INSTRUCTIONS:  0.2. How Does the Government Apply Duress and What is the Remedy for It?
SOURCE:  Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Manual, Form #10.005 (OFFSITE LINK), Section 2.4.1.

The premise of this section is that all just powers exercised by government are derived from the consent of those governed, and that any power exercised by government which is not based on consent is, by implication, unjust.  This notion originates from the Declaration of Independence, which says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” 
[Declaration of Independence, emphasis added]

When a government attempts to compel or coerce persons into doing something, this is called an “enforcement action”.  If they do so through the authority of law, their action is called “distraint”, if they do so without lawful authority or illegally, then their action is instead called “duress”.  Duress is the use of force without the authority of law, or unlawfully.  A synonym for duress, when some form of property is demanded as the outcome, is “extortion”.  The main function of the IRS, for instance, is illegal extortion and therefore organized crime.

We covered many aspects of the nature of what “voluntary” and “consentual” really mean earlier in the book and you might want to go back and review the following sections so you can read this section in context:

  • Citizenship is involuntary.  In sections 4.12.3 and of our Great IRS Hoax we established that citizenship must always be voluntary but it is seldom treated that way by the government, at least as far as the courts are concerned.
  • Voting is involuntary.  In section  of our Great IRS Hoax we proved that voting was involuntary.
  • Jury duty is involuntary.  In section  of our Great IRS Hoax we proved that jury service was involuntary.
  • Paying income taxes is involuntary.  In sections and 5.4.1  of our Great IRS Hoax we showed that direct income taxes are involuntary and amount to slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution.
  • Socialism and communism are involuntary economic systems.  In sections 1.9.1 and 1.9.2  of our Great IRS Hoax, we show that idolatry towards government leads to socialism and communism, and that these economic systems rely on force and fraud, both of which violate Christian beliefs.  We also showed in section 4.7  of our Great IRS Hoax that the purpose of socialism and communism are to elevate collective or group sovereignty above that of individual sovereignty and that these systems violate the fundamental natural rights of individuals.
  • Capitalism is the only completely voluntary economic system.  See section 1.8 of our Great IRS Hoax, where we quote from the book Atlas Shrugged.

Proof of the existence of duress upon a sovereign American who claims to be a “nontaxpayer” provides the basis for many types of legal remedies that can give you the upper hand in court.  Let us summarize a few:

  1. If the government obtained evidence from you under duress during an involuntary seizure of your property that it can use against you, then the evidence is inadmissible in court according to the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States., 232 U.S. 383 (1914), because it was illegally obtained.
  2. If you were a “nontaxpayer” not liable for a tax but paid the tax under duress, then you can demand from the court a writ of mandamus to compel the IRS to return your money.  See Austin Nat. Bank of Austin v. Sheppard, 71 S.W.2d 242 (1934)
  3. If you signed any document under penalty of perjury but were under duress when you signed it, then you cannot be held liable for fraud and the document is inadmissible as evidence, even if you knew you were committing fraud when you signed.  The act of signing any document must be voluntary and willful in order for you to be held liable for any commitments or representations you made on the document.  Most tax returns fall into this category, but few people could recognize or explain the duress that they exposed to in the income tax process, which is why so few people use this remedy.

In all the above cases, the burden of demonstrating or proving the existence of duress falls on the party seeking the remedy.  The foundation of our system of free government, according to the Declaration of Independence, is the “consent of the governed”.  Below is the definition of “consent” from Black’s Law Dictionary:

“Consent.  A concurrence of wills.  Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith.  Agreement; approval; permission; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord.  Consent is an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, the mind weighing as in a balance the good or evil on each side. It means voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent choice to do something proposed by another.  It supposes a physical power to act, a moral power of acting, and a serious, determined, and free use of these powers.  Consent is implied in every agreement.  It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake.

“Willingness in fact that an act or an invasion of an interest shall take place.  Restatement, Second, Torts 10A.

