment: You Will Be ILLEGALLY Treated as a Public Officer if you Apply for or Receive Government Benefits
Related Articles:

SOURCE: Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 5.2.7.

"All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men. The sovereign [the government] is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient: the duty of superintending the industry of private people."
[Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held many times that the ONLY purpose for lawful, constitutional taxation is to collect revenues to support ONLY the machinery and operations of the government and its “employees”.  This purpose, it calls a “public use” or “public purpose”:

“The power to tax is, therefore, the strongest, the most pervading of all powers of government, reaching directly or indirectly to all classes of the people.  It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of McCulloch v. Md., 4 Wheat. 431, that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  A striking instance of the truth of the proposition is seen in the fact that the existing tax of ten per cent, imposed by the United States on the circulation of all other banks than the National Banks, drove out of existence every *state bank of circulation within a year or two after its passage.  This power can be readily employed against one class of individuals and in favor of another, so as to ruin the one class and give unlimited wealth and prosperity to the other, if there is no implied limitation of the uses for which the power may be exercised.

To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.  This is not legislation.  It is a decree under legislative forms.

Nor is it taxation.  ‘A tax,’ says Webster’s Dictionary, ‘is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or State.’  ‘Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the Legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.’  Cooley, Const. Lim., 479.

Coulter, J., in Northern Liberties v. St. John’s Church, 13 Pa. St., 104 says, very forcibly, ‘I think the common mind has everywhere taken in the understanding that taxes are a public imposition, levied by authority of the government for the purposes of carrying on the government in all its machinery and operations—that they are imposed for a public purpose.’  See, also Pray v. Northern Liberties, 31 Pa.St., 69; Matter of Mayor of N.Y., 11 Johns., 77; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch., 398; Sharpless v. Mayor, supra; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Ia., 47; Whiting v. Fond du Lac, supra.”

[Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1874) ]


"A tax, in the general understanding of the term and as used in the constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another."

[U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word “public purpose” as follows:

Public purpose.  In the law of taxation, eminent domain, etc., this is a term of classification to distinguish the objects for which, according to settled usage, the government is to provide, from those which, by the like usage, are left to private interest, inclination, or liberality.  The constitutional requirement that the purpose of any tax, police regulation, or particular exertion of the power of eminent domain shall be the convenience, safety, or welfare of the entire community and not the welfare of a specific individual or class of persons [such as, for instance, federal benefit recipients as individuals].  “Public purpose” that will justify expenditure of public money generally means such an activity as will serve as benefit to community as a body and which at same time is directly related function of government.  Pack v. Southwestern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.2d 789, 794 .

The term is synonymous with governmental purpose.  As employed to denote the objects for which taxes may be levied, it has no relation to the urgency of the public need or to the extent of the public benefit which is to follow; the essential requisite being that a public service or use shall affect the inhabitants as a community, and not merely as individuals.  A public purpose or public business has for its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security, prosperity, and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents within a given political division, as, for example, a state, the sovereign powers of which are exercised to promote such public purpose or public business.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1231, Emphasis added]

A related word defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is “public use”:

Public use.  Eminent domain.  The constitutional and statutory basis for taking property by eminent domain.  For condemnation purposes, "public use" is one which confers some benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to actual use by public.  It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a "public advantage" or "public benefit" accrues sufficient to constitute a public use.  Montana Power Co. v. Bokma, Mont., 457 P.2d 769, 772, 773.

Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take property in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the whole community distinguished from particular individuals.  But each and every member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be personally and directly affected by it; if the object is to satisfy a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient. Ringe Co. v. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186.  The term may be said to mean public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit.  It may be limited to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not for a particular individual.  The use must be a needful one for the public, which cannot be surrendered without obvious general loss and inconvenience.  A "public use" for which land may be taken defies absolute definition for it changes with varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences, changing conceptions of scope and functions of government, and other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and new modes of communication and transportation.  Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 245 A.2d 579, 586.

See also Condemnation; Eminent domain.

[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1232]

Black’s Law Dictionary also defines the word “tax” as follows:

“Tax:     A charge by the government on the income of an individual, corporation, or trust, as well as the value of an estate or gift.  The objective in assessing the tax is to generate revenue to be used for the needs of the public.

