Many hard working, honest and competent legal researchers are on a quest. Their mission--to crack the secret to the Internal Revenue Code. Their purpose--to discover the magic bullet that will show conclusively to all judges in the country that the code is being fraudulently applied to most Americans. A plethora of ingenious ideas have been tried and trashed in the courts, yet these diligent researchers seek the silver stake to drive into the Vampire's heart. All in vain; they are aiming at the wrong beast.

While the following is common knowledge to any who have battled in the courts of the land, let the uninformed be put on notice: The courts don't care what the law says; courts enforce the status quo, they will uphold the IRC, no matter how many contortions and contrivances are necessary to pretend that the system is lawful. In other words, there is no magic bullet, no silver stake. A garland of garlic about one's neck to ward off the abuses of the IRS will afford one more protection than the courts will.

Truth and the "justice" system have long been strangers. Perjury convictions are as rare as diurnal werewolves in the US of A. But, liars ever prosper in our courts; they rule the day. As a criminal defense lawyer I have listened to many defendants tell stories on the stand that I thought were probably canards.
Yet I never knew, because the only witnesses against them were usually police officers, and, I have caught so many cops lying on the stand that I presume that there is at least a twenty-five percent chance that the testimony coming from any uniformed officer is false. So, how is anyone to recognize truth when it comes from the witness stand? Trials are nothing but parades of perjury, condoned, if not approved by the judges.

When a person lies and prevails in a single case, one might wonder what has that to do with the whole system? Remember that I started out by declaring that there is little justice found in the courts? Long ago, man sought to create a fair tribunal to hear grievances. The dream has been elusive, but in America, this long sought system is supposedly found in our courts. However, the illusional "fair" has been dropped--we have only tribunals. The rich control "justice," the middle class can hardly afford to enter the battlefield of the courts, and the poor, who are gratuitously allowed some space
in the courts, are occasionally thrown a bone by it to make it appear to be a fair system. Our courts are a power broker's dream, a king's delight, a tool for despots.

How can we now scream absurdities like "sentence first, trial later" without remembering Lewis Carrol? How did the justice system get turned on its head? When did it happen? And, most of all, why? In England, for a while, before America was born, the courts of common law were operated for the common man, at least in theory. In those courts of law, a person was allowed to state his case before people who knew him and his reputation for veracity, and the jury decided what was right and who was wrong. A study of Lord Coke would open many a legal scholar's eyes as to how the common law was designed to divide right from wrong. Common law was very harsh, and jury decisions were non appealable, except to another jury in rare cases.

Judges had little power in law, they were mere referees; the jurors were the kings in the courts of the common law. So, the law judges eyed the ecclesiastical courts run by the churches and devised a plan to acquire more power. Since the ecclesiastical courts had no juries, in those bodies the judges were the law. The law judges were envious, and sought the power similar to the chancellors of the ecclesiastical courts.

To accomplish this task, a brilliant scholar for the ruling elite named Lord Mansfield began inventing and contriving from the bench, finding quasi-contracts and other equitable doctrines that allowed him and his colleagues to "wisely" interpret the equities of many otherwise purely legal disputes. And, just to make certain that no chancellor would go astray and become a rogue and do good for the people, appeals were allowed to higher courts for review. These appeals were expensive then and are much more costly now, which of course, favors the rich. Therefore, in the name of equity, courts for the common man were eroded.

In our earliest days, American lawyers like George Wythe and Thomas Jefferson attempted to found the legal system upon the common law, and absolutely divide the courts of law from the courts of equity, but, alas, few of our Founding Fathers had taken the time to read Lord Coke's decisions. They instead were in a hurry to rush to the bar and took the easy way out, being schooled on Blackstone's Commentaries, which is a hornbook for the ruling elite and based upon blending equity and law until there is a morass of indiscernible sludge. From this mire came a glop of rulings and procedures that stole justice from the common man and bequeathed it to the rich and powerful. To the ruling elite's delight, the result of this horrible concoction is our system and its "fair" tribunals.

The Founding Fathers, for the most part, wanted common law, but didn't understand that equity and admiralty were really tied to civil law, which is a system guarantying disaster for the common man. Patrick Henry studied law only five weeks, and John Marshall only six. Neither could have understood the nuances of the law from their studies; Henry learned enough to try to help the common man, but was ignorant of how devastating civil law was to liberty--Marshall learned just enough law to twist and corrupt it and use our legal system to usurp the Constitution. Civil law is a certain path to tyranny. This was observed in the following passage of the debate by the minority in Pennsylvania legislature (December 18, 1787) against adopting the proposed Constitution because of
Article III:

. . . The judicial power, under the proposed constitution, is founded on the well-known principles of the civil law, by which the judge determines both on law and fact, and appeals are allowed from the inferior tribunals to the superior, upon the whole question; so that facts as well as law, would be re-examined, and even new facts brought forward in the court of appeals; and to use the words of a very eminent Civilian--" The cause is many times another thing before the court of appeals, than what it was at the time of the first sentence. That this mode of proceeding is the one which must be adopted under this constitution, is evident from the following circumstances:--1st. That the trial by jury, which is the grand characteristic of the common law, is secured by the constitution, only in criminal cases.--2d. That the appeal from both law and fact is expressly established, which is utterly inconsistent with the principles of the common law, and trials by jury. The only mode in which an appeal from law and fact can be established, is, by adopting the principles and practice of the civil law; unless the United States should be drawn into the absurdity of calling and swearing juries, merely for the purpose of contradicting their verdicts, which would render juries contemptible and worse than useless.--3d. That the courts to be established would decide on all cases of law and equity, which is a well known characteristic of civil law, and these courts would have conusance not only of the laws of the United States and of treaties, and of cases affecting ambassadors, but of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which last are matters belonging exclusively to the civil law, in every nation in Christendom. Not to enlarge upon the loss of the invaluable right of trial by an unbiassed jury, so dear to every friend of liberty, the monstrous expence and inconveniences of the mode of proceedings to be adopted, are such as will prove intolerable to the people of this country. The lengthy proceedings of the civil law courts in the chancery of England, and in the courts of Scotland and France, are such that few men of moderate fortune can endure the expence of; the poor man must therefore submit to the wealthy. Length of purse will too often prevail against right and justice. . . The minority view of Pennsylvania was crushed by the ruling elite. When the Constitution was written, Alexander Hamilton made certain that Article III, which covered the judiciary, was muddied by consolidating the jurisdiction of law, equity and admiralty under the single umbrella of our courts. The system was designed for the rich, by the rich and of the rich. It was the Trojan Horse implanted into our Constitution. Of course, the common man in post-revolutionary America knew the difference in the various courts, but as the impotent judges became power hungry, there began a slow, systematic theft of the power from the commoners. Many generations later, after much judicial purloining and persistence, we have today's American courts, a model for judicial tyranny by deception. John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, took an enormous step in creating judicial despotism in America when he decided Marbury v.Madison in 1803, which was probably the blackest day for American "justice." The facts of the case are complex, but necessary to understand the perversity and mendaciousness of John Marshall. In 1800, Federalist President John Adams was defeated by Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson, and, before Jefferson took office, Adams, in conjunction with the lame-duck Federalist Congress, created 18 new judicial seats and loaded the courts with Federalists judges. This court packing caused a retired Mr. Jefferson to write to Adams at a point late in both of their lives that it was the worst blow to liberty that Adams left for Jefferson to clean up. In other words, Jefferson viewed packing the courts was the most ruinous thing that could have been done to the republic. As will be demonstrated below, the corruption of the courts by John Adams has never been righted in 199 years. The Secretary of the State under Adams was John Marshall, and it was his job to seal and deliver all of the judicial appointments to the various candidates as judges. Marshall neglected to deliver every judicial appointment before Jefferson took office, so part of his job was left undone, presumably to be completed by the new administration. While Marshall was the Secretary of State, he also accepted an appointment from Adams to become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! This is a classic conflict of interest; a high ranking cabinet member of the executive under Article II also was the highest ranking judicial officer under Article III simultaneously. This apparently bothered neither Adams nor Marshall nor the Senate which approved the nefarious transaction. The legislative, executive and judicial were in effect merged, destroying the separation of powers so carefully set out in the Constitution. When Jefferson took office, he showed his colors as he fought for liberty. It was an election for the people, and many historians view the ousting of the Federalists in 1800 as the second American Revolution, a bloodless one. Jefferson immediately denuded the anti-First Amendment Alien and Sedition Acts, fired every internal revenue agent, abolished all internal taxes, balanced a budget, and through austere measures which reduced the size of government, put America on a course to be debt free in about twelve years. In short, he gave back the government to the people, effectively dismantled what was a bloated, pompous, debt-financed government that was evidencing many tyrannical characteristics under the few years of the Washington and Adams administrations. The New World Order was alive and healthy in Europe thanks to George III, Adam Weishaupt and Adam Smith, and it was well on its way to being assimilated into the USA when Jefferson took office, but, this single man set the New World Order back at least twenty years in America. Jefferson knew what was coming, he saw that bankers would steal our liberty, that governments would usurp liberty, that urban cities and industrialization would eliminate freedom, and he warned us to refresh the tree of liberty with new blood at least every generation. In fact, in 1825, at age 83, Jefferson was so disgusted with federal government usurpations, that he drafted a resolution for the Virginia legislature warning the federal government to build not another road, canal or by-way in Virginia or she would consider succeeding from the Union! Americans neglected this advice and have not seriously challenged authority of government since 1865. In those 134 years, this country has become everything that Jefferson fought against. Jefferson appointed James Madison as Secretary of State, and the new Secretary of State refused to deliver judicial appointments to William Marbury and others. Marbury, who was one of the recipients-to-be of a judicial post, sued for his position. In order to assure a "fair" trial, Chief Justice John Marshall elected to hear the case himself. So, the judge of the trial was the same Secretary of State who neglected his duty. Marshall was to decide upon his own negligence! This Chief "Justice" was a crafty manipulator and he ruled against Marbury by ruling that a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 went beyond the Constitution, hence, was unconstitutional, therefore, since the statute in part was repugnant to the Constitution, it was a void law. In that case, under the blackest of circumstances, Marshall purloined the right to review constitutionality of congressional statutes and placed the exclusive right of review squarely and solely into the judiciary. Taking the case to the logical extreme, which it has been as of this writing, the Judiciary, which under the Constitution was to be the weakest branch, became the most influential arm of the government. Jefferson and Madison were livid at the horrible and dangerous ruling, but, since they were the prevailing parties, they could not appeal the "victory" that so nefariously stole American liberty. Marshall made other decisions concerning the Constitution that caused Jefferson to vehemently declare that Marshall had made the Constitution a "thing of wax." No judge of the Supreme Court dared follow the outrageous precedent Marshall set in Marbury v. Madison to grant courts the authority to overturn another congressional statute as long as people with sense, memory and some power survived. So, the time bomb set by the Marbury decision had a very long fuse. The bomb could not be exploded until Americans were dumbed down enough to be ignorant of the danger of the Court's 1803 theft of the Constitution. But, by 1857, times were such that the Court dared again to flex its purloined muscle in the dangerous Marbury precedent. In 1857, Dredd Scott was decided, as the Supreme Court landed a knockout punch to liberty by overturning another statute of the Congress and also ruling that black people were property, virtually assuring the country of a civil war. The Supreme Court of the United States, nor any US Courts were designed to be places of common law justice, but of homes of the civil law, as their origin in Article III shows, but, in 1800, when Chief Justice stepped onto the bench, liberty in American law died. The usurpation of the Constitution by Marshall, which made the courts the final arbiter of whether Article I actions were constitutional, is but one of the many devious ways the courts stole liberty from the people. Following Marshall's lead, judges have also ruled repeatedly that juries can and must be lied to when the