In answer to some questions that a number of people have petitioned us with in order to try to understand the evidence pages posted at the web site, we have provided the following summary to better explain in easier detail what the information at such exhibit pages refers to, and why all the fuss about the evidence in its meaning as to the issue of fraud by the IRS as a purported federal agency of the United States.

The call to notice Exhibit A, 2nd Inside Page - 49, as to the publishing date and the edition date being the same, and the "effect date" being the year before, December 31, 1948, is to show that just the opposite was the case from 1953 forward – for several years.

In 1955, the IRS claimed that they had to print the 1954 edition late because of a "unique problem" that occurred on August 16, 1954. (see Exhibit C – 1955/1954 – 3rd Inside Page) But what was the unique problem in 1953 that made them so late in the year that year, in contrast to the 1949 year’s perfect and timely balance of printing and publishing?

It is not as though they did not have sufficient time to get the CFR right for 1953.  Particularly when you consider the fact that the CFR editions for the years of 1950, 1951, and 1952 have not been found to exist anywhere; not in the law libraries around the United States, nor by any reference in any CFR book that we could find mentioned throughout CFR history.

So after all, if there was no 1950, 51 and 52 editions for those years, they certainly had plenty of time in 1953 to have come out with a version effective long before the last day of that year. But that pattern, established in 1953, before the "unique problem," does not end with 1953.

Understand how the criminal mind works. And these were certainly criminal minds at work.    Exhibit A, 3rd Inside Page refers to the 1949 CFR preface there, and establishes certain procedural stability points, but it is Exhibit A, 4th Inside Page that you need to look at closely, for it is there, up on the exhibit page of this 4th Inside Page, where you will find underlined, section & clause 29.22 (b) –1 (a).

Section 29.22 (b) – 1 states that Exceptions; exclusions of gross income. …. … "Those items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items are exempt except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government." (emphasis added) This all relates to the heading dealing with exclusions, exemptions from gross income.

Of course, that statement is no longer found in any volume of the CFR today. They deleted it. Covered it up. Concealed it. Hid it from sight. Look up the definition of concealment in Black’s 7^th Edition and you will find that such an act points directly at the issue of fraud.

The IRS knew in 1949 that there was a condition in law that made Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 applicable to both Interstate and Intrastate commerce. You see, in 1949, a very particular law that had been passed by Congress in 1933 legally technically restored the issue of export between the states.

This was true even though there was still a historical controversy which revolved around the condition of export between the states and what the word export meant back in 178 and before. But because of the existence of the new law imposing admiralty law upon both the States themselves as well as the people thereof, the IRS knew minimally that under the 1933 admiralty law, public law, the issue of interstate and intrastate commerce could be raised again, thereby determining all sources of incomes from commerce, either interstate or intrastate, to be untaxable.

Sometimes it takes years in government for things as they really are to work their way down into a definitive form so that it may be learned what was meant by an actual law passed at the original time. Take notice that today, around the United States, the places on the roadways once called weigh stations are now designated as "Ports of Entry." Ports as in "import" and "export." Also there was the issue, even as far back as 1940 and before concerning airplanes, for airplanes would bring their merchandise for transport into an "airport." So in 1949, with the existence of "airports" export between the states had been established as would be applicable under Article I, Section 9, Clause 5. But it is Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 that still keeps the states in line over that issue. It is irrelevant that the States do not get too specific as to what the import or export products may be; because of Clause 2, there is no profit in it for them beyond minimal inspection costs.

So the IRS knew that there were conditions sufficient in law to allow a reasonable constitutional interpretation of the law to render all income from all sources of commerce to be suddenly untaxable, a too broad area of income that would no longer be taxable. The fact that they had such an understanding is prima facie as to the very statement itself. They knew. Something in the Constitution made it impossible for the Congress to tax income from whatever source derived, no matter what the alleged Sixteenth Amendment seemed to say to the contrary. And regardless of what that something was, they (IRS officials) were determined to remove all reference as to its potential existence. That is called concealment. Concealment in this form, according to Black’s Seventh, is Fraud.

So in 1953, realizing their mistake in putting that little clause or statement in there to begin with, they (IRS officials) decided to get rid of it before it became too well known as a subject for public argument’s sake. And before the people began looking into and investigating in the Constitution as to what was there in the Constitution which exempted them from an income tax, particularly when viewed in the light of that certain law that had been so enacted previously.

