VOL X NO 5 - Highlights: Message From Apostle Paul To All Civil Servants -and- Tax Cases Of Johnston and Boggs -and- Is This The Final Solution



Volume X, No. 5

Published Quarterly by the Ministry of Christ Church

4955 Sierra Pines Dr.

Mariposa, CA 95338


“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever resists the power, resists the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive unto themselves DAMNATION.”

COMMENT: Subjection to civil governors stems from a consideration that civil government is according to the ordinance of God and that those who resist lawfully constituted authority shall receive condemnation - and those who are obedient shall receive praise. This includes those in government! The Baptist theologian, Adam Clarke, LL.D, writes the following in his Commentary & Critical Notes, Vol. II: “…in those early times the Christians were generally confounded with the Jews since the Edict of Emperor Claudius banished the Jews from Rome. Sentonius tells us that it was because the Jews were making continual disturbances under their leader Chrestus. That the Jews were, in general, an uneasy and seditious people, is clear from every part of their own history. With political notions grounded on their native restlessness, it is no wonder that they gave cause for suspicion to the Roman government, who would be glad of an opportunity to expel those whom they considered dangerous to their peace and security; or was it unreasonable on this account to suppose that the Christians, under the notion of being the ‘peculiar people of God’ and the subjects of His Kingdom alone, might be in danger of being infected with those unruly and rebellious sentiments; therefore the apostle Paul shows them that they were, notwithstanding their honours and privileges as Christians, bound by the strongest obligations of conscience, to be subject to the civil government (that is ordained of God). As Christianity was then growing, and the powers of the world began to take notice of it, it was not unlikely that this (Paul’s) letter might fall into the hands of the Roman magistrates. And whenever that happened it was right, not only that they should see that Christianity was no favourer of sedition, but likewise that they should have an opportunity of ‘reading their own duty and obligations’. But as they were too proud and insolent to permit themselves to be instructed in a plain, direct way, Paul deliberately explains the magistrate’s duty and reads the magistrate a fine and close lecture upon the nature and ends of civil government. A way of conveyance so ingenious that Nero himself, had this epistle fallen into his hands, could not fail to see his duty clearly stated. Paul explains the just limits of the magistrate’s authority while teaching the duty and obedience a Christian owes to civil government.

As god is the origin of power, and the Supreme Governor of the Universe, He delegates authority, for without this all would be confusion and anarchy. In all Christian nations there is a Constitution - a ‘contract’ by which a particular country or state is governed. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that Constitution. Thus, there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed. If the governor rules according to the Constitution, nothing can justify rebellion against his authority. Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler other than overt attempts on his part to change the Constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thusly, he dissolves the compact between himself and his people - his authority is no longer binding, because it is illegal - and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that Constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he has PROMISED to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government!

Saul was a good moral man, but a bad Prince because he endeavored to act contrary to the Constitution. He changed some essential parts of that Constitution, and was therefore lawfully deposed. James II was a good and moral man, but was a bad and dangerous Prince. He endeavored to alter and change the British Constitution both in Church and State, therefore he was lawfully deposed.

He who sets himself in order against this Order of God, and they who resist; they who obstinately and for no right reason, strive to unsettle the Constitution and to bring about illegal changes, shall receive to themselves damnation - shall be condemned both by the spirit and letter of that Constitution, which under pretense of defending, they are labouring to SUBVERT!

THE QUESTIONIS NOW PRESENTED! The U. S. Treasury Department and its agency known as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Justice Department and its agents known as U.S. Attorneys and U.S. District Court Judges, are all PUBLIC SERVANTS on the public payroll and they are officers of CIVIL government in this Constitutional Republic. Are they upholding and defending the Constitution of these United States and the Constitutions of the several and separate sovereign States of the Union in the performance of their civil duties - or are they subverting these Constitutions by their efforts to impose the provisions of the Communist Manifesto upon sovereign citizens of the States - through and by implementing a communist-inspired, unconstitutional and unlawful tribute upon such citizens? (A ‘graduated’ DIRECT Income Tax)

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, then upright citizens are justified according to Christian Law and the laws of God, to oppose such action by deposing and removing from office such criminal civil servants. “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature'’ God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…but when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."” (This right has been brought into the U.S. Constitution of the U.S. by Article VI, Section 1, as one of the engagements for government, entered into between the State, prior to adoption of the Constitution.)


We now bring you to the case of Rev. James R. Johnston a Minister of this Church. His trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California during November 1977, with Judge Robert J. Kelleher presiding, was witnessed by many California citizens and Citizen Grand Jury Investigators.

Such witnesses testify that the trial was a ‘farce’ and contrary to all principles of American jurisprudence. Judge Kelleher appointed a Jew lawyer to defend Rev. Johnston over his objections and blatantly refused Rev. Johnston the right of Counsel or proper assistance of Counsel as guaranteed by the Constitution. Appointment of a non-Christian as a defender of a Christian Minister is a clear violation of his religious teachings and beliefs since Christians must abide by the prohibition on this matter as clearly stated in 2 Corinthians, Chapter 6, Verse 14. In reply to Rev. Johnston’s objections, Judge Kelleher arrogantly made insulting remarks to the Christian Minister of God, calling him such names as “a fool” and a “boob”. Such comments were continual during the so-called trial and at critical points when Rev. Johnston was attempting to prove his case. IRS documents clearly reveal that Rev. Johnston was SELECTED for prosecution; that the IRS and Justice Department conspired to repudiate the First Amendment ‘injunction’ imposed upon the government; that the IRS and Justice Department acted in complete disregard for the provisions of Section 1202 of the 1976 Tax Reform Act; and that the IRS and Justice Department prosecutors conspired to obstruct justice in violation of Section 1503, Title 18, USC.

Rev. Johnston proved conclusively in his case that he is not a person required by law to make an Income Tax Return to the government. He had never received a communication of any kind from the IRS prior to his being arrested (kidnapped) by federal marshals at his home at 10:30 PM on a SUNDAY night. He was handcuffed, taken into custody (pretended jurisdiction) and jailed on a spurious warrant for ‘failure to appear’. As to where and when he was to have appeared, he had never been informed. After he was incarcerated and unlawfully brought into their ‘pretended’ jurisdiction, a false and fraudulent indictment on ‘Information’ was produced. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to prison under conditions reprehensible to American jurisprudence. The Judge, Robert J. Kelleher evidenced bias throughout the entire trial and was in fact, ‘adversary’. He further indicated his prejudices by his refusal to file a notice of appeal in a timely manner thereby denying release on bond pending appeal. It seems that Rev. Johnston brought down the wrath of usurpers and evil men by doing his homework in the law library. He discovered their dirty linen and exposed them to the truth about the communist ‘graduated’ Income Tax. Oh yes, they made all of the usual offers to ‘cop-a-plea’ - but were refused. Rev. Johnston would not plead guilty when he knew he was innocent, nor would he withdraw his proof of their evil doings from the public record in exchange for freedom from jail. He was imprisoned for a period of eight months in a federal penitentiary. A Christian Minister of God was falsely charged and falsely imprisoned unlawfully, being charged with a ‘crime against the State’ all in violation of his First Amendment rights and in the same manner as practiced by the unholy wedlock between Church and State in Europe prior to the founding of this Republic. In fact, the entire case was a repetition of events and conditions in Europe that brought about the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. It appears that the magistrates of today have need of the instructions from the apostle Paul as to their duties and the nature of civil government.


Now we come to the case of Rev. Ronald E. Boggs, also a Minister of this Church, along with his wife Ouida M. Boggs (deceased). From information gathered by Investigators of a California Citizens’ Grand Jury, it appears that in the distant past, Rev. Johnston and Rev. Boggs attended some meetings of Tax Protest groups in Orange County. As a result, they were ‘selected’ for prosecution by the I.R.S. with the claim and supposing that they were leaders of a so-called Tax Rebellion movement, when in fact, they were NOT! Action was brought against them in accordance with the design for ‘selective prosecution’ set forth in Internal Revenue Manual Supplement 95 G-50, dated August 14th, 1973 over the signature of JOHN F. HANLON, Asst. Internal Revenue Commissioner for Compliance. This 95 G-50 entitled “Tax Protestors” implements Internal Revenue’s domestic espionage operation known as IGRU (Intelligence Gathering & Retrieval Unit) which, among other things, has as its goal the suppression of First Amendment freedoms of dissent and objection, by ‘selective prosecution’ of individuals because they are critical of or are identified with groups critical of the tax system or government (sic) policies. Further, that IRS Memorandum dated Feb. 26th, 1973 addressed to “Participants in Conference on Tax Rebellion Movement” from IRS Regional Commissioner Western Region HOMER O. CROASMAN, Subject: “Tax Rebellion in California” is further evidence that action has been brought against Rev. Johnston and Rev. Boggs, along with their wives, in accordance with the design for ‘selective prosecution’ as set forth in 95 G-50, dated Aug. 14th 1973 - and further, that civil servants, living off the public payroll, are subverting the First Amendment INJUNCTIONS by usurping Priestly license to extort confessions, conduct inquisitions to search out, examine and bring heretics to trial and then use temporal punishment and sanctions to deter protest, dissent and non-conformity to a contrived line of ‘official truth’. The IRS memorandum is clear evidence that civil servants have nothing but contempt for the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the several States by their boast of having secretly talked to Judges and of influencing their decisions in open court. This is evidence of an IRS conspiracy to obstruct justice and to deny due process of law, all in violation of Sec. 1503, Title 18, U.S.C. Further, IRS agents have conspired to deprive upright citizens of their right to earn a livelihood and pursue happiness and privacy, by harassment of their employers or those with whom they contract to earn a living and support their families, all in violation of Section 51, Title 18, U.S. Code.

After having been ‘selected’ for prosecution, Rev. Boggs and his wife Ouida were brought to trial in the same unlawful manner as was Rev. Johnston. The Judge in this case, Warren Ferguson, also appointed a Jew as Rev. Bogg’s defense counsel. The Judge refused Rev. Boggs and Mrs. Boggs their right to assistance of counsel in the same manner as Judge Kelleher had done to Rev. Johnston, even after having been advised by Rev. Boggs that it was against his religious teachings to have a non-Christian associated with him according to the instructions of the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians, Chapter 6, Verse 14. Judge Ferguson further made his prejudice clear in his discussions with members of the Jury panel by inferences that Rev. Boggs and his wife were ‘religious fanatics’, anti-Semitic, racist, and by other derogatory statements against the accused. Since there had been nothing said in the trial proceedings prior to that time to indicate any of these conditions, it is obvious that there had been 'behind-the-scenes’ discussion between the Judge and prosecution personnel. The trial was as much a ‘farce’ as that of Rev. Johnston. In short, Rev. and Mrs. Boggs were convicted as criminals. The charge - A crime against the State! The employer of Mrs. Boggs was brought in to testify against her. These were close friends who now were being used against her. She sat stunned and silent during the trial proceedings. The ordeal was so revolting to her pride and sense of justice that it made her physically ill. Shortly after the trial, this young Christian woman in her prime of life, died of a broken heart. A spirit broken by the witnessing of criminal action by civil servants of a country which she had been proud and the tearing down of a Constitution and the Laws of her God, for which she had reverence. Rev. Boggs is carrying on in the Ministry with the knowledge that Jesus Christ removed his wife Ouida from the hands and prison of these evil civil servants who are conducting unlawful harassment upon Christian Ministers and their families - and who shall yet receive the ‘damnation’ that the apostle Paul mentions in his epistle to the Romans.


Now we come to the case of Mrs. Mary Ann Johnston, No. CR 78-1021 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California

It is quite clear that the ‘selection’ of Mrs. Johnston for prosecution is a continuation of the harassment and persecution of her husband, Rev. James R. Johnston for his exposure of the unconstitutional, communist-inspired Income Tax activities of civil servants in this Republic. After Rev. Johnston had served his prison sentence, the vultures moved in. They arrested Mrs. Johnston based upon a false and fraudulent indictment and are now proceeding toward the same ‘farce’ of a trial for her, as was provided for her husband in 1977 and for Rev. Boggs and Mrs. Boggs in 1978. Her Motion to Quash this false and fraudulent indictment, along with her Memorandum of Law & Points of Authority are published here, since she has also exposed their dirty linen and the truth about the communist ‘graduated’ income tax which has been unlawfully imposed upon the citizens of this great Christian Republic. Since these evil activities of civil servants are continuing nation wide, without attention by the Congress or Legislatures of the several States, nor by the Executive and Judicial departments of federal and state governments, it appears that the citizens of this sovereign Republic of California (and possibly others) will be forced to invoke the Law of Posse Comitatus as a last resort. If the civil servants continue their present conduct relative to the communist-inspired ‘graduated’ income tax, it is certain that the ‘damnation’ outlined in the apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans will come down upon their heads. Just as these federal civil servants employ armed force by their marshals to bring citizens of a sovereign State into their jurisdiction, let it be known to them that when they depart from these ‘federal bastions’, they enter the territory and jurisdiction of the sovereign State and are subject to its laws and its Constitution. They, and all other civil servants, are subject to the Law of Posse Comitatus! It behooves them to read the State Constitutions to the extent that the epistle of Paul to the Romans might be well understood.

Provisions of the California Constitution are enumerated in this issue as an example of what could be - unless the conditions are reversed by those in whose care the Laws of God have been entrusted in this great Republic known as the United States of America. We pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands; one nation UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice for all. (indivisible).


In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States of America vs. Mary Ann Johnston, Defendant - NO. CR 78-1021:

Comes now the above named Defendant, MARY ANN JOHNSTON, who appears specially and not generally, to move the court for appropriate justice at Law. Defendant thus moves the Court for dismissal of the Indictment on all counts. The Indictment fails to state any valid allegations of crime committed against the United States by the Defendant, grounded in but not limited to the following arguments:

(a) Defendant is neither a person required to file, make or otherwise give information, nor one liable to have portions of wages or salary withheld, and hence could not have committed any act with fraudulent intent.

(b) The alleged tax in question is either an ‘income’ tax or an ‘excise’ tax and thus either a ‘direct’ tax or an ‘indirect’ tax.

(c) The alleged tax cited under each Count of the Indictment is not a genuine qua generic ‘income’ tax or tax on income qua ‘income’ tax, but is an ‘excise’ tax on a PRIVILEGE unrevealed in Title 26, U.S.C. or in Title 26 USC Annotated. The evidence that it is not a genuine or generic income tax, qua tax on income, is that the tax is not ‘direct’ and consequently ‘apportioned’ amongst the several States as required by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, but purports assessment by uniformity. A generic ‘income’ tax is a tax on property, while an ‘excise’ is a tax on a ‘privilege’. See Brushaber vs Union pacific RR (240 US 1); Keasley & Mattison vs Rathensies (133, F 2d 894); Stanton vs. Baltic Mining Co. (240 US 107); East Ohio Gas co. vs. Tax Commissioner of Ohio (42 F 2d 170, 172); American Airways vs Wallace (57 F 2d, 877, 880) and Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. (220, US 107).

(d) The ‘privilege’ upon which the said ‘excise’ tax purportedly passing as an ‘income’ tax is laid, is thus a condition precedent to the requirements and penalties of the Internal Revenue Code, including those mentioned in the Indictment and is not revealed as such in the Indictment, nor upon information and belief in the minutes of the Grand Jury.

(e) The Privacy Notice published by the I.R.S. as required by the Privacy law of 1974 enacted by Congress compels the IRS to disclose exactly what will happen to one who fails to tile or provide information. The IRS Privacy Notice says: “If you do not file a return or give us the information we ask for, you may be charged a ‘Penalty’…it does NOT say, You may be fined, imprisoned or have your property seized. A ‘Penalty’ is a civil amount assessed, and not a criminal punishment. (See Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition, page 887). Defendant has a right to rely upon the IRS Privacy Notice, which in effect, amends the Internal Revenue Code Section 7203, making it completely unenforceable as to any criminal charges. Or, does the IRS claim that the Privacy Notice was a mistake? Or has the IRS given false information in their Privacy Act Notice?

(f) That, since the ‘privilege’ upon which the ‘excise’ is laid is unrevealed or unspecified in any Statute enacted by the Congress, particularly in Title 26, U.S.C. and since the same is unrevealed, unspecified and unstipulated in the Indictment, it must be assumed that the ‘privilege’ is and was unknown and unrevealed to the Grand Jury and does not, upon information and belief, appear upon the Minutes of the Grand Jury and that the Indictment was therefore obtained by outright fraud and deceit, and must fall for that reason alone.

(g) That those ‘persons’ required to pay any estimated tax by Section 7203 of Title 26 USC or as ‘individuals’ required to supply information under Section 7205, title 26, USC, can be identified ONLY through knowledge of the unspecified and unrevealed condition PRECEDENT, which gives any validity to the provisions of Title 26, U.S. Code.

(h) Since the jurisdiction for levying the alleged tax is not revealed in any Statute of Congress and since there is no general federal common law recognized as such since the overthrow of Swift vs Tyson (16 Pet 1) by Erie RR (304 US 64) in 1938, it is apparent that the ‘privilege’ liable for taxation under the Sections specified in the Indictment, must arise in an extra-constitutional jurisdiction in ‘mercantile equity’.

(i) Section 6012 of Title 26 reveals that Returns with the respect to ‘income’ taxes under subtitle A, shall be made by the following…and names ‘every individual having for the taxable year a gross income of $750.00 or more’. It is thus evident that it is NOT defendant’s wages or salary which are SUBJECT to the ‘excise’ and hence are not themselves taxable. The tax in question cannot thus be a generic ‘income’ tax as it is alleged to be. It is not the receipt of $750.00 that makes someone a ‘taxpayer’ and liable for an ‘income’ tax. To be liable for the tax, one must FIRST be a ‘taxpayer’ as defined by the Internal Revenue Code - and his ‘income’ must be within the meaning of the 16th Amendment! The mere fact that someone lawfully receives $750.00 does NOT make him SUBJECT to an ‘income’ tax nor is he thereby required by Section 7203 to ‘make a return’. The term ‘taxpayer’ is defined by the Internal Revenue Code, Sections 1313(b) and 7701(a)(14) as ‘any person SUBJECT to any internal revenue tax or SUBJECT to a tax under the applicable revenue law. The term ‘taxpayer’ is NOT defined as ‘any person who receives $750.00 or more’!

(j) If, pursuant to Section 7203, defendant is required to ‘make a return’, defendant is without knowledge regarding exactly what is to be returned and without a knowledge of the origin or source of origin of the thing which is to be returned, and without knowledge of the circumstances under which the Thing to be returned to the original source accrued to Defendant’s liability, or arose as a credit to Defendant’s benefit.

(k) If, pursuant to Section 7203, Defendant is required to ‘make a return’ of alleged income, then it follows that the tax imposed is indeed a ‘direct’ tax on the receipt of a thing, and is itself a portion of the alleged Thing or boon or advantage, benefit or profit accruing to Defendant. But, such a ‘direct’ levy cannot be made WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT and hence is incapable of being compelled upon Defendant as in ‘income’ tax.

(l) If the alleged boon is property, then it cannot be taxed ‘directly’. If the alleged boon is a ‘privilege’ then it is NOT ‘income’, but an ‘excise’ and strictly limited to those corporate (artificial) persons (individuals) who, because of their ‘privileged’ activities are SUBJECT to an ‘excise’. The words ‘every individual’ in Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code cannot possibly mean every ‘natural’ person for that would be in excess of the ‘limitations’ of the 16th Amendment to an EXCISE! The words used in this Section (6012) mislead ordinary people into believing that it implements or imposes a ‘direct’ tax upon every ‘natural’ person (as an individual). This is NOT SO! Section 6012 is strictly LIMITED to an ‘excise’ or ‘indirect’ tax and then ONLY to those ‘artificial’ persons (corporate individuals) who, because of their ‘privileged’ activities, are SUBJECT to an EXCISE! So, it is ‘corporations’ who are the ‘individuals’ referred to in Section 6012 and NOT ‘natural’ persons as ‘individuals’. Under no circumstances can either the 16th Amendment nor Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code, impose a ‘direct’ tax upon a ‘natural’ person’s income. The words, ‘every individual’ can mean only every ‘artificial’ (corporate) individual who is SUBJECT to an ‘indirect’ or ‘excise’ tax. Such artificial person (individual) must FIRST be SUBJECT to ‘indirect’ taxes because of their business activity being, in itself, an occasion for an ‘indirect’ tax. Thus, it is the particular business activity which makes the ‘artificial’ person (corporate individual) liable to indirect taxation. It is NOT the mere innocent and lawful receipt of $750.00 or any other amount of money, as a result of the ‘natural’ person exercising a constitutionally GUARANTEED right to lawfully work, acquire and possess property (or money), which every ‘natural’ person in this country has. Thus, Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code cannot mean ‘every individual’ in the sense that it would be in excess of the limitations or beyond the reach of ‘indirect’ taxation, or an ‘excise’ under the 16th Amendment as ‘correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme court’ in Brushaber vs Union Pacific RR (240, US 1).

(m) Further, Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code mentions only an obligation ‘to make a return’ and does not distinguish between the phrase ‘to MAKE a return’ and ‘to FILE a return’. Nor is the meaning of these two phrases available anywhere to Defendant or identified in either equation or identified or distinguished in difference or dissimilarity, but a meaning known only to and within the esoteric privity of the framer of the Section, hence it cannot bind Defendant.

(n) Although Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants jurisdiction in appropriate Law and Equity to the federal courts and Judicial Department, the Constitution nowhere assigns the jurisdiction or duties of the ‘Chancellor’, either to the President or to any Department, Agency or Service erected or created under the Executive Branch. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service is without jurisdiction to lay, assess or collect alleged taxes grounded in a jurisdiction arising in 'private mercantile equity’. Further, the powers of the ‘Chancellor’ which existed prior to our War for Independence in 1776, were powers of the legislative and executive branches and exercised by Parliament and the King, whereas this Court is a ‘Judicial’ body under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It’s ‘equity jurisdiction’ does NOT extend to such legislative and executive powers of the ‘Chancellor’ as are, or would be required to enforce the ‘direct’ tax in question as a ‘generic’ income tax, that is, a ‘direct’ in personam tax levied in the GUISE of an ad valorum tax, quasi in rem. Further a major constitutional question arises when an agent of the Executive department of the federal government is unlawfully delegated a power given only to the Legislative department by the Constitution. One need not be a ‘member of the bar’ to know that there is a constitutional ‘Separation of Powers’ inherent in our Republican form of government. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution mandates the Congress to ‘lay and COLLECT taxes duties, imposts and excises……but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. The Congress (legislative department) may not delegate these mandated powers to an agent of the Executive department of government nor even to the Judicial department. It may not delegate it to the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury any more than it can delegate it to the U.S. Army which is another agent of the Executive department. This basic violation of the principle of “Separation of Powers” places an independent agency of the Executive department (the IRS) in a position to violate the constitutional rights of citizens of the sovereign States in the same manner as was accomplished by the Army against citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II. In this very prosecution, the defendant has been told the same as was told to the citizens of Japanese ancestry, “You are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent”! The citizens of Japanese ancestry were put in concentration camps and only a few were given an opportunity to prove themselves - and this only by their valiant combat record as a unit of the Army in war. The others remain unjustly punished and today have not been vindicated from the very ‘injustice’ now being imposed upon the defendant in this Indictment. Such violation of American jurisprudence and constitutional guarantees has been in the past, and remains a severe blow to the freedom of citizens in this Constitutional Republic. The fact that it has been condoned in the past, should not condone its continuance, now or in the future. Thomas Jefferson once said, “When it comes to government, put trust in no man, but bind him by the chains of the Constitution!”

(o) The Indictment is totally faulty and fails to reveal that any crime whatsoever has been committed against the United States. It employs phrases not derived from the Statute and is unintelligible of meaning and is a barbarism impossible for the Grand Jury to have put into words itself. It Indictment presents the Grand Jury as having invented phrases, charges, violations and crimes not covered in the Statutes cited by Plaintiff.

(p) In sum, Defendant answers the Indictment as follows:

(1) Counts I and II: The amounts defined as gross income are in reality lawful receipts as a result of the Defendant exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights to lawfully work, acquire and possess property or money and are NOT from any activity which would subject the Defendant to an ‘indirect’ or ‘excise’ tax. Thus the charge in the Indictment that Defendant was or is ‘required by law’ to make an income tax return to the District Director of Internal Revenue, is erroneous, fraudulent and false.

(2) discovery by the Defendant that such tax is not a true income tax, but a tax on the exercise of some ‘privilege’ cannot be a fraud upon the part of the Defendant by the very meaning of the word ‘income tax’ in the annals of American jurisprudence. Defendant thus cannot possibly have incurred tax liability since Plaintiff misrepresents an ‘excise’ tax upon a ‘privilege’ unspecified by the Statutes as a ‘direct’ tax on income.

(3) Since a generic income tax in nonexistent in the United States and since the existence of a generic income tax is impossible in the United States under the constitution, it was impossible and illogical that Defendant could not therefore, willfully and knowingly make said income tax return to the said district Director of Internal Revenue or to any other department of the government.

(4) The Indictment is in violation of Defendant’s 1st Amendment rights since it charges willful failure to file or make a confession to the State of personal activities and information of a personal nature, all of which are prohibited by the religious teachings of her Church and her religious beliefs. The Indictment is in violation of the 1st Amendment GUARANTEE of religious freedom and the INJUNCTIVE relief from Church/State rule. The 1st Amendment immunized every citizen of these United States against liability to censure, penalty or imprisonment on Heresy counts for exercising freedom to be a Protestant (Protestor), Dissenter or Nonconformist and further denies jurisdiction over such matters of individual conscience to either servants of God or servants of men. The Indictment proves conclusively that servants, living off the public payroll, are subverting the First Amendment INJUNCTIONS, by usurping Priestly license to extort confessions, conduct inquisitions, to search out, examine, and bring heretics to trial - and then use Temporal punishment and sanctions to deter protest, dissent and nonconformity to a contrived line of ‘official truth’. Such actions constitute unauthorized practice of Church or Ecclesiastical Law when they feign Priestly authority to coerce confessions under the guise of “Income Tax Returns” and particularly so when the ‘natural’ person (individual) is not a person SUBJECT to making the return under provisions of the 16th Amendment as ‘correctly interpreted’ by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brushaber vs Union Pacific RR (240 US 1). Further, see Clay vs United States, 403 US 698, 29 L Ed 2d, 810, 91 S. Ct 2068; Sherbert vs Verner, 374 US 398, 10 L Ed 2d 965, 83 S. Ct. 1790 and West Virginia State Board of Education vs Barnette, 319, US 624-671.

(5) Defendant has never asked for, nor has she ever received a ‘franchise’ or a ‘license’ from any government for which she is required to ‘make a return’ to the government in any manner or form. Defendant has received no ‘privileges’ from the government whereby she is SUBJECT to an ‘excise’ or any tax under the provisions of the 16th Amendment or any Statute such as the Internal Revenue Code or any Statute whatsoever.

(q) In the event of denial of this Motion for dismissal of the Indictment, the Defendant further moves the court at Law for selection of Counsel of her choice whether Attorney at Law, Attorney in Fact or Friend, in accordance with her Sixth Amendment right to Assistance of counsel as at no time shall such right be waived.

(r) Defendant further moves the Court for an Order for Discovery of the Minutes of the Grand Jury which found the True Bill and brought the Indictment in this case.

(s) Defendant further moves the Court for an Order upon Plaintiff for a Bill of Particulars which reveal and disclose the ‘privilege’ or source of the ‘privilege’ precedent to title 26, U.S.C., upon which ‘privilege’ Title 26 U.S. Code finds its jurisdiction and authority, if any.

(t) Defendant further moves the Court for an Order directing transfer to the use of Defendant for expenses in preparing her defense, the sum of One Thousand Dollars.

Respectfully Submitted:

Mary Ann Johnston



During the 1930’s, someone in Washington, DC became the biggest “LITTERBUG” in the country. They flooded the lobbies of banks and Post Offices with blank Income Tax Forms. The honest, upright citizens began to pick them and read them - and BELIEVED them! ! ! These Forms told them that they were no longer citizens but were now “TAXPAYERS”! Without asking any questions, they began to make the ‘confessions’ demanded by these Forms and, of all things, paying the TRIBUTE demanded.

Now, the Bible uses the word ‘tribute’ as an UNLAWFUL tax. That is exactly what it was then and now is. People didn’t then, and still now, do not ask what the tribute is to be used for. If they did, they would learn that the unlawful tax was and is not used to support the government, but is credited to several banks owned by unknown ‘international’ financiers, to pay these bankers interest on the so-called national debt and redemption of their paper called ‘Federal Reserve Notes’. Isn’t it amazing! The people being forced to redeem notes for which they never agreed to become obligated for. In their private financial transactions they would never submit to such a devious scheme to defraud them, of not only their money but their livelihood. It is apparent that the Internal Revenue Service is nothing more than the “Collection Agency’ for he private international bankers who are stealing your country and your children’s inheritance. Our federal Congress finally accepted the “LITTERBUG” project in 1954 and even enacted ‘pretended’ statutes to make you think that it is legal. This fraud has now been exposed. Do you want their ‘litterbugging’ to continue in YOUR community? No one else can stop it but YOU!


In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, United States of America, Plaintiff vs Mary Ann Johnston, Defendant - No. CR 78-1021

The following are Points & Authorities in support of Defendant’s Motion to Quash the Indictment in the above cited case:

(1) POLLOCK vs FARMER’S LOAN & TRUST CO. 137, US 429, rehearing 158, US 601: The Income Tax enacted by Congress in 1894 was unconstitutional because it had the effect of being a ‘direct’ tax. Since Congress did not provide that it be ‘apportioned’, it was therefore in violation of the mandate of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and the prohibition of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, restricting DIRECT, repeat DIRECT taxes to the rule of apportionment. The Court found that in some instances the tax was ‘direct’ and in others ‘indirect’ and therefore, to the effect of its being ‘direct’, unconstitutional. But, since the ‘direct’ portion was a substantial part of the Act of Congress, the Court, on rehearing, declared the entire tax unconstitutional.

(2) THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT: In 1909, US Senator Bailey of Texas, proposed that the Constitution be amended to read: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The purpose of this Amendment as proposed, was to LIMIT all income taxes to the category of INDIRECT, and thus make it unnecessary for the Court to determine if the tax were ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ as it had to do in the Pollock case. Shortly after the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, Congress passed another Income Tax Act which was challenged, together with the new Amendment, as unconstitutional. Argument on the constitutionality of the Amendment was made before the US Supreme Court in the case of Brushaber vs Union Pacific RR 240, US 1 and also Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., 240, US 107.

(3) BRUSHABER vs UNION PACIFIC RR Co., 240 US 1: Quote: “The 16th Amendment AS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED, is limited to ‘indirect’ taxes and therefore constitutional.” (Brushaber Supra pp. 11,12,13 & 20).

(4) STANTON vs BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 107: Quote: “The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation upon the congress……taxation on income is, in its nature, an EXCISE.” (Brushaber supra 16-17).

(5) EAST OHIO GAS CO. vs TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, 43, F 2d, 170, 172: Quote: “An ‘excise’ is an impost for a license to pursue certain callings or to deal in special commodities or to exercise particular FRANCHISES.”

(6) AMERICAN AIRWAYS vs WALLACE, 57, F 2d, 877, 880: Quote: “The terms EXCISE tax and PRIVILEGE tax are synonymous.”

(7) FLINT vs STONE TRACY CO., 220, US 107: Quote: “The tax may be described as an ‘excise’ upon the particular ‘privilege’ of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e. with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi-corporate organizations; or when applied to Insurance Companies, for doing the business of such companies…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of ‘privilege’…Income is not ‘directly’ taxes, but is merely used to measure or to determine the amount of an EXCISE on business activities which the State has the power to either permit or prohibit. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an EXCISE upon the particular PRIVILEGE of doing business in a corporate capacity.” (Flint supra 151 & 165)

(8) MERCHANT’S LOAN ETC. vs SMIENTANKA, 255, US 509: Quote: “The word ‘income’ must be given the same meaning in ALL of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Federal Corporation Excise Tax Act.”

(9) PENN MUTUAL INDEMNITY CO. vs C.I.R. 32 Tax Court of the US Reports, 653, 659: Quote: “The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.”

(10) WISCONSIN vs J.C.PENNEY CO., 311, US 435 at 144: Quote: “The simple but controlling question is whether the State has given anything for which it can ask a return.”

(11) UNITED STATES vs STATE OF TEXAS, 252, F Supp. 234, 254: Quote: “The legislature and the people may not choose to deny a fundamental constitutional right as a means of collecting revenue.”

(12) LOAN ASSN. vs TOPEKA, 20 Wall, 655: Quote: “It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the State. A government which recognized no such rights…is after all but a despotism…of all the powers conferred upon government, that of taxation is most liable to abuse…for the power to tax is the power to destroy.”

(13) ADKINS vs CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL OF D.C., 361, US 525: Quote: “The right to contract about one’s affairs, including the right to make contracts of employment, isa liberty of the individual protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

(14) ADAIR vs UNITED STATES, 280, US 174: Quote: “In all such particulars the employer and the employee has equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs that equality is an arbitrary interference with the liberty of contract which no government can legally justify in a free land.”

(15) UNITED STATES vs PALMER, 3 Wheat, 610, 631: Quote: “The words of the Section are in terms of unlimited extent. The words ‘any person or persons’ are broad enough to comprehend every human being. But, general words must not only be limited to cases within the jurisdiction of Congress, but also to those objects which the Congress intended them to apply………It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of a statute and not yet within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers…this is not the substitution of the will of the judges for that of legislator for frequently words of general meaning are used in the statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislature intended to include the particular act.”

(16) CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY vs UNITED STATES, 143, US 457, 459, 472: Quote: “It is the duty of the Courts, under these circumstances, to say that, however broad the language of the statute may be, the act, although within the letter, is not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot be within the statute.”

(17) CLAY vs UNITED STATES, 403, US 698, 29 L Ed 2d, 810, 91 S. Ct. 2068: Quote: “That is a matter of belief, of conscience, of religious principle. Both Clay and Negre (403 US 710) were by reason of religious training and belief, conscientiously opposed to participation in war of the character proscribed by their respective religions. That belief is a matter of conscience protected by the First Amendment which the Congress has no power to qualify or dilute……that construction puts Clay in a class honored by the First Amendment, even though those schooled in a different conception of just wars may find it quite irrational.”

The Defendant herein claims the same First Amendment protection as provided Clay, in that she protests the unlawful violations of her First Amendment rights by the Internal Revenue Service in their demands that she file confession forms (1040 or otherwise) when in fact, she is not a person (individual) required by law to do so. Further, even though there were a statute requiring such confession to be filed by Defendant, such statute would be contrary to Defendant’s religious beliefs and the religious teachings of Defendant’s church, therefore in violation of Defendant’s guaranteed right of religious freedom under the First Amendment injunctive relief from Church/State rule.

Respectfully submitted:




Citizens in every County of the nation have available to them, the Law of Posse Comitatus. For instance, let us suppose that citizens of California decide to protect themselves from unlawful activities by persons on the public payroll. According to the California Constitution Article I, Section 24, “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security and benefit and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.” Further, in Article I, Section 24, it says: “Rights guaranteed by this (California) Constitution, are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution” - and the California Constitution expressly provides in Article III, Section 1, that the United States Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND! (It doesn’t say Statutes enacted by any Legislature)

It is clear from reading the Constitution of the State that citizens have the right to impanel Citizen’s Grand Juries to indict and even convict anyone, including persons on the public payroll, for crimes and violations of the Constitution and constitutional rights of citizens of the State. In fact, a Citizen’s Grand Jury, upon investigation and findings, may declare a person to be an “OUTLAW”. In this event such person may be apprehended by any citizen of the State or by any member of any Citizens’ Posse, by any means necessary. The Law of Posse Comitatus provides that when an Outlaw is apprehended, he should be taken to the most populated intersection of a township and there be hung by the neck at high-noon, with the body remaining until dark, as an example for those who would subvert the law.

As the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans, every Christian citizen is responsible to uphold the law and when persons on the public payroll, or who are civil servants who have sworn to uphold the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land - FAIL in that duty, they shall receive to themselves ‘damnation’. When they fail, then it is the duty of Christians to condemn them by both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution which under their pretense of defending, they are SUBVERTING!

It is possible that the Law of Posse Comitatus was provided by Almighty God for this purpose?

Since we, the people, the upright members of the body politic, are the rulers and masters in this self-governing Republic, is it right that our public servants should attempt to REVERSE ROLES with us? Is it right that they should tell us that THEY are the MASTERS and that WE are now the SERVANTS? If so - WHAT IS THE FINAL SOLUTION?


 If it is all right for the Jew-controlled TV to impose what they call ‘Black Roots’ upon Christians of America then why isn’t it just as ‘all right’ for a Christian Church to present “Caucasian Roots”? After all, it IS a ‘free’ country??? The book “FAITH OF OUR FATHERS” is based upon the BIBLE and is a Christian theological presentation. It is protected by the First Amendment! Its author receives no financial gain since all proceeds from the book go to the Church. Most books with the information contained in this one, would sell for much more than the $5.00 minimum donation we ask. Send your check or money order made payable to the Ministry of Christ Church, address on this publication, for your copy of FAITH OF OUR FATHERS. It will shake your theological ROOTS!

* * * * * * * * * *
The Booklet RACIAL & NATIONAL IDENTITY is also available for a minimum donation of $1.00. This is also on Cassette tape for a minimum donation of $3.00

* * * * * * * * * *

WHY WERE YOU BORN: WHO IS JESUS CHRIST? WHERE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS IN THE BIBLE SALVATION WHY YOU CANNOT DIE THE HOLY TRINITY The ANSWERS of these and many other Biblical subjects are available on CASSETTE TAPE sermons by Ministers of this Church. Send for an Order Form listing hundreds of Sermons available. BASIC BIBLE UNDERSTANDING will be yours. You will be Amazed at what you will learn about the Bible from these tapes!

* * * * * * * * * *