As used in the law of rape ‘consent’ means consent of the will, and submission under the influence of fear or terror cannot amount to real consent.  There must be an exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent.  And if a woman resists to the point where further resistance would be useless or until her resistance is overcome by force or violence, submission thereafter is not ‘consent’.” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 305, emphasis added]

The key word from above is “voluntary”, which is then defined as follows in the same dictionary:

voluntaryUnconstrained by interference; unimpelled by another’s influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself.  Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 33 S.E.2d 171, 174.  Done by design or intention.  Proceeding from the free and unrestrained will of the person.  Produced in or by an act of choice.  Resulting from free choice, without compulsion or solicitation.  The word, especially in statutes, often implies knowledge of essential facts.  Without valuable consideration; gratuitous, as a voluntary conveyance.  Also, having a merely nominal consideration; as, a voluntary deed.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1575]

The goal in proving duress is to show that your actions were involuntary or compelled under duress, and that the government exercised its powers unjustly and illegally because they did so without your voluntary consent.  Your actions and your choices are involuntary or compelled under duress if they were influenced or compelled or coerced by others without the authority of law.  If we want to show that our consent was not properly obtained, then all we therefore have to prove is the existence of any one or more of the following elements:

  • Fraud or constructive fraud.  If we can show that our government deceived us in their IRS publications or by obfuscating the law or by providing incorrect advice on their phone support line, for instance, then we can show that there was fraud or at least the appearance of fraud, which is what “constructive fraud” is.
  • Duress, which means illegal force.  Duress is force applied outside of the delegated authority or territorial jurisdiction of the government or the law.  An example of force might be arresting or imprisoning you, stealing your money, instituting a levy on your assets or a garnishment on your pay, withholding a government benefit because you refused to do something that the law couldn’t require you to do, or calling up your employer to slander you for not paying a sum of money they had no authority to demand in the first place.  As we point out in sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, all federal crimes are based on “Acts of Congress” locally applicable within the federal zone and not within the nonfederal areas of the Union States.  There are very few exceptions to this rule and no exceptions in the case of the Internal Revenue Code.  If the federal government illegally tries to assert jurisdiction over you to institute the types of force above and you live outside of their territorial jurisdiction, which is limited to the federal zone for most federal crimes, then they have applied illegal duress and anything you did, including a tax return, that was influenced by this illegal duress was done without valid consent.  The courts recognize that all contracts and all affidavits that were executed under the influence of duress are null and void from the beginning.  You only obligation in order to make them void is that of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that duress was applied.
  • Mistake or error.  Proper consent is informed consent.  If we were not full informed of the consequences of our action or decision at the time we made it because of fraud or misrepresentations by the government, then our consent was not voluntary and therefore not consentual.
  • Fear about the consequences of not signing or consenting and originating from duress.  For instance, if we were threatened by the person who would benefit from us consenting that we would be physically harmed or our property rights would be invaded if we did not sign, and if these forms of coercion were instituted without the authority of the law or our previous consent, then we could not be acting without the influence of others and therefore could not be acting voluntarily.

The purpose of this section is therefore to show you how the government institutes duress illegally so that you will be able to identify relevant evidence to prove the existence of it and thereby be in good standing with the court to claim a proper legal remedy.

First, lets start off with a definition of the word “duress” form Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 504:

duress:  “Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).  Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent.  Head v. Gadsden Civil Service Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So.2d 516, 519.  Application of such pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will, and takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply with unjust demands of another.  Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2,6.

A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void.  Also, if  a party’s manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim.  Restatement, Second, Contracts 174, 175.

As a defense to a civil action, it must be pleaded affirmatively.  Fed.R.Civil P. 8(c ).

As an affirmative defense in criminal law, one who, under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human being to harm him (or to harm a third person), commits what would otherwise be a crime may, under some circumstances, be justified in doing what he did and thus not be guilty of the crime in question.  See Model Penal Code 2.09.  See also Coercion; Economic duress; Extortion; Undue influence.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 504]

The key word above is “unlawful”.  If you can prove the government was acting outside the bounds of its delegated or lawful authority and outside of its territorial jurisdiction, and if you were being coerced in the process, then duress definitely exists.  “Distraint” is the application of force or coercion, but does not necessarily imply that the coercion is unlawful.  If distraint if being used, and you can prove that the distraint is unlawful, then you have duress.  The content of Chapter 5 is the key to showing what is and is not unlawful as far as the authority of the government to tax.

