The Constitution and Taxation

by Bill Medina

The Constitution and Taxation

TRANSCRIPT OF: 911105, tapes 1 and 2, sides A and B

This transcript is FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION.

Bill Medina Post Office Box 70400 Sunnyvale, CA, 94086-0400 (415) 961-7752 (By Agreement)

Bill Medina, speaker. Dale Oaks, special guest. John Winters, recording engineer. A. J. Teel and Annette Blackwell, transcriptors.

(Begin text of 911105, tape 1 of 2, side A:)

(Bill) Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bill Medina and this is November 5, 1991 and the time is 7:22 PM California time. We have here tonight, our guest, Dale Oaks, and this is going to be tape number 911105. Our recording engineer is John Winters and the purpose of this tape is to ask questions and answer questions. We will give you our address; put your question into a succinct paragraph and mail it to: Question, Box 70400, Sunnyvale, CA, USA, Postal Zone 94086-0400. This is our first, or innaugural, tape, if you will. We haven't done this before and we have a number of changes we will be making in the format. Eventually the format will be one where we receive the questions, collect them for two weeks, read them into the tape, and provide you with detailed answers. We have not received actual questions directed to this program as of today, but we will, I'm sure, in the near future, and subsequent tapes will be directed to that issue. Tonight we would like to cover some of the information that appeared in the Silver Bulletin Articles. The premise upon which we are moving in the courts and in the administrative arena is that the people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. The Constitution does not operate on them. Consequently any act of the legislature which was created by the Constitution also does not operate on the people. This will then be inclusive of any titles, rules, codes, or regulations; they, too, do not operate on the people since it cannot be shown that the people are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution in the first place. One of the things we have done in the court rooms, successfully, I might add, is we have waited for the judge to read the complaint, at which point we address the court, and the judge would usually ask at that point for an entry of plea. "How do you plead to this complaint" whatever it happens to be. At that point we say to the judge, "We are not prepared to enter a plea at this time until we have resolved certain matters of jurisdiction and procedure." And the judge may ask, "What questions do you have with this regard?"

Now at this point it must be understood that the court does not, at that instant in time, have jurisdiction. If you enter a plea, you will then _confer_ jurisdiction. Here, I'll refer you to Black's Law Dictionary where it speaks to appearance, and what constitutes an appearance. But going back to the scenario, the judge will ask, "Do you want to enter a plea on this?" or "How do you plea on this?" and at that point you say "I don't want to enter a plea," or "I can't enter a plea at this time until the matters of jurisdiction and procedure have been settled." And at that point you say "I don't believe that jurisdiction exists in this court". This is a series of forced moves, by the way. The judge has to answer "Yes, the jurisdiction does exist in this court." And then the next question that you ask or that we've asked is "By what authority do you believe you have the jurisdiction to hear this matter?" and the judge will inevitably say "By the authority of the statutes." Then your next question would be "Are these the statutes as created by the legislature?" The judge has to answer affirmatively; he has to say "Yes." And then the next question to the judge is "Is this the legislature as created by the Constitution?" And again he has to say "Yes". Then you can talk to the judge, if he is prosecuting the case, you can talk to the judge, or if it happens to be a prosecutor in the court room, you can talk to the judge asking him or her to _order_ the prosecutor to prove that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. And that you are prepared to enter a guilty plea on the condition that they prove that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. What you can do then is immediately say to the judge "Now I can prove that _you_ are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, and I can prove also that the _prosecutor_ over here is subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, but I do not believe that you can prove that I am subject to the jurisdiction of the constitution, pursuant to Article VI thereof. This is where they have taken their oaths of office and so forth. And that all ties together. They are subject to the jurisdiction and the people are not, that is to say if your not a person. We're going to turn this over to Dale for a little bit, and see if he has any input on this.

(Dale) Okay, thank you. When you are at the arraignment preceding, you can do as Bill has mentioned above, and I subscribe to that. For those who like to write, or do pleadings, you can do a Motion to Quash, which is a _special appearance_. When you do a Motion to Quash, it puts the burden on the prosecution, and they have to prove that your _res_ is among the jurisdiction of the court.

(Bill) Is that res as in r-e-s, Dale?

(Dale) That's the one, Bill.

(Bill) Thank you, Dale.

(Dale) Okay, now, I've got a few notes, and I'm just going to be quite informal, if you all don't mind.

