An Everett, Washington attorney, Steffan M. Bertsch, has spent over eighteen months examining the IRC and its regulations and has concluded that there is no authority for the IRS to seize any personal or real property in Washington State for alleged income tax liabilities from most citizens.

Bertsch charges that the agency has been seizing property for decades through numerous deceptions and strong-arm methods, and has conducted an ongoing fraud that nearly everyone in the state believes to be legal. The state of affairs is this: The IRS is operating outside the law and has placed the citizens of Washington State under governmental anarchy.

Beginning in March of 1996, Bertsch sought the aid of the AG of Washington, Christine Gregorie, in exposing the fraud. Ms. Gregorie's office researched the issue and attempted to defend the unlawful acts of the IRS, but has been totally unable to rebut Bertsch's charge of fraudulent conversion of property by the IRS. On May 1, 1996, Bertsch also sought the aid of Edward Shea, the president of the Washington State Bar Association to expose the fraudulent activity of the IRS in seizing property without lawful authority. In response to the pleas for assistance in exposing the fraud, Mr. Shea acknowledged that Bertsch was exercising his right to freedom of speech, and suggested that the U.S. Attorneys and the DOJ would be the proper agencies to contact for relief.

Bertsch responded to this suggestion by indicating that both of those parties were too close to the fraud to be objective, and proposed that he be allowed to present a seminar to bar members to reveal the fraud to Washington State lawyers, who like the rest of the people, are totally ignorant of the scheme. To date, the bar has remained silent about the proposed seminar.

ln April of 1996, Bertsch began correspondence with Governor Lowry's office in an effort to halt the illegal seizures by the IRS in Washington State. The governor responded: "Because the issue raised is a federal matter, it is out of my jurisdiction as governor." Lowry added that, "I hope your efforts to resolve this matter prove worthwhile."

The fraud Bertsch charges is too severe for the Washington State Bar Association to investigate, too egregious for the AG to defend, and originates from too great a power for the governor to act upon it. The duty of exposing a systematic fraud that only Charles Ponzi could admire falls upon the media. Members of the media who are interested in further information can contact Steffan M. Bertsch at 1-800-597-1789.

[Editorial note: You can bet your last phony Federal Reserve Note that not one single "establishment" newspaper or ABC, CBS or NBC affiliate, including CNN (the Clinton News Network) will tell the American people anything about courageous individuals like Bertsch. Don't these people in the media know they will go down the rat hole with the rest of us when things collapse? Are they are arrogant that they think they will be treated any differently than us under this proposed Communist New World Order? They better think again.]

Here are the key letters that ultimately precipitated Mr. Bertsch's press release:

After reading your article about common-law courts in the May issue of the Washington State Bar News, I felt compelled to write to you. You began to close in the penultimate paragraph with: "When we know that our fellow lawyers in public office and judges within the judicial system are being subjected to coercion and harassment, we must recognize our affirmative professional responsibility to speak out against this harassment and to educate the public about the true value of our judicial system and law - and we will."

I have discovered a fraud that has a long-standing acceptance in Washington State. When I learned of the fraud, I naively said, "No problem, we'll take it into the courts and have it remedied immediately." To my surprise, I discovered that judges either cannot or will not address this fraud. My only conclusion is that they are being coerced into acceptance of it. Since you are strongly opposed to the harassment of judges, I appeal to you to shine the light of truth upon this enormous deception that is explained below in a letter I sent to our state AG.

About eighteen months ago a client complained to me that there was a problem with the IRC. I responded that while it was quite confusing, when it was traced from beginning to end that it was cohesive and legitimate. He disagreed, and challenged me to locate a section in the code that required ordinary people to file 1040 returns to the IRS. One morning I had a few minutes free while in the law library, and opened Title 26 of the U.S.C. assuming that I would find the answer immediately. I did not bother to sit while skimming the statutes To my surprise, the answer was not readily apparent. I spent the entire next two days looking for the elusive section.

Somewhat nervous that there might not be such a section, I contacts CPA's, lawyers, tax attorneys, the IRS and finally wrote my tax professor. None could show me the section. The best answer I received was, that by implication, section 6012 required people to file. By implication???? By implication, Washington State citizens have gone to jail for failure to file 1040's??? This is tragic.

I realize that I am attempting to prove the negative, which is tedious and unrewarding. Perhaps someone on your staff could spend enough time to show me the authority that forces ordinary people to file returns. I doubt it can be produced. As I looked into the issue of the duty to file 1040's, I found that the IRS has intentionally misclassified many of my clients as coal miners, firearms dealers, et cetera, and assessed them as owing excise taxes. Why excise taxes, I wondered, and discovered that the IRS has no authority to seize property for income tax liabilities of ordinary people, but they do for excise taxes!!!

