From:  http://www.docsutter.com/articles.php?cmd=view&id=3

Understanding Jurisdiction

Preface: I didn’t write this article but I did do some editing on it. The author doesn’t want his name in public but wants the information to get to the public. It’s a very accurate history of what really happened way back when. Enjoy…

Understanding Jurisdiction

In all of history there has been only one successful protest against an income tax. It all revolves around the word “jurisdiction”. We need to go back about 400 years to discover this success. The word “jurisdiction” was still understood at that time. It means “oath spoken”. “Juris”, in the original Latin meaning is “oath”. “Diction” means spoken.

Over in England about 400 years ago the Bible had just recently been put to print. Up to that time only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to the extreme high cost of paper. Although movable type had been around for quite some time the printing press didn’t become popular until the price of paper fell. Of course the hand written bibles were very expensive and only the churches and royalty could afford them. Cheap paper changed all that.

The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. “Feud” is old English for “oath”. The nobility had land under the crown. That land was useful for farming. That’s how nobility made their wealth. The nobility rented the land to tenants who farmed the land. The tenant wasn’t a freeman. He was servant to the (land) lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required the tenant to kneel before him, hat in hand, and swear an oath of allegiance and then kiss the nobles ring which would extend the oath of allegiance to the heirs of the tenants estate. That oath established servitude. Once that servitude was established then the tenant could put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of what he produced to sustain himself and his family. The nobles took the rest and could have demanded 100%. But under the “common law” a servant was akin to livestock, he had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed. So they allowed the servant to keep some of his production. Liken it to “personal and dependent deductions”.

The freemen of that time were primarily tradesmen. They were unsworn and unallieged to anybody. They were truly free men. They taught their sons the trade so they could be freemen also. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn oath contract from the father of the apprentice. His parents made a few coins but the kid was the main beneficiary. He’d learn a trade. He’d never need to become a tenant farmer. He’d keep what he earned. He only apprenticed for a term of years, usually about seven. Start when the kid is about 13 so by 21 the kid had learned enough to practice a craft. Then the contract expired. He was then called a journeyman. The definition of journeyman breaks down as follows. He was a “man” now, formerly a “nee” (adolescent), bound by an oath “jur”. He’d then go to work for a “master” craftsman. The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he thought he was worth it. And he was free to quit. At some point if the journeyman was good at his trade the market would recognize him as a “master” craftsman. Then he would be the one hiring the journeyman and making oaths and contracts with the parents. Of course those oaths and contracts only lasted a few years.

Not so the tenant. The oath of the tenant ran for life, and the life of the heirs. So, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, at one point the tradesmen established “guilds” (gold) as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelling oaths. Later to become the Order of the Free and Accepted Masons. Who literally swore an oath to serve only gold. Basically swearing to only work for pay. Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the benevolent master “gold”.
Then the Bible came to print. And they were cheap. This made it available to all the “master” craftsmen and journeyman. The tenants were still too poor but the tradesmen ran with it. And the tradesmen, in order to learn his trade, had to learn how to read. Can you imagine how they felt when they read of Jesus’ command against swearing oaths? (Matt. 5: 33-37). Needless to say they were very angry, to put it mildly. All hell broke lose. The church had been lying to them for over a millennia. They trusted the church, thought the church had been telling them everything they needed to know about the Bible. Then they found out that Jesus said, “Swear no oaths”. Surprise!!!
Thus the “Reformation” was born. Without oaths there would have been no tenants laboring for the nobility, making the nobility wealthy, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths. The whole society claimed it was Christian; yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ. The tradesman had done it too, by demanding contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus. They were plenty angry for being lied to for so long by the church.

Well, the governments had seen this coming so in an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter. It had to assent to the terms of the treaty. However, buried in those treaties, most of which was totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said “none”. The churches all said (and still say), “None, except…” So, who’s right, the churches or Jesus?

The tradesmen got even angrier. They had already left the Church of England. But with every new reformed church that popped up still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join – or found. They were in a catch 22. They couldn't form a church without swearing an oath to the state, when their religion forbade swearing oaths of any kind. To show their absolute contempt to those who kept this secret for so long, they refused to give anyone in the church or state any respect.

These tradesmen soon got the nickname “Quakers”. This was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of the tradesman had told the judge that he'd better “Quake before the Lord God Almighty”. The Judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, “Thee are the Quaker here”. They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer. But the nickname stuck.

With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church – especially from men who'd been the more charitable to it in the past – the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn't just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new “Reformed Churches”. Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.

But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the state, can't go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax of 10 percent. They called it a tithe. But it made a deadly mistake by doing that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this was an income tax “without jurisdiction”, at least so far as they went. As men unsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn't have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude, there was “no jurisdiction”. And they were right. Despite laws making it a crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE were charged or arrested.

That caused the rest of society to take notice. Other folks who thought the Quakers were “extremists” suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks, and the people saw that these Quakers were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, were paying their 10 percent. Needless to say, the Quaker movement expanded significantly. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The (tithe) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who'd then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would have to be leased under a contract. With payment for use established in the market, not on a unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth and income of the nobility was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would have to be sold off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in wealth and power. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They had always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them as only equals?

They began to use the term “anarchy”. But England was a monarchy, which they thought was the ultimate solution to the problem. Because a Monarchy is supposed to have “Divine Right”. Whatever that is. But it worked. An expression of the “divine right” of the Crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, “jump”, and everyone jumps.

Why do they jump? Simple. It's a crime to NOT jump. To “willfully fail” (sound familiar?) a crown command is considered to be treason. The British Crown issued a Crown command to end the tax objection movement.

Did the British Crown order that everyone shall pay income taxes? No, that wasn't possible. There really was “no jurisdiction”. And that would have done nothing to cure the lack of respect. The Crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

Well, a small handful of tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. The Christians quoted Jesus “swear not at all”. They opted to obey him over the Crown. That quickly brought them into court, facing the charge of high treason. Here's how it went down: An official would take the witness stand swearing that he had no record of the individuals oath to the Crown. The individual didn't have any right to NOT testify against himself (5th amendment) so he stated that he refused to take the oath. Once that was on the record he was guilty and sent to jail. Pretty simple, didn't take more than 10 minutes. Hundreds of people a day were processed this way.

Of course it didn't take long for the prisons to become full to overloaded. But they weren't filled with the convicted people. The men who refused to take the oath weren't there. There was a ”stand-in” law allowing for that. A man convicted of a petty crime could have a family member fill in for him so he could continue to provide for his family. The “stand-in” was usually the youngest female. The least productive one in the family. Pretty cruel huh? It gets worse.

Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females serving the sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with Tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years but a small, fragile, young girl would last only a few months. It was a holocaust of the Christians, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (Isn't it interesting that none of this made it into the history books now taught in our public (government) schools). Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would be raped or die at the brutality of the other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had been released to make room for the “swear no oath” Christians. Early release was determined by the severity of the crime. Of course high treason being the highest of crimes, so the murderers, arsonists, thieves, rapist, etc., had to be set free.

This had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen on every road. The thugs and muggers ruled the streets. So now the sworn subjects of the Crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they'd exist when the food and water ran out. When they did finally get the courage to get out and get together they had to figure out a way to overthrow the very Crown to which they had sworn an oath of allegiance to. Call that perjury, call that sedition, call it whatever you want, they were going to put an end to it, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Isn't it interesting that now the Crown was being threatened to be overthrown, not by the Christians who swore no oath to the Crown, but by the very people who swore the oath of allegiance to the Crown. The Crown created its own chaos and downfall.

Well, the Crown soon saw the handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and recapture of the real felons, before their government was removed from office by force of arms. Then the courts came up with the odd concept of an “affirmation in lieu of oath”. The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they had been through, that was understandable. However, the Christians still had a problem. Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath “by thy head”.

When the colonies opened to migration the Quakers fled there in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and Crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat performance by the Crown. By the time our Constitution was written there were enough of them here to block ratification of it if they opposed it in any way. Fortunately most of their demands were incorporated into it, as well as some of their concessions, to balance their demands.

Their most obvious influence in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in the document. Treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not treason, hence, not a crime. The crime HAS to be COMMITTED. And refusal or failure is not an act “committed” – it’s the opposite, an act “omitted”. Of course that means the government employees could sit around and do nothing and get away with it so the Quakers made their concession to allow government employees to take an oath.
*****Anyone holding a government job would need to be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. The Constitution enabled the Congress to enact the laws necessary and proper to control the power of these people holding government jobs. The laws would establish the government employee's duties. Should such an employee (official) fail to perform his lawful duties he would be guilty of the “action” of not upholding his oath. To swear a false oath is perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath. And that's still the situation. It’s just that the government has very cleverly obscured that FACT so the average man will pay the rent. You know – income taxes.*****

Income taxes were around long before the 16th amendment. It took a Supreme Court decision to narrow it down to who exactly is legally taxable. It turns out that ONLY government employee's are subject to the “income tax”. It was sort of a kickback to the government. But it could only be applied to income that the employee earned from his job with the government. Well, Congress wanted to tax all the employee's income from all the other things the employee was earning money from. Which was a considerable amount.

The only way to change a Supreme Court ruling is to change the underlying laws that the ruling was made from. So, the Congress enacted the 16 Amendment. Making it now legal to tax all income from their employee's. The 16th does not mention who was liable for these taxes because the Supreme Court had already ruled who was. ONLY government employees. The people that had actually taken an oath to the government. IF it could be a crime for a freeman to “willfully fail” to file or pay his taxes then there HAD to be a time when he took an oath to be a government employee. Because in this country a crime of failure may only exist under the broad category of perjury (oath). Period, no exceptions.

Thus, if you're not a government employee the trick the government employed to get you to pay your taxes is to make you a government employee without your knowledge. Because they know damn well if you knew the truth about all this there's no way in the world you'd be paying all those taxes every year.

By signing your 1040 income tax form you actually make the statement that you are indeed a government employee. It’s hidden in the fine print at the bottom of the form. You declared that it was “true” that you were “under penalties of perjury”. Yet, you can't be under penalties of perjury unless you've taken an oath. In this case the oath you took to become a government employee. It doesn't matter to them if you've actually taken the oath, it only matters that you say you did, and you signed your returns stating you did. They got you, and it’s all quite legal. Now they can tax you as much as they want. Pretty slick huh?

The Constitution also states that you cannot be tried and penalized more than once for the same crime. You can't even be placed in jeopardy of penalty a second time. Except if you're a government employee with a charge of perjury. Notice that “penalties” is plural on the tax form. So government employees, which you prove you are one of by signing the 1040, can be tried and panelized multiple times for the same crime.

You've been tricked into signing tax forms under the penalties of perjury clause. Yet, if you are not a government employee you are NOT under any oath that would enable you to even commit a perjury in the first place. Again, pretty slick huh? These guys are good.

Still, because you trusted that the government would not try to deceive you, you signed your tax form, stating there was jurisdiction when in reality there was none. How could there be? You never took the oath.

Once you sign that first form the government will forever believe that you are a civil servant. Even though they know you're not. And if you stop signing those forms, while you are still earning an income, you will be charged with “willful failure to file”. A crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something. Just like the good old days back in England with the King.

There has never been a criminal trial in any manner under the federal income tax without a SIGNED tax form in evidence against the defendant. By signing the perjury clause on his tax form the defendant swore he was a government employee and that he took the oath that all government employees have to take to be a government employee in the first place. Also, by signing that form he can be charged multiple times for the same crime (perjury). Another benefit (?) of being a government employee.

In order to clear the whole thing up all the defendant would have to do is take the stand and swear under oath that he was NOT a government employee and that he NEVER has taken an oath of government employment. However, the court is in an odd position here. Being a government employee is a matter of public record. There would be a sworn statement somewhere by the defendant that he took the oath sometime in the past. Of course the judge already knows there is none. And if he allows the defendant to testify to that FACT it’s an automatic perjury. Two opposing oaths by the same individual. What’s a judge to do???

He becomes very absent-minded. He conveniently forgets to swear the defendant in when he's on the witness stand. Of course, if the defendant is never sworn in there's only one “official” statement in the record. The perjury clause on the tax form. Guilty as charged. It is of paramount importance to the government that the truth never becomes a part of the official record. They MUST keep the defendant from testifying under oath, on the record. They will go to great lengths to do this.

Yes, paying income taxes is voluntary. You have to voluntarily swear the oath of being a government employee. No one can coerce you into doing that. It has to be of your own free will. Once you sign that oath the voluntary part of it is over. You HAVE to pay. It is your sworn “duty” to pay. You unknowingly took an oath that made you a government employee. And they won't allow you to testify in court that you are not a government employee.

Of course that’s fraud in its finest form. The same exact system that was around 400 years ago. The same system that made everybody flee to this country to get away from. The same system that our own Constitution was built around to avoid.

But you’re an honest man and honest men are obligated to correct their mistakes so I suppose you could write to the head of the IRS and explain the mistake you made signing the form and promise to never make that mistake again. Stating clearly that you are NOT a government employee and have never taken an oath of government service. Thereby, now that you understand the definitions of the words you most certainly AREN’T “under penalties of perjury” because you are NOT a government employee.

Then, next year when tax time comes around write up a little statement saying that the enclosed information is true and sign that instead of the 1040 form. Attach that to your 1040 and pay your taxes.

The IRS is a frightening agency to go against in any way. They are indeed above the law and don’t have to play by the rules you and I have to play by. So I don’t advocate not paying your taxes. But I do advocate the truth. So, I don’t see any harm in telling them the truth about your government employment. Continue to pay your taxes but give then the real reason you’re paying. Because you are scarred to death of them and what they can do to you if you don’t pay. Of course that’s called extortion.

The term “jurisdiction” must be understood by the public. And it must be understood in its historical context. Jurisdiction is a simple matter. You either take an oath to do something or you don’t take an oath to do something. No one can coerce you into taking an oath – it HAS to be voluntary.

In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect the honest man who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed power. The only purpose of any government should be to defend the people that established it. All of the people. And not because the people owe that government any duty or allegiance. But for the opposite reason. Because the government owes the people its duty and allegiance under the LAW.

This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then our elected officials sold out to the bankers who knew they could fool all of the people some of the time regarding oaths and jurisdiction. Thus, we are deceived. Not only by our government but also the church, who says that “lawful'” oaths are okay. Yet, Christ, himself said, “take no oaths” for you cannot serve two masters. Kind of ironic isn't it. Most of this country is Christian. Even most of those in public office are Christians. Of course the Kings of old were Christians too. Makes you wonder.

Meanwhile, we have chaos in this country. The IRS code is blatantly chaotic. No two people can interpret it the same way. And the rest of the government is getting to be the same way with all the cover-ups and covert operations. The public (government) schools go to great lengths to dumb down the kids. Teaching them that government is not to be questioned, that government is their “friend”.

Ignorance is indeed bliss if you are a government official doing the governing. The last thing the government wants is an informed public, a smart public, and a public that holds its government officials to the truth.

It would only take about 2% of the public to understand what's written here to eliminate the income tax. But, it’ll never happen. People are too complacent and have so many problems with the rest of life they simply don’t want to get involved. And, I can’t blame them.

The social engineers have done an excellent job putting the public in fear and now with this terrorism scam the Patriot Act has effectively made it impossible to protest against our own government without being labeled a terrorist and being tossed in jail without ever being charged.

400 years ago the people fled Europe to get away from the very things that are now so commonplace in our present government. Now, there’s nowhere left to flee to and if you take a real close look at it you’ll see it’s the same “peoples” that are doing it to us again. The Kings of old now rule this country. They own the money and they “HATE” freedom. After all, without the slaves who would they rule?

Understanding jurisdiction – very important.