court gives its instructions to the jury! Juries are the greatest known engine against governmental tyranny. The Founding Fathers knew this and insisted on jury trials for all crimes in the Constitution. When Jefferson, who was in Paris at the time the Constitution was created, learned there was no bill of rights contained therein, he wrote to James Madison insisting that one be inserted, or the cause of liberty was lost. Upon receipt of the letter, Hamilton's influence over Madison waned, and the latter began a long and bitter battle to have the Bill of Rights ratified. Contained in those ten articles of amendment to the Constitution was Amendment VII, which bears Jefferson's footprints. The Amendment is reproduced below for perusal. It should be considered while reading that Amendment that the discussion of this essay that CIVIL LAW is the law of tyranny, COMMON LAW was the hope for liberty, and today, when there is a matter heard in court that is not a CRIMINAL matter, it is called a CIVIL dispute, not a dispute in COMMON LAW. It is this writer's opinion that only Jefferson could have left such a burning message for the twentieth-century Americans, as is subtly contained in Amendment VII of the United States Constitution: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Jefferson wanted us to not only have juries to hear personal disputes, but, he wanted their verdicts unassailable on appeal. Further, he wanted to send a message to everyone, that if ever they were in a dispute with the government which went to trial, and the matter of dispute was NOT criminal, then there must be a jury trial granted if the amount in controversy is over $20. Otherwise, if there were no jury afforded, as in cases of traffic infractions, then the courts would be imposing CIVIL LAW, which to Jefferson and the most astute of the Founding Fathers, was the equivalent of tyranny. Tyrants are frightened of jurors. The American courts are frightened of jurors. The American government is frightened of juries. The Founding Fathers placed the JURY as the fourth arm of government, to protect and preserve our liberties from being usurped by the government. Juries can actually shut down corrupt administrations. What the courts have done in America is to castrate the jury, while presenting to the jurors and ignorant Americans the illusion that the jury is alive and well in this country. It is not. Jurors are too ignorant to exercise their rights. The filthy game of deception between the lawyers and the judges goes unchallenged. Therefore, jurors never learn of their great power and duty because the courts are used as tools to uphold a corrupted government. If the people on the street ever learned of the depth and breadth of the fraud perpetrated upon them by the legal system, they would never trust it again. So, the courts are boxed into a corner created by their insidious lies; if they strike down the corruption and expose the fraud, they must fall. The biggest lie which stole jury power goes like this: Jurors are told that they must follow the law, and that the judge will tell them what the law is. Jurors are then told that the law declared by the judge must be applied to the case at hand. Judges deceive the members of the jury knowing full well that jurors have every right to void any and every law that is before them on any given case. This is the power of jury nullification. The courts bluff jurors into thinking there is no right to jury nullification. To understand why courts wanted to send jury nullification into oblivion, consider this monstrous theft of liberty that also occurred while John Adams was president. The Federalist Congress and Federalist President John Adams tired of being criticized in the press, so they passed and enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Those laws made it illegal to criticize the president or the Congress. Jury after jury found publishers who were critical of the government "not guilty" by nullifying the law which openly violated the First Amendment's protections of the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The juries found on a case-by-case basis, that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional by refusing to enforce the law. This maddened not only the judicial branch, but the legislative, which wrote the horrid act, and the executive, which enforced the law. It became incumbent upon the courts to strip the jurors of their power, or the government could never grow into a full-fledged tyranny. And, the courts were very willing partners-in-crime in denuding the juries; every ounce of power held by the jury is coveted by the courts; each ounce is one the bench is without, and courts are power hungry. Therefore, nearly all judges despise the power of jury nullification, and have stripped it from juries by keeping jurors ignorant of their rights. And, should a lawyer attempt to tell the jury that the judge lied to them about their power to nullify any law, the lawyer will probably land in jail for contempt of court. The jury system has been corrupted by acts of grave dishonesty by the bench, and the lies have been perpetrated by a bar that accedes to the lies. To further purloin jury power, judges invented voir dire (which ironically is to speak the truth) and jury selection so they can stack the jury boxes with as many robotic, pro-government fools as can be mustered. This began most pointedly when Aaron Burr was tried for treason for attempting an armed insurrection with the plan of dividing America into two parts. One portion was to be administered by Burr, and part was to be given to the British. The presiding judge, none other than Chief "Justice" John Marshall, allowed every juror who had any opinion on guilt to be dismissed, leaving only the stupidest or the lyingest jurors for the trial. Even this was not enough to assure an acquittal, so Marshall dined with Burr and his counsel during the trial and helped them plan their case. Marshall also reversed his definitions about what comprised treason, definitions he had created while considering guilt of Burr's co-defendants, and, of course, Burr was acquitted. Marshall being on the bench ensured that result. Today, thanks to Marshall's legacy, jurors are quizzed endlessly by judges and lawyers to discover "fair and impartial" jurors. "Fair and impartial" means to the courts, that the jurors must be ignorant, unthinking, and robotically loyal to the status quo. The jurors are put on trial to see if they are good enough to dispense "justice" in the corrupt system of American courts. Indeed, the jury selection can cost more and take more time than the entire trial. All the courts and attorneys really want is to make certain that the IQ of the panel is lowered to the point that the slickest snake oil salesman will prevail, and, above all, that the veil of fraud the courts have draped across the land is not lifted. The dishonesty of the jury system is bad enough, but, just in case a jury does the right thing and spanks the federal government for allowing the IRS to fraudulently implement the tax code, there is a kicker. Remember, in common law, there was no appeal except in rare cases to a special jury. See Federalist Paper 83. However, because Hamilton created an abortion of Article III by blending equity, admiralty and law into one, there are appeals to higher courts of some jury decisions. This is because Article III created CIVIL LAW courts, a tool for tyrants. Hamilton knew well what he was doing, because he was the author of Federalist Paper 83. The government, with endless resources, almost always appeals an adverse ruling against the IRS, and nearly always wins. Should the unexpected happen and the government lose an appeal, that is really of little consequence to it, because it will avoid or ignore most adverse decisions of the courts until it is forced to comply. And, since almost every judge is afraid of the IRS, relief is not to be had in the court system except in a rare instance, and after much risk of loss, actual loss and significant fighting. Then comes the real kicker in our system of "justice." In common law, if a certain type of case went before several different judges over a long period of time, the judges were allowed to write an opinion laying out the way future courts should handle future cases that were similar in fact pattern. This was called precedent. It would take perhaps twenty or maybe even fifty years for a precedent to come about from the first time a particular type of case was heard until enough such cases were presented to various courts and then they were virtually consolidated into a single opinion to guide or bind future jurists. It was this slow process of establishing precedent in law, among other things, that led our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, to resign because he believed it to be a position with no power and no future. John Marshall soon showed Jay how wrong he was. Of course, Jay had never contemplated how to behave like Marshall, who was an absolute scoundrel. Today, in the American courts, all that is needed for a new precedent, is a SINGLE decision on a SINGLE set of facts, and from the vaunted towers of "justice" comes a thunderbolt. Therefore, no matter how honest the bulk of the judiciary might be, it takes only a few scoundrels to ruin justice. And, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows today, the precedents are nearly all in favor of the rich and powerful, with an occasional bone thrown out for indigents to make it appear that there is relief within the judicial system. Couple this with the fact that Congress writes so many laws that nobody could even read them, much less follow them. Therefore, the president has the power to selectively enforce those laws against any undesirable people, and the executive does this with impunity. For instance, when some people lie in court, they are charged with perjury, and when others do, they are promoted and vigorously defended for giving sworn prevarications. So, you see, there cannot be a magic bullet or a silver stake to drive into the IRS, or any other governmental agency for that matter, because, the courts have been corrupted by John Marshall and company. In place of the gold-fringed American flags in courtrooms across the land, there should be Jolly Rogers flying so all entering the chambers would be put on notice. Most people sitting on the bench continue to erode the Constitution and purloin liberty, either through ignorance, blind loyalty, or by intentional misdeeds. Today, judges lie to jurors about jury nullification in nearly every case, and lawyers cowardly accede to those judicial lies to the jurors. The system frequently rewards those who lie under oath and only in rare cases are perjurers rebuked; it imposes severe penalties upon those who tell the truth on the stand; it extracts egregious penalties for those who seek justice in the courts; it welcomes and applauds expensive, protracted appeals that favor only the ruling elite, and it worships bogus precedents that often undo decades or centuries of justice by a single stroke of a pen. Our system and its players know that if the courts gave relief and honored truth, it would be driving the stake into their own black-robed hearts. If we had people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson or George Wythe on the higher courts, we would have a chance to rectify the system. However, our judges, almost unanimously hold John Marshall up as the greatest American jurist--Marshall is their guiding light--so you can imagine why our courts are such instruments of tyranny. Most lawyers are ignorant of the Constitution because they don't even read it in law school. Lawyers, by and large, can't even tell you there are seven articles in the document. Lawyers are very blind, and certainly don't know that we have a system of civil law parading as one of common law. And, even if we were able to find some honest and informed attorneys to load our courts with honest judges, there is still the problem of Hamilton's abortion in Article III, which strips common law from the people. Our Founding Fathers left us with an impossible situation. Article III is built for the ruling elite, by the ruling elite, and of the ruling elite. Nothing short of Constitutional amendment could correct our system of civil law and convert it back to one of common law. But, even then, the John Marshall's will ultimately take control of the system. A person on the deck of the Titanic with a case of Silly Putty would have a better chance of saving that ship than we have of correcting the American legal system that has suffered 199 years of direction and corruption by John Marshall and his followers. The American system of "justice" cannot withstand an assault by the Truth; it will fall. Therefore, the system will uphold the fraud to the bitter end. It is imperative that those who seek liberty understand this fact. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote: "These are the times that try men's souls . . .. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered . . ." It will not be easy to dispense with the illusion that the courts offer justice. But, how many appeals for relief must be denied before we understand that the courts hear not the cause of justice? How many times should heads be tossed against the wall before the inevitable is accepted? We are under tyranny, and the courts are accomplice to the despotism. In 1774, John Jay addressed the people as Great Britain: WHEN A NATION, led to greatness by the hand of liberty, and possessed of all the glory that heroism, munificence, and humanity can bestow, descends to the ungrateful task of forging chains for her friends and children, and instead of giving support to freedom, turns advocate for slavery and oppression, there is reason to suspect she has either ceased to be virtuous, or been extremely negligent in the appointment of her rulers. America has violated the terms of liberty under which she was born; she has allowed her agents to shoot women holding children with impunity; she has ordered her agents to burn down buildings containing men, women and seventeen children and punished her agents not, but instead, had punished those who survived the conflagration in the courts of "justice." American government has failed to be one of, by and for the people, and to the courts, appeals of correction have been useless at best, and harmful in most cases to the appellants. The courts have shown themselves not to be protectors of liberty, and Americans must realize this is the case. The leopard will not relinquish its spots. For those of you with spiritual understanding, there is another solution, the only solution, and that is simply to pray for Divine Justice. A reading of John, Chapter 8 will show how Jesus scorned man's justice by trying first to ignore it when an adulteress was about to be stoned, and when confronted with the situation, he in effect called all of the judges and executioners hypocrites, after which they shamefully retired without dispensing their earthly "justice." We can strive for Divine Justice by offering a simple prayer: "Lord, correct our courts and please dispense unto each, what is deserved by each." But, be warned dear reader, that Judgment will come soon enough, and when It does, most will not be prepared for It, nor will they relish having their prayers answered. You see, the government of the people, by the people and for the people has all but perished from the earth; most Americans now live for the fraud, by the fraud and of the fraud. What do you think it would be like if all the fraud were stripped away from the courts of America by a single swipe of Excalibur? The line has been drawn in the sand. All must choose--Truth--or Fraud.