Affidavit of Truth - Ron5

8/4/2019 Affidavit of Truth - Ron5

1/36

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH Page 1 of 36

1

The Honorable John C. Coughenour2

3

45

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON8

AT SEATTLE9

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. CR10 0328 JCC11

Bankrupt legal fiction )12

Plaintiff in Error, )13

v. )14

RONALD L. BREKKE )15

Defendant, ) AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND FACTS16

__________________________ )17

)18Ronald Lee Brekke, Secured Party )19

3rd Party Intervenor )20

21

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH AND FACTS22

23

I, Ronald Lee Brekke, 3rd Party Intervenor, Secured Party / Creditor, hereinafter,24

Affiant and paramount Security interest holder in all property and collateral registered25

and unregistered and held in the Trust Account of RONALD LEE BREKKE 471-70-26

1235, by way of a Security Agreement, evidence of which is recorded on a State of27

California UCC Financing Statement, (SEE EXHIBIT A) am competent to state to the28

matters included in this Affidavit, have personal knowledge of the facts based on29


2/36


personal experience and/or research, and declare that the statements made herein, are1

factual and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and not meant2

to mislead. I am a Living Sentient Being. The Flesh lives and the blood flows. I humbly3

seek Remedy.45

1- Affiant is an immortal living soul created in the image of God. Here as one of the live6

flesh and blood people. A trinity of mind, body and spirit; tribunal of the court of7

record of the final jurisdiction of my sovereign estate. Affiant was born a child of God8

and Affiant is living as a man of peace. A Notary public has witnessed Affiants9

existence and status as a man and has placed their seal below. As a man Affiant10

has dominion over the earth and Affiant is not subject to the codified laws of this civil11

society, for codified laws only apply to legal PERSONS;12

26 USC 7701. Definitions13

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or14

manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof15

(1) Person16

The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a17

trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.18

19

26 USC 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties20

(b) Person defined21

The term person, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or22

employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who23

as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in24

respect of which the violation occurs;25

26

2- Affiant has seen no law that allows a court, prosecutor, agent or the like to force the27

status of (legal) person or taxpayer upon Affiant and believes none exists;28


3/36


Federal Statutes Title 28, 28 USC Part VI, chapter 151, section 2201 removes1

the authority of Federal Courts to declare the status of taxpayer on a2

Sovereign American of the United States of America..3

Cite: CIR v. Trustees of L. Inv. Assn, 100 F. 2

nd

18 (1939).43- Affiant has seen no evidence that Affiant has ever resided in or been domiciled in5

the District of Columbia, or been employed by an employer residing in the District of6

Columbia, or declared my person to be a Statutory citizen of the United States7

and believes none exists;8

4- Affiant has seen no evidence that Affiant has ever had any income connected with a9

trade or business in the United States , as defined in 26 CFR 1.864-2 and codified10

as Title 28, Part IV, chapter 97, section 1602 and believes none exists;11

26 USC 3121. Definitions12

(e) State, United States, and citizen13

For purposes of this chapter14

(1) State15

The term State includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto16

Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.17

(2) United States18

The term United States when used in a geographical sense includes the19

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.20

An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not21

otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this22

section, as a citizen of the United States. The IRC parts 7701 (a)(9) and 770123

(a)(10) define the United States as the District of Columbia.24

25

5- Affiant has seen no evidence that the ENS LEGIS, PERSON is not a state created26

artificial entity, aka CORPORATE LEGAL FICTION, aka STRAWMAN, aka27

TRANSMITTING UTILITY, aka INDIVIDUAL, aka TAXPAYER, aka TRUST aka28


4/36


DEBTOR and believes none exists;1

6- Affiant has seen no evidence of a current valid oath of office of the prosecuting2

attorneys or judge on this case and believes none exists; 3

7- Affiant has seen no evidence of a provision, code, statute, regulation, etc. allowing4US District Attorneys to not include their BAR number on pleadings they sign5

without which they would be guilty of impersonating a public official and deprivation6

of public services and believes none exists;7

PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS - All officials are8

required by federal, state, and municipal law to provide the name, address9

and telephone number of their public hazard and malpractice bonding10

company and the policy number of the bond and, if required, a copy of the11

policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance.12

Failure to provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability13

insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prim-a-facie evidence and grounds to14

impose a lien upon the official personally to secure their public oath and15

service of office.16

8- Affiant has seen no evidence of the documentation of authority whereby Congress17

granted permission for a US DISTRICT ATTORNEY to represent any other legal18

fiction than the UNITED STATES and believes none exists;19

A) On December 18, 1998, attorney Michael Bufkin of Dundee, Illinois sent a20

Freedom of Information Act request to the Internal Revenue Service asking21

for documentation of authority for the Department of Justice to defend IRS22

personnel in civil litigation and/or criminal prosecution. On August 2, 1999,23

Leslie Hayward, a Disclosure Program Assistant in the IRS national office,24

answered Bufkin as follows: "A search was performed with the Office of Tax25

Crimes (Criminal Investigation) and with the Assistant Chief Counsel26

(Disclosure Litigation) and we have no documents responsive to your request.27

However, you may forward a copy of your request to the U.S. Attorney28


5/36


General's Office within the Department of Justice."1

B) In September, Bufkin sent the request to the Department of Justice, then on2

January 11, 2000, Thomas J. McIntyre, Chief of the Department of Justice3

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit, made the following response: "We4have conducted a search of the appropriate indices to Criminal Division5

records and did not locate any records responsive to your request."16

Conclusion: US District Attorneys lack authority to prosecute or defend any7

other entity than the UNITED STATES;8

9- Affiant has seen no evidence of a chain of delegation of duly constituted lawful9

authority for any of the US attorneys on said case, or any of the judges or10

magistrates on said case, to hold his or her office and how that specifically applies to11

Affiant, the live flesh and blood man, and believes none exists;12

10-Affiant has seen no evidence of an original Admiralty maritime contract or13

commercial agreement bearing Affiants wet ink signature, between Affiant and the14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or UNITED STATES, or DEPARTMENT OF THE15

TREASURY, or INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE that would bind Affiant to terms16

and conditions of said contract and believes none exists;17

11-Affiant has seen no evidence of any Admiralty maritime contract or commercial18

agreement bearing Affiants wet ink signature which Affiant has with UNITED19

STATES OF AMERICA, or UNITED STATES, or DEPARTMENT OF THE20

TREASURY, or INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE or any agency or instrumentality21

thereof and believes none exists;22

12-Affiant has seen no evidence that unless the PLAINTIFF or PLAINTIFFS agent(s)23

come forth with an Admiralty maritime contract or commercial agreement between24

Affiant and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or UNITED STATES, or25

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, or INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, bearing26

Affiants wet ink signature, within twenty one (21) days of the filing of this Affidavit,27