In a desperate attempt to get rid of the legal evidence that would have stopped their otherwise legal plunder, in 1953 they chopped out seven (7) sections in a row (see Exhibit B – Point of Fraud page) in order to get rid of that one little statement. That one little statement that was so "bigly" damaging (to coin such a word). Understand that like the criminal minds that were so engaged, they (IRS officials) were nervous, very nervous, about being found out by anyone that mattered.

But they weren't done yet with their deception tactics.  In 1953 they supposedly rolled this Section, 29.22 (b) over into the Federal Register of 1953, but there we discover another subtle change, or act of concealment, so slight that one might not take thought to consider the difference.  Bear in mind that there has been no other CFR since 1949 for changes to be officially posted in.

In the 1953 Federal Register exhibits posted at Exhibit B, looking at Inside Page 1 thereof, we find that there has been a change in the reference, from 29.22 (b) –1 to 29.22 (b) 1.    Without the "–" sign in front of the number, the number 1 is understood to have a "+" in its place.

Thus, the particular section got converted without so much as an authorization, and clearly such a subtle tactic would be worthy of any expert account inclined to commit embezzlement against his employer.

Keep in mind also that there were very heated charges of Communism existent among the ranks of government at that time, specifically from 1950 to December of 1954, an era known as McCarthyism.   Claims that there was a plot afoot within the very ranks of government itself, everywhere in government, to subjugate the American government and take over the American people for the benefit of the soviet regime, or enemy Russia.

Remember, we said that there was no recorded "unique problem" known to be afoot in 1953, so if no unique problem, then there must have been something else to take its place – a unique plot, a unique plot determined by extrapolation back to the process of elimination. Leaving on a unique plot as the result. Plot, collusion, conspiracy, fraud.

On page 53-2 (or 2^nd inside page of Exhibit B), the "other book" laying claim would have been the first publication of the book titled "1954 – Revised 1955." The claim in the preface of the "1954" edition - alleged to have been revised in 1955 - shows that they (IRS officials) claimed that because of the "unique problem" in August of 1954, that they (IRS officials) released (both titles) the title for 1954 in 1955, even though it was actually only published in 1956!

Understand then, that they (IRS officials) were claiming – retroactively – that the 1954 title (which by logic and by its appearance would suggest that it was for 1954) laid claim for 1954, but simply was not released in 1954 because of that "unique problem." Bear that in mind.

Yet the 1953 edition (at least by the appearance of its name) by the statement in the preface (3rd inside page, Exhibit B) shows that it became effective as of January 1, 1954, and thereafter! Now we have the 1953 edition moving forward from January 1, 1954, and we have the 1955 Revised edition claiming that as "1954" - the other title of 1954 (remember they said "both titles" were released and both means two – 2) was therefore reaching back to lay claim for the year of 1954 as well, presumably also back to January 1, 1954! If not, why call it 1954 at all?!

Thus, we have two (2) different volumes of law, one titled 1953, proclaiming ITS effectiveness for 1954, and the other titled 1954, revised 1955, published 1956, proclaiming by its very appearance that IT was for 1954, each not in harmony with the other, definitely contradicting in parts, both claiming right of legal effect for the same year, and presumably on the same beginning date of that year.

Which one had the right to be effective for 1954, and what would the legal effect and ramifications for that volume be? You be the judge.

But it gets worse – for the IRS. Not only do they (IRS officials) have contradicting volumes for the same year, but they also – in the 1953 edition – stated there that IT replaced the 1949 edition. Now you know, when you replace something, that which was there being replaced is no longer there thereafter, because it has been replaced. Right? So now the "1954" edition, alleged to go into effect on the last day of 1955 but not actually printed or published until 1956 says that IT replaced the 1949 edition. Which is no longer there, being replaced first by the edition of 1953!

Oops! Unique problem again, this time a real one. The 1949 is no longer "there" legally! It has been replaced already! …. by the 1953 edition! So why would they (IRS officials) not just say that they were replacing the 1953 edition then? Wasn’t that the edition that they had just chopped out SEVEN (7) sections in a row? The 1953 edition which could not be considered to go into effect until the last day of the year, December 31, 1953 (not 1952), unlike the 1949 edition, which went into effect the last day of the year before (December 31, 1948)??? The edition of a year (1953) in which presumably there was no "unique problem" to cause such a delay???? The edition that followed 3 straight years when no edition got published at all??? (1950, 1951, & 1952)

Because they (IRS officials) would have had to have reprinted the 1949 edition version again – in 1950, 1951 & 1952 … with their little 29.22 (b) –1 (a) "mistake" still in it??? Which if they (IRS officials) had chopped out that little sentence only - in 1950, 1951, or 1952 (which volumes did not exist), that singular little deletion from the area of exemptions on gross income would certainly have gotten noticed by the "McCarthyism-ites," now wouldn’t it? And the power of the Constitution was still very strong in the minds of the people, even the judges, in those days. And the cry would have been – Communism, IRS, and it would have all been over.

So now they (IRS officials) have an edition in which they removed, or concealed (concealment under these conditions is considered to be Fraud), 7 sections from the code, all in a row. Like burning down an entire forest in order to get rid of one little tree.

But the book that they (IRS officials) did that in went into effect the next year, 1954. Fearing that people would look back on the last year and discover what they did there, they realized that it was imperative to manufacture a book titled "1954" just to draw attention away from the 1953 edition.

If fact, because the heat of McCarthyism was not turned off officially until December, 1954, so that that became the main barrier which prevented them from simply producing whatever they would have liked in - some reasonable format - just to get a "new book" on the market. So once again, the effective date of the so-called 1954 book is actually effective on the last day of the year, but not in 1954 – on December 31, 1955! Crooks, while they are in the process of being crooks, can never manage to get it quite just right.

They have two (both) "books" or titles on the same book both claiming to have an effective implementation for the year of 1954! So which one had the greater legal effect???? And then there is the other question. In a claim of two (both) titles, where is the second title?? Can we open any of the books and expect to find two separate and distinct titles, and bodies of information inside??? NO, WE CANNOT! For it, the second Title, DOES NOT EXIST!

THAT is called A LIE! A Lie of this nature constitutes only one thing – FRAUD! There simply is no other way to outline it. No one way to interpret it. No other way to explain it that has any sense of law or justice to it.

So they (IRS officials) continued the pattern started in 1955 for a total of six (6) years. Perhaps it was not communists that they feared might be found in their camp. Perhaps it was Nazis. Nazi war criminals. Nazis who knew more about brainwashing the public than any other nation on the earth, with the knowledge of the most sophisticated of techniques in doing so available.

Therefore, we are going to call in to the trial, if a trial is needed and they (current IRS officials) will not settle out of court, expert psychologists, expert in the field of mass psychological warfare, and brainwashing, to show that the series of books that we are referring to as the "blue backed series" were used in a brainwashing effort that worked, worked to convince the people that there really was a "1954" edition, when there never factually was.

Try this little experiment. Not on yourself; but on someone else, anyone. You may already know about it. It is commonly passed around as a joke. But it illustrates the principle of mind alteration, or brainwashing. Brainwashing requires repetitiveness. Three times is sufficient. More is gravy.

Ask someone to "Spell Slot." Insist that they spell it, but don’t spell it for them. They, if cooperating properly, will spell it "S L O T."

Say, "Spell it again." They will say again "S L O T."

Say, "Spell it one more time." They will say "S L O T."

Now pop the instant question, "What do you do when you come to a green light?"

Almost invariably, over 90 % of the people will answer "Stop." And then realize afterwards that what they meant to say was "Go."

Mind conditioning has long been an art of wicked governments, and is found prevalent among those whose goal it is to subjugate all mankind.

We hope that this helps clear up any confusion that you might have had. If not, email your questions and we will try to answer them further.

Understand, we have only provided you with the tip of the iceberg of what we have on these people. There are other arguments, precise and to the point, that we have not gone into here, that they (IRS) are going to have to face.

In time we will disclose those too. But for now, the ones that we have set in front of everyone here should be sufficient to convince the people that there really is a genuine case of fraud here, a heavy one, and they, the people involved in this law suit, have a right under the law to get their money back. All of it. Plus 3 % per year (reasonable interest) for every year of unlawful taxation, compounded annually. Plus costs of professional tax preparation.

And do reconsider joining the lawsuit. Bear in mind that unlike conditions with class action lawsuits, this action is likely not to become a matter of public record, and that all settlements will be strictly private.

Remember, where the use of social security numbers in settlement may be required, the Privacy Act of 1974 creates a legal bar against public scrutiny. And if private, then no outside party will have the ability to benefit from the settlement, because there will be no basis in either law or court proceeding to base such an external settlement on.

For those with difficulties in coming up with the minimal required amount, contact us at join@ultimatelawsuit.com and describe your situation. We might have some suggestions that will help you come into the lawsuit.

Thank you, very much.

                        Ultimate 2001 Services Department