I now understand how Galileo must have felt when he claimed the earth was round. Nobody wants to hear the truth. I have no choice but to charge the IRS with fraudulent, deceptive operations within Washington State, and I ask your office to investigate it forthwith. I would be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss my position and will gladly present you with documents to substantiate my claim. As I delved into this fraud, I became a student of history and learned that there are really only two political philosophies. One that looks out for the rights of the people, such as the Whigs of the American Revolution. The other protects the rights of rulers, such as the Tories of the same period. Today, we have many Tories and few Whigs.

The Bar Association can combat this fraud. We have the people, the position within society, and a proud history behind us. ln 1765, the British Parliament passed a dreadful Stamp Act. It was the first time on our soil that the Tories attempted a direct taxation of the colonists. The tax required a revenue stamp be affixed to most legal documents. Lawyers were mostly Whigs in those days and they collectively refused to pay the tax because it violated people's rights. In Virginia, the bar closed down the courts entirely by boycotting them, which got the attention of Parliament because the British merchants were unable to collect debts without courts operating in the colony. The Stamp Act was repealed.

Again, in 1774, the Virginia courts closed. This time it was not because of a repressive act by Parliament, but the royal governor, Lord Dunsmore abolished the House of Burgesses. Court fees were set by a statute that had a sunset clause in it and it expired. Since the elective body was terminated, the law could not be extended Lawyers were not paid, so again, for a less idealistic purpose than in 1765, the courts in Virginia had their doors shut. Today, the public is learning at a rapid pace of the IRS fraud. Those who learn of the fraud have lost respect for the courts, the judges and the bar because it is through those agents that the unlawful action of the IRS continues. Nobody who learns of the fraud forgets it.

[Ed. note: Congress is holding this nation hostage by condoning this fraud and allowing the IRS to continue stealing our property. The refusal by Congress to stop this fraud and extortion is breeding inevitable anarchy if they don't come clean and abolish the IRS in the very near future. The blood of Americans standing up for truth will be on all their hands and totally unnecessary if they would just find their backbone and stand up to the international robber banker barons who have bought and paid for their worthless hides and that includes Bill Clinton, the most prolific liar of my lifetime.]

The principles that drove the Revolution were Whig principles, which stand for people's rights and truth. The Whigs have started rolling a snowball of truth and set its course to crush the fraud, or be melted into oblivion by lies from hell. The IRS is playing a diabolical game of deception and thuggery. I call upon the bar to investigate my claims, and if they be unfounded, then I am thoroughly deluded, and have no business practicing law.

My several petitions to State AG Christine Gregorie have accomplished nothing. Recently, I appealed to the governor of the state, and in fairness, he has not had sufficient time to respond to my two letters, so I am uncertain whether his office will take the matter seriously. What I can say, however, is that the common-law courts you wrote about are a symptom, not a cause. The cause is the American government was founded upon Whig principles, and the Tories have been eating away at the people's rights since 1783. My research reveals that some of the dirtiest work was done in 1803, but horrid frauds have readily followed those from 1803. lt appears that the only way the Tories could succeed in corrupting the American system was with lies. As George Washington and Thomas Paine both warned us, when a wolf knocks at the door, he is easily identified and ejected, but when a wolf infiltrates and wins the confidence of the sheep, he can only be devastating.

I offer this plea: Have the Washington State Bar Association conduct a thorough investigation of the IRS and its authority by public hearing. You will be amazed how fast the people will flock to the support of the bar in this endeavor. I fear that if we of the bar do not attack this matter, that the people will take the examples of 1765 and 1774 Virginia, and close down the courts. The common-law courts show us that this has begun. Time is running out, and the snowball of truth may mow down the entire bar. It will not be a pleasant task, but we can support the truth and energize that icy sphere and vanquish the lies.

Sincerely,

Steffan M. Bertsch

Dear Mr. Shea:

I wish to thank you for responding to my several letters of complaint regarding the lRS's illegal seizures of property in Washington State by your letter of June 20, 1996. As you stated, my petition to the Washington State Bar Association was an exercise of my free speech, but it encompasses much more of the first Amendment than that.