1http://www.svpvril.com/irs_dm_bc.html


6/36


that UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE1

TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and all agents and principals thereof2

including, but not limited to, US District Attorneys, agree that no such Admiralty3

maritime contract or commercial agreement exists;413-Affiant has seen no evidence that all (alleged) offenses against revenue laws,5

pursuant to 27 CFR 72.11, are commercial crimes and believes none exists;6

14-Commercial discharge7

15-Affiant has seen no evidence that Affiant was not denied due process, when the8

Grand Jury failed to contact Affiant and invite Affiant to testify after Affiant sent9

registered mail to Grand Jury foreman stating Affiant has exculpatory evidence to10

present and believes none exists;11

16-Affiant has seen no evidence that jurisdiction can be legally or lawfully obtained by12

threat, duress, coercion, intimidation or fear and believes none exists;13

17-Affiant has seen no evidence that this court has jurisdiction over Affiant, over subject14

matter, over territory or by legislative means and believes none exists:15

A) When the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction is noticed by, or pointed16

out to, the trial court, that court has no jurisdiction to entertain further motions17

or pleadings in the case. It can do nothing but dismiss the action forthwith.18

"Any other action taken by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is null19

and void." Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d at 1029 (quoting Beach v. Director of20

Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)).21

B) "As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an22

actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest23

in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about24

to suffer an injury." People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.25

C) "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic26

issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have27

the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v.28


7/36


Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 671

S.Ct. 1409.2

D) There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been since3

1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators4enforce Statutes and Codes. There have not been any Judges in America5

since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464,6

Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178);7

E) The administrative procedures act of 1946, 60 stat 237, 5 USC and the8

Attorney Generals Manual shows Affiant has to be the Plaintiff in the9

courtroom, i.e. Affiant has to be the one who brings the charges.10

Conclusion: this court has no jurisdiction either judicially or administratively.11

18-Affiant has seen no evidence that there is a justiciable controversy in this matter and12

believes none exists;13

19-Affiant has seen no evidence that PLAINTIFF exists (where is the evidence of14

incorporation? Where is PLAINTIFF registered to do business?) and believes none15

exists;16

A) The United States was incorporated on February 21, 1871, (16 Stat. 419,17

Chap. 62, 41st Congress, 3rd Session), the purpose being An Act to18

provide a Government for the District of Columbia, reorganized June 8,19

1878, (20 Stat. 102, Chap 180, 45th Congress, 2nd Session) as An Act20

providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia.21

aka U.S., Inc. a commercial agency originally designated as22

WASHINGTON D.C. in accordance with the 14th Amendment which23

records indicate was never ratified.224

B) Since the Act of 1871 which established the District of Columbia, we have25

been living under the UNITED STATES CORPORATION which is owned26

2 http://www.arkenterprises.com/dialch264.html


8/36


by certain international bankers and aristocracy of Europe and Britain.31

C) The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with respect to2

the state. 19 Corpus Juris Secundum 5413

D) USC 28 Sect 3002, No. 15(a) United States means - a Federal4Corporation;5

E) Uniform Commercial Code, UCC9-307(h) states Location of United6

States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.7

F) Governments are corporations. Penhallow vs. Doanes Administrators,8

U.S. Supreme Court, (1795).9

G) Corporations are commercial enterprises that are controlled by the10

Uniform Commercial Code.11

H) The UNITED STATES Isnt a Country Its a Corporation!412

I) Statutes creating corporations are private law 20 Am jur 35, p. 60.13

J) Therefore the Federal Reserve Act is private law.14

20-Standing consists of two absolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right,15

and 2) personal injury;16

The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly17

from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to18

the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the19

requested relief. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)20

21-Affiant has seen no evidence that the UNITED STATES has suffered a personal21

injury, or as a bankrupt legal fiction, has standing to sue or be sued and believes22

none exists;23

22-Affiant has seen no evidence that the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966 did not move the24

entire taxation and monetary system under the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE25

3The united states Of America is a corporation owned by foreign interests September 21, 2008

Posted by spiritualphilantropy inAnalysis, News in English. trackback

4Lisa Guliani, www.babelmagazine.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737http://garsoor.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-corporation-owned-by-foreign-interests/http://so.wordpress.com/tag/analysis/http://so.wordpress.com/tag/news-in-english/http://garsoor.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-corporation-owned-by-foreign-interests/trackback/http://garsoor.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-corporation-owned-by-foreign-interests/trackback/http://so.wordpress.com/tag/news-in-english/http://so.wordpress.com/tag/analysis/http://garsoor.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-united-states-of-america-is-a-corporation-owned-by-foreign-interests/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=468&page=737


9/36


(UCC) and believes none exists;1

23-According to UCC 3-102(c) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System2

govern the UCC;3

UCC 3-102. SUBJECT MATTER.4 (c) Regulations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System5

and operating circulars of the Federal Reserve Banks supersede any6

inconsistent provision of this Article to the extent of the inconsistency.7

24-Affiant has seen no evidence that the FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, BOARD OF8

GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, or the FEDERAL RESERVE9

BANK SYSTEM are part of, or Agencys of, the Federal Government and believes10

none exists;11

25-Affiant has seen no evidence that a private non-government banking cartel called12

the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK SYSTEM does not govern all commerce and trade13

in America, not the Federal Government and believes none exists;14

26-Affiant has seen no evidence that the FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS are not an15

illegal monopoly and are not a private cartel that have usurped the authority of16

Congress to coin money and believes none exists;17

Pursuant to the Constitution for the united States of America, Article I, section18

8, we find that only Congress was given the authority To coin money,19

regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of20

Weights and Measures.21

27-Affiant has seen no evidence that the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT of 1913 is not22

private law and believes none exists;23

28-Affiant has seen no evidence that Title 26 of the UNITED STATES CODE has ever24

been enacted into positive law and believes none exists.25

29-Affiant has seen no evidence that 26 USC is not the private law of a group of26

International bankers, owners of the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK SYSTEM who use27

the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE to run their fraudulent money laundering28


10/36


scheme to steal the wealth, assets and labor energy of the American people for their1

own self-serving ends and believes none exists;2

30-Affiant has seen no evidence that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is an agency3

of the Federal Government and believes none exists;431-Affiant has seen no evidence that the GRACE COMMISSION report put forth by5

Peter Grace during RONALD REAGANS Administration in the 1980s did not find6

that even one dime of Federal income tax collected goes to pay for anything in7

America, not road construction or repair, not utility projects, not school funding, not8

grants, not parks and recreation NOTHING, but rather to pay the interest on the9

National debt and certain unknown special fund accounts and believe none exists;10

