RIGHT click here for the Word 97 version of this document

The letter appearing below was sent by one of our readers. Here is what he said:

I just read the letter from INS Agent "Fairy D. White" posted on your web-site, at: .

FYI: Attached is an actual (and proper) response (four pages) to "Fairy", that I prepared for a friend in Michigan, who received a letter almost identical to the one posted at the above link. It is adapted from a Dan Meador letter challenging the Authority of an IRS Agent to act in a union state or against one of the sovereign American People.

BTW: Not a peep out of "Fairy D. White" or INS since response letter was received by INS and receipt was verified by Certified Mail - Return Receipt (green card).

You can contact this contributor at:

From: <<Your Name>>

c/o non-domestic
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>, U.S.A.

By: CERTIFIED MAIL # ___________________________

To: Fairy D. White, Supervisory Program Specialist

National Customer Service Center
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
425 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20536

August 11, A.D. 2002

Direct Challenge to Personal Authority

Purpose: Verify authenticity of your lawful Authority

Re: Your letter HQISD 70/48.2.1-6, dated July 31, A.D. 2002

Dear Fairy D. White:

This sealed document constitutes timely objection to each of the presumptive and erroneous conclusions of law made in your unattested letter referenced above. Further, this document is a direct challenge to your personal authority to act or take action in the instant matter. After considerable review of the Constitution of the United States, the United States Code (U.S.C.), the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) and published decisional law of the Supreme Court of the United States; it appears that the aforesaid letter exceeds the venue and subject matter jurisdiction of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and that you may be operating under color of authority of Government of the United States.

If you will consult the organic Law of the United States, which is currently posted on the United States National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) web page at:,

Uou will find that INS personnel do not have any constitutional Authority to determine the Citizenship Status of native born American Citizens, living and domiciled within the several States of the Union. It naturally follows that INS personnel can not have any delegated authority to administratively and unilaterally render legal opinions affecting the Citizenship Status of American Citizens, living and domiciled “without the United States” (see: 28 U.S.C. 1746(1)), but within the several states of the Union (united States of America).

Next, please note the fundamental Principles of Law, clearly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 @ 469 (1793), 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440:

“No such ideas obtain here [speaking of America]: at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the People; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the Citizens of America are equal as fellow Citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or state-sovereign is the Person or Persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the People; there, the Sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our governors are the agents of the People, and at most stand in the same relation to their Sovereigns, in which regents in Europe stand to their Sovereigns[3]. Their princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private Citizens.”

Further, if you will consult 19 Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII, 883, 884, under Foreign Corporations, you will find that "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."

Given this Evidence, all of which is published and is a matter of Public Record, I have concluded that it would be prudent to further investigate the extent of your lawful authority, its source(s) and the activities it applies to, and what, if anything, you are empowered to do in regard to native born American Citizens, domiciled within the several States of the Union. The investigation necessarily begins with your personal standing and authority.

By the Principle of Law, stated in Ryder vs. United States, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136, 515 U.S. 177, I am required to initiate a direct challenge to authority of anyone representing himself or herself as a government officer or agent prior to the finality of any proceeding in order to avoid implications of de facto officer doctrine. When challenged, those posing as government officers and agents are required to affirmatively prove whatever authority they claim. In the absence of such proof, they may be held personally accountable for loss, injury and damages.

Therefore, please provide me with certified copies of the following:

  1. Your license to practice law (both in the District of Columbia and in Michigan), your Bar number(s) and also please cite the section of the Act of Congress that created the office you occupy;
  2. Your constitutional Oath of Office, as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United States and 5 U.S.C. 3331;
  3. Your civil commission as Agent or Officer of Government of the United States, as required by Article II 3 of the Constitution of the United States and attending legislation;
  4. Your Affidavit declaring that you did not pay for or otherwise make or promise consideration to secure the office (5 U.S.C. 3332);

  5. Your personal surety bond; and
  6. Documentation that establishes your complete line of delegated authority to make the legal opinions contained in your letter, beginning with the President of the United States and including all intermediaries, such as the Attorney General of the United States.

These documents should all be filed as public records. See 5 U.S.C. 2906 for requirements concerning filing Oaths of Office. In the event you do not have a personal surety bond, you may provide a copy of your financial statement, which you are required to file annually. Your financial statement will be construed as a private treaty surety bond in the event that you exceed lawful authority.