 A pecuniary [relating to money] burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government, and is a payment exacted by legislative authority.  In re Mytinger, D.C.Tex. 31 F.Supp. 977,978,979.  Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is NOT A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT OR DONATION, BUT AN ENFORCED CONTRIBUTION, EXACTED  PURSUANT TO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  Michigan Employment Sec. Commission v. Patt, 4 Mich.App. 228, 144 N.W.2d 663, 665.  …”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1457]

So in order to be legitimately called a “tax” or “taxation”, the money we pay to the government must fit all of the following criteria:

  1. The money must be used ONLY for the support of government.
  2. The subject of the tax must be “liable”, and responsible to pay for the support of government under the force of law.
  3. The money must go toward a “public purpose” rather than a “private purpose”.
  4. The monies paid cannot be described as wealth transfer between two people or classes of people within society
  5. The monies paid cannot aid one group of private individuals in society at the expense of another group, because this violates the concept of equal protection of law for all citizens found in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment

If the monies demanded by government do not fit all of the above requirements, then they are being used for a “private” purpose and cannot be called “taxes” or “taxation”, according to the Supreme Court.  Actions by the government to enforce the payment of any monies that do not meet all the above requirements can therefore only be described as:

  1. Theft and robbery by the government in the guise of “taxation”
  2. Government by decree rather than by law
  3. Extortion under the color of law in violation 18 U.S.C. 872.
  4. Tyranny
  5. Socialism
  6. Mob rule and a tyranny by the “have-nots” against the “haves”
  7. 18 U.S.C. 241:  Conspiracy against rights.  The IRS shares tax return information with states of the union, so that both of them can conspire to deprive you of your property.
  8. 18 U.S.C. 242:  Deprivation of rights under the color of law.  The Fifth Amendment  says that people in states of the Union cannot be deprived of their property without due process of law or a court hearing.  Yet, the IRS tries to make it appear like they have the authority to just STEAL these people’s property for a fabricated tax debt that they aren’t even legally liable for.
  9. 18 U.S.C. 247:  Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs
  10. 18 U.S.C. 872:  Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.
  11. 18 U.S.C. 876:  Mailing threatening communications.  This includes all the threatening notices regarding levies, liens, and idiotic IRS letters that refuse to justify why government thinks we are “liable”.
  12. 18 U.S.C. 880:  Receiving the proceeds of extortion.  Any money collected from Americans through illegal enforcement actions and for which the contributors are not "liable" under the law is extorted money, and the IRS is in receipt of the proceeds of illegal extortion.
  13. 18 U.S.C. 1581:  Peonage, obstructing enforcement.  IRS is obstructing the proper administration of the Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution, which require that they respect those who choose NOT to volunteer to participate in the federal donation program identified under Subtitle A of the I.R.C.
  14. 18 U.S.C. 1583:  Enticement into slavery.  IRS tries to enlist “nontaxpayers” to rejoin the ranks of other peons who pay taxes they aren't demonstrably liable for, which amount to slavery.
  15. 18 U.S.C. 1589:  Forced labor.  Being forced to expend one’s personal time responding to frivolous IRS notices and pay taxes on my labor that I am not liable for.

The U.S. Supreme Court has further characterized all efforts to abuse the tax system in order to accomplish “wealth transfer” as “political heresy” that is a denial of republican principles that form the foundation of our Constitution, when it issued the following strong words of rebuke.  Incidentally, the case below also forms the backbone of reasons why the Internal Revenue Code can never be anything more than private law that only applies to those who volunteer into it:

“The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they [the government] cannot change innocence [a “nontaxpayer”] into guilt [a “taxpayer”]; or punish innocence as a crime [criminally prosecute a “nontaxpayer” for violation of the tax laws]; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers [of THEFT and FRAUD], if they had not been expressly restrained; would, *389 in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.
[Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)]

We also cannot assume or suppose that our government has the authority to make “gifts” of monies collected through its taxation powers, and especially not when paid to private individuals or foreign countries because:

  1. The Constitution DOES NOT authorize the government to “gift” money to anyone within states of the Union or in foreign countries, and therefore, this is not a Constitutional use of public funds, nor does unauthorized expenditure of such funds produce a tangible public benefit, but rather an injury, by forcing those who do not approve of the gift to subsidize it and yet not derive any personal benefit whatsoever for it.
  2. The Supreme Court identifies such abuse of taxing powers as “robbery in the name of taxation” above.