My petition was made to attempt to find redress for previous wrongs, and further, it was made in the idealistic hope that truth was still a commodity that lawyers care about in America. I think that your dismissal of my complaint is unfair to the individual members of the bar. Each member deserves to know that he or she is acquiescing to fraudulent seizures of property by the IRS. Your recommendation that I present my "accusations" to the DoJ and the U.S. Attorneys of the Western District of Washington State is discouraging.

My petition was to the bar because the U.S. Attorneys and the DoJ are too close to the source of the fraud to be objective. The bar is supposed to be an independent organization and not subject to undue influence or control by the executive or legislative branches. I had believed that the bar would be concerned about my charges of massive fraud. It was with great trepidation that I petitioned the bar association, knowing full well that my charges of fraud, if investigated by the bar, would shed light that would be devastating. There are lawyers whose fortunes and liberty will be stripped when the truth is told.

[Ed. note: Fast forward to September 1998: What Steffen was talking about is demonstrated quite blatantly here in the SF Bay Area. A lawyer named Steve Moskowitz advertises on one of the main conservative talk shows. This lawyer charges $5,000 to "help you get back into the system so your life can be better," "Pay off all your back taxes so you can have a bank account," and other such repulsive come-on's. His commercials make me want to absolutely gag every time they are played. This fast-buck lawyer, who loves to tell everyone how he's off to the airport for another one of his vacations to Africa for a safari, makes his living assisting the IRS in perpetrating their fraud against desperate people. One day when the truth becomes known to enough Americans, people like Moskowitz will no longer be able to suck the life blood out of people to serve his masters.]

However, I know that the vast majority of the members of the bar are ethical and honest, and I know that when the evidence is presented, those members will support the truth. The bulk of our members are ignorant of the fraud, and are truly victims of the IRS scheme.

Since, from your response, I must assume that the bar will not conduct an investigation into the allegations of fraud, I wish to propose an alternate method to eliminate ignorance and educate the members of the bar. I will volunteer my time, prepare a seminar, and present it at no cost if the bar will accredit it for CLE and advertise it to the bar members. I will gladly give U.S. Attorneys, the IRS or any interested parties an opportunity to assist in the preparation of the materials, and ample time to speak at the seminar to rebut my charges. Then, after a full discussion of the issue, the bar members can decide whether the IRS seizures are lawful or legal. I would appreciate a prompt response to my proposal.

Sincerely,

Steffan M. Bertsch

"I believe my suggestions that you take this matter to the U.S. DoJ in Washington, D C., and to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington were and are constructive. I continue to believe in the integrity of the U.S. DoJ and its regional offices of U.S. Attorneys to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead. Finally, there are no end of options that you have as an individual practitioner and as a citizen including contact with members of the congressional delegation about your concerns."

Sincerely,

Edward F. Shea, President

Dear Mr. Bertsch:

Your letter of March 15, 1996, to the AG has been referred to me for reply. In your letter you raise some concerns you had about the perceived problems with the IRC. Briefly summarizing, the issues you raised were:

(1 ) Whether there was in fact a code section requiring people to file 1040 returns with the IRS;

(2) Whether Section 6012 of the Code can be read as requiring people to file tax returns;

(3) Whether, in the absence of provisions requiring individuals to file, Washington citizens may have gone to jail for failure to file a 1040; and

(4) Whether the IRS has authority to seize property for the income tax liabilities of Washington citizens.

I have received a second letter from you in which you allege that the IRS has abused its power, and express a number of concerns about reasons behind this office's failure to respond to your inquiries. You stated in your April 2nd letter that you sent another letter on March 24, 1996, which we have not been able to locate. The general requirement to file can be found in the language of Section 6001 of Title 26 of the U.S.C., better known as the IRC which provides in relevant part:

Section 6001. Notice or regulations requiring records, statements and special returns. Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or the collection thereof, shall keep such records; render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgement of the Secretary, it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. [Ed. note: Don't you just love this doubletalk!]

26 U.S.C. 6001. As you can see, Section 6001 not only requires every person liable for any tax to file, but also authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations requiring that people file to show that they owe no tax, if that is their contention.

[Ed. note: What is glaring at us here, folks? "requires every person liable" is one of the key phrases they use to perpetrate this fraud and extortion on unsuspecting Americans. What Section 6001 says is that the Secretary may require people to make returns, not that it is mandatory to make these returns. Also, every person liable is more doublespeak since Title 26 does not define income, who in the hell can determine just who is and isn't liable? What fraud!]

The details of the requirement to file are further explained in Sections 6011 and 6012, which provide in relevant part:

Section 601 1 . General Requirement of return, statement or list.

(a) General rule. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations.

(F) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income...be made whether or not there is tax liability, [see 6012 below].

Section 6012. Persons required to make returns of income.

(a) General rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:

(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount.. .:

You will see that Section 6012 leaves no doubt that anyone with gross income above the exemption amount must file a return for each taxable year that such is the case. This requirement is made even more explicitly in Section 1.6012-1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which provides in pertinent part:

Section 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make returns of income.

(a)(1) An income tax return must be filed by every individual for each taxable year...

[Ed. note: Recall my September 1995 newsletter in which I walked everyone [with the actual government documents] through the process of the CFR and Title 27, part 70 and discovered that John and I were being forced to file 1040's to pay excise taxes resulting from the manufacture and/or sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms - something that neither John nor I have ever done in our lives. This is the key to the fraud and extortion being run by the Internal Robbing Service with the blessing of the White House and the U.S. Congress. The proof is there in black and white if people will just open their eyes.]

Section 6011 mandates that people comply with regulations set out by the Secretary with respect to the forms used when filing their returns. As you can see from paragraph (6) of Section 1.6012-1 of the CFR, the regulation also makes the Form 1040 the default form to use for filing purposes, unless one can qualify under an optional (usually shorter) form. In any case, every person if required to file a return and to use the mandated forms when doing so. [Ed. note: This is a very long section of mish-mash and because we only have so much room in the newsletter, if you order the Anti-Shyster, you can read all this legalistic gas.]

Picking up Mr. Johnson's continued comments:

26 U.S.C. 7203. For an excellent case on what constitutes "willfulness," see Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 112L. Ed 2d 617, 111 S. Ct.604(1991). [Ed. note: Oh, I love it, Mr. Johnson. This is typical of the stupidity, ignorance and duplicity of elected officials. For those who aren't familiar with this case, the newspapers in this country splashed the story of John Cheek with the following tone, quoted from the Chico Enterprise Record, Chico, CA., written by an attorney, A. J. Cook, courtesy of Scripps Howard Service:

"American Airlines pilot John Cheek was told at tax protest seminars [you notice they never call them information seminars - they're always 'tax protestor' something] that his wages are tax-free. So he refused to file returns or pay taxes for seven years on total income of over $465,000. The Supreme Court [which one?] concluded that a good-faith belief the law doesn't require filing negates willfulness. Knowledge of tax laws determines good-faith credibility. The jury found Cheek guilty of tax evasion and willful failure to file. His sentence required payment of his taxes with penalties and interest, a $62,000 fine, one year and a day in jail and five years probation."

What the article and lawyer Cook didn't tell you, because it is meant to scare the hell out of everyone because FEAR is the only thing that keeps the IRS afloat, is that in Cheek v. U.S., January 8, 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling. Mr. Cheek didn't spend one day in jail, he's not on probation and he never paid a penny in fines. I pointed out this little bit of truth to the editors at the Chico ER newspaper. Did they bother with a follow-up to present the truth to their readers? Of course not. We don't have a free press in this country and the sooner people get their head out of the sand and realize this, the greater forward progress will be made. As for this attorney, Mr. Cook, it's obvious that he's a big part of the problem in this country - he is also guilty of deliberately lying through omission in this article. Either that or he isn't qualified to practice law because he has no concept or understanding of Title 26, nor did he do his homework on the Cheek case.]

Continuing with Mr. Johnson's comments:

I hope this answers your concerns regarding the source of the lRS's statutory authority to require people to file tax returns and to promulgate regulations regarding how such filing should be done. I further hope I have answered your questions regarding the power of law enforcement officials to execute their duties in upholding these laws, even if it requires that those who willfully disobey the law suffer criminal prosecution.

Very truly yours,

Leland T Johnson, AAG

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I have read your letter of April 30, 1996, and wish to thank you for taking the time to research the code to attempt to answer my questions. On the surface, your response seems full, complete and to vindicate the activities of the IRS in Washington State. However, as with any fraud, what you see is often not what you get. I will not attempt to display all of the fraud in this response, but only show you pieces of how it works. I hope that after reading this, you will grant me a meeting, at which I will present as much or as little evidence as you wish to view about how the fraud works against almost every Washington state citizen.

Title 26 of the U.S.C. operates much like a mirror image. When a person with no knowledge of reflections first views himself in a mirror, it appears that the image is an identical representation of him. When he jumps up and down in front of the mirror, his image behaves likewise, and again, it looks to be a perfect representation. But, when he extends his right arm, he receives a clue to how the mirror distorts reality. The image in the mirror appears to extend its left arm And as he examines the image closer, he notices that all lettering is reversed. The explanation in your letter would be precise and accurate if the IRC were not a mirror.