Collateral issues and procedural essentials (nature & cause of action, standing of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, venue, subject matter jurisdiction generally, and substantive and procedural due process rights) are matters that must be documented in record, when challenged. Therefore, the mandate for full disclosure falls within substantive and procedural rights that cannot be avoided or otherwise passed over through technicalities or silence. U.S. Supreme Court decisions verifying these requirements are too numerous to list in this context.

The Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Register Act require publication of organizational particulars and procedure in the Federal Register. See particularly, 5 U.S.C. 552. Therefore, INS personnel engaged in activity within the several States of the Union, have a duty to affirmatively resolve organizational and other collateral and procedural issues, when they are raised in the administrative forum.

Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel acts not authorized by law, and omission of duties imposed by law, are criminal in nature. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, INS personnel operating within the several States of the Union, with the possible exception of limited authority for enforcing federal laws relating to resident aliens or illegal aliens “residing” in said states, are involved in a seditious conspiracy and racketeering enterprise. When INS personnel operate under lawful authority of the United States, in reality they are agents of a government foreign to the several States of the Union; when they operate under color of authority against Citizens of the several states, such offenses may be construed as Treason and Conspiracy to commit Treason. See also: 18 U.S.C. 912 concerning impersonation of an officer of the United States.

There are essentials to any case or controversy, whether administrative or judicial, arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (Article III 2, Constitution of the United States, “arising under” clause). See the Principles of Law as stated in Federal Maritime Commission vs. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U.S. ___ (2002), decided March 28, 2002, and cases cited therein. The following elements are essential:

1) When challenged, standing, venue and all elements of subject matter jurisdiction, including compliance with substantive and procedural due process requirements, must be established in record;

2) Facts of the case must be established in record;

3) Unless stipulated by agreement, facts must be verified by competent witnesses via testimony (affidavit, deposition or direct oral examination);

4) The law of the case must affirmatively appear in record, which in this instance includes authority statutes, with attending enabling regulations, applicable within the several states of the Union; and

5) The advocate of a position must prove application of law to stipulated or otherwise provable facts.

Knowing your precise U.S. Government authorized Title and the Act of Congress that created the office you occupy is essential to establishing your authority. For the same reason it is essential to establish legitimacy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to act within the several states of the Union.

The constitutional Oath of Office is important enough that the first official act of Congress in 1789 set requirements for the oath in place. See 1 Stat. 23. The Constitution of the United States mandates a constitutional Oath of Office in Article VI, Clause 3. The requirement for civil commissions is in Article II 2, Clause 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Requirements for civil commissions were particularized as Principles of Law in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), and United States vs. Le Baron, 60 U.S. 73 (1856). Requirements for surety bonds arise from common law doctrine and statutory law.

Collateral issues, other than the above requests intended to document your personal standing, will be addressed separately from this request.

Lastly Ms. White, I do not live in “MI” or any of the federal enclaves within the external boundaries of the “State of Michigan” that are collectively designated "MI". I am currently living, and have at all times relevant, lived within the republic state of Michigan, a state of the Union party to the Constitution for the United States of America, as amended A.D. 1819. The only abbreviation that I can find that is authorized by the Michigan legislature is "Mich.". Please note proper capitalization and punctuation per the U.S. Government Style Guide.

To make this matter more complete and more certain to you and all agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I do not live in “MI”, either a federal State or National Region/Zone area, designated using the Federal Zone Improvement Program (ZIP) Code "49004". You may consult Title 50 United States Code for the proper venue of a national regional area. The Domestic Mail Manual of the United States Postal Service shows that ZIP Codes are voluntary for single piece first class mail.

Together, the above two designations are a clever attempt to show that I am within territory sovereign to the self-interested corporate UNITED STATES, and not within a sovereign state of the American Union. That is why I require that any service of process sent to me by you or any U.S. Government agency conforms to the mailing location shown in the heading of this letter, and no other.

You may provide the requested items within a reasonable period of twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of this request. See the Administrative Procedures Act for deadlines. In the alternative, you may go whistle.

Best Regards,


sui juris American Citizen and lawful Michigan Inhabitant