Based on the foregoing analysis, we are then forced to divide the monies collected by the government through its taxing powers into only two distinct classes.  We also emphasize that every tax collected and every expenditure originating from the tax paid MUST fit into one of the two categories below:

Table  2:  Two methods for taxation

# Characteristic Public use/purpose Private use/purpose
1 Authority for tax U.S. Constitution Legislative fiat, tyranny
2 Monies collected described by Supreme Court as Legitimate taxation “Robbery in the name of taxation” (see Loan Assoc. v. Topeka, above)
3 Money paid only to following parties Federal “employees”, contractors, and agents Private parties with no contractual relationship or agency with the government
4 Government that practices this form of taxation is A righteous government A THIEF
5 This type of expenditure of revenues collected is: Constitutional Unconstitutional
6 Lawful means of collection Apportioned direct or indirect taxation Voluntary donation (cannot be lawfully implemented as a “tax”)
7 Tax system based on this approach is A lawful means of running a government A charity and welfare state for private interests, thieves, and criminals
8 Government which identifies payment of such monies as mandatory and enforceable is A righteous government A lying, thieving government that is deceiving the people.
9 When enforced, this type of tax leads to Limited government that sticks to its corporate charter, the Constitution



Mafia protection racket

Organized extortion

10 Lawful subjects of Constitutional, federal taxation Taxes on imports into states of the Union coming from foreign countries.  See Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3   (external) taxation. No subjects of lawful taxation.  Whatever unconstitutional judicial fiat and a deceived electorate will tolerate is what will be imposed and enforced at the point of a gun
11 Tax system based on Private property VOLUNTARILY donated to a public use by its exclusive owner All property owned by the state, which is FALSELY PRESUMED TO BE EVERYTHING. Tax becomes a means of “renting” what amounts to state property to private individuals for temporary use.

If we give our government the benefit of the doubt by “assuming” or “presuming” that it is operating lawfully and consistent with the model on the left above, then we have no choice but to conclude that everyone who lawfully receives any kind of federal payment MUST be either a federal “employee” or “federal contractor” on official duty, and that the compensation received must be directly connected to the performance of a sovereign or Constitutionally authorized function of government.  Any other conclusion or characterization of a lawful tax other than this is irrational, inconsistent with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court on this subject, and an attempt to deceive the public about the role of limited Constitutional government based on Republican principles.  This means that you cannot participate in any of the following federal social insurance programs WITHOUT being a federal “employee”, and if you refuse to identify yourself as a federal employee, then you are admitting that your government is a thief and a robber that is abusing its taxing powers:

  1. Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.  IRS sections 1, 32, and 162 all confer privileged financial benefits to the participant which constitute federal “employment” compensation.
  2. Social Security.
  3. Unemployment compensation.
  4.  Medicare.

An examination of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(13), in fact, identifies all those who participate in the above programs as “federal personnel”, which means federal “employees”.  To wit:


552a. Records maintained on individuals

(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—

(13) the term “Federal personnel” means [not "includes", but MEANS] officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

The “individual” they are talking about above is further defined in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2)  as follows:


552a. Records maintained on individuals

(a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

The “citizen of the United States” they are talking above is based on the STATUTORY rather than CONSTITUTIONAL definition of the “United States”, which means it refers to a STATUTORY "national and citizen of the United States at birth" under 8 U.S.C. §1401 rather than a CONSTITUTIONAL "Citizen" or Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States***" born in and domiciled in states of the Union.  We cover this in:

Why You are a "national", "state national", and Constitutional but not Statutory "Citizen", Form #05.006

Also, note that both of the two preceding definitions are found within Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which is entitled “Government Organization and Employees”.  Therefore, it refers ONLY to government employees and excludes private employees.  There is no definition of the term “individual” anywhere in Title 26 (I.R.C.) of the U.S. Code or any other title that refers to private natural humans, because Congress cannot legislative for them.  Notice the use of the phrase “private business” in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling below:

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way [unregulated by the government]. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbor to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public [including so-called “taxes” under Subtitle A of the I.R.C.] so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

[Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906)]

The purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights instead is to REMOVE authority of the Congress to legislate for private persons and thereby protect their sovereignty and dignity.  That is why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following:

"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, 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)]

QUESTIONS FOR DOUBTERS:  If you aren’t a federal statutory “employee” as a person participating in Social Security and the Internal Revenue Code, then why are all of the Social Security Regulations located in Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations under parts 400-499, entitled “Employee Benefits”?  See for yourself:

Below is the definition of “employee” for the purposes of the above:

26 C.F.R. §31.3401(c)-1 Employee:

"...the term [employee] includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a [federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico or any political subdivision, thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.  The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation." 

26 U.S.C. §3401(c) Employee

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes [is limited to] an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart A > CHAPTER 21 > § 2105

§2105. Employee

(a) For the purpose of this title, “employee”, except as otherwise provided by this section or when specifically modified, means an officer and an individual who is—

(1) appointed in the civil service by one of the following acting in an official capacity—
(A) the President; 
(B) a Member or Members of Congress, or the Congress; 
(C) a member of a uniformed service; 
(D) an individual who is an employee under this section; 
(E) the head of a Government controlled corporation; or 
(F) an adjutant general designated by the Secretary concerned under section 709 (c) of title 32;
(2) engaged in the performance of a Federal function under authority of law or an Executive act; and 
(3) subject to the supervision of an individual named by paragraph (1) of this subsection while engaged in the performance of the duties of his position.