32-Affiant has seen no evidence that the so-called income tax is not actually an excise11

tax in the form of a tariff tax, i.e. a user fee one is compelled to pay for voluntarily12

exercising the benefit and privilege of using the FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS13

private script fiat currency called Federal Reserve Notes, (foreign bills of exchange)14

whereby the said user incurs liabilities for benefits of use and is therefore obligated15

to pay his/her share of interest on the National Debt, relative to use, and believes16

none exists;17

33-Affiant has seen no evidence that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is not a18

collection arm for the private International bankers who own and control the19

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK SYSTEM and believes none exists;20

34-Affiant has seen no evidence that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is not21

formerly the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) situated in and with authority only in22

the Philippine Islands (Trust Fund # 61), and then moved into Puerto Rico (Trust23

Fund # 62) and believes none exists;24

35-Affiant has seen no evidence that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the25

UNITED STATES are not distinctly different private corporations and believes none26

exists;27

36-Affiant has seen no evidence that the UNITED STATES (a corporation) or the28


11/36


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (a corporation) are one in the same as the Federal1

Government and believes none exists; What is the FEIN of each?2

37-Affiant has seen no evidence that public officials, i.e. judges, magistrates, clerks,3

district attorneys and the like do not have a conflict of interest in that they work for4private corporations seeking share holder profits and their own profits yet have5

(allegedly) sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States and6

believes none exists; (Exhibit of the screen captures)7

38- requested Attorney provide him with names of the shareholders of the UNITED8

STATES, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF THE9

TREASURY yet Attorney failed to assist to that end;10

39-Affiant has seen no evidence that there is not a CUSIP (COMMITTEE on UNIFORM11

SECURITIES IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES) number assigned to USDC Case12

No. CR 10 0328JCC and that a subpoena of the records and an electronic forensic13

accounting will not show that officials involved in said case are not personally14

profiting from commercial paper and or bonds written on or against said case and15


40-Affiant has seen no evidence that UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE17

TREASURY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES, INTERNAL18

REVENUE SERVICE and FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS are all acting as19

unregistered foreign agents in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act20

of 1938 and are Collecting Information & Contributions for a Foreign Power in21

violation of 18 USC 951 and punishable under 18 USC 1651 - 1661, and22


A) Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91, the IRS entered into a24

"Service Agreement" with the US Treasury Department (See Public Law 94-25

564, Legislative History, pg. 5967, Reorganization (BANKRUPTCY!!!) Plan26

No. 26) and the Agency for International Development. This agency is an27

international paramilitary operation and according to the Department of the28


12/36


Army Field manual (1969) 41-10, pgs 1-4, Sec. 1-7 (b) & 1-6, Sec.1-10 (7)1

(c) (1), and 22 USCA 284, includes such activities as, "Assumption of full or2

partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority over a country or area."3

B) The IRS is also an agency/member of a 184 nation pact called the4International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, found at 22 USCA5

263a.6

C) The memorandum of Understanding, (MOU), between the Secretary of7

Treasury, AKA the corporate governor of "The Fund" and "The Bank"8

(International Monetary Fund, and the International Bank for Reconstruction9

and Development), indicated that the Attorney General and its associates are10

soliciting and collecting information for foreign principals; the international11

organizations, corporations, and associations, exemplified by 22 USCA 286f.12

D) According to the 1994 US Government Manual, at page 390, the Attorney13

General is the permanent representative to INTERPOL, and the Secretary of14

Treasury is the alternate member. Under Article 30 of the INTERPOL15

constitution, these individuals must expatriate their citizenship. They serve no16

allegiance to the United States of America.17

E) The IRS is paid by "The Fund" and "The Bank."18

F) Thus it appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue19

Service agents are "Agents of a Foreign Principal" within the meaning and20

intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938" for private, not public,21

gain.522

41-Affiant has seen no evidence that INTERPOL is not funded by the UNITED STATES23

yet cannot be sued by anyone or is accountable to anyone, and believes none24

exists;25

42-Affiant has seen no evidence that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is registered26

to do business in the State of California or the State of Washington and believes27

5 http://www.apfn.net/doc-100_bankruptcy6.htm


13/36


none exists;1

43-Affiant has seen no evidence that the Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is2

registered to do business in the State of California or the State of Washington and3

believes none exists;444-Affiant has seen no evidence of an injured party, any evidence of a corpus delicti,5

any evidence of a ratification of commencement FRCP Rule 17A, no evidence that6

alleged plaintiff has standing as a bankrupt legal fiction and in violation the Foreign7

Registrations Act of 1938, engaging in a pattern of inland piracy, robbery ashore,8

racketeering, conversion, money laundering, etc. and believes none exists; (Affiant9

told this to Attorney yet Attorney failed to act upon said information)10

"A statute does not trump the Constitution."11

People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 212

Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 16313

45-Affiant has seen no evidence that this commercial matter has not already been14

discharged by Affiants Acceptance for Value of the charging instrument (True Bill)15

and believes none exists; (see exhibit ___)16

46-Affiant has seen no evidence that pursuant to 12 USC 411, lawful money is not the17

public money of the United States. Whereas, Legal Tender, i.e. Federal Reserve18

Notes, are the private script of the private International Bankers who own and run19

the private NON-GOVERNMENT Federal Reserve Banks and believe none exists;20

47-Affiant has seen no evidence that ignorance of the law is an excuse or that the gross21

omission of this material fact in #52 is not a felony and is not punishable pursuant to22

18 USC 1001 and believes none exists;23

48-Had Affiant known that Affiant could have demanded lawful money all A ffiants life,24

Affiant would have, therefore, Affiant Demands Lawful Money, nunc pro tunc;25

49-Affiant has seen no evidence that Modern Money Mechanics, a booklet for26

edification on the fundamentals of money and fractional reserve banking put out by27

the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 1991, does not accurately state that banks28


14/36


do not have any credit to lend, cannot lend any depositors credit and that the credit1

backing a negotiable instrument, i.e. promissory note, loan, check or money order,2

etc. is derived from the man or woman who signs the negotiable instrument and3

believes none exists;450-Affiant has seen no evidence that the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Emergency5

Banking Act, the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, the Act of 1871, the Foreign6

Sovereign Immunities Act, the Sheppard Towner Maternity Act, HJR192, Public Law7

73-10, 48 Stat. Chapter 48, 1 112, the United States Bankruptcy, the Uniform8

Commercial Code and more, do not disclose the true nature of money, banking,9

commerce and the private International Bankers stranglehold on the American10

economy through the US Bankruptcy orchestrated by the these same bankers with11

the passage of the private Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and believes none exists;12

51-Affiant has seen no evidence that the Comptroller of Currency does not oversee all13

appropriations, allocations and disbursements and does not monitor each14

department, including the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, through audits and15

reports for mis-appropriations and account deficiencies, and believes none exists;16

