Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No.

BC000000________________

This is used as a supplement to a simple common law suit, add or

delete as you deem applicable

I. LAW OF THE CASE

This matter will be held in a court of record, trial by jury. only.

DISCLAIMERS: This section included as a reference regarding the duties

and statutes which apply to wrongdoers and their duties, not as a
reference to statutes Aggrieved Party needs to incorporatestand under.
In this court of record, statutes generally do not apply to Aggrieved
Party as a one of the people, a man and woman, also appearing in the
capacity as a Oregon “state” citizen and American National.

NOTE: Some Federal cases and citingsciting’s are mentioned only

because of their applicability to the people generally. State based
references are included and generally apply in most states, for
information purposes. Some emphasis added for clarity.

If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held

inapplicable or not valid, such decision does not affect the validity
of any other portion of this action, especially as it relates to
natural and lawful rights of the a man or woman and/or to the duties
of public officials or private debt collectors in this matter have a
duty to such their own statutes and regulations. The use by the
Aggrieved Party of any statutes, codes, rules, regulations, or court
citations, within any document created by the Aggrieved Party, at any
time, is only to notice that which is applicable to the Aggrieved
Party’s public servants and/or wrongdoers, and is not intended, nor be
construed, to mean that the Aggrieved Party has conferred, submitted
to, or entered into any jurisdiction alluded to thereby.

The law of the case is decreed as follows:

Amendment 7 Courts – Court of Record

Section 1. Courts in which judicial power vested. The Judicial power

of the State shall be vested in a Supreme [sic] Court, Circuits [sic]
Courts, and County Courts, which shall be Courts of Record having
general jurisdiction, to be defined, limited, and regulated by law in
accordance with this Constitution.

COURT OF RECORD - STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ARE AND HAVE CAPACITY TO BE
COURTS OF RECORD.

To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and

may have a fifth. They are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising

functions independently of the person of the magistrate

Page 1 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.

220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass.,
171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y.
406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones

v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte
Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689]
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or

recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm.
24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F.
481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S.,
D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96
Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm.

24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F.
481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S.,
D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96
Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary,
4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph.

Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte
Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2
L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.
229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

WHY STATE COURT?

This matter is brought in the state superior court of record with

general jurisdiction to hear a man, as opposed a Federal court with
inferior and limited jurisdiction. [CF: Venue is appropriate in the
county of Freedom County Oklahoma as the acts complained of occurred
within the geographic boundaries of Freedom County Oklahoma; however,
Judicial Canons deprive any judge who is now or ever has been a judge
in Freedom County from adjudicating these claims. This Court has
subject matter jurisdiction of the acts complained of in this petition
under certain of Oklahoma’s statutory torts and by virtue of facts
pled in harmony with those statutes].

Regarding the Sovereign of this Court of Record:

The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign
makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511,
513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

Page 2 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

[Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly

under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established
and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of
law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof,
and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its
powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined
by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067,
1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

“A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a

citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may
be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United
States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest
exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its
citizens.” State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380 6 S. 602 (1889), [emphasis
added]

Gardina v. Board of Registers 48 So. 788, 169 Ala. 155 1909: "There
are two classes of citizens, citizens of the United States and of the
State. And one may be a citizen of the former without being a citizen
of the latter";

Aggrieved party and family members are not a statutory US citizens,

but is by natural law an American national, because nationality is
common law. “It is however, true that in all common-law countries it
has always and consistently been held that the wife and minor children
take the nationality of the husband and father. That is common-law
doctrine.” In Re Page 12 F (2d) 135. Any act by public official who
are citizens who cause a false claim or injury against a man or woman,
is acting outside jurisdiction.

"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception
or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there
can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on
which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353,
27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).

WHY CODES OR STATUTES DO NOT ALWAYS APPLYCREATE A DUTY OR CONTRACT

WITH TO “THE PEOPLE”

Statutes at Large take precedence over any code, because the code is
an opinion of what the Statutes at Large say; “The Code is only prima
facie evidence of the laws of the United States. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a).
Where an inconsistency between the United States Code and the Statutes
at Large appears, the Statutes at Large prevail over the Code. Stephan
v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 87 L.Ed. 1490
(1943).” Peart v. Motor Vessell Bering Explorer, 373 F.Supp. 927, at
928 (April 12, 1974).

