Piercing the Corporate Veil AntiShyster, Volume 10, No. 2 www.antishyster.com adask@gte.net 972-418-8993 Deny, deny, deny! The previous article reported how one researcher was using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to "compel" government (and especially the IRS) to precisely identify itself. How government will answer that request remains to be seen. The strong probability is that, one way or another, government will not precisely identify itself or the IRS. The next article essentially describes another strategy to force government to identify itself. However - rather than ask "Who th' H____ are you guys?" and wait politely for an answer - this strategy simply denies that various governmental entities even exist. And based on that denial, those government entities cannot proceed until they prove they do exist. That proof will necessarily include enough indentification information that constitutionalists will be able to precisely ID the "masked marauders" we've come to accept as government. This article opens with an email I recently received: Al, Some folks down in the southern States seem to be having extraordinary success by filing a simple affidavit. The parallel statue for Texas is found in the Texas rules of Court, Civil Procedure, Rule #52. Below is what was sent me. Comments are appreciated. Christopher Stephen, of baum. My first comment is that this article conveys important insights into the constitutionalists' growing appreciation for the strategy of denial. To save space, I've edited the article to remove text that strikes me as unnecessary. The original text is in brown. I've inserted my own comments (in blue) wherever I thought they might clarify the authors' opinions. Re: Corporate Scam Corporations were originally established for unlawful purposes - primarily to escape personal punishment for crimes by placing the blame on a fictional organization responsible to no one. "Piercing the Corporate Veil" is a legal term which signifies the process where a court removes the protection provided to individual members of a corporation for criminal activity, and makes those members responsible for their own actions. The "United States" government jumped on the corporate bandwagon in the 1870's by declaring itself a separate entity from Constitutional government. The fact that the Constitution had already established a "United States" was inconsequential to those traitors in Congress. Corporations are legal fictions. That is, they do not exist except in the minds of men. By itself, a corporation cannot think, act, or even communicate with natural men. Corporations have no weight or color and thus cannot be seen, tasted or touched. Because corporations are imaginary, they must have some real person (typically a lawyer) to speak and act for them. That, is, since corporations don't actually exist, they must be "represented" by a flesh and blood person who does exist. Such "representation" is mandated by law in all American courts. Some people suspect that today's courts only recognize artificial entities like corporations and trusts. This suspicion ties closely to the theory that all-up-per-case names (like 'ALFRED') identify artificial entities while capitalized names ("Alfred") signify natural, flesh and blood persons. Whether the courts actually presume that all "parties" to a lawsuit to be artificial entities remains questionable. However, there is little doubt that most of the government entities that "appear" to sue us in court are corporations. For example, under Title 28 of the United States Code, section 3002(15)(a) declares that the term "United States" means "a federal corporation". Although this corporate identity may have been created by Congress just after the Civil War, this corporation is not the same "United States" that was created by the Constitution. The resulting confusion between the "United States" Republica and the "United States" corporation has allowed the corporate "United States" to intrude into the Americans' lives while masquerading as the constitutional "United States" Republic. This deception has been oppressive since the corporate "United States" is not directly bound by the Constitution and thus not obligated to respect the American people's "unalienable Rights". As a result, the corporate "United States" is hugely empowered in court while the rights of Americans facing that corporations are hugely diminished. After years of research, a few people have found, what we believe to be that "out" from corporate jurisdiction: denying corporate existence. We've had great success with this strategy, and the shocked looks and frenzies of judges presented with this procedure show us that we are on the right track. As with all other "sure" things, however, we can't rest on our laurels and smugly assume this strategy is foolproof. We have to remember that it took the legal profession many years to devise their gimmicks, and they won't simply faint away as we proceed to break up their playhouse. We know from experience that they can play rough. There is nothing complicated about the procedure of disclaiming corporation existence. The difficulty lies in overcoming our own habitual beliefs based on a lifetime of corporate propaganda. We who work with this procedure went through the same agonizing process before we realized that it really works. We were looking for the complicated