The jurisdiction is determined as to where do you live, or where is your residence, which is a loaded question, because we have all been hoodwinked. Domicile is a synonym for status, is a synonym for citizenship. In this country, pursuant to that area known as the Conflict of Laws, and formally known as Private International Law, you have the laws of the government domiciled in the foreign state known as the District of Columbia. And then you have the laws of California as opposed to the laws of the State of California. If you would like to take a look at section 13005 of the California unemployment insurance code it so states who an employer is: "subject to laws of this state, (small s), the state of California". Without straining too far, what is your legal headquarters? That is going to determine whether the court has jurisdiction. If you do anything other than do a Motion to Quash, or as Bill has recommended, if you demure a Motion to Dismiss and answer, you're in.

(Bill) The act of demurring confers jurisdiction to the court which is what we are talking about.

(Dale) That's right.

(Bill) The procedures that we have outlined here, of which Dale has just described the second, constitute the lines of defense. Imagine yourself in the center of a set of concentric circles, with yourself in the center. These rings constitute your lines of defense. And the first line of defense is the challenge to jurisdiction by way of status and jurisdiction. And that is to say, where you command them to prove that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. If it cannot be shown that you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, then it cannot be shown that any act of the legislature, title, or anything else under that, operates upon you.

(Dale) Bill, when you look at the California code of civil procedure, section 418.10, it talks about the Motion to Quash, pursuant to the Rutter Group Publication of civil procedure before trial. That is the only vehicle that you have to challenge the jurisdiction of the preceding. My recommendation would be to take, within that motion, Bill's argument. Courts have been known to lose transcripts or have a problem with the docket sheets as to what's happened, if you know what I mean.

(Bill) Records have disappeared, is that what you mean? (Dale) Yes, so when you do this proper Motion to Quash, which again is a _special_ appearance, using Bill's argument, "Show me where I am subject to the Constitution which created the government, which created the law, that I am accused of violating. I wanna see it! Lets see it. Where is the document and/or laws?"

(Bill) One of the things we used very successfully in the Paul Hilf matter, was to file a formal declaration of title by hereditary succession. The argument that we used there sort of dovetails with this argument of not being subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. The people who wrote the Constitution, I like to call them the "Floundering Fathers", because they were never authorized to do what they did, came up with the constitution and established the central government. These people perhaps bound _themselves_ to a document, a contract, allowing for the establishment of the central government. But they cannot bind, for example, a third party. And let me just give an example, and see if I can re-explain that. We're talking about a third party obligee, someone who has to make performance as a third party to a contract. I go down to Sears Roebuck, and I say "Gee, I really like that Kenmore refrigerator over there. Could you send it over to my house? And by the way, send Dale Oaks here the bill. He'll pay for that." That is binding Dale to a third party obligation. Dale is not a beneficiary to the obligation. The object here of what we are bringing forward in the federal courts and in the United States position, is that the people are not guarantors of a federal obligation. If the United States, all ten miles square of it, makes a contract with lenders to borrow money, it does not obligate the people to perform under that contract.

(Dale) I have a kind of a saying I use frequently in any pleading letter, diatribe, or whatever, (thank you to Howard Freeman who gave me the lead on this), "The undersigned denies any liability associated with the compelled use of the private notes issued by the private joint stock company known as the Federal Reserve and guaranteed by an insolvent government, who is civilly dead in law, domiciled in a foreign state known as the District of Columbia."

(Bill) I'd like to comment on that if I may, Dale. You brought up a whole host of things. First I would like to talk a little about Howard Freeman. Howard has done some excellent work in this field and has brought up a wonderful argument where he goes into the courts and asks the judge "Is this a criminal matter or a civil matter?" That is a really key ingredient in sorting out some of this confusion. One of the other key ingredients that I was most impressed with came from Rudy Booty. He goes into court and asks the judge "Are you operating in your administrative capacity or are you operating in your judicial capacity?" I just wanted to comment on those two things. And then I also want to comment momentarily about what Dale brought up about the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has been in operation for about 79 years and it has never been audited, not once. It cannot be audited because it is autonomous. It is a common law joint stock company where the investors are the people who own series "K" bonds. Series "K" bonds only draw 3% interest, but that 3% interest is payable in gold. Alot of the decapitalization that has gone on is described in some detail in the Silver Bulletin articles. Those articles are available from the C.B.A. Bulletin (The American's Bulletin) Post Office Box 935, Medford, OR, USA, Postal Zone: 97501, (503)779-7709. You can obtain this information by calling Robert Kelly, the editor, and he will provide you with copies of the Silver Bulletin articles if you should desire.