“[1] It is well settled that “the Code cannot prevail over the

Page 3 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

Statutes at Large, when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United

States, 319 U.S. 423, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1137, 80 L.Ed. 1490; Royer’s Inc.
v. United States, 3 Cir., 265 F.2d 615. The provisions of the Code
are merely prima facie evidence of the law. 1 U.S.C. § 204 (a).”
American Export Lines Inc. v. United States, 290 F.2d 925, at 929
(July 19, 1961), and further,

COLOR OF LAW IS NOT THE LAW

"Color of Law" means "The appearance or semblance, without the

substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of
state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with
authority of state is action taken under 'color of law.'" Atkins v.
Lanning. D.C.Okl., 415 F. Supp. 186, 188.

Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many

citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law,
are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance.
United States v. Minker, 350 US 179, 187,

GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION

“The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means any
State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the
United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United
States.” 6 USC § 101 (17) (A).

"State citizens are the only ones living under free government, whose
rights are incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial
decision." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 97, 1908

"State Citizenship is a vested substantial property right, and the

State has no power to divest or impair these rights." Favot v.
Kingsbury, (1929) 98 Cal. App. 284, 276 P. 1083,

Not all statutes apply to all ALL peopleeveryone

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment

and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The
latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for
nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and
remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to
deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the
revenue laws..." "The distinction between persons and things within
the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital." [Long v.
Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 @ 238(1922)]

"The revenue laws are a code or a system in regulation of tax

assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-

Page 4 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

taxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedures are

prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of
their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress
does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor the
object of the revenue laws.“ Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, at 238

"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include

vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against
individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax
without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before
the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property
is seized..." Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961)

"Taxpayers are not State Citizens." Belmont v. Town of Gulfport, 122

So. 10.

COMMENT: Because Nontaxpayers and considered non-resident aliens, the

venue would be a local Civil court of record and not under Title 26,
and if needed using Supreme Court Rule 22, using an Article III judge
from the Supreme Court.

“No action can be taken against a sovereign in the non-constitutional

courts of either the United States or the state courts & any such
action is considered the crime of Barratry. Barratry is an offense at
common law.” State vs. Batson, 17 S.E. 2d 511, 512, 513

Regarding right to sue for wrongful levy’s or Liens

See 26 U.S. Code § 7426 - Civil actions by persons other than
taxpayers –

Regarding seizing of travel documents without due process

“The right to travel is part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot
be deprived without due process law under the 5th Amendment. This
Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta.” (1215 c.e.) Kent v
Dules 357 US 116 (1958)

Regarding Agents making presumption of citizenship status, which

causes them to exceed or jurisdiction...at the Revolution, the
sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns
of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none
to govern but themselves.... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419,
454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

The people of this state, as the successors of its former sovereign,

are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by
his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21
Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C
Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king.

Page 5 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts,
though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8.
2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is
reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.

False or unverified presumptions of jurisdiction:

A “presumption” is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which
finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact,
until presumption is rebutted. A legal device which operates in the
absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn
from the available evidence. Black’s Law 6th edition

SUMMARY: Where there is no damaged party who will verify a debt or

duty to a statute, under oath, there is no debt or duty. Any act to
enforce codes otherwise, exceeds jurisdiction.

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved…

there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this

exercise of constitutional rights.[Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are

vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly,
or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers
are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35
L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627."
Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

Which is whyWhy this case must be heard in a state vs Federal court

(this may change for you).

Aggrieved Party’s status is based constitutional “diversity of

citizenship” as defined in Article III, Section 2, the Constitution.
Aggrieved Party does NOT claim “statutory” diversity of citizenship as
described in 28 U.S.C. §1332, but rather claim constitutional
diversity of citizenship based on Article III, Section 2. Statutory
diversity of citizenship depends on the definition of “State” found in
28 U.S.C. §1332(d), which means a federal territory or possession,
while Aggrieved Party’s constitutional diversity depends on the
definition of “State” used in the Constitution, which means states of
the Union and excludes federal territories and possessions.

Brief and Other Informational References – Although Aggrieved Parties

are not statutory “US Citizens”, many of these cases relate to both US
Citizens (which I am not appearing in such a capacity of), and the
people. It fully applies to wrongdoers in the capacity. Oregon state
based references are to be added by additional exhibits to follow. As

Page 6 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

a sovereign, Aggrieved Party does not rely on these issues, but may in
another venue is needed:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby;
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America,
Article VI, Clause 2.]

Conspiracy against rights:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or

intimidate any in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right of a
man, is trespass and thus deprivation of common law rights, and acting
in a way which exceeds that officer’s jurisdiction.

State Based comments – for information consideration:

Similar Oregon related information to be added later

Oregon constitution - Article 1 RESEARCH YOURS

Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or
thing to be seized.—

Section 17. Jury trial in civil cases. In all civil cases the right of
Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.—

Section 19. Imprisonment for debt. There shall be no imprisonment for

debt, except in case of fraud or absconding debtors.—

Section 20. Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law

shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens
privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not
equally belong to all citizens.—

Other State References that are generally accepted

The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior
courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of

Page 7 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the
land. [California Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 1.]

Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution ...and

which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of
government....[Act [of Congress] for the Admission of California Into
the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452.]

...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us

have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters
pleaded before them in judgment in all their points, that is to wit,
the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum,
November 5, 1297, Sources of Our Liberties Edited by Richard L. Perry,
American Bar Foundation]

...This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny

others retained by the people." [California Constitution, Article 1,
Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.]

Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on

any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court.
[Magna Carta, Article 34].

It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to

aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this
state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.
[California Government Code, Section 11120.]

The state cannot diminish rights of the people.[Hurtado v. People of

the State of California, 110 US 516.]

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the
public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies
in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's
business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to
the agencies which serve them. [California Government Code Section
54950.]

A written law is that which is promulgated in writing, and of which a

record is in existence. [California Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1896]

The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether

written. Other written laws are denominated statutes. The written law
of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes,
and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States.[California
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1897]

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of

jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion between
the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect
to the proceedings.[California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1916]

Page 8 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

Research Article given to the Deschutes County Sherriff, regarding

foreign agents, authority, and jurisdiction to act within a “state” of
the Union… according to a document issued Texas Law enforcement called
“Handbook For Police Officers: In Dealing With the IRS / ATF”-

These principles generally apply within all 50 states.

– Restricting Federal "Officers" and misapplication of law

1. Federal Officer with Police Power: Commissioned persons

where authority is specifically proscribed in Codified Statutory
Law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President.
Federal Police Officers have commissions specific to their
enforcement powers, and are commissioned as Special Agents. Only
Special Agents are authorized to carry firearms. These agents
only have specific Enforcement authority within their authorized
subject matter jurisdiction. The Internal Revenue Service has no
Special Agents with Police Powers outside of Washington D.C.,
Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, and the other American Trust
territories. It specifically says so in their training manual,
Page 23.

2. No Statutory authority over U.S. Citizens within the 50

states physical borders. IRC: Internal Revenue Code. 2 versions
exist: (1) a Book, 68A titled “ Internal Revenue Code “ printed
and Issued by the Internal Revenue Service, (not a government
agency) which details the Internal Revenue Service POSITION and
INTERPRETATION of the laws passed by Congress, and contains the
rules promulgated by the treasury department and IRS. Only parts
of the Book are actually Statutory Law (27%), the other elements
are operating rules and Tax Determinations (not Law) decided by
the IR commissioner. The IRS attempts to say that this book is
the Law, but that is untrue. It only applies to U.S. Citizens
outside the Continental 50 states, in the District of Columbia,
and only to U.S. Government employees. The IRS has no
Statutorystatutory authority over U.S. Citizens within the 50
states physical borders.

3. IRS: Internal Revenue Service, NOT a Division of the U.S.

Treasury Department. This Private Corporation Administrative
Agency does paperwork. It was not established by Congress, and
has no enforcement authority whatsoever. Order 150-10 by the
Treasury Secretary gives authority to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue (US Government employee) to enforce the Internal
Revenue Code, only in District of Columbia. It gives no authority
to the Internal Revenue Service, a Private corporation. The IRS
has no police powers within 26 CFR issues for Income Taxes. IRS
agents cannot seize property, books, records, bank accounts, or
force any person to surrender to them any of the foregoing. For
27 CFR taxes on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, enforcement is
done by the ATF, not by IRS persons or agents, who have no Police
authority. IRS Agents are NOT Police Officers. The U.S. Treasury
Department has some Special Agents, who are in the CID (Criminal
Investigation Division), who can carry guns, do investigations,

Page 9 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

and have very limited arrest authority (they can only arrest
other U S Government employees ), and only on 27 CFR issues, for
alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, and 28 CFR issues for criminal
violations of other Federal statutes. Any person who says they
are with the IRS who cannot present a commission as a Special
Agent, and is carrying a firearm should be immediately arrested
for carrying a prohibited weapon under (most state) statutes. No
person with the IRS has any authority to trespass onto private
property without a warrant or court order. U. S. Marshals serve
U.S. District Court orders and warrants. IRS agents who would
enter onto private property as part of a group, and attempt to
seize records, documents, computers, or any property without a
(lawful) court Order of Seizure are violating the 28 CFR 241
laws. Any Texas Peace Officer who is present and allows this
activity can be sued in civil court, and possible criminal
actions charged under violation of the persons civil rights. A
Texas Peace Officer cannot be charged with interfering with a
Federal agent if they order any IRS persons to leave the private
property, and refuse to permit the removal of a Citizens property
by IRS employees. The IRS persons are not Police Officers, and
are attempting to violate the Texas laws and Federal laws. There
can be no obstruction of justice when they are violating the law
in what they are attempting. Threats or intimidation by IRS
agents violate 28 USC 241.

4. The IRS has no authority to seize any property, or place a

Lien on physical property without a prior LAWFUL Court Order.
Therefore they have no right or authorization to “repossess” a
person’s car, truck, tractor or any other property. Texas
Statutes are clear in that Texas political entities with property
tax authority in fact can place a lien on real property for
property taxes owed to the taxing authority. ** There are no
Federal Statutes which confer any such right on the IRS. The IRS
must file a lawsuit in Federal U.S. District court, and receive a
court order to place a lien on any property. There have been
instances where IRS personnel have posted a Lien Notice on
physical property, then claimed that gave them the right to enter
upon that property and seize assets thereon. Any such activity is
illegal, and any such notices are rubbish. Put them off the
property, if they refuse, put them in jail for criminal trespass.
They will claim that there is agreements of cooperation between
the U.S. Government and the State of Texas. These are applicable
only to LAWFULL actions. Any repo persons you know should be
advised that they will be arrested and charged with auto theft if
they seize any property of a citizen supposedly for the IRS
without having a valid Court Order in their hand, ordering the
seizure.

5. No Federal Agency has Police Powers on the Land within the

physical borders of the 50 Sovereign States. The Federal
Government does not have Legislative Jurisdiction over land
within the 50 States borders, except on land which has been
specifically ceded to the Federal Government for erection of
necessary forts, magazines, and other needful buildings. United

Page 10 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

States Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, 17., supported by

Supreme Court cases: United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260,115 S.
Ct.1624, 131 L. Ed.2nd 626. “The Federal Government has nothing
approaching a Police power.”

6. Legally, the IRS and the ATF do not exist. No act of

congress or Public Law ever created them. No act of congress ever
created the Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The US
Secretary of the Treasury has no constitutional authority to
create such an office on his own authority, or to give any powers
to a private contractor.

7. NO US District Court (USDC)has any Statutory Authority to

Criminally Prosecute any person who is a citizen and resident of
the State of OregonTexas for a 26 CFR Income Tax, as the courts
lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction for 26 CFR, as the US Congress
never gave them any jurisdiction. All Income Tax prosecutions are
completely illegal. The USDC District Courts have NO authority
over OregonTexas Citizens.

8. Phony Search Warrants are made up by the IRS agency

personnel, which cite Internal Revenue Code sections which are
obscure, to fool anyone reading them into believing they are
lawful. They are usually easy to spot. Most of the time they will
cite the IRC section as U.S.C. to make people think it is statute
law, which it is not. The IRC (Internal Revenue Code, Book 68A)
is an administrative Reference Document, not Statute Law, and has
no meaning outside of the District of Columbia. Typical is a
phony Search Warrant citing IRC sections 4662 or 6427or 6675 ,
which cover sites under Federal Control which are fuel storage
facilities for fuel which does not require a Road Use tax. The
Search Warrant will not say what specifically is to be searched,
what is searched for, and will typically have a Rubber Stamp by
some clerk of a Magistrate where the signature is supposed to be.
To be valid, the Warrant MUST be ACTUALLY SIGNED by a Article III
Federal Judge, and only from an Article III DCUS Court. Most
Peace Officers have executed search Warrants and have been
trained in the Police Academy on the requirements of a valid
Warrant. Someone’s home or farm is not what would be covered
under these IRC Sections, so it clearly is Invalid. The place
covered under these IRC sections would be a commercial operation,
and have a controlled fuels permit issued under 27 CFR Statutes.
The IRS has no Authority to enter onto any Private Property not
under actual contractual US Government Authority. 27 CFR is for
alcohol, tobacco, firearms taxes only.

9. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that when dealing

with any statute, Judges cease to be judges and become United
Nations Clerks, who are working for the Agency involved
“"When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the
judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity;
courts administrating or enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially….but

Page 11 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency -- but only in a “ministerial” and
not a “discretionary capacity...” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261 US
428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.

"...judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and
otherwise), act as mere "clerks" of the involved agency..." K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP.
West's 1965 Ed.)

"It is the accepted rule, not only in state courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a
judge is enforcing administrative law they are described as mere 'extensions of the
administrative agency for superior reviewing purposes' as a ministerial clerk for an agency..." 30
Cal 596; 167 Cal 762, and further,

10. These wrongdoer Wrongdoers named herein and those who wish
to join them, each know that all United Nations Clerks
masquerading as Judges have no immunity and are fully liable, in
their personal capacity for their actions
“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for they are
deemed to know the law.” Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398 (Ezra 7:23-26)

“...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that
the state, county, municipality, etc. waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and
complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.” Luckenback v. The
Thekla, 295 F 1020, 226 Us 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F2d 308;

“When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially” (and thus are not
protected by “qualified” or “limited immunity,” - SEE: Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v.
Terry, 713 F2d 1404) - -
“but merely act as an extension as an agent for the involved agency -- but only in a “ministerial”
and not a “discretionary capacity...” Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 583; Keller v. P.E., 261
US 428; F.R.C. v. G.E., 281, U.S. 464.

Immunity for judges does not extend to acts which are clearly outside of their jurisdiction.
Bauers v. Heisel, C.A. N.J. 1966, 361 F.2d 581, Cert. Den. 87 S.Ct. 1367, 386 U.S. 1021, 18
L.Ed. 2d 457 (see also Muller v. Wachtel, D.C.N.Y. 1972, 345 F.Supp. 160; Rhodes v. Houston,
D.C. Nebr. 1962, 202 F.Supp. 624 affirmed 309 F.2d 959, Cert. den 83 St. 724, 372 U.S. 909, 9
L.Ed. 719, Cert. Den 83 S.Ct. 1282, 383 U.S. 971, 16 L.Ed. 2nd 311, Motion denied 285 F.Supp.
546).

“In arriving at our decision in this matter we do not depart in any way from our holding in
Huendling v. Jensen [*300] that the doctrine of judicial immunity extends to courts of limited

Page 12 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

jurisdiction. But, when a minor magistrate acts wholly without jurisdiction, civil liability attaches
for his malicious and corrupt abuse of process and his willful and malicious oppression of any
person under the pretense of acting in his official capacity. See Huendling v. Jensen, 168
N.W.2d at 749 and authorities cited.”188 N.W.2d 294; 1971 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 863; 64 A.L.R.3d
1242, and further,

11. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that when Judges
become United Nations Clerks, everything they do is a fraud,
because they have said hundreds of times that they must have “the
appearance of justice” which means the color of justice,
“Colour of Law – Mere semblance of a legal right. An action done under colour of law is one
done with the apparent authority of law but actually in contravention of law.” Barron’s Canadian
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 51 [emphasis added]

"Color" means "An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is
real. A prima facia or apparent right. Hence, a deceptive appearance, a plausible, assumed
exterior, concealing a lack of reality; a disguise or pretext. See also colorable." Black's Law
Dictionary, 5th Edition, on page 240. [emphasis added]

“Colour, color. Signifies a probable plea, but which is in fact false…” Tomlin’s Law Dictionary
1835, Volume 1

which is a fraud, and they even dismiss court cases that “are not
colorable enough”, which means there is not enough fraud in the
pleadings, and everything they do is a fraud and a lie, which is
further proof their seditious conspiracy as described herein, and
further,

12. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United
Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are holding a kangaroo
court;
“Kangaroo court. Term descriptive of a sham legal proceeding in which a person's rights are
totally disregarded and in which the result is a foregone conclusion because of the bias of the
court or other tribunal.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 868,

Page 13 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

which is consistent with the fact that everything they do is a fraud

under the color of law, and is the appearance of justice ONLY, and
further,

13. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United
Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are using their Uniform
Commercial Code which is controlled and regulated by their
UNIDROIT Treaty (International Institute for the Unification of
Private Law), which the United States, Inc., has been a signatory
to for over 30 years, which is unconstitutional, because the
Treaty power can ONLY be used externally,
“but Madison insisted that just “because this power is given to Congress,” it did not follow that
the Treaty Power was “absolute and unlimited.” The President and the Senate lacked the power
“to dismember the empire,” for example, because “[t]he exercise of the power must be
consistent with the object of the delegation.” “The object of treaties,” in Madison’s oft-repeated
formulation, “is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external.” Bond v United
States 572 US ____ (2014) case number 12-158 [emphasis added]

“Today, it is enough to highlight some of the structural and historical evidence suggesting that
the Treaty Power can be used to arrange intercourse with other nations, but not to regulate
purely domestic affairs.” Bond v United States 572 US ____ (2014) case number 12-158
[emphasis added]

and they have no authority to use their UNIDROIT Treaty in America,

and their use of their Uniform Commercial Code is with an
unconstitutional delegation of authority

“The government of the United States . . . is one of limited powers. It can exercise authority over
no subjects, except those which have been delegated to it. Congress cannot, by legislation,
enlarge the federal jurisdiction, nor can it be enlarged under the treaty-making power” Mayor of
New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 736 [emphasis added]

and all United Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges know that they
have no obligation of obey an unconstitutional law

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th
American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256

Page 14 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

therefore they are knowingly, willing, intentionally, deliberately,

calculatedly, and maliciously engaging in a seditious conspiracy,
since the Demandant is the lawful government in America, and further,

14. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United
Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are NOT representing the
government
“An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government”.
Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94.

15. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that all United
Nations Clerks masquerading as Judges are NOT competent to do
anything judicial, and if they attempt to do anything judicial
like issue warrants, or subpoenas, or anything else judicial, it
is a nullity, therefore the Warrant that they were operating in
this case was a fraud and a nullity
"Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their
acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessarily nullities" Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140
Cal. 1, and further,

16. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that a ignorance of

the law is no excuse and all officers of the court are presumed
to know the law
"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of
the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

"It is one of the fundamental maxims of the common law that ignorance of the law excuses no
one." Daniels v. Dean (1905), 2 C.A. 421, 84 P. 332.

“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for they are
deemed to know the law.” Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398.

Page 15 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

1. The Aggrieved Party DEMANDS a lawful judge under the Constitution

for the United States of America, Article III, and under common law
procedures, as contemplated by the founding fathers, and anything else
is a violation of the Aggrieved Party’s rights;
“It is a fundamental right of a party to have a neutral and detached judge preside over the
judicial proceedings.” Ward v Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61-62, 93 S.Ct 80, 83, 34
L.Ed. 2d 267 (1972); Tumey v Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 5209, 47 S. Ct. 437, 440, 71 L.Ed. 749
(1927),
and there is no judge in this case, because the Judge has converted
himself into a Clerk masquerading as a Judge, and this is nothing more
than a commercial transaction under their unconstitutional Uniform
Commercial Code, and their unconstitutional UNIDROIT Treaty,
2. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that a Social Security
Number is a number for a cestui que trust

“A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-
beneficiary of the PCT (Public Charitable Trust), the constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc.
under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc.” Congressional
Record, June 13 1967, pp. 15641-15646

". . . (E)very taxpayer is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the
trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction . .” In Re Bolens (1912),
135 N.W. 164, and further,

3. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that under their Federal
codes, anyone who has a Social Security Number is a “government
employee”, and the Aggrieved Party is NOT a government employee by any
express contract known,

“(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the
United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve
Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under
any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).” 5
USC § 552a.(a)(13) [emphasis added]

and a US citizen is a “person”

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Section 1, 14th Amendment

Page 16 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

[emphasis added]

and a “person” is an individual, and an individual is a fictitious

entity as found in federal Statutes at Large

"Chap. LXXI. - An Act prescribing the form of the enacting and resolving Clauses of Acts and
Resolutions of Congress, and Rules of construction therefore." which was approved on Feb 25,
1871, in Volume 16, Forty-First Congress, Session III, under Sec. 2., at 16 Stat. 431, says;
"And be it further enacted that in all Acts hereinafter passed…; and the word "person" may
extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate…", [emphasis added]

which is consistent with their federal codes

“Person The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust,
estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” 26 USC 7701 (a) (1)

“(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence;” 5 USC § 552a.(a)(2)

and it is consistent with that their courts are saying;

Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind
only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither
actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The
legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc.
can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts
between them. Penhallow v. Doane's Administraters 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54, (1795),

"...it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. ..... A
citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United
States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing." Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5
Cal. Rep. 300

and a US citizen has no rights and is a piece of property;

"After the adoption of the 14th Amendment, a bill which became the first Civil Rights Act was
introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed
Negroes all the civil rights secured to white men... (N)one other than citizens of the United
States were within the provisions of the Act.” Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509. [emphasis
added]

Page 17 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

"Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of
the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual
entity." Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.

"...the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all
the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal constitution against the powers
of the Federal government." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 455;

"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the
territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957, and further,

4. All of these Wrongdoers named herein each know that the Aggrieved
Party is a State citizen and NOT assuming to be a US citizen, which
again indicates their acts exceeded jurisdiction,
“No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, or
born without those limits and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes his status of
citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.” Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43
Cal 43.

"...that there was a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of the states, which were
distinct from each other, depending upon different characteristics and circumstances in the
individual; that it was only privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States that
were placed by the amendment under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the
privileges and immunities of a citizen of a state, whatever they might be, were not intended to
have any additional protection by the paragraph in question, but they must rest for their security
and protection where they have heretofore rested." Maxwell v Dow, 20 S.C.R. 448, at pg 451

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v State,
15 Ind. 449; Cory v Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re
Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443." McDonel v State, 90 Ind. Rep. 320 at pg 323;

"Privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights
peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which
relate to state citizenship. 14,§ 1."
Jones v Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (D.Colo. 1993),

Page 18 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

and Aggrieved Party believes prior to the so-called Fourteenth

Amendment, the ONLY citizenship that really existed was State
citizens, and US citizenship was derivative and dependent upon being a
State citizen first, and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment converted
citizenship in America into the opposite of what the founding fathers
intended;

"And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of
making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependent" upon
state citizenship." Colgate v Harvey 296 US 404 at p 427

“Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,
ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States,
as distinct from that of the states;”

Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition page 657 [emphasis added],

and State citizens are talked about in the Constitution for the United
States of America, which says;

“The citizens of each State [State Citizens] shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States [US citizens].” Constitution for the United States of America, Article
IV, § 2, Clause 1, [emphasis added] 1 Stat. 18, and,

“citizens in the several states” as described in the Constitution for the United States of America,
Article IV, § 2, Clause 1, are US citizens, as differentiated from State citizens as described by
“citizens of each State”, and the Petitioner is a State citizen as described in the Northwest
Ordinance;

“An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States north-west of the river
Ohio.” which was “Done by the United States in Congress assembled, the thirteenth day of July,
in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of their sovereignty,
and independence the twelfth.”, at 1 Stat. 51.,

which talks about “citizens of Virginia” and “a citizen of one of

the several states”;

Page 19 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

“Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid,…who have heretofore professed themselves

citizens of Virginia,…
Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid,…provided that no person shall be eligible or
qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the
United States three years,…provided also, that a freehold in fifty acres of land in the
district, having been a citizen of one of the States…” [emphasis added] and,

and the Articles of Confederation talk about state citizens where it

says the free inhabitants of each of these States, [State Citizens]….,
shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in
the several States [US citizens]; and the people of each State [State
citizens];

“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the
different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, [State Citizens]
paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens in the several States [US citizens]; and the people of each State
[State citizens] shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State,....” Articles of
Confederation, Article 4. § 1., [emphasis added], at 1 Stat. 4,

5. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that income tax is an

excise tax for the privilege (implied license) of proceeding with the
cestui que trust for another year

“2. The requirement of payment for such licenses is only a mode of imposing taxes on the
licensed business, and the prohibition, under penalties, against carrying on the business without
license is only a mode of enforcing the payment of such taxes. 5. The recognition by the acts of
Congress of the power and right of the states to tax, control, or regulate any business carried
on within its limits is entirely consistent with an intention on the part of Congress to tax such
business for national purposes.” License Tax Cases 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 462 (1866), and further,

6. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that licenses and taxes
work together
“License, contracts, is a right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without
such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right is also called a
license. Vide Ayl.Parerg. 353; 15 Vin.Ab 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. A license is express or
implied. An express license is one in which in direct terms authorizes the performance of a
certain act; as a license to keep a tavern by public authority. An implied license is one which

Page 20 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

though not expressly given, may be presumed from the acts of the party having the right to give
it.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1843 Edition, Volume 2, page 53 [emphasis added],
and they are attempting to impose one of their quasi contracts on the
Aggrieved Party

"Both in Roman and English law there are certain obligations which were not in truth
contractual, but which the law treats as IF they were. They are contractual in law, but not in
fact, being the subject-matter of a FICTITIOUS extension of the sphere of contract to cover
obligations which do not in reality fall within it." Salmond, Salmond on Jurisprudence, p. 642
(9th Edition, 1937, Sweet & Maxwell, Ltd. England).

"A quasi contractual action presupposes acceptance and retention of a benefit by one party with
full appreciation of the facts, under circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the
benefit without payment of its reasonable value." Major-Blakeney Co. v. Jenkins (1953), 121
C.A.2d 325, 263 P.2d 655, hear den.; Townsend Pierson, Inc. v. Holly-Coleman Co. (1960), 178
C.A.2d 373, 2 Cal. Rptr. 812.

"Constructive/quasi contracts are based solely upon a legal fiction or fiction of law." Hill v.
Waxberg, 237 F.2d 936, [emphasis added]

"Constructive/quasi contracts include obligations founded on statutory duties." Donovan v.

Kansas City, 175 S. W. 2d 874; In Re United Burton Co., 140 F. 495, 502.

and they are using their color of law statutes to facilitate the
violation of the Demandant’s rights,

"Constructive/quasi contracts include obligations founded on statutory

duties." Donovan v. Kansas City, 175 S. W. 2d 874; In Re United
Burton Co., 140 F. 495, 502.

7. These Wrongdoers named herein each know that income is defined

by the US Supreme Court as corporate profits;

"...it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," according to
truth and substance without regard to form. Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt,
conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution, from which it derives its
power to legislate, and which within those limitations alone, that power can be unlawfully

Page 21 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

exercised... [Income is] Derived -- from -- capital -- the -- gain -- derived -- from -- capital, etc.
Here we have the essential matter -- not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of
value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value ... severed from
the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is received or
drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is the income derived
from property. Nothing else answers the description...." [emphasis is in the original] Eisner v
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189

And they have no right to tax or assume a duty to statutes on the Aggrieved Party …
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The
corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but
the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an
excise cannot be imposed.“ Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R.
721 (1931),

These Wrongdoers are converting a right into a privilege for State

citizens
"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." Murdock
v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee
and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262,

and they are compelling the use of their Federal Reserve Notes to
setoff their tax, and they have no authority to compel the use of
their private money system that is intended for internal use of the
government ONLY, thus a private set off instrument was offered and not
refused within the time frame required, thus indicating acceptance,

Page 22 of 23
Theron Jay MarrsYour Natural NameEXHIBIT “A”Case No. BC000000________________

“Sec. 15. As used in this Act the term “United States” means the Government of the United
States…the term “currency of the United States” means currency which is legal tender in the
United States, and includes United States notes,…Federal Reserve Notes…”
“Sec. 16. The right to alter, amend or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved…”
“Sec. 17. All Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed.” Gold Reserve Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 337,

and further in summary,


 SUMMARY

The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.

 The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and
the future, the present.

 The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.

Page 23 of 23