Phil Roberts: Comments on his Case from Steadman Jackson

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

Christopher -

First, I must congratulate you on your manuscript. What an effort! It will take me some time to complete my first reading of your material.

The reason for the message is to respond to the Dr. Roberts narrative on his imprisonment by the federal government. I have some ideas to share if he is still incarcerated. These might be adjuncts to your material as well [again, I have only begun to read your work].

1. U.S. Citizenship - In his imprisonment for 'willful failure to file' and signing the 1040 under penalties of perjury. He never rebutted theg overnment's assumption of him as being a U.S. Citizen. Of particular interest here was a prior correspondence with the SSA in San Francisco office seeking their definition of 'U.S. Citizen' as stated on their Form SS-5, application for the SSN.

Phillip Douglass, stated in an email to me that "Since we derive our definitions in the policy area from the INS, I am attaching a reference from the Immigration and Naturalization Act..." The reference cited Immigration and nationality Act: Sections 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, and 310.

The INA is codified under Title 8 of the USCA. The Policy Principle identified individuals who are considered U.S.citizens: ONE OF THE 50 STATES OR D.C. "Any individual born in one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia who was subject to the jurisdiction ofthe United States at birth." A careful reading shows that an individual [I assume they mean a human being] who was born in one of the 50 states or D.C. [federal geographic jurisdiction which includes the U.S. Territories] "who was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [Federal Government] at birth."

Your work on the 14th Amendment and the fact that it provides a statutory citizenship under the jurisdiction of the federal government makes this all the clearer. Someone could be born in the 50 States and not be 'subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government at birth' and thus not be considered a "U.S. Citizen."

The exclusive [sovereign] jurisdiction of the federal government extendsthe term "U.S. Citizen" to those people who were handed over to the federal government following the Treaty of Paris of 1898 where the King of Spain gave the United States [federal government] the people and territories. The people are "U.S. Citizens" at birth and are subject to the exclusive [sovereign] jurisdiction of the federal government. They don't vote in the elections here in the 50 States. The Constitution is null and void for "U.S. Citizens" and their citizenship is inferior to that of the Citizens of the united States of the America or American Citizens.

As a result, Dr. Roberts was viewed by the judge via judicial notice by the prosecuting attorney as being a "U.S. Citizen" and having no constitutionalrights and could thus be 'legally' treated as a subject of the Crown [oops, the federal government]. 

He never rebutted the court's assumption and thus the assumption was considered valid. Remember the phrase, 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse?' He failed to inform the court that the federal court was not the court of competent jurisdiction as he was not a "U.S. Citizen."

2. In 26 CFR 1.0-1 - Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (a) Enactment of Law.You will find that the IRC was enacted on August 16, 1954. I have letters from the IRS confirming this also. However, what the IRS doesn't show is that little section about 4 paragraphs lower which reads "In general, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 are applicable with respectto taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, AND ENDING AFTER AUGUST 16, 1954."

(b) Scope of regulations. "The regulations in the part deal with (1) theincome taxes imposed under Subtitle A of the IRC of 1954, and (2) certain administrative provisions contained in subtitle F of such Code relating to such taxes." This is a clear reference to the Enforcement provisions for Assessment, Liens and Levy by distraint but the problem here is that they only go into effect one day after the date of enactment of Title 26 and only apply to the applicable revenue laws under the Title 26 [see 26 USC Section 7851 (a)(6)(A)].

The important aspect of this #2 section is that Subtitle A income taxes ended in around 14.6 nanoseconds after it was enacted into federal law and that Subtitle F enforcement has no application to Subtitle A income taxes as it ceased to exist. There is also in this section a vague reference to 'regulations.' The government doesn't tell the public that there are three (3) types of regulations and only one of them have any teeth. ONLY the Implementing Regulations [sometimes called Legislative regulations] have the full force and effect of law.

Forgive me if I am redundant in your work but a statute [section in 26 USC] has no full force and effect of law...there must be a correspondingImplementing regulation for that specific statute and then the implementing regulation must be promulgated in the Federal Register if the 'law' is applicable to American Citizens. In 26 CFR 601.702 Publication and Public Inspection you will find that the IRS is required under 5 USC 552(a)(1) to 'separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register' ...(iv)substantive rules of general APPLICABILITY adopted as authorized by law.

Reading a little further under (ii) Effect for Failure to Publish. "any such matter which imposes an obligation and which is not so published or incorporated by reference will not adversely change or affect a person's rights. 

Dr. Roberts never asked the courts to produce the Statute, the implementing regulation in 26 CFR for that statute, nor to produce the volume, date, and page number in the Federal Register the obligation for an American Citizen [one not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government at birth] to file or pay a federal income tax that was terminated on August 16, 1954! 

3. I have found a section in 26 USC that makes signing a 1040 under penalties of perjury not applicable for individuals filing that return. I have more information but this email has gotten too long. If interested you can call me in Las Vegas at 702-396-7325 or email me back.

Steadman Jackson

NOTICE: Author is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Specialty Areas
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.

The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2023
All Rights Reserved