One of the things I would like to comment on also, is some of the fine workers in the field. As we get farther and farther into this tape, we will be talking about these people. Thinking in terms of Lee Brooks who is probably one of the nation's experts on the Admiralty jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction where we find ourselves. That again is spoken to in some detail in the Silver Bulletin articles. I want to see if I can get some input here from Dale on this.

(Dale) What would you like to discuss, Bill?

(Bill) Well let's go back if we can to this status and jurisdiction argument. I think, for the folks out there, you will find that we lean very heavily on words and the legal meanings of words. One of the reasons that we do this is that our language has been subverted. They are using more and more of their definitions of the words redefining the language or eliminating words completely. Let me give you an example of this. By going into Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, and looking up the definition of the term "common lawyer", you will find "someone who is learned in the common law". By going into the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, and looking up the same term, you will find in there "an obsolete term". Now that should raise some questions. Do you want to take over at that point Dale?

(Dale) Well, I can start with Black's 5th here. "Status - standing, state, or condition; social position. The legal relation of an individual to the rest of the community. The rights, duties, and capacities and incapacities which determine a person to a given class. A legal personal relationship not temporary in its nature or terminable at the mere will of the parties with which third persons and the state are concerned." Now, when we talk about jurisdiction and status, that determines (again that is domicile) ... well... where is your status located? In what jurisdiction? If you want to talk about political jurisdictions, look at the California Evidence Code section 220. It talks about the definition of the word "state". It means "the State of California unless applied to other parts of the United States in the latter case it means any state (small s), D.C., possession, territory, etc." We compare that with section 18 of the California Government Code which says "State - The State of California unless applied to other parts of the United States in the latter case it shall include (key word; include = means) the District of Columbia." Now that doesn't square with the evidence code. So we have two different jurisdictions here. Which one are you in? Which one do they want you to think you are in?

So, the jurisdiction can be way of public or private statutes. And, of course, we are trying to get away from the administrative arm of government if we are not participating in the benefits. Their basis for any cause of action against you is based upon an obligation. Now a cause of action has a nucleus of common operative facts. Where we are going with this is into an action in law of trespass on the case in the proper court. If you are in a court that has gold-fringed flags, you are in the wrong one.

(Bill) That is certainly reflective of the admiralty jurisdiction. For the folks out there, I would like to propose that there are only two jurisdictions. We can see this from space. If you look down at the earth from space, you see two colors: one is blue and the other is brown. All the blue is under the admiralty jurisdiction and all that brown is under the jurisdiction of law, meaning the common law or the law of the land. What has happened here, is that with the advent of the Constitution, we established, well not we, but our "floundering fathers", established a ten mile square admiralty jurisdiction for the purposes of trade and commerce which is analogous to the thirteen square block district in London, called London-Town, or London-Town Proper. Lee Brooks is a real expert in this regard, or area, and I'm sure that Lee could provide several hours of description dealing with that particular aspect. But the other side of the thing is that we are trying to operate within the framework of law, that is to say, the common law. There is some interesting things connected with that. For example, during the course of the colonies, 16% of all incoming commerce, (that is, coming into the colonies) were law books. The common law was something that everyone knew. Ignorance of the law was simply no excuse. Everyone was learned in the law. Today, virtually no one is learned in the law. And most of the people are told that you have to go to some kind of specialist, which is called a lawyer. Here I would refer to the Ferada Case, Ferada v. California, which I don't have instantly at my finger tips, but will most likely provide you with by the end of the tape. To read the Ferada case is a real inspiration. Here, the Supreme Court talks to inadequacies of the lawyer and the fact that colonists never trusted lawyers. Those lawyers operate in the admiralty jurisdiction. A flag is an ensign... you can look this up in your Black's...a flag is an ensign, and that ensign is to identify who you are. I guess it got its start in the 1400-1600's. When ships would sail from port to port, they would have a flag to identify the sovereign to whom the ship belonged. That would be a sovereign nation. For example, Spain had its flag, and England had its flag, and so forth. That was so when they sailed into a foreign port, the people on shore would know the meaning of any commercial transactions with that particular sovereign. And the laws of that particular land and commerce connected, therewith. The admiralty flag for the United States is the American flag with gold fringe on it. This is reflected again in some 1946 documents, which we dug up. I don't have those document sights available to me, but they are sighted out in the Silver Bulletin articles. So you can go ahead and pull those sights and investigate those military documents connected with that flag. So what Dale was talking to here, is when you walk into that court room and you see that gold fringed flag, (which I like to call the federal fringe, because it really directly relates to the Federal Reserve Company) you understand that you are in a court of admiralty, and you are not in a court of law. Dale, do you want to expand some more on that? Those two jurisdictions?