Now lets list some of the activities of the IRS that are unlawful and which therefore could be described as “duress”.  Before we get into this section, you might want to go back and review section 2.8.3 of the Great IRS Hoax, where we talk about Illegal Acts and and Legal Obfuscation.  With each duress activity listed below, we list the law it violates and which gives rise to the remedy sought from the list at the beginning of this section:

  1.  Violating privacy illegally.  Our government does this when federal agencies sharing personal information about you with other outside federal agencies in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) and in violation of your wishes.  Federal employers very commonly do this, for instance, with personal information about individuals, such as with home addresses, social security numbers, and income appearing on the form W-2.  The only thing federal employers can send to the IRS iw what you put on your W-4 or W-8 form.  If you refuse to put your social security number or home address or even your full name on these two forms, federal employers violate the law at the end of the calendar year by sending to the IRS, which isn’t even an agency of the federal government, information that you never put on these forms or authorized them to disclose, including income, your home address, and your social security number.
  2. Violating the First Amendment.  The First Amendment, that says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    The way the IRS violates the First Amendment, for instance, is by:

    2.1.  By using the Anti-Injunction Act and the Full Payment Rule to force nontaxpaying Americans who have been illegally assessed or distrained or forced to bribe the government in order to have the right to litigate to protect their property rights.  The Seventh Amendment gives us a right to a trial by jury to protect our rights, and yet the government has tried to turn this right into the equivalent of a taxable privilege using the Anti-Injunction Act and the Full Payment Rule by forcing people to pay the alleged tax owed before they can litigate.    This prejudices their other rights in the process, because after most people pay the alleged tax owed, they have no money left to hire an attorney to get it back!  See sections 3.4.2 and for further details on this scam.

    2.2.  Forcing you to commit idolatry by paying the first fruits of your income to the government.  See section 1.9.1  of the Great IRS Hoax for details.

    2.3.  Subsidizing illegal or anti-biblical activities with your tax dollars, such as abortions, illegal income tax collection, drug asset forfeiture enforcement (violates the fourth Amendment), idolatry, and most importantly, SOCIALISM (see section 1.9.2  of the Great IRS Hoax).