52-Affiant has seen no evidence of any Comptroller General reports or audits showing17

misappropriations of funds or account deficiencies for (allegedly) erroneously paid18

out 1099OID refunds and believes none exists;19

53-Affiant has seen no evidence that (1) CID Agent Kevin Keys did not perjure himself20

on the witness stand in the Grand Jury proceedings when he claimed that the21

reason refunds were paid out on 1099OID claims was because sometimes IRS22

seasonal workers let things slip through or (2) Affiant has seen no evidence that CID23

Agent Kevin Keys has not exposed an unparalleled incompetency of the Comptroller24

General and his staff when in overseeing ALL disbursements, allocations and25

appropriations they signed and issued false warrants and vouchers for the allegedly26

erroneous 1099OID refunds or in the alternative that (3) Affiant has seen no27

evidence that CID Agent Kevin Keys testimony has not exposed the Comptroller28


15/36


General and his staffs complicity and malfeasance in the alleged tax scheme and1


54-Affiant has seen no evidence that an audit of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE3

books and records as well as those of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY will4not show that thousands of refunds for 1099OID claims have been paid out for5

decades, without incident, and believes none exists;6

55-Affiant has seen no evidence that information on 1099OID and debt instrument7

issuance and recoupment has not been freely available all across the internet and8

elsewhere for many years before Affiant learned about it in 2008, and thousands of9

people have applied for and received 1099OID refunds that are totally unrelated to10

Affiant, making it an impossibility for Affiant, or anyone else for that matter, to be11

involved in any sort of a conspiracy involving the filing of 1099OID and believes12

none exists;13

56-Affiant has seen no evidence that an audit of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE14

books and records as well as those of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY will15

not show that refunds for 1099OID claims do continue to be paid out in 2011 without16

incident and believes none exists;17

57-Affiant has seen no evidence that PLAINTIFF is not guilty of malicious and18

discriminatory prosecution due to the fact there is no evidence of any other upload19

service provider ever being indicted, incarcerated, placed on GPS bracelet and20

home detention for uploading 1099OIDs and believes none exists;21

58-Affiant has seen no evidence that the Grand Jury indictment should not be quashed22

as (1) there can be no theft of public money without any public money in circulation,23

(2) there can be no theft of any funds for 1099OID refunds when the refunds paid24

out are the funds created by the live flesh and blood man or womans signature on25

said debt instruments and are the credit of the signor of the instrument (See Modern26

Money Mechanics), and believes none exists;27

59-Affiant has seen no evidence that the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT of 1913 was not a28


16/36


treasonous act the corporate US government foistered against the American people1

along with a group of private International bankers to seize control of Americas2

monetary and banking system for their self-serving ends and believes none exists;3

60-Affiant has seen no evidence that the Federal Reserve Note, thereafter, did not meet4all of the qualifications of a worthless security under 26 I.R.C. 165(g) and believes5

none exists;6

61-Affiant has seen no evidence that the stock market crash of 1929 did not bring about7

the ensuing bankruptcy of the United States when the US gold reserves were8

insufficient to pay the interest on the accumulating debt due to the private9

international bankers, owners of the private FEDERAL RESERVE BANK system and10


62-Affiant has seen no evidence that on June 5, 1933 HJR192 and also Public Law 73-12

10, 48 Stat chapter 48, 1 112 did not essentially proclaim that no debts can be13

paid under the prevailing bankruptcy of the United States but only discharged or set14

off and believes none exists;15

63-Affiant has seen no evidence that the state of US bankruptcy did not strip16

Americans of the ability to hold lawful money in their possession and did not,17

thereby, deny Americans the ability to obtain actual title to property, i.e. title in18

allodium and believes none exists;19

64-Affiant has seen no evidence that the passing of the Securities and Exchange20

Commission Act of 1933 and 1934, the wealth and assets of the American people21

did not become securitized in the form of commercial paper to be held in trust as22

collateral against the US bankruptcy and believes none exists;23

65-Affiant has seen no evidence that the corporate US bankruptcy did not render ALL24

actual title and ownership to the corporate banking interests, fulfilling the intention of25

the International Bankers as Edward Mandell House proclaimed to then President26

Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900s (See Exhibit B); by enslaving the American27

people through the ancient system of pledging and believes none exists;28


17/36


66-Affiant has seen no evidence that thereafter, Americans were not thus forced to1

pledge ALL their wealth, assets and labor energy as collateral for the US bankruptcy2

which was precipitated for this very reason by this private International banking3

cartel and believes none exists;467-Affiant has seen no evidence that as a result of this process of pledging, the America5

people did not unwittingly become Suretys for the corporate US National Debt and6


A) Constitutionally and in the laws of equity, the United States could not8

borrow or pledge the property and wealth of its private citizens, put at risk9

as collateral for its currency and credit without legally providing them an10

equitable and orderly remedy for recovery of what is due them on their11

assets and wealth that are at risk.12

B) This principle is well established in English common law and in the history13

of American jurisprudence. The 14th amendment provides: no person14

shall be deprived of property without due process of law.15

C) The rights of a surety to recovery on his risk or loss when standing for the16

debts of another was reaffirmed again as late as 1962 in Pearlman v.17

Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132 when the Supreme Court said:18

sureties compelled to pay debts for their principal have been deemed19

entitled to reimbursement, even without a contractual promise and20

probably there are few doctrines better established...21

68-Affiant has seen no evidence that these obligations, pursuant to 31 USC 3124, are22

not exempt from taxation and believes none exists;23

31 USC 3124. Exemption from taxation24

(a) Stocks and obligations of the United States Government are exempt from25

taxation by a State or political subdivision of a State. The exemption applies to26

each form of taxation that would require the obligation, the interest on the27

obligation, or both, to be considered in computing a tax, except28


18/36


(1) a nondiscriminatory franchise tax or another non-property tax instead of a1

franchise tax, imposed on a corporation; and2

(2) an estate or inheritance tax.3

(b) The tax status of interest on obligations and dividends, earnings, or other4income from evidences of ownership issued by the Government or an agency5

and the tax treatment of gain and loss from the disposition of those obligations6

and evidences of ownership is decided under the Internal Revenue Code of 19867

(26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). An obligation that the Federal Housing Administration had8

agreed, under a contract made before March 1, 1941, to issue at a future date,9

has the tax exemption privileges provided by the authorizing law at the time of10

the contract. This subsection does not apply to obligations and evidences of11

ownership issued by the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the12

United States, or a department, agency, instrumentality, or political subdivision of13

the District, territory, or possession.14

69- Affiant has seen no evidence that the US Government does not take on the status15

of a private corporation when dealing with commercial paper and all its members16

lose immunity, making all who come against Affiant jointly and severally liable for17

any and all damages and loss and believes none exists;18

A) "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on19

the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial20

paper (securities) are concerned]" Bank of US v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton21

(22 US) 904, 6LEd 2422

B) "When governments enter the world of commerce, it is subject to the same23

burdens as any private firm." U.S. v. Burr, 309 US 242, 60 Sct. 488, 84 LEd24

244.25

C) "For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an26

entity ENTIRELY separate from government." Planters, infra.27

D) "The plaintiffs are NOT suing the USA, but the corporation, and if its act was28
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html


19/36


UNLAWFUL, even if they might have sued the USA, they are NOT cut off1

from a remedy against the AGENT that did the wrongful act.2

E) In general the USA cannot be sued for a tort but its immunity does NOT3

extend to those who acted in its name." Sloan Shipyards v. US EFC 67 Cal.4LR No. 6 (1979).5

F) The American people are enemies of the State - Trading with the Enemy Act6

1933 Act of 1917 & 1933 (People declared the Enemy) Oct. 6, 1917, under7

the Trading with the Enemy Act, Section 2 subdivision (c) Chapter 106 8

Enemy defined other than citizens of the United States March 9, 1933,9

Chapter 106, Section 5, subdivision (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of10

Oct. 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) amended as follows: any person within the11

United States. See H.R. 1491 Public No. 1.12

70-Affiant has seen no evidence that Affiant is violation of 50 USC, the TRADING WITH13

THE ENEMY ACT, the WAR POWERS ACT, the EMERGENCY BANKING ACT or14

is an enemy of the state, the UNITED STATES, the UNITED STATES OF15

AMERICA, the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, the INTERNAL REVENUE16

SERVICE or any agency or instrumentality thereof and believes none exists;17

71-Affiant has seen no evidence that INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Form 1099OID18

does not deal with debt instruments and believes none exists;19

26 USC 1271-1275 explains debt instruments;20

26 USC 1275. Other definitions and special rules21

(a) Definitions22

For purposes of this subpart23

(1) Debt instrument24

(A) In general25

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term debt instrument means a26

bond, debenture, note, or certificate or other evidence of indebtedness.27

72-Affiant has seen no evidence that debt instruments, such as promissory notes,28


20/36


checks, etc. issued by American people, i.e. in truth, the Prime creditors to the1

United States Bankruptcy, are not debt obligations of the UNITED STATES and2


18 USC 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined4The term obligation or other security of the United States includes all5

bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve6

notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury7

notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of8

deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized9

officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of10

whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled11

United States stamps.12

73-Affiant has seen no evidence that the original issuer of a debt instrument is not the13

live flesh and blood man or woman via his or her artificial PERSON, as only living14

men and women have credit and can produce goods and services from his or her15

labor energy and believes none exists;16

26 USC 1275. Other definitions and special rules17

(b) Treatment of borrower in the case of certain loans for personal use18

(2) Original issue discount deducted on cash basis in certain cases19

In the case of any debt instrument, if20

(A) such instrument21

(i) is incurred in connection with the acquisition or carrying of personal use22

property, and23

(ii) has original issue discount (determined after the application of paragraph24

(1)), and25

(B) the obligor under such instrument uses the cash receipts and26

disbursements method of accounting,27

notwithstanding section 163 (e), the original issue discount on such28
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000163----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000163----000-.html#ehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000163----000-.html#ehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000163----000-.html


21/36


instrument shall be deductible only when paid.1

(3) Personal use property2

For purposes of this subsection, the term personal use property3

means any property substantially all of the use of which by the taxpayer4is not in connection with a trade or business of the taxpayer or an5

activity described in section 212. The determination of whether property is6

described in the preceding sentence shall be made as of the time of issuance7

of the debt instrument.8

74-Affiant has seen no evidence that debt instruments issued by a live flesh and blood9

man or woman, via his or her PERSON, such as promissory notes for car loans,10

home loans, mortgage loans, personal checking, etc. do not fall into the category of11

personal use property as described in 26 USC 1275 and believes none exists;12

75-Affiant has seen no evidence that debt instruments issued by live flesh and blood13

man or woman, via his or her PERSON, such as promissory notes for car loans,14

home loans, mortgage loans, personal checking, etc. are debt instruments publicly15

offered by the live flesh and blood man or woman and believes none exists;16

26 USC 1275; (1) Information required to be set forth on instrument17

(B) Special rule for instruments not publicly offered18

In the case of any issue of debt instruments not publicly offered, the19

regulations prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall not require the20

information to be set forth on the debt instrument before any disposition of21

such instrument by the first buyer.22

(2) Issue date23

(C) Other debt instruments24

In the case of any debt instrument not described in subparagraph (A) or (B),25

the term date of original issue means the date on which the debt instrument26

was issued in a sale or exchange.27

76-Affiant has seen no evidence that the GAO report compiled by Lynda D. Willis for the28
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000212----000-.htmlhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000212----000-.html


22/36


IRS commissioner in 1996 did not conclude (1) that the INTERNAL REVENUE1

SERVICE personnel do not understand debt instruments, (2) that there are over 342

additional types of debt instruments in circulation which are unaccounted for in the3

IRS publications and manuals and (3) that banks are supposed to complete an IRS48281 form for reporting of debt instruments and (4) that banks routinely do not5

complete and submit the 8281 form without which, the IRS has no ability to track and6

account for said debt instruments and believes none exists;7

77-Affiant has seen no evidence that the 2006 GAO report compiled8

78-Affiant has seen no evidence that the 1991 publication from the Chicago Federal9

Reserve Bank entitled Modern Money Mechanics does not state that funds are10

created out of thin air on the signature, i.e. credit, of the live flesh and blood man or11

woman and believe none exists;12

79-Affiant has seen no evidence that the so-called lending institution, hereinafter,13

bank, actually lends the customer funds at all, therefore bank suffers no risk of14

loss in the so-called loan transaction and believes none exists;15

80-Affiant has seen no evidence that the bank does not withhold the funds generated by16

the live flesh and blood man or womans signature on debt instruments and does not17

treat the promissory note or check as a deposit item according to Generally18

Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and further, according to the 199119

publication put forth by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank entitled Modern Money20

Mechanics, does not fractionalize the deposited amount nine times or more and21


81- INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Form 1099A is for lenders and borrowers, where23

the A stands for Acquisition and Abandonment;24

82-Affiant has seen no evidence that 1099 series tax forms do not come under category25

5, Gift and Estate taxes and believes none exists;26

83-Affiant has seen no evidence of a law that states a live flesh and blood man or27

woman is obligated to gift his or her credit or labor energy to a bank, the FEDERAL28