Keeping in mind the following rules of statutory construction and interpretation, please show us SOMEWHERE in the statutes defining “employee” that EXPRESSLY includes PRIVATE human beings working as PRIVATE workers protected by the constitution and not subject to federal law:

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.  A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.  Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d. 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d. 1097, 1100.  Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another.  When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.  Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term "means" . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read "as a whole," post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General's restriction -- "the child up to the head." Its words, "substantial portion," indicate the contrary." 

[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)

Another very important point to make here is that the purpose of nearly all federal law is to regulate “public conduct” rather than “private conduct”.  Congress must write laws to regulate and control every aspect of the behavior of its employees so that they do not adversely affect the rights of private individuals like you, who they exist exclusively to serve and protect.  Most federal statutes, in fact, are exclusively for use by those working in government and simply do not apply to private citizens in the conduct of their private lives.  This fact is exhaustively proven with evidence in:

Franchises of the National (not federal, but national) government cannot be enforced in states of the Union because the Thirteenth Amendment says that involuntary servitude has been abolished.  If involuntary servitude is abolished, then they can't use, or in this case “abuse” the authority of law to impose ANY kind of duty against anyone in the private public except possibly the responsibility to avoid hurting their neighbor and thereby depriving him of the equal rights he enjoys.

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of [the ONLY requirement of] the law [which is to avoid hurting your neighbor and thereby love him].
[Romans 13:9, Bible, NKJV]


“Do not strive with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.” 
[Prov. 3:30, Bible, NKJV]

Thomas Jefferson, our most revered founding father, summed up this singular duty of government to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE and only interfere or impose a "duty" using the authority of law when and only when they are hurting each other in order to protect them and prevent the harm when he said.

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

[Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:320]

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, when it ruled:

“The power to "legislate generally upon" life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the "power to provide modes of redress" against offensive state action, was "repugnant" to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress' 5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”

[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

What the U.S. Supreme Court is saying above is that the government has no authority to tell you how to run your private life.  This is contrary to the whole idea of the Internal Revenue Code, whose main purpose is to monitor and control every aspect of those who are subject to it.  In fact, it has become the chief means for Congress to implement what we call “social engineering”.  Just by the deductions they offer, people are incentivized into all kinds of crazy behaviors in pursuit of reductions in a liability that they in fact do not even have.  Therefore, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, which would “appear” to regulate the private conduct of all human beings in states of the Union, in fact:

  1. Only applies to “public employees”, “public offices”, and federal instrumentalities  in the official conduct of their duties on behalf of the municipal corporation located in the District of Columbia, which 4 U.S.C. 72 makes the “seat of government”. 
  2. Does not CREATE any new public offices or instrumentalities within the national government, but only regulates the exercise of EXISTING public offices lawfully created through Title 5 of the U.S. Code.  The IRS abuses its forms to unlawfully CREATE public offices within the federal government.  In payroll terminology, this is called “creating fictitious employees”, and it is not only quite common, but highly illegal and can get private workers FIRED on the spot if discovered.
  3. Regulates PUBLIC and not PRIVATE conduct and therefore does not pertain to private human beings.
  4. Constitutes a franchise and a “benefit” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a .  Tax “refunds” and “deductions”, in fact, are the “benefit”, and  26 U.S.C. 162 says that all those who take deductions MUST, in fact, be engaged in a public office within the government, which is called a “trade or business”:

    552a. Records maintained on individuals

    (a) Definitions.— For purposes of this section—

    (12) the term “Federal benefit program” means any program administered or funded by the Federal Government, or by any agent or State on behalf of the Federal Government, providing cash or in-kind assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans, or loan guarantees to individuals;. . .

  5.  Has the job of concealing all the above facts in thousands of pages and hundreds of thousands of words so that the average American is not aware of it.  That is why they call it the “code” instead of simply “law”:  Because it is private law you have to volunteer for and an “encryption” and concealment device for the truth.  Now we know why former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil called the Internal Revenue Code “9500 pages of gibberish” before he quit his job in disgust and went on a campaign to criticize government.