But, alas, a mirror it is, and its image is often 180 degrees afoul of reality. The code absolutely represents the authority of the IRS over everyone who jumps up and down before the mirror, but it imposes no control over those who move side to side. The code, at first glance, seems to cover those moving from side to side, but on close inspection, it controls them not. I realize this sounds strange to you because you have been reared under the concept that the income tax is a lawful tax. You, like most Americans, have naively accepted that our government stands for truth, and you have been educated as to its legality by people who were probably naively ignorant of the fact, unless, they were active participants in the fraud.

And, you have not considered investigation of its lawfulness. Why would you question what tax attorneys, CPA's and law professors tell you is fact? And, after discovering the fraud, I fell into depression, followed by rage, and finally landed where I am now, at the point where I hope to correct the fraud. I know how difficult my task is. It is an adage that if you hear a lie often enough, you will believe the lie to be true. The IRS lie has been oft repeated and oft believed.

The code applies to a select group of people. Those who are absolutely subject to the income tax portion of the IRC are federal employees. Federal employees jump up and down in front of the mirror. Those who are not, by and large, are people who are employed otherwise, the people who move side to side and are deceived into thinking they are covered by the IRC. The deception is thorough, deep and wide.

The IRC is a carefully set of statutes, filled with words of art and snares to catch the naive. To understand who it covers, one must not assume even the minutest detail. Since you started with Section 6001, it should be addressed first. Bear in mind that the following is not a complete analysis, but only a summary. Further, consider that the fraud is more obvious in the seizure of the properties by the IRS than in the reporting section 6001. The heart of section 6001 is "Every person liable for any tax..." The mystery is to find the sections that make such a "person" liable. Under the code, persons include corporations.

As you pointed out, Section 6012 says: "Every individual having for the taxable year gross income...." One issue is, quite simply, "What is income?" Do not reach any conclusions that make you jump up and down without thorough inspection of the code. Definitions and rules of construction are critical to unraveling the IRC fraud. Would it not be logical for the code to define "income" since that is the basis of the entire income tax scheme? Can you think of any rational reason why "income" is not defined in the code?

Because of constitutional difficulties, the IRC does not define the word "income" anywhere in the title. U.S. v Ballard, 535 F2d 400, 404 (1976); cert denied, 429 U.S. 918 (1977). Income is the basis of the 1040 yet the IRC never defines the term. In the amendment to the Constitution is the language: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived." It is from this sixteenth amendment that the Congress seems to have the authority to tax wages, earnings, and all manner of gains made by Americans. However, "income" is not defined in the Constitution, nor in the IRC. In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, income is defined as "gain" or "profit." One cannot assess a gain without first taking into account the costs of acquiring the gain. This is basic to accounting.

Yet, Section 6012 deals with gross income in an attempt to bypass Macomber for subtitle A respecting income taxes. As stated earlier, income is net gain but the IRC wants you to think that all revenues are income. This is violative of all accounting principles. The sixteenth amendment allows taxes on income, or gains. Where do you suppose the authority comes from to tax "gross income" instead of "net income?" A reading of section 6012 seems to say that every individual with "gross" income in excess of a certain amount "shall" make a return. Herein lies the real constitutional stickler. If "shall" is mandatory, the IRC is a frontal assault upon the Bill of Rights. To avoid this constitutional inconsistency, "shall" is properly used to mean "may."

Under the Privacy Act Notice is found that the information on a 1040 return may be given to the DoJ, other federal agencies, cities, states, District of Columbia, commonwealths or possessions,: and certain foreign governments. [Ed. note: If you have ordered the information packet from my project, you will see the first page of the John B. Nelson Senate Report, 93-549, 12.26.91 , Colorado State Legislature, 697 pages, in which the IRS reports to over 150 foreign nations, UN Communist Organizations, among other things.]

These departments, agencies, and countries can, and in the past, have used the representations made upon income tax forms against the individual who supplied them to the IRS. In other words, an individual who supplies the information upon a 1040 is subject to losing liberty or property because of that information.

The information supplied by individuals to the IRS can be used against them in a court of law. Should the DoJ believe a filer to be defrauding them of money, the filer can be charged with income tax evasion under section 7207 and face felony prosecution and if he filed income tax returns such as form 1040, it can be used against the filer in the trial. The fifth amendment to the Constitution protects many rights, and one of those most precious to Americans is the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself.

The fifth amendment states in part: "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself..." Under the Constitution, unlike the IRC, "person" means a "natural person." People have constitutionally protected rights. A corporation is an unnatural person and has no constitutionally protected rights. Therefore, the IRC filing requirements are mandatory upon corporations, yet voluntary regarding natural persons. Hale v. Henkel, U.S. 43, 70 (1905), "no one shall be compelled to give testimony which may expose him to prosecution for crime." Hale supra at 66. The word "shall," when used in the Constitution is obligatory upon the government. Regardless of how many deceptive dances the IRS might try to do to make "shall" mean "may," they cannot get away with such chicanery when a fundamental constitutional right hangs in the balance.

Section 6012(a) says that every individual shall make a return. If "shall" means "must," then Congress by passing 6012(a), has superseded the Constitution of the United States. If "shall" is obligatory in this case, then people are required to file returns that may be later used against them in court as evidence to convict them of crimes. This cannot be the case and it is not the case. In order for Congress to get around this nasty item attached as the fifth article of the amendment to the Constitution, they give the job to their faithful agent, the IRS. The IRS then either tricks people into entering into contracts of obligation, such as 1040 returns, or forces the people to pay through raw power even though the IRS lacks the lawful authority to make them. The deception occurs when the IRS then provides "alleged taxpayers" with a Privacy Act Notice that is a veiled Miranda warning. The tax filer is supposed to interpret this notice to say, "Anything you tell us could land you in jail, so make certain that what you tell us is true." However, it requires a most strained reading of the notice to glean this from it.

Then the IRS incorporates the notice with the near bottom line of a form 1040 which says, "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." If someone signs the 1040 under that obligation, he subjects himself to perjury charges for any misrepresentations on the form. As a lawyer, you must consider the absurdity of this Catch-22. To sign a 1040 makes one liable for a felony is there is a misrepresentation, and to refuse to sign can only be a misdemeanor. Since the code has thousands of pages (9,000+), and many inconsistent sections, it is totally vague, so few people, if any at all, could file a return for a period with complexities in it without making a misstatement.

Therefore, what is the advice a lawyer must give a client? Tell them to attempt to comply with the impossible but advise them that they risk becoming a felon? Or, tell them to forget the whole matter because risking a misdemeanor for noncompliance is better than risking a felony for misrepresentation? As I said at the onset, we stepped through the looking glass when we entered the world of the IRC and things became "curiouser and curiouser." A person who signs a 1040 becomes a witness against himself. This is the precise reason why one cannot be compelled to complete the form. The fifth amendment states clearly that a natural personal cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 491.

[Ed. note: Many of you have read my Blind Loyalty booklet and the information on Bill Conklin's cases. You know that in his case the court ruled that his fifth amendment rights were not being violated since filing an income tax return is purely voluntary. If it's voluntary, why then does the IRS come in and steal your money, your real property and your life if you don't volunteer??? Also, recall the cases I cite in my Blind Loyalty booklet, State of California v. O.J. Simpson and Conklin v. U.S.A., where the higher courts have now converted your fifth amendment rights into privileges? What a travesty and how can one single member of the U.S. Congress look themselves in the mirror every morning knowing that they are sanctioning this monumental fraud? Now let me quote from a magnificent book, Debt Virus, by Dr. Jacques Jaikaran, pg. 205:

"Professor Heber states, 'The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States.' The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute must be in agreement with it to be valid. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail over the other. The Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, (2nd ed., Section 256), states: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby,'"

So, what we have here is an unconstitutional statute [like NAFTA is an unconstitutional treaty] - remember Title 26 is not positive law. That means in layman's terms that Congress has never voted it into law, it is merely 9,000+ pages of "statutes." Since these statutes are in direct conflict with the supreme law of the land, i.e our fifth amendment rights, federal judges 83 years ago should have chucked the IRS and their hoodlums right out of business. Instead, they remain whores to those who have placed them in office since they are all political appointees. Yes, this is rather harsh language but look at the death and destruction caused by the IRS, sanctioned by more than a dozen presidents, countless Congresses, U.S. attorneys, governors and state legislators that have allowed this to continue in their states. It's ugly.]