23/36


RESERVE BANK, the Federal Government or to the INTERNAL REVENUE1

SERVICE and believes none exists;2

84-Affiant has seen no evidence that Labor, in a legal sense, is not property and3

believes none exists;485-Affiant has seen no evidence that it is a crime to request ones credit or labor energy5

be returned to him or her in the form of a recoupment on a 1099OID, due, in no6

small part, to the fact that the American people were stripped of their ability to hold7

actual title to property when the private Federal Reserve Bankers put America into a8

bankruptcy in 1929. Though a treasonous act, the remedy given is stated in HJR1929

and Public Law 73-10, 48 Stat 48, 1 112, which is essentially this - no debts can10

be paid, but only discharged or set off and believes none exists;11

86-Affiant has seen no evidence that the American people, without choice, and as a12

result of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the ensuing bankruptcy of 1929, did13

not lose actual title of all property to a private group of International Bankers and/or14

their subsidiary corporations and the leaders of the de factogovernment corporation,15

and believes none exists;16

87-Affiant has seen no evidence that in order for US government leaders to not be17

found guilty of treason for allowing a private banking cartel to take over banking and18

commerce in America, the United States and all states of the union de factoand de19

jure, and then enforce a bankruptcy upon America such that ALL Americans were20

forced to turn over actual title to all property to these private International Bankers as21

collateral to the bankruptcy that said leaders had to provide a remedy; a remedy22

whereby the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is to discharge or set off all debts for23

the American people in exchange for the loss of the ability to hold actual title to24

property, as long as the American people would submit the proper paperwork, to the25

proper channels and in the proper format or the remedy will get denied and believes26

none exists;27

88-Affiant has seen no evidence that those administering the ongoing bankruptcy,28


24/36


including but not limited to attorneys, the courts, all banks, the UNITED STATES OF1

AMERICA, UNITED STATES, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF2

THE TREASURY, FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS are not all in breach of their3

fiduciary duty Amjur to the American people for not assisting the American people in4effectively attaining the remedy of discharge or set off of all debts by either (1)5

crediting the accounts to a zero balance upon receipt of instruments tendered6

Accept for Value, i.e. commonly called Bankers Acceptance, Bills of Exchange,7

Promissory Notes, drafts and the like, or (2) showing where the defect is in the8

instrument(s) tendered and how to correct it so that discharge or set off may occur9

and believe none exists; Publication 110

89-Affiant has seen no evidence that it does not serve the personal and corporate11

interests of attorneys, the courts, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, the12

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the13

UNITED STATES, the FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, and ALL STATUTORY14

BANKS to deny the American people this remedy and believe none exists;15

90-Affiant has seen no evidence that attempting to pay debts with debt instruments,16

Federal Reserve notes included, does not raise the National Debt and believes none17

exists;18

91-Affiant has seen no evidence a properly completed 1099OID claim and subsequent19

refund, does not reduce the National Debt by cancelling that portion of debt20

obligations created by the issuance of said debt instrument(s) and believes none21

exists;22

92-Affiant has seen no evidence a live flesh and blood man or woman does not have23

the option of lending instead of gifting his or her credit to the bank as designated24

on a 1099A, wherein the live flesh and blood man or womans legal PERSON, often25

called a TRANSMITTING UTILITY, is the lender and the bank is the borrower (See26

GAAP and Modern Money Mechanics) and believes none exists;27

93-Affiant has seen no evidence that if a live flesh and blood man or woman opts to28


25/36


lend his or her credit to a bank, as designated on a 1099A, he or she then should not1

complete a 1099OID for a return to source (his or her self) of the funds created by2

his or her signature on said debt instruments pursuant to 26 USC 1271 1275 and3

believes none exists;494-Affiant has seen no evidence that for the nearly two years Affiant provided an upload5

service through the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FIRE system web site, that6

each upload was not ultimately approved by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE7

personnel and believes none exists;8

95-Affiant has seen no evidence of even one incident where INTERNAL REVENUE9

SERVICE personnel of the FIRE system or otherwise, informed Affiant of a problem10

with any uploads as performed by Affiant and believes none exists;11

96-Affiant has seen no evidence INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE personnel did not12

continue to allow uploads by Affiant right up until November 17, 2010 and believes13

none exists;14

97-Affiant has seen no evidence that Affiant did not conduct his affairs in the open and15

that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE did not have ample opportunity to contact16

Affiant via phone, email, mail or by a visit in person to inform Affiant of any errors in17

Affiants uploads as performed yet Affiant was never contacted even one time and18


Case in point: U.S. v Leo J. Dorey, Jr, U.S. Ct, of Appeals, 9th Cir 82-I 32220

(Argued & submitted 3/83, decided 7/83, pp. 3470-3473). DECISION The21

due process clause requires that a statute, which is used as basis of a22

criminal charge, give fair warning of conduct which is prohibited so that each23

person can conform his conduct to requirements of the law. Fundamental24

principles of due process mandates that no individual be forced to speculate25

whether his conduct is prohibited.26

98- Affiant has seen no evidence that if the 1099OID and 1099A as uploaded by Affiant27

has been and is illegal, then paying out refunds for years on said 1099 claims, not28


26/36


charging any other upload service provider as Defendant has been charged, not1

criminally charging any tax preparer who prepared returns for said 1099 claims and2

still paying out said 1099 claims in 2011, is not a form of entrapment, malicious,3

selective and discriminatory prosecution and believes none exists;45

US V. DANIEL, 3 F3D 775 (4th Cir. 1993)6

HAMPTON V. US, 425 US 484, 48 LEd2d 113, 96 SCt 1646 (1976)7

1) Entrapment has 2 related elements; government inducement of crime and8

lack of predisposition on part of defendant to engage in criminal conduct.9

2) Predisposed defendant for purposes of defendants allegation of entrapment,10

is one who is ready and willing to commit the offense.11

12

KRAMER V. VILLAGE OF NORTH FOUND du LAC, 384 F3d 856 (7th Cir. 2004)13

Selective prosecution and entrapment are complete defenses to a crime.14

15

US V. TOM, 330 F3d 83 (1st Cir. 2003)16

Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent17

persons mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce18

commission of the crime so that the government may prosecute.19

20

99- Affiant has seen no evidence that the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, the UNITED21

STATES OF AMERICA, their agents and assigns by their own admission of sending22

employees and agents to spy on Affiant could not have instead used their resources23

to contact Affiant to explain any potential wrongdoing and explain how to correct the24

filings so that each American can recoup his or her credit on debt instruments he or25

she issued and believes none exists;26

100- Affiant has seen no evidence that the failure of the INTERNAL REVENUE27

SERVICE and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to contact Affiant in a civil28


27/36


manner to explain how to correct any (alleged) erroneous filings, when they had1

ample time to do so, is not a form of entrapment and is not a deliberate and2

premeditated attempt to force Americans into gifting their credit and labor energy3

and wealth to a bank through fear and intimidation and threat of or actual4incarceration on bogus charges for merely applying for the remedy that was directly5

given to each American in HJR192, Public Law 73-10, 48 stat 48, 1 112, for the6

forced surrender of actual title to ALL property in 1933 and believes none exists;7

101- Affiant has seen no evidence that had Affiant actually violated any code, rule,8

regulation or statute that Affiant was subject to, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY are not clearly10

guilty of violating the Fair Warning Doctrine and believes none exists;11

102- Affiant has seen no evidence that there are supporting regulations to the alleged 2612

USC violations and believes none exists; (See Exhibit C on Code of Federal13

Regulations Parallel Index of Authorities);14

U.S. v. Mersky, 362 US 431, 438, 80 S.Ct. 459 An administrative15

regulation, of course, is not a statute. While in practical effect regulations may16

be called little laws, they are at most but offspring of statutes. Once17

promulgated, these regulations, called for by statute itself, have the force of18

law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions, just as if all the details19

had been incorporated into the congressional language. The result is that20

neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other and only21

together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one22

necessarily involves construction of the other. For federal tax purposes,23

federal regulations govern. Dodd v. U.S. 223 F. Supp. 785; Lyeth v. Hoey,24

305 US 188, 59 S. Ct. 155; Failure to adhere to agency regulations [by the25

I.R.S. or other agency] may amount to denial of due-process if regulations are26

required by constitution or statute. Curley v. US, 791 F.Supp. 5; failure27

to adhere to agency regulations may amount to a denial of due-process is the28


28/36


regulations are required by the constitution or statute. Arzanipour v. IS,1

866 F.2d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 1989). (In 26 US 7805(a) the Secretary shall2

prescribe all needful rules & regulations for the enforcement of this title. 3

103- Affiant has seen no evidence that there are implementing regulations in 26 CFR4authorizing any kind of enforcement actions by the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE5

for Title 26 USC and therefore, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE can only6

enforce statutes against the United States Federal employees, and direct Federal7

contractors. Per 26 CFR 601.702 (a)(2)(ii) failure to publish implementing8

regulations, and Title 44, 44 U.S.C. chapter 15, part 1505 (a)(1) and believes none9

exists;10

104- Affiant has seen no evidence or proof that 18 USC is positive law and believes11

none exists;12

The federal Title 18 criminal code was codified in 1909, again in 1940, and13

again in 1948. In 1909 and 1940 the jurisdictional section for federal courts14

only authorized prosecution under Title 18 crimes, not under drug crimes or15

IRS crimes. The 1940 statute, 18 USC 546, was never repealed or16

amended. That statute, which is still valid, only authorized prosecution for17

1909 Title 18 crimes, nothing for Title 21 or Title 26. Furthermore, under the18

Fair Warning Doctrine, to prosecute someone under a prior statute, a person19

must be given warning under that statute. Therefore, no possible prosecution20

exists under Title 21, Title 26, or under any Title 18 charge other than those21

listed in the 1909 act, but prior notice is required.22

THE ABOVE SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION: (1) THAT PERSONS ARE23

REGISTERED VESSELS UNDER TITLE 46, (2) THAT THE ADMIRALTY24

JURISDICTION IS USED AS A MEANS OF IN REM SEIZURE; AGAINST25

THE VESSEL, (3) THAT THESE FACTS ARE CONCEALED DUE TO 193926

INDENTURED TRUST ACT, AND USC 50; TRADING WITH THE ENEMY27

ACT, (4) USC 26 IS NOT POSITIVE LAW, (5) USC 18, IS NOT POSITIVE28


29/36


LAW, (6) 18 and 26 USC ARE TRUST PROVISIONS COVERING THE1

NATIONAL SECURITIES BIRTH CERTIFICATES AND CUSIP (EQUITIES)2

BONDS HELD IN THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY, RENDERING3

PEOPLE AS CHATTEL, BOUGHT AND SOLD ON THE INTERNATIONAL4MARKETS, ALL IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW,5

CONSTITUTING TRAFFICKING IN SLAVES, ENTICEMENT INTO6

SLAVERY, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ETC.7

105- Affiant has seen no evidence that Attorney and prosecution along with INTERNAL8

REVENUE SERVICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES,9

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, are not ALL10

unregistered foreign agents and part of a criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of11

money laundering, theft, conversion, monopoly, RICO, racketeering, extortion, inland12

piracy, robbery ashore, and more and all involved are complicit, and guilty of mis-13

prision of treason and mis-prision of felony for ignorance of the law is no excuse and14


106- Affiant has seen no evidence that prosecution, in adding wire fraud charges in a16

superceding indictment, has not violated Defendants rights as the sole reason for17

adding wire fraud charges was because Defendant would not plead guilty to the18

Conspiracy charge and accept a 5 year prison sentence and believes none exists;19

(Public Defender Barry Flegenheimer repeatedly threatened Affiant that if Affiant did20

not plead guilty to the conspiracy charge by April 30, 2011,and accept a 5 year21

prison sentence that prosecution would amend the indictment with wire fraud22

charges and seek to imprison Defendant for 20 years.)23

24

US V. GOMEZ-ORDUNO, 235 F3d 453 (9th Cir. 2000)25

Prosecutor violates due process when he seeks additional charges solely to26

punish a defendant for exercising a constitutional right.27

KINZER V. JACKSON, 316 F3d 139 (2nd Cir. 2003)28


30/36


Freedom from Malicious prosecution is a constitutional right.1

BRAGAN V. POINDEXTER, 249 F3d 476 (6th Cir. 2001)2

1) Criminal prosecution which would not have been initiated but for3

vindictiveness is constitutionally prohibited.42) The remedy for prosecutorial vindictiveness is dismissal of the charges or5

other appropriate remedies.6

7

BIVENS V. SIX UNKNOWN AGENTS, 403 US 388, 29 Led2d 619, 91 SCt 199 (1970)8

When a government agent acts in an unconstitutional manner he becomes liable for9

money damages.10

11

AVERSA V. US, 99 F3d 1200 (1st Cir. 1996)12

Person may sue federal official in his individual capacity for damages arising out of13

constitutional violation.14

15

107-16

17

18

19

If so-called government can deny anyone his/her justly entitled "rights" and20

remedies, without penalty and without recourse, is it because alleged government21

is, in truth, a de facto quasi-governmental body masquerading as a de jure22

government; yet in reality, is merely a private corporation with private interests,23

seeking to maximize shareholder profits wherein key personnel receive bonuses,24

merit pay increases and/or shares of profits for prosecuting and incarcerating25

American people?26

27

Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is an actual or moral duty to speak,28


31/36


or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading We cannot1

condone this shocking conduct If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This2

sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected3

immediately.4U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 997, 299-3005

6

Affiant grants Plaintiff thirty (30) days, from date of filing to respond to the statements,7

claims and inquiries above, unless an extension of a reasonable amount of time is8

requested in writing and via certified mail to Affiant in Care of Notary Public WALTER9

ETIENNE ESTEVA, NOTARY PUBLIC at PO BOX 51237 IRVINE, CA 92619 within10

the said twenty one (21) day period. Failure to respond will constitute as an operation of11

law, the admission of Plaintiff by TACIT PROCURATION to the statements, claims and12