(Dale) The two jurisdictions, I think we alluded to that earlier in the tape and its covered in the conflict of laws. By the way I would like to make a comment now: There's no substitute for spending the money on the books. There is no substitute for slugging your way through these, and after awhile its not going to be a flood of facts, it's going to be a treasure hunt, because you know the answer is going to be there, and when you get filled up with knowledge, you're going to kick some butt! Once you know how to bring your argument, which is the whole purpose why Bill does his work, and why I do mine, and why Lee, and Howard, and Burn Holland, and so forth do their work.

Now I'm going to list some books I think you should need. First of all, get your Black's Law Dictionary for the current definitions. Back that up with Oxford's Dictionary, plus learn how to sheperdize a statute in a case. The books that I highly recommend is the Rutter Group, called Civil Procedure Before Trial. That's $60 out the door. It's written by two L.A. county judges. It's an excellent book. Because where we are going to get them is before, remember, before, we're going to quash, jurisdiction, that happens before we get into the merits. We're going to shut it off right there. The other books you are going to want, (we mentioned Black's Fifth) we talked about Rutter's; you are also going to need a code of civil procedure from West's Publishing, that's a twenty dollar bill; you're evidence code for the use of words, that's about $10 to $12; you will also want a civil code. Remember there is a code of civil procedure and a civil code, and I think you will enjoy reading 52.1, because that is the state's version of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242 almost.

(John) So what we are talking about, in either quashing a case, or proving that there is no jurisdiction, the whole point of that is to get rid of the case before it goes to trial.

(Dale) Right. What you do, is you put the burden on the prosecution. One of the things I haven't done yet in my quashes, of which I have a couple working right now, is ask them to identify your alleged cause of action based upon an obligation that you allege is instilled in me, "Is this pursuant to a public or private statute?" We're going to ask them that. You are all going to have to be jail-house lawyers sooner or later if you really want to do this. In that Rutter Group, they are going to show you how to do interrogatories, admissions, discovery, all your service of process, how to verify all your documents, they give you samples of the documents. It's an excellent book. Definitely worth the investment. Did I answer your question, John?

(John) Yes.

(Bill) You have another book there, too, that is dealing with what an action or an exemption...? Could you talk to that a little bit for us, Dale?

(Dale) Oh I'd love to Bill. I'm mouthy anyway. This was just tried in the last thirty days. I'm going to have to build a background for this. You will find this in the code of civil procedure. You won't find this in the back of notices of state tax liens, or notice of proposed tax, cause they don't want you to know about this. What you will find at 688.010 is ... Burl Zolo is the one who gave me the lead on this; he has done excellent work. What you are going to find is that a warrant for collection of a tax, a levy, a notice of levy, or an earnings withholding order, creates a state tax lien, which shall be treated as a money judgement. But it is a prima facia, or rebuttable presumption of a money judgement. I think it is around the 703 series in the code of civil procedure, where it tells you how to do your claim of exemption.

(Bill) May I ask a question real fast, Dale?

(Dale) Sure Bill.

(Bill) Would that lien be reported in the books of the state controller as money being owed to the state?

(Dale) It could be. It might be worth while just to do an IPA or a FOIA. Well let me see, the state is going to be under the California Public Records Act of general information. Personal Information will be under the Information Practices Act.

(Bill) Would that be like civil code section 1798?

(Dale) Yeah. And in the government code around 62...uh...

(Bill) 6250, I believe, is the equivalent of the FOIA. And 1798 is the equivalent of the 5 U.S.C. 552a., the Privacy Act.