The I.R.C. therefore essentially amounts to a part of the job responsibility and the “employment contract” of EXISTING “public employees”, “public officers”, and federal instrumentalities. This was also confirmed by the House of Representatives, who said that only those who take an oath of “public office” are subject to the requirements of the personal income tax. See:

The total lack of authority of the government to regulate or tax private conduct explains why, for instance:

  1. The vehicle code in your state cannot be enforced on PRIVATE property.  It only applies on PUBLIC roads owned by the government
  2. The family court in your state cannot regulate the exercise of unlicensed and therefore PRIVATE CONTRACT marriage.  Marriage licenses are a franchise that make those applying into public officers.  Family court is a franchise court and the equivalent of binding arbitration that only applies to fellow statutory government “employees”.
  3. City conduct ordinances such as those prohibiting drinking by underage minors only apply to institutions who are licensed, and therefore PUBLIC institutions acting as public officers of the government.

Within the Internal Revenue Code , those legal “persons” who work for the government are identified as engaging in a “public office”.  A “public office” within the Internal Revenue Code is called a “trade or business”, which is defined below.  We emphasize that engaging in a privileged “trade or business” is the main excise taxable activity that in fact and in deed is what REALLY makes a person a “taxpayer” subject to the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A:

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26)

"The term 'trade or business' includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

Below is the definition of “public office”:

Public office

“Essential characteristics of a ‘public office’ are:

(1) Authority conferred by law,

(2) Fixed tenure of office, and

(3) Power to exercise some of the sovereign functions of government.

(4) Key element of such test is that “officer is carrying out a sovereign function’.

(5) Essential elements to establish public position as ‘public office’ are:

    (a)    Position must be created by Constitution, legislature, or through authority   conferred by legislature.

    (b)    Portion of sovereign power of government must be delegated to position,

    (c)    Duties and powers must be defined, directly or implied, by legislature or through legislative authority.

    (d)    Duties must be performed independently without control of superior power other than law, and

    (e)    Position must have some permanency.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

Those who are fulfilling the “functions of a public office” are under a legal, fiduciary duty as “trustees” of the “public trust”, while working as “volunteers” for the “charitable trust” called the “United States Government Corporation”, which we affectionately call “U.S. Inc.”:

“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. [1]  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts. [2]   That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves. [3]  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. [4]   It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual. [5]   Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.[6]

[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, 247]

“U.S. Inc.” is a federal corporation, as defined below:

"Corporations are also of all grades, and made for varied objects; all governments are corporations, created by usage and common consent, or grants and charters which create a body politic for prescribed purposes; but whether they are private, local or general, in their objects, for the enjoyment of property, or the exercise of power, they are all governed by the same rules of law, as to the construction and the obligation of the instrument by which the incorporation is made. One universal rule of law protects persons and property. It is a fundamental principle of the common law of England, that the term freemen of the kingdom, includes 'all persons,' ecclesiastical and temporal, incorporate, politique or natural; it is a part of their magna charta (2 Inst. 4), and is incorporated into our institutions. The persons of the members of corporations are on the same footing of protection as other persons, and their corporate property secured by the same laws which protect that of individuals. 2 Inst. 46-7. 'No man shall be taken,' 'no man shall be disseised,' without due process of law, is a principle taken from magna charta, infused into all our state constitutions, and is made inviolable by the federal government, by the amendments to the constitution."  

[Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837)]







Sec. 3002. Definitions


(15) ''United States'' means -

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Those who are acting as “public officials” for “U.S. Inc.” have essentially donated their formerly private property to a “public use”.  In effect, they have joined the SOCIALIST collective and become partakers of money STOLEN from people, most of whom, do not wish to participate and who would quit if offered an informed choice to do so. 

“My son, if sinners [socialists, in this case] entice you,
Do not consent [do not abuse your power of choice]
If they say, “Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood [of innocent "nontaxpayers"];
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,
And whole, like those who go down to the Pit:
We shall fill our houses with spoil [plunder];
Cast in your lot among us,
Let us all have one purse [share the stolen LOOT]"--

My son, do not walk in the way with them [do not ASSOCIATE with them and don't let the government FORCE you to associate with them either by forcing you to become a "taxpayer"/government whore or a "U.S. citizen"],
Keep your foot from their path;
For their feet run to evil,
And they make haste to shed blood.
Surely, in vain the net is spread
In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood.
They lurk secretly for their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy for gain [or unearned government benefits];
It takes away the life of its owners.”
[Proverbs 1:10-19 , Bible, NKJV]

Below is what the U.S. Supreme Court says about those who have donated their private property to a “public use”.  The ability to volunteer your private property for “public use”, by the way, also implies the ability to UNVOLUNTEER at any time, which is the part no government employee we have ever found is willing to talk about.  I wonder why….DUHHHH!:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