ANSWERS to inquires shall be deemed RES JUDICATA, STARE DECISIS. Failure to13

respond will constitute PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, and14

ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE. I hereby and herein reserve the right to amend and15

make amendments to this document as necessary in order that the truth may be16

ascertained and proceedings justly determined.17

18

MAXIMS19

20

AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE21

22

AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT IS ACTED UPON AS THE JUDGMENT IN23

COMMERCE.24

25

ALL CORPORATE GOVERNMENT IS BASED UPON COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVITS,26

COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS, COMMERCIAL LIENS AND COMMERCIAL27

DISTRESSES, HENCE, GOVERNMENTS CANNOT EXERCISE THE POWER TO28


32/36


EXPUNGE COMMERCIAL PROCESSES.1

2

THE LEGITIMATE POLITICAL POWER OF A CORPORATE ENTITY IS3

ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT UPON ITS POSSESSION OF COMMERCIAL BONDS4AGAINST PUBLIC HAZARD, BECAUSE NO BOND MEANS NO RESPONSIBILITY,5

MEANS NO POWER OF OFFICIAL SIGNATURE, MEANS NO REAL CORPORATE6

POLITICAL POWER, MEANS NO PRIVILEGE TO OPERATE STATUTES AS THE7

CORPORATE VEHICLE.8

9

THE CORPORATE LEGAL POWER IS SECONDARY TO COMMERCIAL10

GUARANTORS. CASE LAW IS NOT A RESPONSIBLE SUBSTITUTE FOR A BOND.11

12

EXCEPT FOR A JURY, IT IS ALSO A FATAL OFFENSE FOR ANY PERSON, EVEN13

A JUDGE, TO IMPAIR OR TO EXPUNGE, WITHOUT A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT, ANY14

AFFIDAVIT OR ANY COMMERCIAL PROCESS BASED UPON AN AFFIDAVIT.15

16

GOVERNMENTS CANNOT MAKE UNBONDED RULINGS OR STATUTES WHICH17

CONTROL COMMERCE, FREE ENTERPRISE MEN AND WOMEN, OR SOLE18

PROPRIETORSHIPS WITHOUT SUSPENDING COMMERCE BY A GENERAL19

DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW.20

21

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCPIAL22

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT23

Further Affiant sayeth naught.24

25

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that26

the foregoing is true and correct. 28 USC 1746 (1)27

28


33/36


Signed on this the _____ day of the _____ month in the year of our Lord two thousand1

eleven.2

______________________________3

Ronald-Lee:Brekke, Authorized Representative4of RONALD L. BREKKE5

"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not6

enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled7

benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy."8

9

JURAT10

State of California )11

) ss.12

Orange County )13

14

SUBSCRIBED AND AFFIRMED before me on this ________day15

of________________, 2011 by Ronald-Lee:Brekke who proved to me on the basis of16

satisfactory evidence to be the man who appeared before me17

__________________________________________, Notary Public, and whose name18

is subscribed on this Document / Instrument; witnessed by my signature and official19

stamp.20

21

NS: ____________________________________22

Signature of Notary Public23

LEGAL NOTICE24

The Certifying/Affirming Custodian Notary is an independent contractor and not a party25

to this claim. In fact the Certifying/Affirming Custodian Notary is a Federal Witness26

Pursuant to TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 73, SEC. 1512. Tampering with a witness,27

victim, or an informant. The Certifying/Affirming Custodian Notary also performs the28

functions of a quasi-Postal Inspector under the Homeland Security Act by being29


34/36


compelled to report any violations of the U.S. Postal regulations as an Officer of the1

Executive Department. Intimidating a Notary Public under Color of Law is a violation of2

Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 242, titled Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law,3

which primarily governs police misconduct investigations. This Statute makes it a crime4for any person acting under the Color of Law to willfully deprive any individual residing5

in the United States and/or United States of America those rights protected by the6

Constitution and U.S. law. Use of a Notary or references to US codes, rules,7

regulations, statutes and the like does not constitute a granting of jurisdiction, waiving of8

any rights or an acceptance of any benefits or privileges, real or imagined.9

10

Reserving ALL Natural God-Given Unalienable Birthrights, Waiving None, Ever,11

12

13

14

RELIEF AND REMEDY DEMANDED15

Affiant is the beneficiary of the trust known as RONALD LEE BREKKE and I hereby16

appoint JUDGE JOHN C COUGHENOUR as Fiduciary / Trustee. (See Exhibit D) I want17

you to Discharge the matter and Remove the Case from the public record.18

19

I am not an expert in the law however I do know right from wrong. If there is any human20

being damaged by any statements herein, if he will inform me by facts I will sincerely21

make every effort to amend my ways. I hereby and herein reserve the right to amend22

and make amendment to this document as necessary in order that the truth may be23

ascertained and proceedings justly determined. If the parties given notice by means of24

this document have information that would controvert and overcome this Affidavit,25

please advise me IN WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT FORM within thirty (30) days from filing26

hereof providing me with your counter affidavit, proving with particularity by stating all27

requisite actual evidentiary fact and all requisite actual law, and not merely the ultimate28


35/36


facts or conclusions of law, that this Affidavit Statement is substantially and materially1

false sufficiently to change materially my status and factual declarations. Your silence2

stands as consent to, and tacit approval of, the factual declarations herein being3

established as fact as a matter of law.45

Ronald-lee: brekke, Sui juris6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE14

15

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, Affidavit of Truth, for16

Case No. CR10 0328JCC in the DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE17

was sent by mail, sufficient postage prepaid, to the following, whose names and18

addresses are listed below, on this the _____ day of the ______ month in the year of19our Lord, two thousand eleven.20

21

_____________________________22

WALTER ETIENNE ESTEVA23

NOTARY PUBLIC24

PO BOX 5123725

IRVINE, CA 9261926

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA27

C/O JENNY DURKAN, US ATTORNEY28

US DISTRICT COURT29 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 522030

SEATTLE, WA 9810131

32

ROBERT M. LEEN33

PO BOX 8234

WOODINVILLE, WA 980723536


36/36

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION1

RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY21200 NEW JERSEY AVE SOUTHEAST3

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 205904Pursuant to: [46 USC 31321] Filing, recording, and discharge5

6DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, IRS COMMISSIONER7

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE8

CRIMINAL DIVISION9

BOX 19210

COVINGTON, KENTUCKY 410121112

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., DBA US ATTORNEY GENERAL13U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE14950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW15WASHINGTON, DC 2053016

17

J. RUSSELL GEORGE18

DBA INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION19

1125 - 15TH STREET NW - WASHINGTON, DC 2000520

Affidavit of Truth - Ron5

Documents

Transcript of Affidavit of Truth - Ron5