when the answer to our problems was right under our noses all the time. You will find that some prosecutors and judges just haven't got the picture yet, and will ask your source of information when you go before them. Thus, you may need a little background to keep from being embarrassed. Again, try not to read difficulty into a perfectly simple procedure which is outlined below. Not having access to laws of other states, I can only quote from those which are available to me in Louisiana. We've also tried this system in Alabama and Florida, and know it works there (we didn't even research the law books in those states before acting) and we assume it will work nationally, since the "corporate veil" extends over every nook and cranny of the nation. Because the government's corporate jurisdiction is so extensive, we can't yet see where a general withdrawal from corporate jurisdiction is possible. Thus, every case must be decided on its own. That is, every application of corporate jurisdiction must be individually and successfully denied until the cumulative weight of those denials forces government to admit that corporate jurisdiction no longer works. Please read the following sections from the Louisiana Civil Codes, and Louisiana Revised Statutes carefully. Dissect them word by word and the message will come out loud and clear. Civil Codes of Louisiana Art. 445. The statutes and regulations which corporations enact for their police and discipline, are obligatory upon all their respective members who are bound to obey them, provided such statutes contain nothing contrary to the law, to public liberty, or to the interest of others. Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429. Corporate existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial. On trial of any criminal case it shall not be necessary to prove the incorporation of any corporation mentioned in the indictment, unless the defendant, before entering upon such trial, shall have filed his affidavit specifically denying the existence of such corporation. [Emph. add.] The previous two, simple paragraphs say it all. According to Article 445 of the Louisiana Civil Code, if one is a member of a corporation he is bound by corporate rules and regulations. Implicitly, those outside those corporations are not subject to their jurisdiction. Thus, if you can prove you are not part of a particular corporation, you will not be subject to its rules. Under Article 429 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, the corporate status of an individual entering the court is automatically presumed by the court unless they have notice to counter such presumption. An affidavit specifically denying a corporations existence seems to defeat this presumption. Corporate government All of the socialistic programs and the grab of power at all echelons of government are corporate "enterprizes". One cannot escape oppression by corporate authority until he has removed himself from the corporation's jurisdiction. If we "pierce the corporate veil," we can remove ourselves from that corrupt jurisdiction and regain the status of natural men with "unalienable Rights". We can view modern government as a system of inter-linked corporations, where the Constitution is merely a byword, Congress is the board of governors, the president is the corporate CEO, and the "courts" - including the U.S. Supreme Court (but not the Supreme Court of the United States) - are mere corporate arbitration boards. The government corporations of greatest concern are: UNITED STATES all Bar Associations every state every county, parish of every corporate state. Every city, town, municipality or other corporate subdivision. Every member of corporations - including you - until those corporations' existence is effectively denied by affidavit. Every department of national, state, county, city, etc., - including sheriff departments, police departments, judges, prosecutors and all other municipal officers and employees, the IRS, and state and city tax departments. Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence Here's an example of how the affidavit denying corporate existence has been applied: John Preston Hickman has just been stopped by a Tarrant City, Alabama police officer by the name of William C. Henly, for doing 45 in a 35 MPH zone. After the normal procedures of checking driver's license, insurance, etc. Henly gives Hickman a ticket, with an appearance date of June 15, 2000 in city court. John does it right by not arguing with the officer, and accepting the ticket and even signing the ticket as ordered. Then John goes home and prepares himself an affidavit, which reads something like this: --------------------------------- AFFIDAVIT ------------------------------ I, John Preston Hickman, a living, breathing man, declare in my own handwriting that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, THE TARRANT CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM C. HENLY, ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE TARRANT CITY COURT, JOHN PRESTON HICKMAN of 3102 WILLOW DRIVE, TARRANT CITY, ALABAMA, and ALL OTHER CORPORATE MEMBERS WHO ARE OR WHO MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH COMPLAINTS AGAINST MY NATURAL BODY. If any man or woman desires to answer this affidavit, please answer in the manner of this affidavit, with notarized affidavit, using your Christian or family name for signature, and mail to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained. /s/ John Preston Hickman On the 25th day of June, 2000 A.D., a man who identified himself as John Preston Hickman appeared before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his signature. /s/ Wilson R. Nimbly, Notary Public 1423 airnon Drive, Tarrant City, Alabama 35217 --------------------------------- AFFIDAVIT ------------------------------ Four copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwriting: one copy forwarded to the Tarrant City Police Department in time to give them five days to respond. One copy should be kept on you when you go to respond. One copy should be kept on you when you go to court. Thirty minutes before you enter the court, take the remaining two copies, file one in their court, have the clerk stamp the other and keep it with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge have not received their copies. In our experience - once the police and court have been notified by affidavit of the denial of corporate existence - when the "defendant's" name is called in court, he stands and answers, and the judge asks the prosecutor to state the charges. Then the prosecutor (speaking in low tones) replies that the evidence is lacking for prosecution, or something similar, and the judge dismisses the case. The affidavit's use seems limited only by the imagination, or example, the affidavit strategy has worked in a state tax case, where the state was required to return the money taken from the bank accounts of a husband and wife, with the tax "debt" being cleared from the records. I have personally used this strategy to place a $150,000 lien against a lawyer in Birmingham, Alabama which has been there for several years. He brought suit in HIS court to have the lien removed, to no avail. I never answered his frivolous suit because I had already identified myself as a living man, and not one of his fictions. I also used the affidavit to stop my phone company from adding AT&T charges for their social engineering, and a couple of other minor purposes: all were stopped cold. The amount of wins in this area, with no losses, convinces us that this procedure, set up in 1925 by the state legislature of Louisiana, is a very valid process and should be effective for any and all reason, against any corporation, public or private, within the United States. There is a case pending against the Social Security administration or involving social security, and the results will be reported when final. The affidavit of denial also works against tax liens. The IRS is a corporation, and the fact that it operates within this nation makes it liable to the affidavit. Government Response One man was hesitant to use the affidavit of denial strategy because "judges just walk all over those who challenge their jurisdiction". Well, with the affidavit we are most certainly challenging their jurisdiction, but not in general. What we need to get straight is the fact that they DO have jurisdiction in their corporate capacities, but that doesn't mean they can bring any non-corporate citizens into that jurisdiction - which is exactly what they've done - through fraudulent presumptions. All we're doing with the affidavit is showing them that their presumption that "all men are created corporate" and are thus a part of their scheme is mistaken - and that we have the law on our side that shows them to be wrong. The bottom line of the affidavit in denying the existence of corporations is that it pierces the corporate veil by an individual on a case by case basis. It pierces that veil for purpose to expose fraudulent activities of the courts and expose government actors to personal liability. Government's use of false presumptions to bypass the Constitution and our unalienable Rights has to stop, and I mean to do everything within my power to help it stop soon. ---- According to the email I received, the author of the unedited version of this document is "Ray" at "www.jusbelli.com". Editor's comment Consistent with the previous author's assumption, the strategy for denying a corporation's existence seems to be also supported in Texas. According to the 1993 Dorsaneo & Soules' "Texas Codes and Rules," Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure reads: Rule 52 Alleging a Corporation An allegation that a corporation is incorporated shall be taken as true, unless denied by the affidavit of the adverse party, his agent or attorney, whether such corporation is public or private corporation and however created. Source: Art. 1999 *See Texas Litigation Guide by William V. Dorsaneo III, Ch. 12, "Pleading the Parties," and Ch. 70, "Answer". OK - it seems undeniable that we can use affidavits to deny the existance of any corporation, including government corporations. And judging from reports, this denial strategy seems to be enjoying some success. However, I have two concerns: 1) the corporations exist, and 2) the affidavits are therefore false. First, it appears to me that most government corporations are "real". That is, just as it reads in Title 28 of the United States Code, section 3002(15)(a), the term "United States" can truly mean "a federal corporation". I also know that virtually all local Bar Associations in Texas (and probably across the nation) are established as 501(c)(3) charitable corporations under Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code). I am likewise confident that there are records and statutes that confirm that the STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF DELAWARE, and the other 48 corporate "states" are, in fact, incorporated. I assume that similar evidence of incorporation must be available for virtually all of the other "corporate" departments of city, state and national governments. This tells me that the government corporations do, in fact, exist. If so - and if the "affidavit of denial of corporate existence" strategy is working as reported - it appears to me that the strategy must be working for reasons which were not made clear in the previous article. It appears to me that if the affidavit denying a government corporation's existence actually works, it does so not because the government corporation doesn't actually exist (it does), but because government is reluctant to publicly admit or prove it is operating in a corporate capacity. But just because government may be a little too embarrassed to admit it's operating in a corporate capacity, that doesn't mean that government absolutely can't make that admission. Yes, the corporate STATE OF TEXAS might not want to make that admission for a simple traffic ticket, but if that STATE were faced with a very serious tax or criminal issue, in theory, it might make the admission and submit sufficient documentation to prove the STATE OF TEXAS is a corporation. This suggests that the affidavit of denial strategy is not reliable. It might work, but is not guaranteed to so for reasons so far explained. My second concern with this strategy is that my spiritual beliefs render me reluctant to sign my name to an affidavit of facts which I believe to be false. Having seen 28 USC 3002(15)(a) declare that "United States" can mean a "federal corporation," I am not about to take an oath in which I deny that corporation's existence. And if your spiritual values don't prevent you from signing your name to false affidavits, you might want to investigate your state's civil and criminal penalties for perjury. Wheels within wheels? So, is the denial of corporate existence strategy bogus? I don't think so. I suspect the strategy is fundamentally good, but there are more layers to this onion which remain to be discovered. I suspect the denial strategy works - not because the corporations don't exist - but because government doesn't want to talk about them. In other words, although the denial affidavits may not be technically correct, they raise an issue the government does not want to debate in public. Why - if government could prove the existence of the various corporations - would it choose not to do so? Two reasons come to mind: political liability and legal liability. The political liability is based on the assumption that even if government corporations have been lawfully created and are technically "constitutional," they are nevertheless dependant on a massive political deception. What will Joe Sixpack say if he finds out he's been paying his income taxes all these years to some corporation rather than the lawful government? No bureaucrat wants to precipitate that discussio; no politician wants to face that issue in public. However, I suspect the deeper reason for the affidavit's reported success may be that government corporations are violating other fundamental laws governing corporations, or example, corporations doing business in Texas are required to register with the Texas Secretary of State. Has the CITY OF DALLAS registered with the Secretary? If not, it may have no legal capacity to do business in Texas. The same is probably true for any other government corporation - perhaps including the IRS and even the STATE OF TEXAS, itself. Other questions of corporate procedure include who is the corporation's registered agent? Do police officers or other agents of the corporation have the legal authority to sign documents on behalf of the corporation? Must a corporation indentify itself as such on it's official paperwork? But even if the corporation does exist, is properly registered, and all of its agents are lawfully empowered to act on the corporation's behalf - what's that got to do with you? Where is the contract that subjects you to the corporation's authority? I'd bet that the last thing government will reveal is precisely which documents "tricked" us into corporate jurisdiction. They must know that if they dare publicly identify these "nexus" documents, the news will spread over the internet and within days, that document and all the authority it generates will be vaporized. Deny your own existence? Perhaps the real power of the denial strategy may be less in denying the existence of the government corporations than in denying your own "corporate existence". It may be much easier and more truthful to deny the existence of the ALFRED ADASK corporation than the STATE OF TEXAS corporation. It's possible that the real reason the previous denial strategy has worked is not that it denied the existence of the government corporation but that it denied the defendant's existence as a corporation. I guarantee that I am not an artificial entity, and I have no problem swearing to that fact on an affidavit or a stack of Bibles. It's possible that some of our courts can only administer over corporations. If so, once I prove by affidavit that I'm not a corporation, that court's jurisdiction may disappear. Whatever the reason, the affidavits of denial of corporate existence seem to work. But no one should absolutely rely on these denials until more research reveals why they work. MORE DENIALS Whenever the patriot community discovers what appears to be a valid new strategy for fending off government, that strategy is quickly "enhanced" by a host of patriot "guru's". Sometimes the enhancements are helpful, but just as often, they are misguided. Nevertheless, the new strategy will typically work during a "window of opportunity" of about nine to eighteen months. Initially, these new strategies work either because they are valid, or because they at least sound sufficiently valid to fool a few judges into ruling in their favor. However, during that window of opportunity, government feverishly analyzes the new patriot strategy and devises a counter-strategy. Once government has circled its wagons and agreed to a counter-strategy, anyone who tries to use the "new" patriot strategy will probably suffer a severe penalty as an example to deter others from trying that strategy. The "denial of corporate existence" strategy is only a few months old and therefore likely to work for another six to twelve months. During that period, we'll see a host of variations on that strategy - some insightful, others half-baked. The following are examples or excerpts of the new-and-improved denial strategies. I received these strategies by email or regular mail, but their sources are not clearly identified. Further, these examples of the denial strategy don't strike me as highly refined. I believe they are all worth considering, but you should not try to use them without enough of your own research to confirm their validity. The documents are presented in brown text, the original author's side-comments are presented in black text, and my comments are present in [bracketed text] text. To be written by HAND, (Use the notation of Firstname Middlename: Lastname - the last name is properly your only name. The rest are like modifiers/adjectives) [Writing by hand is intended to remove any doubt that the entity preparing the document is a natural person as opposed to an artificial entity of the sort that spits out computerized, boiler plate letters and notices without any real human intervention. I disagree with the name format advised here. I'm learning that a proper Christian name contains just two elements: Your first, given, "Christian" name and your family or surname, or example, my proper, Christian name is "Alfred Adask". However, if I use my middle initial or middle name, I may inadvertently designate my "legal, juristic personality" ("evil twin," "straw man," etc.) that is usually designated by the all upper case name ("ALFRED N. ADASK").] [I disagree with both the writer and Al. Randy Lee and John Quade are the experts on that and they say that your Christian name is your first name and middle name. Your last name is your family name and it more like a handle that the government uses to gain jurisdiction on you. -- gene karl] Affidavit of Denial of Corporate Existence I, Firstname Middlename: Lastname, a living, breathing man, declare in my own hand writing that the following facts are true to the best of my current knowledge, understanding and belief. I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: (here you will put in all applicable corporate names, IN ALL CAPS. Some will always apply, some will change (name of city and state), and some will only apply as needed. Examples follow,) Always include: UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, all BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE STATE OF ___ (twice: where the alleged offence took place, and where you live)__, COUNTY OF ___ (twice: where the alleged offence happened, and where you live)__, CITY OF ___ (twice: where it happened, and where you live)___, your full proper name, your name with first and last spelled out and middle initial, your street address, your legal description where you live (LOT nn, BLOCK mm, ___ estates addition), your zip code where you live, [The idea of denying the existence of the corporate locations of both where you are alleged to live, and where the alleged offense took places seems clever.] Include as applicable: THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF STATE POLICE, TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, lastname, first name ETUX wife's first name. Finish the list with "and all OTHER PERSONS acting in the name of any corporation." If any man or woman desires to answer this affidavit, please answer in like kind, by hand written, notarized affidavit, using your Christian name for signature, to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) Days or default will be obtained. /s/ Firstname Middlename: Lastname On the ____ day of _______, 2000 a.d., a man known as (Firstname Middlename: Lastname) came before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit. /s/ notary public address My commission expires: Example of finished product: Affidavit of Denial of Corporate Existence I, Robert Edward: Smythe, a living, breathing man, declare in my own handwriting that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereby deny that the following corporations exist: UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, all BAR ASSOCIATIONS, THE STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF TARRANT, COUNTY OF DALLAS, THE CITY OF IRVING, THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, ROBERT EDWARD SMYTHE, ROBERT E. SMYTHE, 1402 MIDWAY ROAD, LOT 14, BLOCK 5, VALENTINE OAKS ADDITION, 75032, THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CITY OF FORT WORTH POLICE DEPARTMENT, and all OTHER PERSONS acting in the name of any corporation. If any man or woman desires to answer this affidavit, please answer in like kind, by hand writing, notarized affidavit, using your Christian name for signature, to the below named notary, address provided, within five (5) Days or default will be obtained. /s/ Robert Edward: Smythe On the 23rd day of May, 2000 a.d., a man known as Robert Edward: Smythe came before me, a notary, and attested to the truth of this affidavit. /s/ Mary Higgins, notary public 13500 N. Dallas Expressway Suite 507 Dallas, Texas My commission expires: Another example: Affidavit of Denial of Corporate Existence I, Jane Doe, a living breathing woman declare that to the best of my knowledge the facts below are true so help me God. The United States, State of Louisiana, City of Lafayette, Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana BAR Association, Clerk of Court's Association, Rob Rob, Inc. the legal name Louis J. Ferret, The 15th Judicial District Court, all legal names signed on documents, are fictions, and I deny that they exist. The legal name JANE A. DOE, used in the correspondence purportedly sent to me under pretext by the non-existent State of Louisiana (exhibit attached) is not me. Should any man or woman deem that the statements above are not true, please answer by notarized affidavit in their handwriting using their Christian Name for signature within three days, to the address of the notary. /s/ Jane Doe (Sign Christian Name and do not print or type below your signature, as it negates your true name. Use only your own hand writing in red ink.) [Red ink??] A woman whose Christian Name is Jane Doe, came before me on the ___ day of ____, 2000 A.D., and attested that the above statements were true and correct to the best of her knowledge. /s/ Notary Public Address, My commission expires: Check the definition of "fictitious plaintiff" in Black's Law Dictionary; it is contempt of court to bring an action as "ficticious plaintiff". [Black's Law, 5th Ed. - ficticious plaintiff. - A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.] All those that continue the action after you have denied the existence of the fictions (corporations), then become fictitious accusers; I suggest you start looking for their surety, as you have been damaged by that fiction. Remember that the "civil" law is secular, and destroys blood kindred. Whenever an action is brought against the man (husband), for property which he and his (woman) wife own, they both have to record (with the notary) affidavits denying the corporate existence individually. "They both have a social security number, so the "civil" law deems them to be two separate "Persons". [Judging by the "Divorcing the Corporate State" article in AntiShyster Volume 10 No. 1, it appears that our relationship to the state may be hugely complicated if we are married with a state-issued marriage license in an incorporated church. Regardless of whether each spouse has a SSN, it appears that each spouse and the property of the marriage is subject to the corporate state which appears to be a legal third party in the state-licensed marriage. If so, it may be insufficient for a husband and wife to both deny the existence of various corporate entities involved with their property until they first divorce themselves from the state corporation that's legally a third party in their marriage.] When confronted by the issue of Corporate nonexistence, the purported judges like to say that their "duty is to protect society" -- but which society? Bouvier's Law Dictionary states that there are two kinds of "society," one which is incorporated and noted in the law, and one which is not incorporated and not under the law! Here's a variation on the denial of corporate existence strategy based on a 1918 statute that prohibits the federal government from suing a corporation unless the U.S. government has stock in that corporation. (This same statute is referenced in the Dan Meador article in this issue entitled "Who are the IRS and USA?") The fundamental strategy (demanding government prove it owns stock in the corporate entity being sued) is interesting since, once raised, it might force government to admit it's not acting in it's federal capacity. Thus, this argument doesn't precisely challenge the existence of a particular corporation, but it might indirectly force government to reveal the capacity in which it appears in court. In the United States District Court of the Western District of Oklahoma UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff vs. JOE PUBLIC, et al Defendant. Motion to Vacate Judgment Now comes Joe Public as and for myself. I herewith move the judicial officer of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to vacate judgment in this matter under authority of Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subsections (3)(fraud) and (4)(judgment is void). This motion to vacate is timely as there is no time limit where the [trial] court lacks subject matter jurisdiction: There is no time limit on attack on judgment as void; one-year limit applicable to some Rule 60(b) motions is expressly inapplicable to Rule 60(b)(4) motion, and even requirement that motion be made within reasonable time cannot be enforced with regard to this class of motion. Briley v. Hidalgo (1993, CAS La) 981 2d 246. RCP 60(b)(4), which provides relief from void judgments, is not subject to any time limitation. Hall v. Commissioner (1994, CA 10) 30 3d 1304, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep P 140448, 94-2 USTC P50392, 94 TNT 154-21. There is no time limit on RCP 60(b)(4) attack on judgment as void; one year limit applicable to some RCP 60(b) motions is expressly inapplicable, and requirement that motion be made within "reasonable time" cannot be enforced with regard to RCP 60(b)(4) motion. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown (1996, CAS La) 84 3d 137. Further, the judicial officer is compelled to provide appropriate relief under auspices of Rule 60(b), F.R.Civ.P., where the judgment is void: "If underlying judgment is void, it is per se abuse of discretion for district court to deny movant's motion to vacate judgment under RCP 60(b)(4)." Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc. (1995, CA6 Ohio) 66 3d 105. The causes underlying this motion to vacate are predicated on (1) usurpation of power, (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to operation of law, and (3) lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud by virtue of lack of a competent witness. Causes are as follows: 1. The [federal] United States of America, defined as an agency of the United States (see notes following 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001), lacks standing to sue absent proof of fraud against a corporation in which the [federal] United States of America owns stock. (See Act of Oct. 23, 1918, c. 194, 40 Stat. 1015) No such proof of standing is in evidence. Judgment favoring this coalition or political compact of possessions of the United States constitutes usurpation of power as the Constitution of the United States and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7402 vest exclusive authority in the United States, i.e., Government of the United States. 2. The Plaintiff has failed to prove tax liability by entering procedurally proper assessments into record, as required by 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6203 & 26 C.R. Sec. 301.6203-1, therefore the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as there is no tax liability unless or until said procedurally proper assessments are executed and are in evidence. 3. The Plaintiff has failed to prove tax liability by entering procedurally proper 10-day notices and demands for payment issued subsequent to lawful assessments being made, as required by 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6303 & 26 C.R. 301.6303-1, therefore the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 4. The Plaintiff has failed to produce a competent witness as only a properly appointed assessment officer may validate accuracy of an assessed liability, and only third parties responsible for executing reports, returns and other evidence of taxable income are competent witnesses as to legitimacy of any given liability. Absent competent witnesses who have first-hand knowledge of facts necessary to establish liability, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as secondary reports such as the Form 4340 and Notice of Lien instruments are dependent on antecedent requirements for documentary evidence of taxable income and properly executed assessments. 5. The Plaintiff has failed to enter taxing and liability statutes into evidence that would warrant either the presumption of liability or assessment of liability. To support the above allegations, I hereby offer evidence via my properly executed Affidavit of Material Fact attached hereto, and a true and correct copy of 40 Stat. 1015 & 1016, which are printed records of the Act of October 22, 1918, Chapter 194, said publication in the Statutes at Large by law requiring mandatory judicial notice. Premises considered, I hereby move the presiding judicial officer of this court to vacate judgment as being void and therefore a nullity. /s/ Joe Public Date: Contact information: Postal mailing address: Telephone: Offer of Evidence 1. Affidavit of Material Fact executed in compliance with 12 Okla. Stat. Secs. 421, 431 & 432 and attending Federal Rules of Evidence. 2. The Act of October 23, 1918, Chapter 194, 40 Stat. 1015 & 1016, providing for criminal prosecution for fraud against "any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder..." Notice of Service Under penalties of perjury, I attest that on this date, this Motion to Vacate judgment is being mailed via certified mail, with sufficient postage paid to assure delivery, to the following: The original and 2 copies (1 to be filed stamped and returned) to: Robert D. Dennis, Clerk United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 200 N.W. 4th Street, Room 1210 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 One true and correct copy to: Donald N. Dowie, Jr. Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice, Tax Division P.O. Box 7238, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 /s/ Joe Public Date: Contact information: Postal mailing address: Telephone: