DECEPTION IN “OUR” 
COURTS 

How International Admiralty/Maritime Law Subverts Our Rights 

Please Note: The following document explains how “our” courts operate under Article I, maritime law, instead of under Article III, Constitutional Law intended for Citizens. Because the courts conduct proceedings under 
the wrong jurisdiction, without informing the Citizens, our Rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not honored, upheld and protected. Under this deception, our best efforts are wasted and our just causes are presented in vain. 

INTRODUCTION 

Over the last six years the authors and researchers on this project have reviewed hundreds of pounds of material, traveled to other countries and interviewed persons within and without government about the current apparent 
disregard for our COI1.stitution and god-given rights. Because of innumerable man hours, this research team has uncovered a different or covert “Modus Operandi” and this mode of operation or MO has been to conduct a 
type of quiet war against the ‘People of America. 

The authors present the information as educational material only and we do not hold out the material in this book to be the basis of a legal opinion, nor should the reader. It is hoped that the information presented will 
spark many conversations around the kitchen table; with the Constitution in one hand and the BIBLE (the basis of our law) in the other, (see Public Law 96- 1211). 

It is recommended, before undertaking any legal action, you consult a QUALIFIED person to review and advise you (and your attorney) In International Law/Admiralty-Maritime Process. 

This book has NO COPYRIGHT! You may copy and share the information with all who may be in need. The authors operate under two commandments: 

1. Love God. 2. Love His kids. 
Blue skies, no sea gulls (or wear a hat), clear sailing! 
P.S. Watch for Sharks (IRS) 

CHAPTER ONE 
THE LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER 

Ask yourself how many people each year loose their property, or how often a family is broken up. Sometimes, there is even loss of life as a direct result of the actions of the Agency known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). No matter what the answer is, just one such loss is one too many. It seems that there is no way to stop this damage to our country, our families and our lives. 

Now, put yourself into this equation. The IRS has begun to send you letters, and it demands money that is beyond your means. Then, while you are in the middle of distress, Al Smith tells you how to stop the IRS. In order to have this information, it will cost you a few thousand dollars. (Al Smith is not a real person but a composite of several so-called Patriots for profit). 
This whole process is new to you. At this point you still trust the folks at IRS and you try to work out your problems. So, like thousands before you, you make a trip to the local IRS office and explain that someone has made a mistake. Although you do not know the tax laws, there is something very wrong. The IRS agent, smiling from ear to ear, tells you that you can handle the tax easily, pay the tax! You again explain, to deaf ears, that you do not have the money which they claim, nor did you ever make enough money to have been charged with such a tax. So, your friend, the IRS agent, tells you that you can pay the tax and then sue the IRS, or that you can petition the Tax Court. In Tax Court you will meet a new friend, the judge, another IRS Agent. Of course, you 
can file bankruptcy. 
After this experience, you remember Al Smith, and you call him up. Al gives you more Information than you can handle at first, but you rely upon him. Al will lead you out of all these tax problems. All you have to do is 
send a few letters out, pay Al for all his secret knowledge and claim the 5th Amendment. 
At this point Al is a hero. Then the IRS seems to go into overdrive and events happen which overcome your senses. The boss at work receives a letter from the government. The boss does not understand why he must send all, or the biggest part of your pay check, to the IRS. All he knows is that, if he does not, he will lose his business. 
This same action takes place at the bank, credit union, etc Al has an answer, send another letter and all will be well. Nothing happens. 
A few weeks later, a letter arrives from the government. After opening the brown envelop you discover a “NOTICE OF TAX LIEN UNDER REVENUE LAWS”. Quickly you rush to the phone to call Al. AI sends you another letter to stop the problem, secure in your belief that Al knows what he is doing, you follow his instructions. 
You go on about your business, except that now, no pay is coming from work. Your family and friends are beginning to look at you as if you are crazy. By this time you have read all of the information that AI has sent 
you. You find that there are hundreds if not thousands of people out there, just like you that know the truth. But 
the Courts, the local Sheriffs, members of Congress, and even Church leaders, refuse to hear the truth. 
Several months pass. You change jobs, and a few dollars are beginning to come in again. Al has suggested that 
you do away with your driver’s license, social security number, birth certificate and marriage license. You have 
learned that all of these documents, numbers, etc. are meant to make you a slave. The more you study the more 
you are convinced that you know the truth and despite the outcome, you can never go back to believing in the 
government or any institution that supports this type of outlaw activity. You have become a “Patriot”. You have 
become a ‘Tax Protestor.” 
(Note: this was received with some missing text. Sorry.) …

 country, Of course, there are some things that are in common and some things that do not match everyone’s 
particular situation. For example, in our little story we did not petition the tax court, nor was a ninety day letter 
(Notice of Deficiency) discussed, we did not talk about the bankruptcy issue although many people flee to the 
Bankruptcy court to escape the disaster. 
What we intend to introduce for your consideration is a newer view of the activities of the IRS and a possible 
remedy to this seemingly impossible situation, which is destroying our country. It is hoped that our courts and responsible people in government may still have the moral courage to stand for what is right in these dark days. 
Since the chances of winning in the courts are limited, we must look at different areas of the law to see if any 
possibility has been over looked. Also we must not rely on Al any longer. We must check every document and 
every position presented to us in order to understand the process. How is ‘ it that the IRS can take-away our 
property and the U.S. Constitution is powerless to protect us. The answer may be found in the study of InternaSince the chances of winning in the courts are limited, we must look at different areas of the law to see if any 
possibility has been over looked. Also we must not rely on Al any longer. We must check every document and 
every position presented to us in order to understand the process. How is ‘ it that the IRS can take-away our 
property and the U.S. Constitution is powerless to protect us. The answer may be found in the study of International 
Law-Admiralty/Maritime Law. 
Most people have some understanding of the different types of law such as Criminal or Civil. For example, as 
this is being written, the O. J. trial is on the TV. Talk radio seems like nothing more than the O. J. soap opera. 
This circus deals with criminal Law. Civil Law has been used when dealing with tort claims, such as a fend,erbender 
or your propefty rights. Very few people (including attorneys and even the courts) have an understanding 
of Admiralty/Maritime Law. The supreme court of the united States has declared: 
“To the extent that admiralty procedure differs from civil procedure. It is a mystery to most trial and appellate 
Judges, and to the non-specialist lawyer who finds himself, sometimes to his surprise, involved in a case cognizable 
only on the admiralty “side” of the court. “Admiralty practice”, said Mr. Justice Jackson, “is a unique 
system of substantive laws and procedures with which members of the Court are singularly deficient in experience.” 
Black Diamond S.S. Corp. v. Stewart & Sons, 336 U.S. 386, 403, 69 S. Ct 622.93L Ed. 754 (1949) (dissenting 
opinion). 
Is it any wonder that the State Courts do not have any concept of Admiralty process, when they rule against you 
in favor of the purchaser of the IRS tax lien, in a Quiet Title action? Note, more on this later.

 , “The Federal District courts are the accustomed forum in which actions in admiralty are 
tried and in the absence of some special reason therefore, no effort should be made to divert this type of litigation 
to judges less experienced in the field.” Calmar S.S. Corp. v. United States. 345 US 446, 97 L ed 1140 73 
S Ct. 733. 

NOW, before we start looking at every action as an Admiralty action, we need to consider the following: 
2 Am Jur. Vol 2. ADMIRALTY section 15 - Limited 

Admiralty is a limited jurisdiction, depending for its existence on whether or not the cause involved is an admiralty 
or maritime matter. There is no statutory definition of admiralty jurisdiction, and difficulties attend every 
attempt to define its exact limits. The extent of the admiralty jurisdiction, as conferred by the Constitution, is 
not limited by the scope of admiralty Jurisdiction as it existed under English law, nor was it extended_as far 
as_the admiralty jurisdiction then; reached in the civil law countries. The scope of admiralty jurisdiction in this 
country is to be determined

 In the light of the Constitution, the laws of Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme court.... 

At this point, you maybe asking yourself, what does this have to do with the IRS and tax laws? Keep in mind 
that, when an action has been filed in the courts, it is ‘necessary to file in the proper jurisdiction, venue. 
The Huntress, 12 Fed. case 984@992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D. ME. 1840): “In this country revenue causes 
had so long been the subject of!Admiralty cognizance, that congress

 Considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME

 JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, ‘including,’ 
etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this 
country and not in that which they had in England. 
The Act gives exclusive admiralty maritime Jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations, 
… But in cases wher the courts of common law have always exercised concurrent jurisdiction, the jurisdiction 
is not, and was never intended by the constitution to be, exclusive, though the subject matter be maritime…. 

The common law, and of course the sense in which the technical words of that law are used, WAS NEVER IN 
FORCE IN THIS COUNTRY, any further than as it was adopted by common consent, or the legislature. BEFORCE IN THIS COUNTRY, any further than as it was adopted by common consent, or the legislature. BEYOND 
THIS, IT WAS AS MUCH A FOREIGN LAW AS THAT OF FRANCE OR HOLLAND.” 
Although this case is from .1’840,it is still_in operation today. Reread that opening line again -revenue causes 
… the subject of Admiralty… 
Let us move ahead to this century, for those readers who are concerned about old law, and take note of a case 
from the recent past, United States of America v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station wagon Serial 
No. OC66W145329: 
“Although presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under internal Revenue Laws 
is commenced as PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character, 
of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedures control.” 

‘Has the light started to come on, or are we still in the dark? The point being made is that all revenue activity 
is controlled by Admiralty process. The Supreme Court often quotes Benedict on Admiralty, and it seems that if 
the highest court in the land quotes from it, then we should take a look. 
1 Benedict (6th Edition) section 17, p. 28:” As no court other than a court of admiralty can enforce, maritime 
liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. Neither the State courts nor

 the United States courts on their common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or 
adjudicate the maritime liens uriless the maritime -lienors voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction.

 [ Let us now examine the NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS. 
Turn the document over and what do you see. “United States v. __________” If you do not find this on the 
notice which you have, keep in mind that in some countries, the recorders do not record the back side of the 
document. The IRS usually will not send-the complete document to you. It is very important that you find such 
a document because on the back side we find that the lien has been filed pursuant to 26 USC 6321. What does 
this mean? ] 

“…(I)t is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 USC§ 6321 
‘upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal rank below all other maritime liens….” 
Benedicts’s “admiralty.” 7th ed., Vol2 Cehapter IV § 51 footnote

 Open a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary to IN REM and we see something that may shed some light on the 
above quotation from Benedict’s Admiralty: 
In rem – A technical term used to designate proceedings or actions instituted against a thing,........... It is true 
that, in a strict sense, a proceeding In rem is one taken_directly;against property, and has fori itsobject the disposition 
of property, without reference to the title of individual claimants;........... (See: Quasi In rem) 

Is it possible that the NOTICE OF TAX LIEN[S] is an In rem action? Unless someone can come up with a 
better idea or another reading of the Notice, it clearly states “rights to property”. Now it is time to turn on the 
computer because in order to do a word search it would take days, weeks, or even months to find In rem ,in the 
Internal Revenue Code. I will only help you one time. Open a copy of Title 26 and turn to § 7323 which reads: 

(a) Nature and venue,- the proceedings to enforce such Forfeitures shall be in the nature of the proceeding In 
rem in the United States District Court for the district where such seizure is made. 
Stop for a moment and let’s recap what we have learned so far. 

1. The District Court for the United States is the court of nations having_exclusive and limited Admiralty jurisdiction 
venue. 
2. Revenue actions are Admiralty as pointed out in “The Huntress” and other cases listed above. See Benedicts on Admiralty.

 3. NOTICE OF TAX LIEN UNDER REVENUE LAWS are Admiralty _ actions pursuant to 26 USC § 6321 
against property and the rights to_property in rem (see 26 USC §.7323 also § 7401 to be discussed later. 
‘4. Inj.rem deals with rights to property not with the “person”. 
Because so many people have prob1ems with the word person, the one we are talking about has blood in his 
veins. 
We have a few other areas to cover and then we will get into the “how to” section, since, you are going to make 
a trip to the Law Library, look at Title 28 §§ 2461-2465. In §2463 we read: 
“ All property taken or detained UNDER ANY REVENUE LAW of the United States … shall be deemed 
in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having 
jurisdiction thereof.” 

How many people have asked the IRS agent or Sheriff for a court order while they drive away with the persons 
car or they sell the home at a tax sale. The Sheriff, when questioned, has replied “the IRS does not need a court 
order”. Now folks, is it possible that our Sheriff cannot read, or does he fear the IRS. Again we ask that you 
look at the basis of our law, the Bible, King James Version. In Hosea, 4:6, “My people are destroyed for lack of 
knowledge…” 
Back in 1861 there was a civil war in this country. The President had a problem. The Southern States were in 
rebellion and the Federal Government could not declare war against the Southern States for the Federal Government 
would have recognized the sovereignty of the South. If it had recognized the sovereignty of the South, it 
would have no claim to any of the property of the States or the People, (see, Black’s Law for Prize and Booty), 
therefore, the President was granted power under 12 stat 319 over the property of person’s in rebellion against 
the United States. 
Today we have people in rebellion against the United States, as defined by 12 stat 319 and the Trading with_the 
Enemy Act of October 6th, 1917. This is also an undeclared/silent war against thePeopleof this country, being 
waged by the IRS agents not on1y for the united States,’but for “the Bank and the Fund”, see 22 USCA § 286 
et. seq. 
In a letter to members of Congress dated January 13, 1995, Congressman 

James A. Traficant Jr. pointed out:

 “The IRS is an agency out of control.” … “Last year, I described at length on the House fl oor the cases of 
everyday American families whose lives were ruined without cause by the IRS. I received thousands of letters 
from all over the country from people who told me their IRS horror stories.” 
How many people have been declared “tax protestors”? Once the title “tax protestor is used, 12 stat 319 can be 
used to take your property. Please take the time to look this up and share it with your friends. In the State of 
Utah, it is common, in dealing with the State Tax commission, for the Commission to place the letters TP after 
any case number involving tax issues. The Judges in the state courts hearing these actions; when questioned 
“what does the TP stand for,” simply say they do not know. 
The Clerks of the court responsible for issuing the number for the tax cases claim they do not know what the 
two letters TP mean. Do you think Forrest Gump could figure this out? Life is like a box of Chocolates... 
In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution it says: 

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment 
of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service 
in time of war or public danger” 
Back in 1933 the President declared a “state of emergency,” and we are still under, this declared state of emergency today. Since a state of emergency is existing, and on1y the President can end such; ,we must be in “public 
danger”. So much for the 5th Amendment! 
“I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments 
of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations... “ James Madison

 In Congressman Traficant’s letter quoted above, he is attempting to introduce a bill into Congress to shift the burden of proof from the “taxpayer” to the Internal Revenue Service. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff, so when you petition the tax court, bankruptcy court, or district court, you are in fact the plaintiff and the burden of proof falls on you. However, in the Admiralty process, the burden of proof falls to the one filing 
a libel (Notice of Tax Lien in the county record), and in this Instance, you are not the, Plaintiff, but a Petitioner filing an Answer (Libel of Review). 
Could this, then, be the key? 

******************** 
Please take the time to go to the local law library and check out each quotation for yourself, do, not ask Al. 
Many people make a mistake when they find a case or part of a statute and use this as a basis for an action. 
Laws change and rules change from state to state and from court to court. Remember, that just because a case is 
quoted it, may not apply to you or your case. 

CHAPTER TWO 

THIS IS THE KEY? 

For the moment let’s say that you are the owner of a ship and you have taken on a cargo in France. You sail to the port of New York, USA to unload your cargo but when you arrive in the port your vessel is seized by the government for violation of some revenue statute. The US Marshall serves an arrest warrant at the direction of the Federal District Court, signed by a magistrate/judge for the district where the “res” (ship) is located. The Marshall posts a notice on the res of the seizure. “ 

You have been served a copy of a complaint made upon “an oath of solemn affirmation”, upon review of the complaint it is clear that the circumstances from which the claim arises states with such particularity that the 
defendant (you) will be able, without moving for a more definite statement, to commence an investigation of the facts and to frame a responsive pleading. See Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims 
(SR Fed Civ P) E2a.

 Let’s review the elements of what just took place. But, before we do so, take out a pencil and a clean sheet of paper. At the top of the paper write THINGS NECESSARY TO PERFECT A LIEN. 

In our example, was the Captain, agent for the owner, or the owner served a copy of a complaint made upon an oath of solemn affirmation? 
Point # 1. (On your paper.) Of course the answer to our question is YES. 
Point # 2. How was the complaint and/or arrest warrant served? “Study aid” see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 4. In our example the process was served by the US Marshall. You should have point two on 
your paper by this time. 
Point # 3. Is the information clear on the complaint so that it will not be necessary to move for a more definite statement ... so that you may frame a responsive pleading. 
Point#4. Has the Court for the District where the res is located been served? 
Point #5. Was the notice properly posted? 

As you can see, there is a definite process that must be followed in order to perfect a lien under Admiralty process. 
However, what do you do if there a defect in the service of process? So much so that you or the court have been improperly served or no service of any kind has been performed . 
One answer is. When a person finds to his surprise, that he has not been served, or improperly served, he may petition the District court for the United States for the District where the res is located (in rem) for a Libel of 
Review to determine-the basis, (foundation) if any, for the libel. [Notice of Tax Lien under Revenue Law, filed in the county record absent a court order or oath of solemn affirmation] 

See 2 Benedict (6th Edition), section 275,pg. 119, 120: “But where a party discovers that … he has had no proper notice... and has thereby been deprived of property; or where there has been fraud of any kind … so that 
no regular remedy is left him, he may obtain redress by filing a libel of review. The subsequent proceedings will be the same as in any suit and the decree of the court will be such as equity demands. There is no corresponding 
provision in the Civil Rules.” (Emphasis mine.) 

Stop. Pencil down. Before we go into more detail on our two examples so far, we must take a look at the District Court that signed the warrant for the arrest of the property. Also, it is important to understand who the parties of real interest are. 

The District court is divided into three separate sections. The first section is devoted to criminal law. The second section is devoted to civil law. The third section and the one least understood by the judges and attorneys, as noted in Chapter One. is the Admiralty division. 

The Admiralty section of the curt has its own distinct set of court rules. It would be wise to check with the District court in your area or local law library to acquire the rules that govern the actions of the court. It is a must to have a copy of the supplemental rules of admiralty. These are numbered A-F, instead of the numeric system familiar to most people. We will discuss some of these supplemental rules later on. (Emphasis added.) 

One of the researchers on this project had an interesting conversation a couple of years ago with a nationally known attorney. This attorney had been a government employee for nearly thirty years. The attorney made this 
observation about the rules of court. It was his opinion that the rules of court were designed to quickly dispense with the novice, “pro se attorney”, thereby cutting down on the work load that the courts were under. As the 
attorney explained, whenever a complaint/answer was presented to his department and had been placed on his desk, the things he would check were the Rules of Court. As he explained, the work load is so great that we look 
for any way to disqualify a Plaintiff-Defendant. 

It is extremely important that you read and understand the rules of court. Unfortunately, many people are never heard in our court system because they do not know or understand the rules. It is quite possible to win your 
case based solely on rules and never have the merits of the case heard. It is because of these rules that the admiralty process becomes viable. 

In order to understand the admiralty court we need to look at some of the other courts and the position the ‘taxpayer’ is placed in when he enters their jurisdiction. 

The first court is an Administrative Court. It is known as the United States Tax Court. This court operates 
under the authority of the Executive Branch of the United States Government. (the President). The Secretary of Treasury (the Governor of the International Monetary Fund) provides the regulations that govern the operation 
of the tax court and this court does not operate under the same set of rules as the District, Circuit or Supreme Court. 

The IRS uses a type of trickery (Modus Operandi) in order to move their victim into the tax court This is done by sending the victim a Notice of Deficiency also known as a ninety day letter. In this Notice of Deficiency letter 
the target is informed that he has 90 days to petition the tax court if he 

disagrees with the amount that they have decided the target is going to pay. Note: the term “target” is a term used in the United States Attorney’s Manual in referring to the “taxpayer”. 

By the way, in the Notice of Deficiency, it is common to see penalties and interest attached to the taxpayer for the manufacture, sale or distribution machine gun parts pursuant to 26 USC § 6651(a) and of course one of their 
favorites, civil fraud 26 USC § 6662. In Cramer v The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case # 11718.94, the petitioner, Mr. Cramer, pointed out to the court that the claim of civil fraud by the IRS reversed the burden of proof. The Court agreed. The Attorney for the government (currently under investigation by the inspector General’s Office for criminal misconduct in this case, and the court was notified of this on the record before the hearing began) said, that upon review of the record, no fraud was present. However, the government did not remove the fine imposed under 26 USC § 6662. This is a fun case and one that Congress decided to review, not by choice, but just because Mr. Cramer pushed his way in through letter writing, thereby placing it on the record. 
Judge Powell was so unprepared for Mr. Cramer that several times the Judge claimed that the internal Revenue code is found in Title 28. Please find this case and study it. Review Mr. Cramer’s opening statement. 

If we look at 26 U.S.C. § 7401, we will find that before any penalty, civil or criminal, can be applied, it requires the sanction (O-Kay) of the Attorney General or his/her delegate and the Secretary of the Treasury. Many a 
patriot has wasted their time going into tax court and arguing that 6651 (a) and 6662 could not and did not apply to them because they were a non-taxpayer, non- resident alien, did not deal in alcohol tobacco or firearms, etc. 
Remember, this is an Administrative Court and the Judge will remind you that this is a court of limited Jurisdiction. 
The court will not allow the “taxpayer” to go behind the Notice of Deficiency to determine if there is any basis in faCt for the deficiency. 

What is meant by “go behind the deficiency”? When you petitioned the Tax Court to hear your complaint, you took on the position of the Plaintiff. The burden of proof became your responsibility. The government on the 
other hand, was the innocent Defendant. Yes, I said innocent. Under our form of (in)justice, the Defendant Is Innocent until proven guilty. The Defendant is not required to testify against himself. Also, the court is eager to grant a protective order denying the Petitioner any access to any records that would support his position and be embarrassing to the government. If you find yourself as the Plaintiff (petitioner), the burden of proof always falls on your shoulders. It is impossible to prove a negative. For those of you who have had the sad experience of going to Tax court, you realize what a mistake it was to take the bait and petition the Tax court. By doing so, you merely rubber stamped the IRS lie. took on the position of the Plaintiff. The burden of proof became your responsibility. The government on the other hand, was the innocent Defendant. Yes, I said innocent. Under our form of (in)justice, the Defendant Is 
Innocent until proven guilty. The Defendant is not required to testify against himself. Also, the court is eager to grant a protective order denying the Petitioner any access to any records that would support his position and 
be embarrassing to the government. If you find yourself as the Plaintiff (petitioner), the burden of proof always falls on your shoulders. It is impossible to prove a negative. For those of you who have had the sad experience 
of going to Tax court, you realize what a mistake it was to take the bait and petition the Tax court. By doing so, you merely rubber stamped the IRS lie. 

Some of you may have appealed the Tax Court decision to the Federal District Court. You also could have gone to this court in the first place by paying the tax first and then suing for a recovery. Fat chance! Just like our illustration, in the Tax court you are the Plaintiff. The burden of proof is on you. Again they played their trick and you took the bait. The government trots out the Anti-injunction Act 26 USC § 7421 and you are barred from stopping the collection process while you attempt to have your day in court. Again court rules play an 
important part. Pursuant to Rule 64 of the Civil Rules they may continue their collection process and you can do nothing more than watch your car, bank account, job, home and family go away. The American that brings a 
suit against the government in the Federal District Court only stands about a 12% chance of winning. 

Well, you see everything leaving and you are trying to hold on to what little you have left, so you file bankruptcy. 
Congratulations, you just took the bait and are in their trap again. When you filed bankruptcy, you were able to by pass the Anti-injunction Act for a short time. However, depending upon how aggressive the U. S. Attorney 
is, the automatic stay can be lifted in a matter of a few weeks. Again, the property can be seized and sold off. If the judge has a small understanding of the law he will require the IRS to supply the court with an inventory list 
of the property taken and any monies to be deposited with the registrar of the court. 

Remember 28 U.S.C. § 2463? Along with doing battle with the U. S. Attorney, you will also find his helper, the Trustee for the Bankruptcy Court. By the way, the Trustee is the de facto owner of all your property. Again, because you petitioned the Bankruptcy Court, the burden of proof falls on your shoulders and the government can play hide and seek while they destroy you. 

In Chapter One, our little lamb received a Notice of Lien. If he had taken the time to look at the signature line, it is quite likely that he would have found that it was never signed. In most cases the IRS uses a stamp for another party. For example: rubber stamp Jim Jones for James Doe Question: Is it possible for another person to testify for you as to your personal first hand knowledge? See FRCP Rule 56(e)(g). . 

In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. 
If you know it is Admiralty jurisdiction, [see the HUNTRESS, Benedict on Admiralty, and 26 U.S.C. § 6321 
as noted above.], and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract to which you are supposedly a party and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence. However it is the practice (Modus Operandi) of the IRS to bypass the court altogether and trick you into becoming the moving party. The IRS never ever admits on the record that they are moving in Admiralty. 
No court has Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract that has been breached. And generally speaking only the parties of REAL INTEREST may bring an action. 

“A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs 
from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to 
prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the 
institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being 
deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies 
possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of common law the 
injured party alone is permitted to sue for a trespass, the damages 
being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable 
claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In 
admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit 
conducted in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST.” 1 R.C.L. 
§ 33. pg. 424 (1914); “…and when a statute of the United States so 
provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought 
in the name of the united States.” F.R.CN.P. 17. The district courts are 
prohibited from granting venue where the united States has less than 
“one-half of its capital stock…” of the respondents/Libelants Principal 
the Fund and Bank. 28 USC § 1549; The government by becoming a corporator. 
(See: 28 USC § 3002(15)(A)(B)(C), 22 USCA 286(e) lays down its 
sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen, it can exercise no 
power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The 

Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia. 6 L Ed.(Wheat) 

244; U.S. vs. Burr. 309 U.S. 242). The REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is 

not the de jure “United States of America” or “State”, but “The Bank” and “The 

Fund”. (22 USCA 286, et seq.). The acts committed under fraud, force 

and seizure are many times done under “Letters of Marque and . 

Reprisal” i.e. “recapture.” (See: 31 USCA 5323). such principles as “Fraud 

and Justice never dwell together.” Wingate’s Maxims, 680. and, “A right 

of action cannot arise out of fraud.” Broom’s Maxims, 297, 729. 

Sometimes it is helpful if we take the time to draw a diagram of the steps taken in the process. (See Diagram I) 

At the left hand top of the page you will note that a box containing the USA appears. Then, across from that box 
to the right a box containing The Governor of The International Monetary Fund AKA Secretary of the Treasury. 
These two boxes are not linked at this point Inasmuch as the Governor is not an agent for the USA and is therefore 
intra government as opposed to inter government. 

The United States is a part owner of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and holds about 19 to 20% of the 
stock in this private corporation. (See: 22 USCA 286 et seq.) The Governor of the Fund can not be paid by the 
United States. Question: from where does the pay for the Judges of the Federal District Court come? BATF? 

Below the box containing the Governor of the IMF we find the IRS. The Secretary makes the rules that the 
IRS must follow and Delegates authority to the Commissioner on down the line to the agents in the field. The 
Secretary, as the Governor of the IMF, is then in charge of the IRS. It follows that the agents in the field must be 
under his direct command if we have read the statues correctly. 

Under his direction, some of the functions of the IRS are to send letters, make demands, visit and victimize their victims. This is done under the color of law. The phrase “color of law”, means “something that appears to be genuine, but is not. These IRS agents are in fact, agents for the Governor of the IMF not the USA. Question: 
Why are there two separate sections in the Internal Revenue Code dealing with misconduct? (See: 26 USC §§ 7214 & 7433). Why are the Noticeso Lien “under Revenue Laws” not signed, but stamped for a third party? 
MODUS OPERANDI!’ 
victims. This is done under the color of law. The phrase “color of law”, means “something that appears to be genuine, but is not. These IRS agents are in fact, agents for the Governor of the IMF not the USA. Question: 
Why are there two separate sections in the Internal Revenue Code dealing with misconduct? (See: 26 USC §§ 7214 & 7433). Why are the Noticeso Lien “under Revenue Laws” not signed, but stamped for a third party? 
MODUS OPERANDI!’ 

Just to the left of the box containing the IRS we see a box around (DOJ) Department of Justice and arrows connecting these two entities. In the United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM), we find that the IRS and DOJ must 
work in harmony. . 

USAM 6 - 4.010 reads in pertinent part - The Federal Tax Enforcement Program is designed to protect the public interest in preserving the integrity of this nation’s self-assessment tax system...the Federal Tax Enforcement 
Program is designed to have the broadest possible impact on compliance attitudes by emphasizing balanced enforcement not only with respect to the types of violations prosecuted but also the geographic location and 
economic and vocational status…However, the tax enforcement program can only work effectively If the IRS, Department of Justice, and U.S. Attorneys work in harmony. (Emphasis mine.) 

Below the IRS, is the beginning of the pattern or MO that the service follows, i.e., the Notice of Deficiency or 90 day letter. From this point, the arrows show the path between the various courts. If we follow this pattern, the United States becomes a party to the Action[s] and this allows the DOJ/U.S. Attorneys to come to the aid of their buddies. At this time, the government will spend any amount of money it needs, or if need be, threaten harm to you or someone or something close to you, outside of the hearing of the court. Yes, just like the NAZI 
party in Germany, these agents, misguided as they are, believe they are protecting our country. I t was reported that an 84 year old woman was forced out of a rest home for a tax due from 1975 in 1994. (see: 26 U.S.C. § 
650l(a)). It makes me feel sick every time this happens. One person can change this and it may be you! Remember commandments: 1&2. 

There is another set of boxes connected to the IRS on our diagram. One box shows the Notice of Lien filed with the county recorder. 

Then, follows the Notice of Seizure, Tax Sale and finally the Quiet Title Action in the State Court. This is the path we want to follow. 

First of all, the Notice of Lien was a Libel on the public record. This Libel was not filed with the District court for the United States where the “res” is located. (You should go to the Court and request a Certificate of Search 
to use as proof of no claim filed.) 

Next to follow in the Modus Operandi is the Seizure. (See: 28 U.S.C. §§ 2463 -2465). If the Court has not been notified of the seizure, how can it have control over any property taken under any revenue law, unless it was not 
for the benefit of the United States of America. It must have been for the use and benefit of another. 

What happens at the tax sale? (Sale of home). The Special Procedures Function Officer is the agent that represents the governor of the International Monetary Fund, AKA Secretary of the Treasury. He is the grantor on a deed to the United States Internal Revenue Service. Question: why was it necessary for the IMF to transfer the lien to the United States Revenue Service? Answer: until this transaction took place the United States was not a party to the action. Finally, a Quit Claim Deed is given to the ‘purchaser of the lien (private Party). 

Just a note on Quit Claim Deeds: A Quit Claim Deed does not transfer any property rights. In point of fact, a Quit Claim Deed declares that the grantor of the deed holds no interest or equity in the property. For example, the reader of this book could issue a Quit Claim Deed for the State Capitol and this deed would be just as valid as the deed issued by the IRS for the home sold at the tax sale. 

Finally, we arrive at the last segment of our diagram: Quiet Title action in the State court. The next thing that happens after the tax sale is that the purchaser of the lien realizes he does not have title to the property he supposedly 
purchased. Therefore, in order for him to perfect his title, it requires a Court Order. Now, from our studies, does the State Court have jurisdiction to hear this Quiet Title Action? Can the purchaser of the lien produce the court Order that authorized the sale? Is the purchaser the real party in interest? Can the real party in interest transfer said interest? If you have followed the Information so far, you can easily answer each one of these questions. 

SAMPLE PLEADINGS 

FEDERAL 

Name 
Name 

Address 
City, State & zip 
Pro se 
City, State & zip 
Pro se 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT OF _______________________ 

) 
and ) Admiralty case # 
) 
Petitioner/Claimant, ) 
) IN ADMIRALTY, 

 v. ) 
) IN RE 
) 
) LIBEL OF REVIEW, ANSWER 
) OF___________ ,AND_____________ 
)COMPLAINT OF INVOLUNTARY 
IAGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ) SERVITUDE AND PEONAGE. 
FUND, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) IN RE 
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL ) ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO 
PROCEDURES FUNCTIONOFFICER and ) PROPERTY OF THE (LAST NAME’S 
THEIR PRINCIPAL, GOVERNOR OF ) OF PETITIONERS) THEIR ESTATE 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ) AND TRUST. 
AKA SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ) 

) 
) Judge: 
) 
) Judge: 
) 

. Respodndents/Libelants. 

ANSWER AND VERIFIED COMPLIANT OF LIBEL

 COMES NOW____________and____________,Pro Se, appearing specially, Supplemental Rule Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure (SFRCP), Rule (E)8, “Restricted Appearance,” in the original in the alternative, as a 
matter of right and Privilege and enter their answer SFRCP (B)3(b), to alleged rights under maritime liens and 
notice of intent to levy by Respondents/Libelants as Libelant in the first instance absent their verified oath or 
solemn affirmation of complaint pursuant to Supplemental Rules (B)(l). (C)(2) & (E)(4)(f) or in the alternative 
F.R.Civ.P.(e ),thereby denying Claimants procedural due process. 

1. In the interest of law and justice mandates a hearing of Libel of Review pursuant to the Law of Nations and 
that said Petitioners/Claimants as Petitioners and for the protection of their person, property, estate, and trust 
hereby enters their Complaint of Involuntary Servitude and Peonage due to wanton and malicious acts and 
threats, duress, coercion, fraud by Respondents/Libelants as Respondents in violation of the Laws of the forum 

United States of America and the Law of Nations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4 113(b) 219, 241, 242, 371, 
654, 661, 709, 951, 1001, 1028, 1341, 1346, 1581, 1621, 1622, 1961, 2111, 2382, 2384, 42 U.S.C. § 19834th, 
5th, 7th. 9th, 10th, 13th & 16th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America. 
654, 661, 709, 951, 1001, 1028, 1341, 1346, 1581, 1621, 1622, 1961, 2111, 2382, 2384, 42 U.S.C. § 19834th, 
5th, 7th. 9th, 10th, 13th & 16th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America. 

JURISDICTION 

2. This is an admiralty/maritime cause of action within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(h). 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2461 and 2463 “all property taken or detained under any revenue law of the united 
States....shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the 
United States havin2iurisdiction thereof.” Emphasis added. 
3. The United States District Court is the mandated district court of the United States having de Jure venue to 
hear a cause of action etc., pursuant to 5 Stat. 516, Chapter 188, § 5 enacted, August 23, 1842 pursuant to the 
Act of September 24.1789, Chapter 20: and, The Constitution for the United States of America. Article III§ 2; 
and, in that the Respondents/Libelants et al., are directed by the Governor of the Fund (I.M.F.) AKA Secretary 
of the Treasury, alien custodian for Prize and Booty, and are foreign agents of their principal The Fund and 
Bank et al., a fortiori mandates pursuant to the law of the United States of America Title 22 U.S.C. Foreign 
Relations and intercourse - international Organizations Chapter 7 § 286g. Jurisdiction and venue of actions 
-“...any such action at law to which either the Fund or Bank shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under 
the laws of the united States, and the District Courts of the United States shall have original Jurisdiction of any 
such action.” Emphasis added. 
4. The united States is not a proper party to this action even though the Principal’s agents come in its (UNITED 
STATES) name on the “Notice of Federal Tax Lien[s] under Revenue Laws” and the like, therefore, the 
Petitioners/Claimants do not make the united States pursuant to F.R.Civ. P 17. or in the alternative the United 
States attempts to make an appearance, the Petitioners/Claimants reserves their rights for disclosure of whose 
“...use or benefit of another (the action or levy in the original] shall be brought [for] in the name of the United 
States...” 
NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAW 

5. Petitioners/Claimants give NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAW pursuant to Federal Rules of civil Procedure 44.1 and Federal Rilles Criminal Procedure 26.1 and that this district court is under legal duty and obligation to take 
cognizance of the same, and in the matters concerning conflicts of law, the law of the forum United States of America and the Law of Nations are to govern. 
NOTI€E OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION 

6. Petitioners/Claimants give NOTICE that they will demand disclosure and subpoena classified information and will question witnesses about same, pursuant to the “Classified Information. Procedures Act”; Public Law 
96-456, 94 Stat. 2025; will address interrogatories to respondents, and “[by] the law of nations, the courts of justice of different countries are bound mutually to aid and assist each other for the furtherance of Justice...”, 
therefore, Petitioners reserves their right to petition this court to issue Letters Rogatory to foreign and domestic courts for oral examination of parties, concerning treaties, compacts, agreements, contracts and the like 
involving the Respondents/Libelants et al., as it applies to any alleged claims as against Petitioners/Claimants property, estate trust and personally, concerning revenue under the forum United States of America and Law of 
Nations. 

CAUSE OF ACTION 

7. The respondents/Libelants and their agents et al, have filed maritime “Notice of Federal Tax Lien[s] [serial 
number ) under internal Revenue Laws- In the County Record._____ county---city and state – for year(s)_____ 
__ for the total amount of $_______________on the____ day of , by foreign agent Revenue Officer No.______ 
for______________written, title Chief_____absent a. 
signature, oath of solemn affirmation validating lien, see Exhibit A; and have served alleged notices of intent 
to levy, and have levied [sic] from fiduciary of _______________’s, i.e. BANK NAME..$$ AMOUNT,….etc., 
copies attached Exhibits B and C Notice[s] of Levy. 

8. The Respondents/Libelants’s et,al.. Notices of Lien have damaged Petitioners/Claimants, -names husband & 
wife - their property and rights to property, estate, trust, their good name, and their ability to transfer, sale and 
freely use same, therefore, this has caused Petitioner/Claimant et al., to be put into a position of involuntary 
servitude and peonage against their will and the laws of the United States of America, the state of and the Law 
of Nations by Respondents/libelants et al. 
9. The Petitioners/Claimants, upon receiving threatening notices and the like; have returned said Notices to the 
Department of the Treasury et al., thereby, attests and affirms that upon investigation and research, the facts 
stated herein are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief 
10. The Respondents/Libelants, in the original, and in the alternative filings of the Notices and the like, have 
never met the requirements of the de Jure laws of the forum United States of America or the Law of Nations, the 
Admiralty, in any of their correspondence. 
11. The Petitioners/Claimants, - names of husband and wife -, are without remedy to vacate, remove or replevin 
liens, levies and property respectively; In that, due to lack of procedural due process i.e., a filing of libel before 
mesne process, as mandated In the district courts of the U.S.” in Admiralty”, by ,the Respondents/Libelants et 
al., (see Exhibit D copy attached, Certificate ;of Search dated____________,Clerk of the Court), “therefore. 
Petitioners only redress in the premises is for the court to review this Petition and make further inquiry into the acts of omission or commission by Respondents/Libelants et al. by the Judges of this Court pursuant to Title 18 
use §§ 4, 3 and 2. 
12. The Petitioners/Claimants affirm and declare based upon information, knowledge and belief that the above is true and correct All and singular the premises are true and within the admiralty and maritime venue and jurisdiction 
of this Honorable Court. 
CONCLUSION PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Petitioners pray that this district court is mandated pursuant to the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty and the Law of Nations, Law and Justice supra., for an inquiry into all the matters herein sworn to by the 
Petitioners/Claimants, - names of husband and wife -, with a report of its findings pursuant to Libel of Review, If upon its findings and conclusions, pursuant to Law, Justice and Fact, it is found that Petitioners/Claimant’s 
claims are well founded, then in the interest of Law and Justice: that, (1) The court Notify Respondents/ Libelant et al., to return all properties (monies) taken from Petitioners/Claimant’s fiduciaries and the like; 

(2) Remove all Notices of Liens on record; or (5) The Respondents/Libelant et al., refuse such notice by the court, that Petitioners/Claimant’s. Libel of Review, Complaint et al, be filed, Admiralty process issue, and that Respondents/Libelants, et al., be cited to appear and answer the allegations of this libel; that said suit shall be reviewed In the original. In the alternative, that said alleged liens be removed and levies dismissed along with the return of all property of Petitioners/Claimants; and that Petitioners/Claimants.- names of husband and wife -may have such other and further relief as they may be entitled to receive. 
Respectfully, 

All Rights Reserved 

Name Pro se 

Name Pro se

 On the _____day of in the County of _________________, 2005, in the State of ____________ 
_____, ___________________and____________________ did appear before me with sufficient 
identification and signed in my presence the above document. 

Notary Public 

Seal 

My commission expires:_____________________ 

Name Name 
Address 
City state & zip 
Pro se 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT OF _________________ 

NAME IN CA PS and 
. NAME 

Petitioner/Claimant, 

) Admiralty case  
) 
) 
) INADMIRALTY 
) 

) INRE 
) 
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF) 

 . ) LIBEL OF REVIEW, ANSWER OP 
AGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ) AND ,COMPLAINT 
FUND INTERNAL REVENUE, SERVICE, ) INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE AND DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL ) PEONAGE 
PROCEDURES FUNCTION OFFICER and ) IN RE., 
THEIR PRINCIPAL GOVERNOR OF ) ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ) PROPERTY OF THE Jones\ 
AKA SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ) THEIR ESTATE AND TRUST 
) 
) Judge: 
) 
Respondents/Libelants. 

On the ___ day of _______________, 1995, in the State of _________________in the County of __________ 
___, ________________________ ,and__________________________ did appear 

before me with sufficient identification and signed in my presence the above document. 

Notary Public 

Seal 

My commission expires: ____________________ 

MEMORANDUM 

1. The District Court of the United States is the proper venue and has jurisdiction to hear this libel of review. 
This is a proceeding In ADMIRALTY. 
“In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of 
admiralty cognizance, that congress, considered them as CIVIL 
CAUSES OF AMIRALTY AND MARITME JURISDICTION, 
and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the 
clause, ‘Including,’ etc. This is clear proof that congress considered 
these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and 
not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive 
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a 
court of the law of nations...... 
THE HUNTRESS. 12 Fed.Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case NO. 6,914) (D.Me. 1840): 

2. As further evidence that the ‘action before the court is in fact an Admiralty action we find in UNITED 
STATES of America v. $3976.62 in currency, one 1960 Ford Station wagon Serial No. OC66W145329. 
“Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, 
action for forfeiture under internal Revenue Laws is commenced 
as Proceeding In admiralty, after Jurisdiction is obtained 
proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least 
at such stage of proceedings. Rules of Civil Procedures control. 

3. The Petitioners refer the court to 1 Benedict [6th Edition] § 17, p. 28: which reads in pertinent part, “As no 
court other than a court of admiralty can enforce maritime liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate 
them. Neither the State courts nor the United States courts on their common law, equity, and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens unless the maritime lienor voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.) submit themselves to the jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.) 

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2463 “All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United 
States having jurisdiction thereof.” Emphasis added. 
5. As a further indication that the issue before the court is a matter of admiralty, Petitioners refer the court again to “Benedict’s Admiralty “, 7th ed., Vol. 2 Chapter IV § 51, footnote;7. “…[I]t is now generally held that government 
tax claims under 26 U.S.C. § 6321 ‘upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal’ rank below all other maritime liens…” 
6. “A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the 
action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of the common law, the injured party alone is permitted to sue 
for a trespass, the damages being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit conducted 
in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST.” 1 R. C. L § 33, pg. 424 (1914); “...and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States.” F.R.Civ.P. 17 The district courts are prohibited from granting venue where the United States has less than “one-half of its capita1 stock…”of the Respondents/Libelants Principal, the Fund and Bank. 28 
U.S.C. § 1349; The government by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen, 28 USC § 3002(15)(A)-(C). It can exercise no power which is not derived 
from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. (9 
Wheat) 244; U.S. vs BURR, 309 U.S. 242). The REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is not the de Jure “United States of America” or “State,” but “The Bank” and The Fund.” (22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq.). The acts committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”, i.e., “recapture.” (See 31 U.S.C.A. 5323). Such principles as “Fraud and justice never dwell together.” Wingate’s Maxims 680, and “A 
right of action cannot arise out of fraud.” Broom’s Maxims 297, 729. 
7. “According to international law it has long been established that, although a person who claims to be the owner of a ship is bound by the character fastened upon her by the flag under which he has chosen to let her pass, captors ate not affected by the flag, but are entitled to go behind it, and to show the true character of the ship by reference to the substantial interest in it, the effective control over it, and the real proprietorship of It. 
“Prize Law During the WorldWar”, James Wilford Garner, MacMillan Co., (1927) § 284pgs. 378,379, quote of Sir Samuel In the “Kankakee, Hoching and Genesee,” British Prize court 1918. See 2 Benedict [6th Edition] § 
400, pgs. 92 & 93. 254 U.S. 671 @ P. 689 Admiralty Rules of Practice. Claim-How Verified-Rule 25. 
8. This court lacks jurisdiction over the Petitioners who are appearing specially and not generally. Although in most courts special appearance has been abolished and in this instant case since the issue before the court is 
admiralty, the Petitioners point out: “While the modern version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (h) (1) has abolished the distinction between general and special appearances for virtually all suits brought under those 
rules the Supplemental Rules for certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims has preserved two forms of restricted appearance…Rule E(5)(a)...and Rule E(8)... The rule was fashioned in order to avoid subjecting an In rem party 
[-husband and wife names] to the jurisdiction of the court with reference to other claims for which ‘such process is not available or has not been served ‘...” U.S. v. Republic Marine. Inc., 829 F. 2d. 1399 @ p. 1402. 
9. Petitioner draws attention to 2 Benedict [6th Edition] § 275, pg. 119, 120: “But where a party discovers that ...he has had no proper notice... and has thereby been deprived of property; or where there has been fraud of any 
kind...so that no regular remedy is left him, he may obtain redress by filing a libel of review. The subsequent proceedings will be the same as in any suit and the decree of the court will be such as equity demands. There is 
no corresponding provision in the Civil Rules.” Emphasis added. 
proceedings will be the same as in any suit and the decree of the court will be such as equity demands. There is no corresponding provision in the Civil Rules.” Emphasis added. 

10. The Petitioners/Claimants pray the indulgence of the court in reviewing 26 USC § 7323 JUDICIAL ACTION TO ENFORCE FORFEITURE. § 7323(a) reads: 
Nature and venue. The proceedings to enforce such forfeitures shall be in 
the nature of a proceeding In rem in the united States District court for the 
district where such seizure is made. See Petitioners Exhibit D. No action 
was brought against [names of husband and wife] in the District Court of the United States. 

11. The Petitioners/Claimants again direct the attention of the court to 26 USC § 7401 AUTHORIZATION - No civil action for the collection or recovery 01 taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless 
the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced. A review of the record maintained by the Attorney General failed to show any authorization. 
12. As a matter of public record contained in the GAO audit of 1992/3 the Internal Revenue Service falsifies documents routinely in order to meet its goals. See pg. 5 of audit results. 
13. Since the statutes themselves declare that seizures and forfeitures are admiralty operations, the property is held by the law and cannot be conveyed unless by court order. A question arises based upon the actions of the 
Respondents/Libelants. Monies have been seized from the named fiduciaries as noted in the verified Complaint. 
Evidently no court of competent jurisdiction has been notified, served or engaged in any fashion or manor. 
Again, see Petitioners/Claimants Exhibit D. This is a clear violation/failure of due process circumventing the 
4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America (taking without just compensation). 
14. Through the testimony of witnesses and evidence at hand and to be discovered, evidence of a systematic scheme or enterprise is visible which are predicated acts under R.I.C.O. statutes 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., to wit: 
three or more parties engaged in an unlawful activity to deprive American Citizens of their property without just compensation or due process of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3, 4, and 241. 
15. Under 26 USC § 6902(a) burden of proof, “....................... burden of proof shall be upon the secretary to show that the Petitioner [the Joneses et al.] is libel as a transferee (or back up withholding agent of tax payer], of property of tax payer, but not show that the tax payer [United States] was libel for the tax. Emphasis added. NOTE: Petitioners/Claimants et al. are not claiming any rights to tax court, implied or otherwise. 
16. In the above statement the court will note that the term United States was inserted after tax payer. The association between the International Monetary Fund and its contractual member the United States [for definition, 
see 28 U.S.C. § 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C)] present a fortior which demands an examination of the contractual arrangement/agreement that in any way hold the Petitioners/Claimants responsible as co-signors to such instrument. 
This simply precludes the cavalier use of the term tax payer and demands a narrow interpretation of same. The term tax payer, for the purposes of this document, are not those associated with the common English 
language. Very simply put, the term tax payer does not apply to -Jones- in this instant action but refers to the United States in its corporate capacity in all instances. ‘ United States in its corporate capacity in all instances. ‘ 

17. No indication of any bond or surety has been made by the international Monetary Fund or its agents. As a matter of fact, no action has been filed before any court of competent jurisdiction, see Exhibit D. The Attorney 
General (A.G.) for the United States as indicated in the documents before this court is unaware of any action civil, criminal or otherwise pending pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7401. Sea Exhibit E. A possibility exists that property 
may be concealed, converted or destroyed to preclude the intervention of this Honorable Court. In such instances the prohibitions contained in 26 U.S.C. § 7421 do not apply, it was not the intention of Congress to 
circumvent the safeguards contained in the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution for the United States of America and therefore, enacted 5 U.S.C. § 706 for the purposes of review of administrative agencies. Pursuant 
to the United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM) § 6-5.330 INJUNCTION ACTIONS: Section 7421 (a), provides, generally that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment of any tax shall be maintained by any 
person in any court, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed, in light of 26 U.S.C § 7421, injunctive relief may be had only upon satisfaction of the twofold test laid down in Enochs v. 
Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962). 
18. It is interesting to note that the term BY ANY PERSON IN ANY COURT is used in the above cite. The law is dispositive in directing that, “ALL Property taken or detained UNDER ANY REVENUE LAW of the United 
States... shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders arid decrees of the court of the 
United States having jurisdiction thereof.” (Emphasis added.) Since no court order issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction is evident, a question is raised; who receives the property and where did the money go that 
was in the custody of the law? See 28 U.S.C. § 2463. Did the governor of the International Monetary Fund or any of his agents post a bond (28 USC § 2464) in order to protect the interest of the United States of America? 
Is it reasonable to assume that this court is barred by the Anti- injunction Act 26 U.S.C. § 7421 in protecting the property that is placed in its custody by the agents of the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue 
laws of the corporate United States? This Petitioner thinks not. In simple words, the much over used Section 26 U.S.C. 7421 is inappropriate as generally applied by the Internal Revenue Service. . 
19. Upon review of the Unification Act of 1964 an interesting comment was made which bares light on this instant case. This following is not a direct quotation but is simply paraphrased: 
Most attorneys, and for that matter, most courts are singularly lacking expertise in Admiralty/Maritime Law. 

Judicial Canon #1 is extremely important. Due diligence and a complete review of the merits of the case are necessary in the interest of justice. These Pro se litigants are not knowledgeable in the law and rely upon the 
discretion of the court to apply justice fairly and evenly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 471. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 81, and rights and safeguards paid for in the highest premium, the blood of patriots, for the People 
of the United States of America and their posterity. 

Respectfully, 

All Rights Reserved

 ________________________ 

Name pro se

 ________________________ 
Name Pro se 

On ____day of ______________, _______, in the State of _____________, in the County of _______________ 
_;_________________and___________________ did appear before me with sufficient identification and signed 
in my presence the above document. 

Notary 

My commission expires: ______________________ Seal 

Name 
Name 
Address 
City & State zip 
Name 
Address 
City & State zip 

Pro se 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT OF ___________________ 

NAME ALL CAPS and 
NAME 

Petitioner/Claimant, 

v. 
) 
) Admiralty Case # 
) 
) IN ADMIRALTY 
AGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ) 
FUND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) AFFIDAVIT OF 
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL ) 
PROCEDURES FUNCTION OFFICER and ) NAME 
THEIR PRINCIPAL, GOVERNOR OF ) 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ) 
AKA SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ) 
) Judge: 
) 
Respondents/Libelants 

AFFIDAVIT

 I,_____________,upon solemn oath do aver and depose and state for the record under the penalties 
of perjury of the United States that the following are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

1. WHO 
2. WHAT 
3. HOW 
4. WHERE 
5. WHEN 
6. DO NOT INCLUDE “WHY” 
7. Follow this “blue print” for wife. Double space document do not forget Jurat. 
Further the Affiant sayeth naught. 

NAME, Pro se 

JURAT 

I hereby certify that _(NAME)___ - did appear before me on the ____ day of ___________, 1995 in the county 
of ___________________ and state of ____________________, upon sworn declaration declared the 
above document to be true and correct to the best of his ability. 

Notary 

 Seal 

My Commission expires: ________________ 

Name 
Name 
Address 
City, State & zip 
Name 
Address 
City, State & zip 

Pro se 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT OF _____________________ 

NAME and 
NAME 

Petitioner/Claimant,

 ) 
) Admiralty Case # 
) 

VS. ) 
) IN ADMIRALTY 
) 

 ) IN RE 
AGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ) 

FUND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) 
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL ) PETITION FOR DEFAULT 
PROCEDURES FUNCTION OFFICER and ) ON FAILURE TO ANSWER 
THEIR PRINCIPAL, GOVERNOR OF ) GENERAL ADMIRALTY RULE 28 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ) 
AKA SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ) 
) 
Respondents/Libelants. ) 
) Judge: 
) 

.

 COMES NOW_________________and_________________, Pro se, appearing specially, supplemental rule Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (SFRCP) Rule (E)8 “Restricted Appearance”, in the original, in the alternative, as a matter of right and privilege and enter their PETITION FOR DEFAULT ON FAILURE 
TO ANSWER, GENERAL ADMIRALTY RULE (CAR) 28 for the following reasons:

 1. The time for Respondents/Libelants to answer has expired, pursuant to GAR 28. 
2. The Respondents/Libelants have filed faulted Notices or caused to be filed faulted “Notice of . Federal 
Tax Lien[s]” in the public record as shown in documents already before this court, 
absent their verified oath or solemn affirmation of complaint pursuant to Supplemental Rules 
(B)(l), (C)(2) & (E)(4)(f) or in the alternativeiif-’.R.Ciy.P.4(e), thereby denying Claimants 
procedural due process. 

3. The action before the court is in GENERAL ADMIRALTY and not SPECIAL ADMIRALTY, 
Therefore, the court may pronounce the Respondents/Libelants to be in contumacy and default 
and thereupon shall proceed to hear the cause ex parte. See GAR 28 and 39. 
Respectfully, 
All Rights Reserved 

Name Pro se 

Name Pro se 

On the____day of _____________, 2005, in the County of ___________________, in the State of ________ 
__________, __________________ and ___________________ did appear before me with sufficient 
identification and signed in my presence the above document. 

Notary Seal 

My commission expires: ______________________ 
The following out of sequence numbers are as found in the original.

 Name

 Name 

Address; 

City, State, & zip code 

Pro se 

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT OF _____________________ 

) 
NAME and ) 
NAME ) 
) Admiralty Case # 
Petitioner/Claimant, ) 
) 
) IN ADMIRALTY 

v. ) 
) IN RE 
) 
) 
AGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL MONETARY ) 
FUND, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )PETITIONERS’ REPLY 
DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL ) 
PROCEDURES FUNCTION OFFICER and ) 
THEIR PRINCIPAL, GOVERNOR OF ) 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND ) 
AKA SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ) 
) 
) Judge: 
Respondents/Libelants. 

PETITIONERS REPLY

 COMES NOW___________________ and___________________, Pro se, and enter their 
reply to Respondents/Libelants letter of 1995. 

1. The Petitioners/Claimants are not in disagreement with the position of the Counsel for Respondents/ Libelants, that the International Monetary fund has immunity from judicial process. An error has been made on the part of the Clerk of the Court or Respondents’ Counsel due to a lack of knowledge, which is common place in jurisdictions unfamiliar with Admiralty Process. 
“To the extent that admiralty procedure differs from civil  procedure, it is a mystery to most trial and appellate judges,  and to the non-specialist lawyer…” 

Mr. Justice Jackson. 

See: Petitioners/Claimants LIBEL OF REVIEW, COMPLAINT OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE AND PEONAGE. 
ANSWER OF ___________________AND________________IN RE...) 

2. The Respondents/Libelants can not file a LIBEL in the public record and then claim immunity for their action 
any more than a State may charge a Citizen with a crime and fail to support its charge. The Respondents/ 
Libelants have been given the opportunity to reply and bring forth their proof to support the Libel on the public 
record and have failed to support their Libel. 
IN ADMIRALTY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE LIBELANT[S] 

3. The burden of proof in support of the Libel is upon the Libelants. The Documents before the Court clearly show,that the Respondents/Libelants have filed a “libel” in the public record. The Action before the Court is in 
Admiralty, therefore, the law mandates a review of the Libel, i.e., LIBEL OF REVIEW. 

4. In the Admiralty Process when the Petitioner finds that a Libel has been filed in the public record and there has been no service of process as required by the Supplemental Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, he may petition 
the district court for the United States “where the res is located” for a Libel, of Review. 
5. In this instant action the Petitioners/Claimants are not Plaintiffs. The Petitioners/Claimants have entered their answer in response to the libel and served actual notice to the Court and to the Respondents/Libelants, Governor 
of the International Monetary fund et al., as required by the Federal Rules of Court. 
PETITIONERS ARE OPPOSED TO EXTENSION OF TIME

 6. Due to the error of the Court (Clerk) or the Respondents, the Petitioners/ Claimants are opposed to an extension of time for the Governor of the International Monetary Fund et al. to respond. An extension of time would 
only increase amount of damage already done to these Petitioners. 
Respectfully, 

All Rights Reserved 

Name(s), Pro se 

CHAPTER THREE 

QUIET TITLE 

Many States have adopted the Federal Ru1es of civil procedure with some small changes. However, local ru1es 
must be consu1ted before responding to any action. 

Remember not to be too fast to file an action unless you can handle the burden of proof. It is very easy to jump 
the gun and want to get through the legal battle. Unless you have unlimited resources it is suggested that you 
let the opposing side file the compliant and pay the fees. You can always file a cross compliant at the appropriate 
time. 
the gun and want to get through the legal battle. Unless you have unlimited resources it is suggested that you 
let the opposing side file the compliant and pay the fees. You can always file a cross compliant at the appropriate 
time. 

In Chapter One our patriot had his home sold at a tax sale. If we look at the sale closely, we will find that the 
Governor of the IMF was represented by the Special Procedures Function Officer. This Special procedures 
Function officer, generally speaking, is stationed in the regional office. Since the United States has not been a 
party to any of the actions taken thus far, there was no need of a Court Order in the sale of the property. Remember, 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2463, that any property, taken under any revenue law, is subject only to the orders 
and decrees of the court. Since most tax sales, such as the one described, lack a Court order, this shou1d be 
a clue to the real party in interest, the IMF. The Special Procedures Function Officer (SPFO) issued a “Quit 
Claim Deed” to the United States Internal Revenue Service. The SPFO was the Grantor to the “United States 
IRS”, the Grantee. It was at this time that the United States became involved in this transaction. Actually what 
took place is that the IMF under color of law had stolen the property and the IRS was a receiver of stolen goods. 
Caution, do not involve the United States in your Quiet Title action. You do not want to bring in the Department 
of Justice, the moment you do, you become a “tax protestor”. 

Finally, the IRS issues a Quit Claim Deed to the purchaser of the tax lien. We have already discussed Quit 
Claim Deeds. As you already know, no title was transferred. In order for the purchaser of the lien to have Quiet 
Title he must perfect said title with a Court Order. At this point the burden of proof falls on the purchaser of the 
lien when he files the action in the State Court. Since you will be responding to the claims made by the plaintiff 
in a Quiet Title Action it, is difficu1t to guess what their allegations may be. The following sample pleadings 
may be of some help. Again, seek competent legal advice. This advice may not always be from an attorney. 
The following samples do not fall in any order but are for informational use only. 

SAMPLE PLEADINGS 

STATE 

Name 
Name 
Address 
City, state & zip 

IN THE ________________JUDICIALDISTRICT COURT 
0F THE STATE OF ___________________ 
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF _________________ 

NAME IN CAPS )

 Plaintiff, ) 
) Civil No. CV ______________ 
) 

v. ) 
) 
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 
husband and wife names in caps ) OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, and all other ) TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ 
title, estate, Lien or Interest ) MEMORANDUM IN 
in the real property described ) OPPOSITION TO 
in the complaint ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 
) MOTION TO DISMISS 
) 
Defendants ) 
) Judge 

MEMORANDUM 

1. Upon review of opposing counsel’s Memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss it is quite 
evident that the opposing counsel is not knowledgeable in the tax laws and due process necessary for the service 
(IRS) to conduct a seizure and disposal of property, I refer the court and opposing counsel: to a recent Supreme 
Court decision decided December 13, 1993 United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property et al., NO. 921180 
as found in the Supreme Court Reporter 114, pp. 492 - 507. 
2. In general, due process requires that individuals must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before 
government deprives them of property. U.S.C.A., Const Amend. 5. In this instant case upon review of the exhibits 
before the court it is obvious that there was a failure of notice as 
required by law. See certificate of search, Exhibit__. 

3. The 4th Amendment places limits on government’s power to seize property for purposes of forfeiture. It 
does not provide so1e measure of Constitutional protection that must be afforded property owners in forfeiture 
proceedings, and consideration must also be given to Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth 
Amendments. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 4, 5, 14. 
4. For purposes of determining whether due process required that landowner receive notice and opportunity for 
hearing before real property could be subject to civil forfeiture, factor of, government’s interest. Including function 
involved and fiscal and administrative burdens that additional or substitute procedural requirement would 
entail, favored imposition of pre-seizure notice and hearing requirement traditional reason for seizing personal 
property, to insure that court retained jurisdiction, was inapplicable in case of real property, and government 
concern about owner alienating or harming property during pendency of seizure proceedings could be addressed 
in other ways, such as filing of notice of lis pendens, obtaining of ex parte restraining orders prohibiting damage 
to property, and as there was already procedure for post-seizure challenge by owner, administrative burden 
of government would not be significantly increased by having hearing occur : prior to seizure. U.S.C.A. Const. 
Amends. 5.14... .James Daniel Good Supra, Pg 494. . 
5. In this instant case there was no service conducted. No notice as required by the law. No sworn complaint accompanied 
by an affidavit. All of the actions by the service (IRS) on behalf of the Governor of the international 
Monetary Fund (IMF) were ex parte. 
6. ...Where the Government seizes property not to preserve evidence of criminal wrongdoing but to assert ownership 
and control over the property its action must also comply with the Due Process Clause. See, e.g. Calero-
Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. 416, U.S. 663, 94 S.Ct 2080,40 L.Ed.3d 452; Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. , 
67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 LEd.2d 556, Pp 498-500. 
James Daniel Good Supra, Pg. 496. 

7. (c) No plausible claim of executive urgency. Including the Government’s reliance on forfeitures as a means of defraying law enforcement expenses, justifies the summary seizure of real property….James Daniel Good 
Supra., P. 496 
8. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the court, “The principle question presented is whether, in the absence exigent circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government in a 
civil forfeiture case from seizing real property without first affording the owner notice and an opportunity to be heard. We hold that it does.” 
9. In an attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction of the court the service (IRS) summarily seizes and disposes of property claiming judicial immunity. Furthermore, it is customary to pyramid claims against their victims and 
to falsify records, in the Government Accounting Office Audit of the IRS 1992/93, Pg 5 of audit review, we read 
that the IRS routinely falsifies records in order to meet its goals. 
10. As previously noted in the record before this court, the IRS proceeds In REM pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7323 and attaches a maritime lien in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6321. This procedure in order to be enforceable 
must afford an opportunity for the victim to be heard. However, the IRS routinely denies this opportunity to its victims and relies upon the ignorance of the courts and officers of the court in furtherance of their faulted position. 
11. [1] The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Our precedents establish the general rule that individuals must 
receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Government deprives them of property, see United States v. $3,850, 461 U.S. 555, 562, n. 12, 103 S.Ct 2005,2011, n. 12, 76 Led. 2d 143 (1983); Fuentes v. Shevin, 
407 U.S. 67,82,92 S.Ct 1983, 1995,32 L.Ed. 2d 556 (1972); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 342,89,s.Ct 1820,1823,23 LEd.2d 349 (1969) (Harian, J., concurring); Mullane v. Central Hanover 
Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,313, 70 S.Ct 652,656.94 L.Ed., 865(1950). 
12. In James Daniel Good the Government argued that the provisions of one amendment to the Constitution could be used to circumvent safeguard contained in other amendments, the supreme Court disagreed and rightly 
so. 
13. In order for the IRS to perfect its lien there is a requirement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2463 that the COM and not the service (IRS) holds custody to the property and therefore may only be conveyed, disposed of etc. 
by court order or decree, in this instant action since the court (District Court for the United States) was never served, the actions of the service (IRS) are merely ex parte. In James Daniel Good Supra, Pp 500 – 501 we read: 
[3] The right to prior notice and a hearing is central to the Constitution’s command of due process. The purpose of this requirement is not only to ensure abstract fair play to the individual. its purpose, more particularly, is 
to protect his use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment- to minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of property….”, Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. at 80-81,92 S.Ct at 1994 -1995. 

14. Since the service (IRS) circumvented the court of competent jurisdiction there is no judicial determination of any kind that the owner of the property in question did in fact owe a tax. At this time Defendants, ______ 
name_____, submits to the court documents Exhibits __through __ . As the court and opposing counsel can clearly see, based upon the Government’s own records, _______name ______did not owe a tax and to this very 
day does not owe a tax. It is the opinion of these Defendants that had they been afforded the required due process that even this instant action would have never taken place. Due diligence is imperative when dealing with the lives and property of the people. 
15. The practice of ex parte seizure, moreover, creates an unacceptable risk ….(Congress)….It did not intend to deprive innocent owners of their” property. The affirmative defense of innocent ownership is allowed by statute. 
James Daniel Good Supra Pg 501. 
16. The ex parte proceeding affords little or no protection to the innocent owner. James Daniel Good Supra Pg 502. Once the IRS’s victim is made homeless, deprived of the ability to work and nearly becomes a ward of the 
state, the difficulty in mounting a defense becomes overwhelming. Currently, the IRS employs approximately 115,000 employees. Also, it is customary for the U.S. Attorney to support the collection activity and to use all 
of the resources including but not limited to extensive computer records, transcripts and briefs etc. In an effort to defeat their victim, we read in the U.S. Attorneys Manual that the DOl and the IRS work in harmony. 
17. Considering the overwhelming position held by the IRS it is easily understandable why the population and the courts, to a great degree, fear the IRS. In a previous document that these Defendants filed before this court, 
the Unification Act of 1964 (34 FRD 325) was paraphrased. However, due to its merit I have taken the time to present quotation from the unification Act and in particular from Mr. justice Jackson. 
2. To the extent that admiralty procedure differs from civil procedure, it is a mystery to most trial and appellate judges, and to the non-specialist lawyer who finds himself - sometimes to his surprise - involved in a case cognizable 
only on the admiralty “side” of the court. “Admiralty practice”, said Mr. Justice Jackson: “Is a unique system of substantive laws and procedures with which members of this Court are singularly deficient in experience.” 
Black Diamond S.S. Corp. v. Stewart & Sons, 336, 403, 69 S. Ct, 622, 93LEd., 754 (1949) (dissenting opinion). 
“”. 

Keep in mind that this came from the highest court in the land. 

18. It was noted above that the Service (IRS) routinely falsify records in order to meet its goals. An interesting footnote appears in James Daniel Good Supra Pg 502: “we must significant1y increase production to reach our budget target”…”…Failure to achieve the $470 million projection would expose the departments forfeiture program to criticism and undermine confidence in our budget projections. Every effort must be made to increase 
forfeiture income during the remaining three months of fiscal year 1990.” Executive Office for the United States Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, 38 United States Attorneys Bulletin 180 (1990). 
forfeiture income during the remaining three months of fiscal year 1990.” Executive Office for the United States Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, 38 United States Attorneys Bulletin 180 (1990). 

19. As noted above the IRS and the Department of Justice work in harmony. Does this mean that in order to meet their goals not only will they falsify records, they will show contempt for the courts, circumvent due process, 
and engage in ex parte communication to intimidate officers of the court, members of Congress and even local law enforcement? In Joseph Chrisman et al,l 94-C-427S, now before the Tenth circuit court, these very 
questions are being reviewed. 
20. Because real property cannot abscond, the court’s jurisdiction can be preserved without prior seizure. It is true that seizure of the res has long been considered a prerequisite to the initiation of in rem forfeiture proceeding. 
See Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U. S. -’ -’ 113 S.Ct 554, _ 121 LEd.2d 474 (1992); United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354,363, 104 S.Ct 1099,1105, 79 LEd.2d 361 
(1984). This rule had its origin in the court’s early admiralty cases, which involved the forfeiture of vessels and other movable personal property. See Taylor v. Carryl, 61 U.S. (20 HOW.) 583, 599, 15 L Ed. 1028 (1858); The 
Brig Ann, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 289, 3 L Ed. 734 (1815); Keene v. United States, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 304, 310, 3 L Ed. 108, (1809). Justice Story, writing for the Court in The Brig Ann, explained the justification for the rule as 
one of fixing and preserving jurisdiction: “[B]efore judicial cognizance can attach upon a forfeiture In rem,… 
there must be a seizure; for until seizure it is impossible to ascertain what is the competent forum.” 13 U.S. (9 Cranch), at 291. But when the res is real property, rather than personal goods, the appropriate judicial forum 
may be determined without actual seizure. James Daniel Good Supra Pg. 503. 
21. As previously noted in this court’s record, the court of competent jurisdiction is the District Court for the united States. Again, this court lacks jurisdiction over the issues at bar inasmuch as the lien against the res is in 
admiralty and presents a FEDERAL QUESTION (emphasis added). 
22. Requiring the Government to postpone seizure until after an adversary hearing creates no significant administrative 
burden. A claimant is already entitled to an adversary hearing before a final judgment of forfeiture. 
No extra hearing would be required in the typical case, since the Government can wait until after the forfeiture judgment to seize the property. From an administrative standpoint it makes little difference whether that hearing 
is held before or after the seizure. James Daniel Good Supra Pg 504. 
23. In this instant case the IRS has attempted to dispose of the property and by doing so has made the Plaintiff ( name ) a victim of their unlawful practices. The service (IRS) now relies upon the lack of knowledge of the lower courts to affIrm this erroneous activity. As opposing counsel rightly points out title companies are reluctant to insure property conveyed in this manner, it seems that the title companies are aware that it requires a judicial determination in order to convey title. The Defendants do not disagree that the state rightly has the authority over title issues. {{{This was in this particular case. However, the citation by the opposing counsel of Arndt v. Griggs, (1890) is so far off point that it is without merit.})} 

24. Apparently opposing counsel feels secure with an antiquated citation and a reliance upon the integrity of the IRS. Currently, Congress is reviewing the actions of all the Federal Agencies. The outcry from the American 
people is such that the Democratic party suffered a tremendous blow during the last election, it is not a trivial thing to observe that the first act of the new Congress was to pass a bill, HR 1, that requires congress to abide by 
the Constitution and the laws that they pass. Is it any less to expect government agencies to be held to the same standard? These Defendants think not. 
25. When reviewing tax statues it is important to view the supporting code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that are the underlying authority for the title. It is customary for the IRS to cite, penalties and interest on a supposed 
tax debt under 6651 (a), 6662 of Title 26; however, upon review of these penalty provisions we find that 
they have to do with the manufacture and distribution of machine gun parts, alcohol or tobacco products. For 
years the IRS has listed a kind of tax – “1040” - on their forms. A review of 26 U.S.C. reveals that this kind 
of tax relates to the non-taxable transfer of certain farm land. Again, the IRS relies upon the ignorance of the 
people and assigns penalties and interests under the provisions set forth pursuant to 27 CFR, part 70. This Defendant 
has reviewed the IRS Code and finds that there are approximately 123 different “kinds of tax” defined 
however, “1040” other than cited above is not listed. 
26. It is this Defendant’s position that the American People including this Defendant should support their government 
and pay all lawful taxes. But, when people within government abuse the power entrusted to them it is 
the responsibility of We, the People, to resist corruption, fraud and theft. 
27. The Plaintiff has failed to support any of his allegations with a judicial determination. Obviously, no judicial 
determination has been made that is a delinquent tax payer. Failure of the Plaintiff to support his claim or 
even to rebut the denial of this allegation is dispositive. Therefore, any claim that – name - is a delinquent tax 
payer unsupported by judicial determination should be removed from the record. 
28. Counsel for the Plaintiff does not deny the allegation that a felony was committed within the hearing of the 
court by said counsel pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7213 and again is dispositive. Criminal referral is requested. 
29. Plaintiff fails to deny that the real party in interest is the Governor of the International Monetary Fund 
(IMF); pursuant to the rules of court, Rule 8(d), failure to deny is deemed admitted. Again this position is dis-positive. 
30. The Defendants noted that it is customary in real estate transactions where one spouse is purchasing property sole and separate to execute a disclaimer deed to eliminate any cloud on the title. Plaintiff fails to deny this 
and therefore is dispositive. The owner of the property is -name-, sole and separate, a married woman. 
31. Defendants have not entered the jurisdiction of the court and are therefore appearing specially and not generally. Plaintiff does not object to this Position pursuant to Rule 8(d). The court lacks jurisdiction over the 
persons of – names -Sui Juris and Alieni Juris, respectively. 

32. Since the issue before the court posses a federal question the court lacks jurisdiction. 
33. It is the position of the IRS in tax sales of real property not to guarantee title to the property. It should be apparent even to the layman upon review of the documents and the evidence before this court the reason behind 
this position. 
34. These Defendants could raise other issues but do not wish to tire the court therefore, they renew their request that their motion be granted to dismiss this case with prejudice and strike Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM IN 
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS. Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s pleading is unresponsive and without merit and the court lacks jurisdiction. 
Respectfully submitted, 

All Rights Reserved 

Husband’s Name, Pro se Wife’s Name, Pro se 

Name 
Name 
Address 
City, State, Zip 

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 
OF THE STATE OF __________________ 
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ____________________ 

NAME IN CAPS ) 
) 
Plaintiff, ) Civil No. CV ______________ 
) 
) 
V ) DEFENDANTS’ 
) MOTION TO STRIKE 
) MEMORANDUM IN 

 ) OPPOSITION TO 

) DEFENDANTS’ 
) MOTION TO DISMISS 
)

 ) 
) ) Judge 
Husband and wife in caps 
DOES I THROUGH 10, and all other 
persons claiming any right,

 title, estate, lien or interest 
in the real property described 
in the complaint 

Defendants. 

COMES NOW husband and wife names in caps, pro se, by special appearance and not generally pursuant to 
the supplemental rules of admiralty as cited in the record already before the court and moves the court to strike 
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS. 
the supplemental rules of admiralty as cited in the record already before the court and moves the court to strike 
Plaintiff’s MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS. 

1. Plaintiff has failed to recognize the issues before the court. 
2. Plaintiff did not purchase a condominium but entered into a contractual agreement with the agents for the 
Governor of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through the intermediary Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 
Said service failed to perfect any title to the property in question as the record clearly states and therefore is 
dispositive. 
3. Clearly this court lacks jurisdiction as previously noted in the record. For this court to assume jurisdiction 
it would have to circumvent the Constitution of the United States, 4th and 5th Amendments, and overrule the 
United States Supreme Court as more fully detailed in Defendants’ 
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM 
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS. 

4. For the court to assume jurisdiction over the property in question It would do so in violation of Judicial 
Canon # 1. 
Respectfully submitted, 

All Rights Reserve

 _____________________ ____________________ 

Husband’s Name, Pro se Wife’s Name, Pro se 

CHAPTER FOUR 

FARE WELL 

There are so many factors to consider when answering a libel that one should use caution. It is hoped that the 
information that has been presented will spark some intense research and the researchers will share their information. 

During the construction of this work it was learned that the current Governor of the IMF is Allen Greenspan. 
Apparently, when Lloyd Benson resigned as Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin did not take on the title, 
Governor of the Fund. A call was placed to the main office of the IMF to discover this information. Our east 
coast sources report that Lloyd Benson. However, is the de facto Governor of the IMF until Robert Rubin is 
confirmed. Allen Greenspan is the Governor temporarily. Although this information is believed to be reliable 
nothing replaces due diligence. Check it out for yourself 

For those of you that are reading the ending first, the IMF did it. 

EXHIBITS 

1. DIAGRAM I 
2. AM JUR 2d ADMIRALTY sec. 15 
3. SUPPLEMENTAL RULES 
4. THE HUNTRESS 
5. U.S. v $3,976... 
6. U.S. v JAMES DANIEL GOOD 
7. REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI 
8. 12 STATS 19 
9. BENEDICTS Sec. 275, LIBEL OF REVIEW 
10. BENEDICTS Sec. 51, NOTE 7 
11. 26 USCS Sec. 6321 
12. 26 USCS Sec. 7323 
13. 26 USCS Sec. 7401 
14. 28 USCS Sec. 2463 

15. CERTIFICATE OF SEARCH 
16. IMF IMMUNITY LETTER 
17. IMF REPLY TO THE COURT 
18. TAX COURT RECORD 
19. NOTICE OF TAX LIEN 
20. ADMIRALTY OUESTIONAIRE