Back to the article: The preceding is a brief explanation of why section 6012 is not mandatory for individuals but is a voluntary section. However, even assuming argument that the IRC "requires" people to file returns under section 6012, where is the authority for the IRS to seize property from Washington State citizens for alleged "income-tax" liabilities? The seizure regulations the IRS employs are under Title 27, or Excise Taxes, not Title 26 or income taxes. Further, why is the IRS classifying my clients as "gun dealers" or "coal miners" or the like? The answer seems to be that the IRS must place my clients under Title 27 for excise liabilities before the IRS can seize property. While discussions could consume volumes on how various sections and words therein interplay, there is no hiding the fact that the IRS seizes property of state citizens who supposedly have income tax liabilities under Title 27, which is fraud.

I represent a couple, both are in their seventies. They made the decision, wholly independent from any advice from me, not to file tax returns when they discovered there was no duty to report to the IRS. The IRS assessed millions of dollars in "income tax" liabilities against them and sold their home at auction and the couple lost their life savings while standing up for the principle of truth. The IRS seized their property through Title 27, not title 26. The IRS acted illegally, but their action was upheld by the federal and state courts because all judges answer to the IRS. I have learned that all federal judges are under criminal investigation by the IRS, which explains why the couple lost in federal court. Does having judges under investigation not smack of violation of separation of powers? Who could be impartial under those circumstances?

My client's case made me reflect upon what I must do. After searching my soul, I realized that I must act. Therefore, I petitioned your office for relief for the rest of our state's citizens. Additionally, I have petitioned the governor and the president of the state bar association. The fraud is too ugly, too widespread and too horrible for me to avoid my duty. I realize that this is a tremendous issue to present to your office, and I understand why it is easier to allow the fraud to continue than to confront it. However, I cannot live with myself without striking out for truth. If the IRS is above the law, then our once proud Republic has fallen to anarchy.

Respectfully submitted,

Steffan M. Bertsch

Dear Governor Lowry:

I wish to thank you for responding to my letters of April 24, May 1 and May 9 by your letter dated May 14, 1996. I realize that you have a busy schedule and I do appreciate your taking the time to answer my petition regarding relief from the IRS, an agency that is so out of control that it follows no law in seizing property from the citizens of Washington State. As I attempted to explain in my petitions, there is no authority under Title 26 of the U.S.C. and its regulations for seizure of property; the IRS is an outlaw agency that derives its power by tricking an ignorant bar and bench into cooperating, or by corrupting them.

In your response you explain that because any fraud committed by the IRS is a federal matter, it is beyond your jurisdiction as governor of Washington State. You suggested that I contact the Congress for relief. I am disheartened to learn that you believe that the governor has no jurisdiction over fraud committed by the national government within the state's borders. I cannot say whether the IRS is a federal agency; it is an organization so cloaked in deception that it is next to impossible to ascertain whether it is a private agency operating for Congress, or if it is a distinct federal bureaucracy. Regardless of what the characterization of the IRS is exactly, we know its character. I am chagrined to think that our governor is impotent to halt fraud committed by a federal agency, if the IRS is indeed a federal agency, or a private contractor, if that is what the IRS is.

I appreciate receiving from you a list of our state's national representatives and senators, but I will not be petitioning to Congress for relief. Since the IRS is the collection agent for Congress, I cannot image the Congress considering even the mildest of reprimands of its own agent, an agent that plunders the land and feeds it's master with considerable booty.

[Ed. Note: Remember, not one single penny paid to the IRS funds one single government function. It all goes to the private "Federal" Reserve. What a scam!]

Congress built the IRS, condones its operations and encourages its every action. I appealed to your office because the Congress is the responsible agency for the fraud perpetrated by the IRS. While I do realize that as governor you do not have jurisdiction over Congress, I hoped that you would use the powers of your office to impede or eliminate illegal activities by IRS agents forcing them to follow the law in Washington State

While I am chagrined at your decision to facilitate the ongoing fraudulent seizures of property by Washington State citizens, I am not without hope. I have appealed to the President of the Washington State Bar Association for assistance in exposing the fraud. I have also been in contact with the AG's office and have received a response from Leland Johnson of that office. Mr. Johnson addressed many of my issues, but did not answer the issue concerning illegal seizures of property by the IRS. Hopefully, that was an oversight, and his office is working on the matter at this time.

Should those petitions be unfruitful, I believe that I still have channels to seek relief. As I indicated earlier, the courts are impotent because they are under the scrutiny of the IRS and federal judges are all under criminal investigation by the IRS in every aspect of their performance on the benches. Therefore, the courts are not capable of effectively addressing this fraud. As stated earlier, the Congress originated it, so that body will not assist. The President controls the justice department, which enforces the illegal seizures, so appeal to the national executive would also be a useless petition.

My next step will be to appeal to the press. Based upon your response of May 14, 1996 to my petition for relief, I accept that it is the position of your office that it can do nothing to impede or halt the ongoing fraudulent seizures of property by the IRS of Washington State citizens. Since that is the case, if I hear nothing to the contrary before June 10, 1996, I will inform the media that your office acknowledges that the bulk of the property seizures for income tax liabilities are fraudulent, but that your office is helpless to act, however it would welcome the support of the media to expose the fraudulent actions of the IRS.

I cannot impress upon you how serious this matter is. If you check the history of rebellions in the world, you will find that almost all are based upon oppressive taxation. The Congress of the U.S. has trumpeted many of the oppressors of the past, using fraud as their mechanism to collect taxes. At this time there is a peaceful rebellion in America. Millions of Americans refuse to file returns because they have learned of the fraud. This is a quiet protest, a peaceful rebellion. The government has labeled those people as "tax protestors" and painted them as anti-government beings. These "tax protestors" are not, by and large, anti-government, but are definitely "anti-corruption."

[Ed. note: My file says I am an "illegal tax protestor." I guess there's a difference between being just a regular old tax protestor and an illegal tax protestor!]

Those opposing "tax protestor" line up as "pro corruption." In 1775, John Hancock and Samuel Adams were labeled as "tax protestors" and warrants were sworn out for their arrests. lt was only because of "tax protestors" like them that there ever was the experiment of self government called the United States of America. A more obvious rebellion is occurring in Jordan, Montana by the Freemen, who whether they have committed crimes or not, are absolutely in rebellion over our tax collection and banking system. My concern for my country is how much longer the "tax protestors" will remain quiet and peaceful. When King George III and his Parliament attempted a direct tax in the form of the Stamp Act of 1765, it was totally scoffed at by the colonists until the act was repealed. When King George taxed the colonists to fund foreign wars, it caused protests, petitions, rebellions, and ultimately led to a revolution. King George had the lawful authority to tax and seize, yet the colonists revolted. The IRS has not the lawful authority to seize property for income tax liabilities.

America is replete with a history of passive, quiet rebellions. The election of 1800 wherein Thomas Jefferson was elected President is one. His party of Democrat-Republicans immediately began dismantling federal power, then eliminated federal deficits and restored liberties that had been taken by the Federalists. One of the first oppressive acts to fall to the Jeffersonians was the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated every premise of Freedom of Speech and Press We are a forgiving nation, therefore, we can have a peaceful change, even when there is core corruption or massive oppression.

I urge you to step in and strike a blow for the truth because: "...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security..." (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)

When the general public learns of the fraud, I tremble for my country. Please, use your office to expose the fraud while peaceable solutions are possible. I know that it is difficult to stand for truth in these times, that it is far easier to allow the lies to continue, but there is the greater good to consider. Rulers should be aware of what is brewing, and should respond to petitions of the people. But history is replete with their failure to consider the pleas of the people, which turned rebellions into revolutions. Patrick Henry warned that, "Tarquin and Caesar had each his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third, his Henry." Rulers too often ignore the pulse of the people until it is too late. After the Bastille was stormed, King Louis XVI asked the Duke Rochenfoucauld, "Is this a rebellion?" to which the duke responded, "No, Sire, it is a revolution."

Do you belong to a VFW chapter, Lion's, Rotary, PTA, a church group, a nurse's union, AFL-CIO, UAW, Young Republicans, Students for Honesty in Government, NARFE, Senior's Coalition, AARP, 4-H group? Everyone belongs to some type of club, group, organization, has family, extended family. Please make at least ten copies of this article (or the whole newsletter). Give it to ten people and tell them to make ten copies and keep multiplying. Go door to door in your neighborhood, introduce yourself and ask your neighbors to read this truth. Give a copy to your mailman, your child's teacher, a colleague at work, put it up on the Internet on your web page, ask your local talk show host to cover it word by word.

I have written Mr. Bertsch to thank him for his herculean efforts. There is another very important tool that should be published by the time this newsletter goes to press: IRS Under Indictment, a magnificent book by Richard Bellon. This book makes obsolete all these other "quick-fixes," "de-taxing," and "un-taxing," and many well meaning seminar-type functions. I have been ask to endorse a hundred books, movements, causes, etc., over the past four years. I have refrained until now and have provided the forward to this critical work. I'm sure Rich will contact Mr. Bertsch and I strongly urge you to purchase this book (I receive no compensation). This Christmas, give the gift of truth. Rich's book can be ordered by calling 1-530-949-1847.

- Devvy Kidd]