(Dale) On our claim of exemption, getting back to that, the basis for the claim can be living expenses of the family, operation of the business, _OR ANY OTHER STATUTE_. And when you see that, you quickly open your evidence code to section 145 where it says "Statute - any treaty or constitutional provision". That rang my bell (ding). I believe that's the fundamental law of the land, and I being one of the indigenous people of California, and all my income from within California, as opposed to that state defined in the government code in section 18, which is the political equivalent to the District of Columbia, I don't believe I'm over there. So the basis for my claim of exemption is my _STATUS_ as determined by the statute known as the constitution and me being in the preamble, one of the people.

(Bill) Is that Sui Juris?

(Dale) Well I believe that might be a very appropriate synonym for that. So this claim of exemption has to be done in a certain way, and you'll see in the code of civil procedure, it has to be under oath, it has to allege certain things and so forth. Now what happens, and you do it like you would do a pleading, because that is where it is going to end up if they respond. So far in this one that we have done, all that happened was we got a telephone call, the individual did, and they wet in their pants, wondering what he is going to do, and we said it's on them. You handle it. So we did get a rise out of them, a telephone call, let alone a letter.

(Bill) You want to give us a little background on that story there?

(Dale) His wife's wages were leined for earnings witholdings for payroll tax.

(Bill) Is that FTB?

(Dale) Yes, or EDD, either one. It doesn't make a difference, they are administering the same law. I was coming up to speed on this exemption (fish or cut bait, for a lack of a better term) so we did it. We established the status of both the individuals, I believe he had some state tax lien too, which we lumped all together and shot it to them. Always certified mail, never any other way. When they receive that, they have to stop all collection activity, and within ten days they have to file a notice of opposition under oath, and a notice of motion in the proper court, all within ten days. Now as you see when you read 688.010, the superior court will have jurisdiction because you are contesting the legality of the obligation.

(Bill) Now give us that sight again, 688.010 in the code of civil procedure?

(Dale) Right. Now, if they fail to file a notice of opposition under oath, and a notice of motion with the proper court within ten days then ---"I'm sorry, you have to give the money back!" They have to give it all back. You will probably have to end up going to court to get a court order. Now the court, if they do file the motion, is going to determine the veracity, or truthfulness, of your claim. The agency is going to have to refute your exemption with facts. Now I believe Bill, isn't a 1099 or W2, isn't that not done under oath? Isn't that heresay?

(Bill) Oh, I thought you'd never ask. What we did about, ah let's see, this paper was filed on July 4, actually it was in fact mailed on July 4 because we mailed it from the AMF, a twenty four hour mail service, at the San Francisco Airport. The paper that went out was what we call a Stambaugh paper. This was a paper going to the franchise tax board demanding that the W2's and the 1099's meet the criteria of section 6065 of the Internal Revenue code where it states that any statement, declaration, or document, etc., has to be made under the penalties of perjury. Now I have examined hundreds of 1099's and W2's, and I have never seen one that met the criteria of 6065. There is never a penalty of perjury statement on any of them. In the vernacular, that's called a jurat statement. I've never seen a jurat on a 1099 or W2. We went back to the company, TSI, in Minnesota, and said, "We want you to certify this man's W2's under penalty of perjury." They fired the man. That was the result of that. The 1099 is the same thing, it does not meet the criteria of 6065, so if they come along and say "Well, according to our records,..." well their records have to be a 1099 or a W2..."According to our records you owe us this tax obligation". We say, "Well let's take a look at your records", and "Do your records meet this criteria?" Now if the 1099 and the W2 do not meet this criteria of 6065, then they are heresay, that's right, heresay, and any kind of a tax obligation based on heresay is invalid.

(Dale) If I may ask, Bill...

(Bill) Please do.

(Dale) I think we discussed as earlier today, is that 6065 verification just that when you attach them to your tax form...

(Bill) Oh yeah, this is the way it works, and thank you for bringing that up. Thank you for bringing that up Dale, that's a good one. Since there is no verification on the 1099 or W2, the place and time where they get verified...hello...is when you staple your W2's and 1099's to your 1040 and then you certify on the 1040 that this form i.e. the 1040, is true and correct and all attachments made thereto. All the attachments made thereto are all of the W2's and 1099's that you attach to that 1040.

Guess what? You are doing the verification that the so-called employer is supposed to be doing. I have never seen a W2 in my life that met the criteria of the employers' tax guides, IRS circular e. In other words, the W2, to begin with, goes to the Social Security Administration, that's in your circular e, it's sent to Baltimore, and then, for social security purposes, all so-called "income", which I consider to be payment, but none the less, payment being property, all income is applied to the 7.51% social security tax. That is to say the total. That is the social security number. However, there is certain income that is taxable as income and then there is payment for labor. And payment for labor is non- taxable. Now this is supposed to be differentiated on the W2. Let me give you an example.

I believe it is box 10 that contains the big total of everything. I believe it is box 13 or so, that only the taxable income is put in. Now what is taxable income? The Britains are a little more honest about the thing, because they call it unearned income. And unearned income is taxable as a gift, as a gratuity, it is a taxable item. But earned income is not a taxable item. What is unearned income? Unearned income is the dollar value of the turkey you got for Thanksgiving. it's the $500 Christmas bonus you got. It's the paid vacation, etc. That all is classified as unearned income. That is taxable under the so- called rules, that is to say even if the rules apply to you. Going back to what Dale was talking about...

(Dale) Okay. That was interesting about you authenticating the 1099 and W2. One person we need to mention is Laurie Jacks of Houston, Texas. She has done excellent work, "ticket to liberty", it's got a nice example of a 1040NR in which I know a gentleman was facing criminal prosecution. He went to district council. He had filed the 1040NR's that very day and sent them certified mail to Baltimore, Philadelphia. To put it succinctly, he rang their bell. They were real upset about it. And we were all real sorry about the whole thing. I would suspect that if you were receiving a 1099 or W2 and they inquired about that, I believe I would file showing that income came from within California, the one in the evidence code, small s state, as opposed to government code section 18, that state. It wasn't over there; it was over here.

(Bill) So that was over here at law?

(Dale) Right.

(Bill) As opposed to over there in the admiralty. Now going back to this W2 thing, when you attach the W2 to the 1040, and you sign that under the penalties of perjury, you are certifying that the attachment to that 1040 is in fact true and correct. On that basis... Dale, you have something to say about that W2 thing don't you?

(Dale) Well, a little bit. You can have income, but from where? In other words, you are going to have to talk about foreign and domestic. But before we do that, it's like, if I am standing in Tahoe, on the California side, I am within California, say domestic, but if you are on the other side, we have two political jurisdictions, foreign and domestic. And where we are going with this is into the Internal Revenue code, where their definition of foreign and domestic, and their definition of United States and state, which I am not going to belabor right now but, it depends upon from where you are looking, where you are pointing to as foreign, and what is domestic. I submit to you that, if you are an individual, who is one of the indigenous people of California as opposed to say a federal subject or whatever, as we know all federal subjects are taxable on all of their income, they are also known as citizens of the United States... I you work for a corporation that was chartered by that _state of California_ defined in Government Code section 18 and that Corporation is doing business in _California_, one of the States of the United States of America, the Republic,...

(Bill) ...which is a foreign franchise...

(Dale) ...yeah... its a foreign corporation in California. If they hire you as one of the indigenous people of California to work for this corporation that is doing business in California, and this corporation was created in that foreign jurisdiction known as the State of California which we find in government code section 18, then I believe that your income is coming from the Republic and I don't believe that the Revenue and Taxation Code, which is the application of the Internal Revenue Code pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 17024.5, I don't believe that there is a liability there.

(Bill) This is income that is derived from within the Republic at-law and it is not derived from the United States in Admiralty.

(Dale) Correct.

(Bill) So, you are saying that the income, or so-called income, may not necessarily mean payment for property or labor. But the income that derived from within the United States, that is to say all ten miles square of it, then that would be taxable income and is derived from within the admiralty jurisdiction, whereas the payment for labor being derived from the republic is non-taxable.

(Dale) With one other qualification, which is we know that when we look at the C.F.R. the federal tax regulations at 1.1-1 or 1.6012 that defines who is subject to the tax, who is going to file a return, and as we all know, that is citizens or residents of the United States signifying that government domiciled in D.C. So, C's or R's of that United States are taxable on their world- wide income no matter where they are at. So if they are in the republic they are still taxable because their status is dependant upon the government which is created by the Constitution by we the people, I don't believe I am both of those. I believe I am over those with we the people.

(Bill) Would you say that's a 14th Amendment citizen?

(Dale) Well, yes. Funny you should say that Bill. I happen to have a horn book, which I will go into in just a minute.

---------

TRANSCRIPT OF: 911105, tapes 1 and 2, sides A and B

This transcript is FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION.

Bill Medina Post Office Box 70400 Sunnyvale, CA, 94086-0400 (415) 961-7752 (By Agreement)