Revocation of election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia

“Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam. He who uses his legal rights harms no one.” John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn. 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 2157

The Internal Revenue Code provides for one to revoke his (apparent) general election to be treated as a resident of the United States—defined by Congress in Title 26 U.S.C. to mean the District of Columbia[1]—and can be accomplished in as little as one sentence.

As any legal professional (other than one with a vested interest in the 26 U.S.C. 6013 general-election-facility hoax) can verify: No one can elect (choose) to be a resident of a particular geographic area for purposes of taxation without also (1) physically moving there and establishing his personal abode / dwelling / home, or (2) realizing earnings there.

There is no difference between “being a resident” and “being treated as a resident” of a particular place; the legal effect is the same.

That government pretends that all of the American People are residents of the District of Columbia—and treats them as such—gives one an idea of the magnitude of the situation.

“Quando lex est specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est intelligenda. When the law is special, but its reason is general, the law is to be understood generally.” Bouvier’s, p. 2156.

“GENERAL. Pertaining to, or designating, the genus or class, as distinguished from that which characterizes the species or individual. Universal, not particularized ; as opposed to special. Principal or central ; as opposed to local. Open or available to all, as opposed to select. Obtaining commonly, or recognized universally ; as opposed to particular. Universal or unbounded ; as opposed to limited. Comprehending the whole or directed to the whole ; as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only.” Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1891), p. 534.

The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility is designated as “general” and therefore is universal or unbounded (as opposed to limited) and is the ultimate inference used by actors in government to subject its creator, the American People, to rules of conduct and regulations, in the form of statutes, and deprive them of life, liberty, and property for alleged violation thereof, under color of law, office, and authority.

There is no constitutional authority for any American legislature to impose any rule or regulation on any American except residents of the District of Columbia or one of the Territories—and no one can produce any such authority.[2]

Actors in government and the Internal Revenue Service follow the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (which are grounded in fraud); they just did not expect that anyone would figure out the true meaning thereof.

The meaning of the definition of the Internal Revenue Code terms “United States” and “State” is the District of Columbia (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, p. 6, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).

Anyone can revoke his alleged general election to be treated as a resident of the District of Columbia. To see Petitioner’s “Statement of Revocation,” click on the hyperlink below.

(Note: Revocation of election applies only to the current and future tax years; it does not apply retroactively to previous tax years.)

[1] See Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 8-18, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof.

[2] The wild-card in the 16th Amendment that fooled everyone is the meaning of the operative definition of the statutory term “State,” which is used in the text thereof and comprehends the District of Columbia and the Territories (see Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015, pp. 4-8, posted August 11, 2015, infra, for proof).


Petitioner’s July 20, 2015, “Statement of Revocation”



Memorandum of Law lays bare the hoax that is the Internal Revenue Code

Breakthrough Memorandum of Law obliterates in 20 pages the fraud that has made the 3,837-page Internal Revenue Code a monolith of impenetrability. General knowledge of the contents of the Memorandum ultimately will result in withdrawal of cooperation on the part of a sufficient number of former victims of the fraud so as to lead to its elimination.

The commercial artifice known as “income tax” has its origins in 1622 in Amsterdam, Holland, and is the creation of goldsmith-bankers of the private Bank of Amsterdam[1] (est. 1609), parent bank of the private Bank of England[2] (est. 1694), in turn, parent bank of the private Federal Reserve[3] (est. 1913), and whose principals are the collective architect of the Internal Revenue Code and, in this country, sole beneficiary of the object thereof: revenue from collections of income tax (see Memorandum for evidence and proof).

When principals of the private Bank of Amsterdam in 1622 fail to sell the Dutch government on the idea of income tax they decide to procure their own government and country and thereafter hire Oliver Cromwell, finance and foment the English Revolution, orchestrate the execution of King Charles I of England, and install their own puppet, the Dutch prince, William III of Orange, on the British throne.

William’s most important act is the granting, on July 21, 1694, of the charter of incorporation of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of England,” the world’s first state-sanctioned “fractional reserve banking” institution, allowing the bank to masquerade as a department of government (Bank “of England”) and circulate (lend) its own promissory notes, each of which bears the bank’s promise to pay to the bearer on demand a certain quantity of gold, but for which there is no gold in the bank’s vaults. The arrangement permits the private Bank of England to loan its own paper currency at no cost to itself (i.e., Monopoly™ money) under the protection of the government; to wit:

“The bank hath benefit of the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”[4] William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England.

“It [the Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.”[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics, Oxford University.

The difference between the promissory notes of the private Bank of England and Federal Reserve Notes of the private Federal Reserve is that Fed bankers did away with the promise-to-pay-gold nuisance a long time ago (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933), having swindled and shipped to England and Germany nearly all of America’s gold between 1916 and 1932.

Enjoying a monopoly as they do, today’s banks “loan” computer-keypad keystroke entries of digits, called “credit” (modern equivalent of the Bank of England’s hollow promissory notes), at no cost to themselves. As explained by the senior government banking official, then-Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson:

“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. This money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”[6]

The Federal Reserve banking system cannot endure without constant extraction–by way of collection of income tax by the Internal Revenue Service to hide the fraud of inflation–of a huge percentage of the digits created and injected into circulation by banks in the loan process; hence the overwhelming complexity of the Internal Revenue Code and heartlessness of those who enforce its provisions.

Notwithstanding the best-laid plans of the architects thereof, however, and efforts of their enforcers, no one can stop a grass-roots movement and anyone can disabuse himself of the hoax in the pages of the attached Memorandum.

[1] J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997), p. 107.

[2] A. Andréadès, History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903, Fourth Edition (Reprint), Christabel Meredith, translator (Frank Cass & Co., Ltd.: London, 1966), pp. 59-65, quoted in David Astle, The Babylonian Woe: A study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (Published privately: Toronto, 1975), p. 140.

[3] Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election Edition (Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization: Staunton, Va., 1992), p. 102.

[4] William Paterson, quoted in Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations: A Financial Study of English History, First American Edition (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1936), p. 30.

[5] James E. Thorold Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England: An Enquiry Into a Weekly Record of The Price of Bank Stock from August 17, 1694 to September 17, 1703 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1887), p. 9, quoted in Andréadès (supra, fn. 2), p. 82.

[6] Robert B. Anderson, quoted in “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 1959, pp. 68-69.

* * * *

Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015