The reason governments are created, according to the Declaration of Independence, is exclusively to protect PRIVATE rights. The only thing MENTIONED in the Declaration, in fact, as the object of protection is HUMANS, not GOVERNMENTS. Government did not CREATE these PRIVATE, UNALIENABLE rights and therefore, they do not OWN them. They can only tax or regulate that which the CREATE, and the place they do the creating is in the definition section of franchise agreements. See:

Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship

The VERY first step in protecting PRIVATE rights held exclusively by HUMANS is to prevent them from being converted to PUBLIC rights or franchises without the EXPRESS written VOLUNTARY consent of those who have the legal capacity to consent. Governments should not be using word games, equivocation, or other forms of legal treachery to compel the conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC. If you would like to know the legal boundaries for this separation between PRIVATE and PUBLIC and how it is illegally circumvented by covetous public servants, see:

Separation Between Public and Private, Form #12.025

Now some rules for how PUBLIC and PRIVATE must be kept separated or else the government has violated its fiduciary duty to protect PRIVATE property. These rules derive from the above document:

  1. The PRIVATE constitutional rights of human beings are UNALIENABLE according to the Declaration of Independence.
    1.1. Hence, you aren't even allowed to give them away, even WITH your consent.
    1.2. The only place that consent can lawfully be given is on federal territory where private or constitutional or unalienable rights DO NOT exist in the first place.
    1.3. The rights created by the consent can be enforced on federal territory not within a state of the Union. All law is prima facie territorial. That is why all public offices are REQUIRED by 4 U.S.C. §72 to be exercised IN the "District of Columbia" and "NOT elsewhere".
  2. Statutory "persons" are PUBLIC fictions of law, agents, and/or offices created in civil statutes by government as a civil franchise. All civil franchises are contracts between the government grantor and the participant. Hence PRIVATE human beings whose rights are unalienable are UNABLE to consent to a franchise contract if standing on land protected by the Constitution and must do so on federal territory AT THE TIME consent is given.
  3. A civil or statutory or legal "person", whether it be a natural person, a corporation, or a trust, may ADD to its duties or join specific franchises through consent.  HOWEVER:
    3.1. Licensing and franchises may not be used to CREATE new public offices.
    3.2. If licensing or franchises are abused to create NEW public offices, then those who engage in said offices outside the place "expressly authorized" to do so by Congress are criminally impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912.
    3.3 A subset of those engaging in a “public office” are federal “employees”, but the term “public office” or “trade or business” encompass more than just government “employees”.  Corporations, for instance, are public offices and instrumentalities of the government grantor.
  4. In law, when a human being volunteers to accept the legal duties of a “public office”, it therefore becomes a “trustee”, an agent, and fiduciary (as defined in  26 U.S.C. 6903) acting on behalf of the federal government by the operation of private contract/franchise law.  It becomes essentially a “franchisee” of the federal government carrying out the provisions of the franchise agreement, which is found in:
    4.1. Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A , in the case of the federal income tax.
    4.2. The Social Security Act , which is found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code.

If you would like to learn more about how this “trade or business” scam works, consult the authoritative article below:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001

If you would like to know more about the extreme dangers of participating in all government franchises and why you destroy ALL your Constitutional rights and protections by doing so, see:

  1. Government Franchises Course, Form #12.012
  2. Government Instituted Slavery Using Franchises, Form #05.030
  3. Liberty University, Section 4:

The IRS form 1042-S Instructions confirm that all those who use Social Security Numbers are engaged in the “trade or business” franchise:

Box 14, Recipient’s U.S. Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)

You must obtain and enter a U.S. taxpayer identification number (TIN) for:

     Any recipient whose income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States.

[IRS Form 1042-S Instructions, p. 14]

Engaging in a “trade or business” therefore implies a “public office”. All those who USE “Taxpayer Identification Numbers” are therefore treated, USUALLY ILLEGALLY IF THEY ARE OTHERWISE PRIVATE, as public officers in the national government.  All property associated with the number then is treated effectively as “private property donated to a public use to procure the benefits of a government franchise”.  At that point, the person in control of said property is treated as a de facto manager and trustee over public property created by that donation process.  That public property includes his/her formerly private time and services.  The “employment agreement” for managing this newly, and in most cases ILLEGALLY created public property is the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and the Social Security Act found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code. 

The Social Security Number is therefore the equivalent of a “de facto license number” to act as a “public officer” for the federal government, who is a fiduciary or trustee subject to the plenary legislative jurisdiction of the federal government pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(39), 26 U.S.C. 7408(d ), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 17(b), regardless of where he might be found geographically, including within a state of the Union.  The franchise agreement governs “choice of law” and where it’s terms may be litigated, which is the District of Columbia, based on the agreement itself.

The invisible process of essentially consenting to become a public officer of the national and not state government is a FRAUD because:

  1. They don’t protect your right to NOT volunteer.
  2. They refuse to prosecute the fraud once discovered and respond with silence to criminal complaints directed at stopping it.  Remember:  It is a maximum of law that such gross negligence is in essence and substance, FRAUD itself.
  3. They don’t recognize even the EXISTENCE of a “non-resident non-person”, who is someone who DID NOT volunteer.  To do so would mean a surrender of their “plausible deniability” in front of a legally ignorant jury.
  4. They call those who insist that the withholdings and/or reportings associated with the fraudulently created public office “frivolous”, and yet refuse to address the content of this section or to address specifically how your property was LAWFULLY converted from PRIVATE to PUBLIC WITHOUT your consent.  Even the taxation process requires, as a bare minimum, CONSENT to become a public officer.

Now let’s apply what we have learned to your employment situation.  God said you cannot work for two companies at once.  You can only serve one company, and that company is the federal government if you are receiving federal benefits:

“No one can serve two masters [two employers, for instance]; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon [government].” 

[Luke 16:13, Bible, NKJV.  Written by a tax collector]

Everything you make while working for your slave master, the federal government, is their property over which you are a fiduciary and “public officer”.


A federal “public official” has no rights in relation to their employer, the federal government:

“The restrictions that the Constitution places upon the government in its capacity as lawmaker, i.e., as the regulator of private conduct, are not the same as the restrictions that it places upon the government in its capacity as employer. We have recognized this in many contexts, with respect to many different constitutional guarantees. Private citizens perhaps cannot be prevented from wearing long hair, but policemen can. Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247 (1976). Private citizens cannot have their property searched without probable cause, but in many circumstances government employees can. O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723 (1987) (plurality opinion); id., at 732 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). Private citizens cannot be punished for refusing to provide the government information that may incriminate them, but government employees can be dismissed when the incriminating information that they refuse to provide relates to the performance of their job. Gardner v. Broderick, [497 U.S. 62, 95]   392 U.S. 273, 277 -278 (1968). With regard to freedom of speech in particular: Private citizens cannot be punished for speech of merely private concern, but government employees can be fired for that reason. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983). Private citizens cannot be punished for partisan political activity, but federal and state employees can be dismissed and otherwise punished for that reason. Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 101 (1947); Civil Service Comm'n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 556 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 616 -617 (1973).”

[Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990)]

Your existence and your earnings as a federal “public official” are entirely subject to the whim and pleasure of corrupted lawyers and politicians, and you must beg and grovel if you expect to retain anything:

“In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.” 
[Alexander Hamilton , Federalist paper  No. 79]

You will need an “exemption” from your new slave master specifically spelled out in law to justify anything you want to keep while working on the federal plantation.  The 1040 return is a profit and loss statement for a federal business corporation called the “United States”.  You are in partnership with your slave master and they decide what scraps they want to throw to you in your legal “cage” AFTER they figure out whatever is left in financing their favorite pork barrel project and paying off interest on an ever-expanding and endless national debt.  Do you really want to reward this type of irresponsibility and surety?

The W-4 therefore essentially is being deceptively and illegally MISUSED as a federal employment application.  It is your badge of dishonor and a tacit admission that you can’t or won’t trust God and yourself to provide for yourself.  Instead, you need a corrupted “protector” to steal money from your neighbor or counterfeit (print) it to help you pay your bills and run your life.  Furthermore, if your private employer forced you to fill out the W-4 against your will or instituted any duress to get you to fill it out, such as threatening to fire or not hire you unless you fill it out, then he/she is:

  1. Engaging in criminal identity theft. See:
    Government Identity Theft, Form #05.046
  2. Acting as an employment recruiter for the federal government.
  3. Recruiting you into federal slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. 1994 .
  4. Involved in a conspiracy to commit grand theft by stealing money from you to pay for services and protection you don’t want and don’t need.
  5. Involved in racketeering and extortion in violation of  18 U.S.C. 1951.
  6. Involved in money laundering for the federal government, by sending in money stolen from you to them, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956.

The higher ups at the IRS probably know the above, and they certainly aren’t going to tell private employers or their underlings the truth, because they aren’t going to look a gift horse in the mouth and don’t want to surrender their defense of “plausible deniability”.  They will NEVER tell a thief who is stealing for them that they are stealing, especially if they don’t have to assume liability for the consequences of the theft.  No one who practices this kind of slavery, deceit, and evil can rightly claim that they are loving their neighbor and once they know they are involved in such deceit, they have a duty to correct it or become an “accessory after the fact” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3.  This form of deceit is also the sin most hated by God in the Bible.  Below is a famous Bible commentary on Prov. 11:1 :

"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 balance 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]

The Bible also says that those who participate in this kind of “commerce” with the government are practicing harlotry and idolatry.  The Bible book of Revelations describes a woman called “Babylon the Great Harlot”. 

“And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written:


I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.” 
[Rev. 17:3-6 , Bible, NKJV]

This despicable harlot is described below as the “woman who sits on many waters”. 

“Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot [Babylon the Great Harlot] who sits on many waters,  with whom the kings of the earth [politicians and rulers] committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk [indulged] with the wine of her fornication.” 
[Rev. 17:1-2 , Bible, NKJV]

These waters are simply symbolic of a democracy controlled by mobs of atheistic people who are fornicating with the Beast and who have made it their false, man-made god and idol:

“The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.”
[Rev. 17:15 , Bible, NKJV]

The Beast is then defined in Rev. 19:19 as “the kings of the earth”, which today would be our political rulers:

“And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.” 
[Rev. 19:19 , Bible, NKJV]

Babylon the Great Harlot is “fornicating” with the government by engaging in commerce with it.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines “commerce” as “intercourse”:

Commerce.  …Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities [governments] and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on…” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 269]

If you want your rights back people, you can’t pursue government employment in the context of your private job.  If you do, the Bible, not us, says you are a harlot and that you are CONDEMNED to hell!

"And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.  For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.  Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her.  In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’  Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her." 
[Rev. 18:4-8 , Bible, NKJV]

In summary, it ought to be very clear from reading this section then, that:

  1. It is an abuse of the government’s taxing power, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, to pay public monies to private persons or to use the government’s taxing power to transfer wealth between groups of private individuals.
  2. Because of these straight jacket constraints of the use of “public funds” by the government, the government can only lawfully make payments or pay “benefits” to persons who have contracted with them to render specific services that are authorized by the Constitution to be rendered.
  3. The government had to create an intermediary called the “straw man” that is a public office or agent within the government and therefore part of the government that they could pay the “benefit” to in order to circumvent the restrictions upon the government from abusing its powers to transfer wealth between private individuals.  That “straw man” is exhaustively described in :
    Proof That There Is a “Straw Man”, Form #05.042
  4. The straw man is a “public office” within the U.S. government.  It is a creation of Congress and an agent and fiduciary of the government subject to the statutory control of Congress.  It is therefore a public entity and not a private entity which the government can therefore lawfully pay public funds to without abusing its taxing powers.
  5. Those who sign up for government contracts, benefits, franchises, or employment agree to become surety for the straw man or public office and agree to act in a representative capacity on behalf of a federal corporation in the context of all the duties of the office pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) .
  6. Because the straw man is a public office, you can’t be compelled to occupy the office.  You and not the government set the compensation or amount of money you are willing to work for in order to consensually occupy the office.  If you don’t think the compensation is adequate, you have the right to refuse to occupy the office by refusing to connect your assets to the office using the de facto license number for the office called the Taxpayer Identification Number.

If you would like to know more about why Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A only applies to federal instrumentalities and payments to or from the federal government, we refer you to the free memorandum of law below:

Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008


[1] State ex rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P2d 995,  99 ALR 321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 NJ 584, 115 A2d 8.

[2] Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v Sistrunk, 249 Ga 543, 291 SE2d 524.  A public official is held in public trust.  Madlener v Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill App 3d 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 NE2d 697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 NE2d 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill 2d 147, 131 Ill Dec 145, 538 NE2d 520.
[3] Chicago Park Dist. v Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill 2d 555, 37 Ill Dec 291, 402 NE2d 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill App 3d 222, 63 Ill Dec 134, 437 NE2d 783.
[4] United States v Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F2d 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds  484 US 807,  98 L Ed 2d 18,  108 S Ct 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F2d 1343, cert den  486 US 1035,  100 L Ed 2d 608,  108 S Ct 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F2d 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F2d 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F2d 230, 29 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1223).
[5] Chicago ex rel. Cohen v Keane, 64 Ill 2d 559, 2 Ill Dec 285, 357 NE2d 452, later proceeding (1st Dist) 105 Ill App 3d 298, 61 Ill Dec 172, 434 NE2d 325.
[6] Indiana State Ethics Comm'n v Nelson (Ind App) 656 NE2d 1172, reh gr (Ind App) 659 NE2d 260, reh den (Jan 24, 1996) and transfer den (May 28, 1996).
Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship Last revision: 8/16/09
   Home  About  Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring