INSURANCE TIPS AND TRIKS

"�I am writing in further response to your inquiry regarding the precise provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRS [sic]) that render an individual liable for income taxes�Based on the research performed by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provision which specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay income taxes."

(c) Special rule for banks

Any bank (as defined in section 408 (n)) shall surrender (subject to an attachment or execution under judicial process) any deposits (including interest thereon) in such bank only after 21 days after service of levy.

Jurisdiction is conferred upon District courts by 18 U.S.C. �� 241, 1001, 1341, 1344(2), 1346, 1621, 1622, & 2113 in terms of the major fraud upon the Plaintiffs as well as all other Americans and by 18 U.S.C. � 1031 upon the United States, 18 U.S.C. � 3231 and 28 U.S.C. � 1331 with respect to the violations of First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution, in terms of Plaintiffs' First Amendment Right to Petition for a Redress of Grievances and Due Process Rights, as well as by 42 U.S.C. � 1983 with respect to Plaintiffs' Civil Rights, and 28 U.S.C. �� 1331 & 1343 and 42 U.S.C. � 1983 on the basis of Plaintiff's Religious beliefs wherein the loss of their Self-Evident God given Right of Liberty(1), when defined in terms of freedom from all forms of slavery (i.e., political slavery, land slavery and tax slavery), is in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, because, as Christians, our Self-Evident Right To Freedom of Religion (i.e., as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23: I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men) includes the Right to be Free from Joseph's Sin of divination (i.e., Genesis 44:5) and the resulting Root Sin which is manifested as the ancient system of novation known as the Biblical Beast(2), which is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage, and therefore, criminal  in the context of 18 U.S.C. � 1581 and 42 U.S.C. � 1994.

1.  Plaintiffs used of the term Liberty, when defined apart from the limited subject of freedom chattel slavery, also includes freedom from peonage and freedom from all other forms of slavery as well.

2.  �under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man (i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be' perpetrated ad infinitum."

Although, the United States of America has long been recognized to be a corporation subject to suit (See Dickson v. U.S., 125 Mass. 311, 1878 WL 10951, 28 Am.Rep. 230 (Mass., 1878)) and 28 U.S.C. � 451 does define "agency" as including "any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a more limited sense", the term "Government Contractor" is appropriate per the pleadings in Diversified Metal Products, Inc., v. T-Bow Company Trust, Internal Revenue Service, and Steven Morgan (Civil No. 93-405-E-EJL, UNITED STATES' ANSWER AND CLAIM) wherein both Betty Richardson, a United States Attorney, and Richard R. Ward, a United States Department of Justice Trial Attorney, Tax Division, "Denies that Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government ..." (See Page #2 � Exhibit 1, 2 of 6, paragraph 4), and contrary to the other assertions made in that same case, Plaintiffs in this action assert that the IRS can not also be defined as an "instrumentality of the United States" in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 3002(C) because other court documents on the subject shows that "There was virtually no Washington bureaucracy created by the Act of July 1, 1862, ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432, the statute to which the present Internal Revenue Service can be traced." (See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 292 (1979)), and research on Title 31 of the US Code, as currently published by the US Government, reflecting the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006, for the codification and "classification" to corresponding US Code sections contained in SUBCHAPTER I�ORGANIZATION, from Jan. 2, 2006 to the most recent entry on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, shows that although  31 U.S.C. � 301(f)(2) is a reference authorizing the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS, the IRS itself is not even listed as an organization within meaning of  TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE I > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER which explicitly lists the organizational structure of the United States Department of the Treasury.   Moreover, although 5 U.S.C. � 105 defines an "Executive agency" as an "Executive department", "Government corporation" or an "independent establishment", the provisions of which are covered by section 101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and Section 1 of Title 5, referred to in text, is section 1 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, the provisions of which are covered by section 101 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and the definitions of agency and department conform with such definitions in section 6 of revised title 18, U.S.C. (H.R. 3190, 80th Cong.), Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953 is the only authoritative document under which the pure Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. � 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter called the Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service, thereby creating the illusion of the IRS being an actual agency of the Department of the Treasury with all regulations, mimeographs, forms, and other Internal Revenue and Treasury documents amended to conform to Treasury Order 150-06.  In fact, according to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 26  is the authority for the Internal Revenue and Chapter I is entitled the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, and, of course, it is easy to surmise why this statute was adopted because it clearly appears to lack any substance given that the Internal Revenue is actually listed as a Trust at 31 U.S.C. � 1321(a)(2), with Districts and Boundaries established by the President 26 U.S.C. � 7621.  Additionally, according to 26 U.S.C. � 7802, the Department of the Treasury the Internal Revenue Service is supervised by a Trustee or corporate body of independent of the Managers called an "Oversight Board" composed of nine members, with one of those nine members being the Secretary of the Treasury or, if the Secretary so designates, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (see 26 U.S.C. � 7802(b)(1)(B)), with the Authority of the "Secretary" or "Secretary of the Treasury" being set forth at 26 U.S.C. � 7801, and according to 26 U.S.C. � 7801(a)(2)(A) the terms "Secretary" or "Secretary of the Treasury" means the Attorney General.  Additional Oversight Board members include the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (see 26 U.S.C. � 7802(b)(1)(C)), appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. � 7803(a)(1)(A)), and who can be removed from office at the discretion of the President (see 26 U.S.C. � 7803(a)(1)(C)), and while one of the other nine members Oversight Board must be a full-time Federal employee or a representative of employees and who again is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. � 7802(b)(1)(D)), the six other members need not even be Federal officers or employees but are simply defined as individuals appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (see 26 U.S.C. � 7802(b)(1)(A)), and according to 26 U.S.C. � 7801(a)(2)(A) the term "internal revenue officer" means any officer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives so designated by the Attorney General, and finally, in accordance with the US Attorney's statement that the IRS is NOT an agency of the US government, operationally, rather than applying Levys at maximum allowable "15 percent levy", the Government Contractor (IRS), more often than not, operating as a judgment creditor, is reported to Levy in accordance with 26 U.S.C. � 6331(h)(3) which appears to the Plaintiffs in this case to be the only possible justification under the Code for substituting "100 percent levy" which is ONLY applicable in terms of any specified payment due to a vendor of goods or services sold or leased to the Federal Government, and, as such, Plaintiffs maintain that the term "Government Contractor" is appropriate as used throughout this action, and more importantly, any law which would imply that Americans only have a Constitutional right to Contract, in which they would be entitled to the fruits of their labor as their Property, only as long as they pay a percentage of their labor property at 15% or at 100% is slavery or peonage and therefore criminal, for state ownership they have only have such Rights as long as they pay a percentage is definable in terms of slavery and/or peonage and therefore criminal � state ownership of their labor property, which if constitutional at 1% would also be constitutional at 100%.  But, if it should be argued and this Honorable Court should find that Congress has in fact passed a law for the codification and "classification" to corresponding US Code sections wherein-by the IRS could lawfully be defined as an agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, and/or that Treasury Order 150-06, July 9, 1953, being the only authoritative document under which the pure Trust listed at 31 U.S.C. � 1321(a)(2) and thereinafter the named Bureau of Internal Revenue was changed to the named Internal Revenue Service, is sufficient to warrant a definition of the IRS as a legitimate agency or instrumentality of the United States Government,  Plaintiffs respectfully demand that as a Qui Tam Action, the U.S. Attorneys and the Justice Department and/or the Private Attorney General(s) submit motions to modify this original complaint and/or also seek damages from individual Internal Revenue Officers and/or their supervisors who may be sued in their individual and personal capacity, acting under "color of law", as may be appropriate, for when the level of retaliation against the Plaintiffs, as set forth throughout this complaint, is placed in the context of 5 U.S.C. � 3331 it is much more that truly reprehensible, because "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958).