  3. Ignoring requests for refunds, even when taxes were paid under duress.  Forcing you to litigate to get your money back when you apply for a refund by either completely ignoring your request or applying frivolous return penalties that the government will wrongfully tell you that you must pay under the Anti-Injunction Act before you can sue in Federal District Court to recover.   This has the effect of prejudicing your property rights.
  4. Threatening expensive and prolonged legal action against a nontaxpayer who doesn’t file or pay income taxes in order to make them volunteer to be a taxpayer, because it is too expensive and complicated to hire a lawyer and litigate to defend your Constitutional rights.
  5. Sending “Notice of Levy”, IRS Form 668-A(c )(DO) to nonfederal employers or outside of the federal zone or federal United States.  26 U.S.C. 6331(a) says levy may only be made on federal employers and no one else, and yet the IRS sends this form to private employers without a warning saying that if they are NOT a federal employer, they should disregard the form.  They then illegally threaten private employers outside the federal zone into honoring these bogus Notice of Levy forms by threatening audits or enforcement actions on the employers who don’t honor this against their employees.
  6. Using the ignorance of the fear of the financial institution or employer receiving the lien to coerce them under color of law to honor the lien.  Threatening or harassing private employers with penalties or an audit who refuse to honor levies or liens that the law says they don’t have to honor under 26 U.S.C. 6331(a).
  7. Unilaterally instituting collection activity against a nontaxpayer outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the taxing authority, which is limited to the federal zone or federal United States.  The IRS may not institute collection activity outside of these territorial limits or on nonfederal land inside the 50 states, unless the person claims to be a “taxpayer” who is liable for the tax, and the only entity who can make them liable is themselves.  We have a voluntary system.   This violates 18 U.S.C. 1957.
  8. Sending numerous anonymous and threatening letters to a nontaxpayer telling him that he is liable but not citing any legal authority in violation of 18 U.S.C. 876 and 18 U.S.C. 1018.
  9. In most IRS correspondence, not citing legal authority for whatever determination is made, which implies that there is no legal authority.  Then when you write them asking for the stattue or regulation giving them the legal authority for the action they are taking, they don’t respond, and thereby default and admit no authority.
  10. Assessing “frivolous return” penalties against Americans in violation of their First Amendment Right to Petition the government for redress of grievances and their right of free speech and in violation of 26 CFR 301.6671-1(b).  In the process of penalizing, not identifying specifically why the return is frivolous or even what the definition of frivolous is, which violates due process of law under the Fifth and Fourth Amendment.
  11. In the response to a tax return filing, citing as authority a federal district court case against a U.S. citizen when the person they are corresponding with is not such a citizen and is not subject to the jurisdiction of federal government because they live outside the federal zone.  This contradicts 40 U.S.C. 255 and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  It is always a violation of law for any government to impose distraint or do enforcement outside of its territorial jurisdiction.
  12. Congress writing laws that do not clearly confine or explain the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government, and the federal courts refusing to discuss such issues in a court of law in order to illegally expand their jurisdiction beyond the borders of the federal zone.
  13. Instituting collection activity absent a valid assessment or an established liability in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7214.
  14. Illegally levying social security benefits in violation of 42 U.S.C. 407.
  15. Instituting a continuing levy that exceeds 15% of the pay of the recipient in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6331(h)(1).
  16. Levying nonfederal payments absent a court order, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6331(h).
  17. Deceiving or lying to a “nontaxpayer” or natural person by saying that they are liable for a tax or penalty when in fact they are not because of the definition of “person” in the IRS section dealing with penalties, as defined in 26 CFR 301.6671-1(a).  (Fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341)
  18. Garnishing or levying a person’s pay without a court order or a due process hearing, even though the person requested the due process hearing. (Violates Fourth and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and 26 U.S.C. 6330).
  19. Using the color of law to commit extortion or coerce cooperation out of an otherwise sovereign American nontaxpayer.  (Violates 26 U.S.C. 7214 and 18 U.S.C. 1872).
  20. Making the process of minimizing one’s tax liabilities so burdensome, complex, and time-consuming that persons who are lazy or less intelligent will just throw up their hands and pay the maximum amount to avoid the hassle.  This devious approach encroaches on people’s right to privacy under the fourth amendment.
  21. Demanding an examination against persons who refuse to file or assess themselves under Subtitle A.  Section of the IRS’ Internal Revenue Manual clearly lists those income tax forms for which the IRS is authorized to execute Substitute for Returns (SFRs) and this section does not include any 1040, 1040NR, 1040EZ, etc form.  The IRS knows that since they can’t legally complete a Substitute For Return (SFR) using 1040 forms, they will try to harass or threaten “nontaxpayers” into becoming “taxpayers” using an audit or exam.  The IRS won’t tell you that you aren’t required to show up at these exams, indicate whether you have records, or bring records or cooperate in any way whatsoever because of your Fifth Amendment rights.  Instead, they will try to exploit your ignorance and fear and intimidate you into incriminating yourself and giving them records they can use to prosecute you and penalize you.
  22. Judges being the subject of conflict of interest in the execution of their IRS job, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 455.
  23. Judges being biased in the hearing of your tax case in violation of 28 U.S.C. 144.
  24. Agencies of the federal government writing regulations to implement statutes that exceed the scope of the statute.  For instance, the Treasury Department wrote 26 CFR 1.1-1 to implement 26 U.S.C. 126 U.S.C. 1 nowhere uses the word “liable” nor does it create a tax liability, but the implementing regulation for it does, so it is illegal and fraudulent on its face, and then the IRS goes out and cites this illegal regulation as its authority for using distraint to illegal collect Subtitle A income taxes.

The above instances of duress are clearly enforcement actions, because they directly or indirectly impact sovereign Americans.  One of the simplest ways to prove the existence of unlawful duress is to obtain a copy of the pocket commission of the IRS agent who instituted the enforcement action.  He must have an enforcement pocket commission to institute enforcement actions.  This means that the serial number of his pocket commission must have an “E” at the beginning, meaning “enforcement” rather than an “A”, meaning “administrative”.  See the following link for more information on pocket commissions:

Another easy way to prove that the agent involved is acting outside of his delegated authority and therefore acting unlawfully is to examine the Department of the Treasury Organization Chart, which shows that the IRS does not fall under the Undersecretary for Enforcement because it is simply not an enforcement agency and only administers a voluntary tax, or should we say “donation” program.  See the following link for more information on a diagram of the organization of the Department of Treasury: