The following is the testimony of Christopher Holloman Hansen. The court reporter spelled my Surname incorrectly.
It is followed by the legal understanding of Joel F. Hansen, Attorney, speaking to the Tax Court (Particularized tribunal and not an Art. III court) concerning the 'dollar.'
It is very educational.
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Place: Las Vegas, Nevada
Date: September 18, 2007
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters
1220 L Street, N. W. Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-4018
(202) 628-4888
hrc@a concentric.net
In the Matter of:
BRET W. & MERRY C. OGILVIE,(Petitioners,) vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, (Respondent . )
Docket Nos . 13448-05, 17380-06
MR. HANSEN: Yes. I call Mr. Christopher Hanson to the stand.
Whereupon, CHRISTOPHER HANSON having been duly sworn, was called as witness and was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
THE COURT : Good morning, Mr. Hanson.
THE WITNESS: Good morning, Judge.
THE CLERK : Could you please state your name and 16 address for the record?
THE WITNESS: My name is Christopher Holloman, that's my Christian name. My surname is Hanson. It is spelled with upper and lower case letters and is specifically not spelled in all capital letters as an all capital spelling would be an abomination to my religious beliefs specifically mentioned in the Testaments of Truth number six.
MR. HANSEN: Do you want him to spell his name?
THE CLERK: No, but your address, please.
HANSON - DIRECT
THE WITNESS : My mailing address is 2657 Windmill Parkway, #107, Henderson, Nevada.
THE CLERK : That's fine.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. State your name, please.
A. My name is Christopher Hanson.
Q. And Mr. Hanson, are you Mr. Bret Ogilvie's religious advisor?
A. I am and have been for at least ten years.
Q. Okay. And have you brought with you here today some documents which you have shared with Mr. Ogilvie regarding his and your religious beliefs?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And I believe His Honor has a copy of those at his desk, that's Exhibit P-1 1-P, 1 through 77.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And would you tell us what those documents are, Mr. Hanson?
A These documents include the official documents of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, also the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They define the way that both the Fellowship and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints feel about Communism, Socialism, fascism, Social Security, Social Security numbering, civil religions, civic religions, specific studies done by members of the Fellowship and me specifically on civic religion, civil religion, the religion of the Third Reich, the civic religions of China, Vietnam, the United States of America, the United States, Germany, etc.
Q. Okay. And those are documents 1 through 77?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And you shared those with Mr. Ogilvie and he has studied them and accepted those as part of his religion?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. HANSEN: Okay. I'll offer those in evidence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
MR. HANSEN: I'll offer those in evidence.
THE COURT: Oh, they're admitted, yeah.
MR. HANSEN: All right.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. Now, Mr. Hanson, I noticed that you have some books referred to there but the whole book isn't there.
Exhibit 3, for instance, A Testament of Sovereignty, I'm showing you that -- could we mark this specifically as Exhibit 1-P, 3A.
THE CLERK: You need to stay by the microphone .
MR. HANSEN: I'm sorry. It's part of 1-P, 3A.
HANSON - DIRECT
MR. GREEN: 1-P, 3A.
THE COURT: Off the record, Ms. Whelan.
THE COURT: Back on.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. I'm showing you the Exhibit 3A -- 1-P, 3A, Mr. Hanson --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- the book.
A A Testament of Sovereignty. Yes, sir.
Q. I note that in the in our list of exhibits, it's listed as Exhibit 3.
A. Yes.
Q. But the entire book isn't there, just the cover.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And this is the actual book itself.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Would you quickly tell us what that book is?
A. Testament of Sovereignty is the first book of the teachings of the Testament of Sovereignty, its founding
document. It explains issues concerning the Fellowship, why
the Fellowship was founded, where it came from, what its authority is, etc.
Q. Is that part of Mr. Ogilvie's religious beliefs?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. Now I also have here a copy of the Book of Mormon.
HANSON - DIRECT 11
THE COURT: What did you want to do with this?
MR. HANSEN: Exhibit 2A --
THE COURT: 1-P, 2A.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 1-P, 2A.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that?
A. It is a copy of the Book of Mormon.
Q. Is that part of Mr. Ogilvie's religious beliefs?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. I note that you have in your hand another document there . And is that your personal copy of the King James Version of the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
A. Actually, it's my wife's personal copy. Mine was damaged recently.
MR. HANSEN: Your Honor, Mr. Hanson thought I was going to bring that book, and he thought I was going to bring it back and forth. We would like to have permission to supplement the record with the combination book that he has with him, an older one that -- this is his personal copy. Would that be acceptable?
THE COURT: Or do you want to admit the physical books into evidence themselves?
MR. HANSEN: Yes, I do. But that one is his personal copy. We don't have one, so I would like to add that later if there is no objection.
THE COURT: That would be fine.
MR. HANSEN: Okay . We'll supply a copy of that for the Court.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. So that's a copy of the scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which would be the King James Version and which is Exhibit 1 on the list and Exhibit 2. Correct?
Yes. And the bible is also part of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty as well as all writings and references by Jesus Christ.
Q. Now, what's your position with the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty?
A. I'm the co-founder of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty and am currently the presiding sovereign.
Q. Okay. And are you also an elder in the Church of 21 Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
A. I am an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and have been since I was 20 years old.
Q. And you're familiar with the scriptures and the doctrine of the LDS church?
A. I have made it a life-long study.
Q. Okay. And you are the author of many of the doctrines and teachings of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, as you're aware, this case is about a defense and the issue of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And one of the issues in the case is whether or not the government substantially burdens Mr. Ogilvie's religious beliefs as to the First Christian Fellowship's teachings. In what way in your understanding does that, is his religious belief burdened?
MR. GREEN: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I have no objection to the documents, to what Mr. Ogilvie's religious beliefs are, but I object to this witness testifying regarding the Petitioner's religious beliefs. If you want to put Mr. Ogilvie on the stand, that's fine. I have no objection to what the beliefs are generally, but when he's talking about the Petitioner's religious beliefs, the Petitioner should be the witness.
THE COURT: What's the purpose of this, to prove truthfulness?
MR. HANSEN: The purpose of this is to have the religious advisor articulate the beliefs.
THE COURT: Why don't we have him articulate the beliefs of the church in general and Mr. Ogilvie his own beliefs?
MR. HANSEN: Okay.
THE COURT: He can do it by reference, obviously.
MR. HANSEN: Okay.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. How does a, does the government substantially burden a member of the Fellowship's religious exercise?
A We actually have an official proclamation written on that, signed by the leaders of the Fellowship. If I'm allowed to, I'd read it into the record.
MR. HANSEN: Your Honor, because of your limitation on the amount of time that we would have today, we tried to reduce this to a document so we can just submit the document, then we wouldn't take up so much time.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. If -- you don't have to read it into the record if the Court will accept this into evidence. If you do, you can describe the document for us and we can save time.
A It's the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty's Official Proclamation. It states at the beginning to give an introduction to it, "Whereas the United States Federal Government has established a secular civil religion of Communism in these United States of America, with a small "u" on "united," and is by fraud, force, threat, duress or coercion requiring or attempting to require members of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty to reject teachings of Christ and to follow the Satanic religion of Communism, we the sovereign leadership of the Fellowship do hereby declare to the world," then it goes on to declare what the reasons are as to what the substantial burdens that are being placed on the members of the Fellowship, along with other people in the United States of America are.
MR. HANSEN: Okay. I would like to have that marked as the next document into evidence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have a copy for Ms. Bayles?
MR. HANSEN: Do you have an extra copy, Mr. Hanson?
THE WITNESS: I do have an extra copy, actually I have an extra original. It is signed and sealed with the Fellowship seal.
MR. HANSEN: Okay. I would like to make that Exhibit 78 .
MR. HANSEN: This was in deference to Your Honor's limitation on our time,
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR . HANSEN : -- rather than --
THE COURT : It's just as easy to get the written document in there
MR. HANSEN: It would be his testimony if we had more time, but since you asked us to limit the time, we tried to do this to accommodate the Court's desire.
THE COURT: Of course.
MR. HANSEN: Do you want a copy?
THE WITNESS: Yeah . That's my last original.
MR. HANSEN: Maybe we can have the Court make another copy. They just want to look at.
THE WITNESS: I need a copy of
MR. HANSEN: He needs a copy of it, Your Honor.
He only brought two to the Court.
THE WITNESS: I had expected to read it into the record.
THE COURT: I will waive on the government's behalf the requirement that they get a copy.
MR. HANSEN: We'll give you one later .
THE CLERK: Exhibit 10-P marked for identification.
(The document referred to was marked for identification as Petitioner's Exhibit No . 10-24 P.)
MR . HANSEN : What is it?
THE CLERK: 10-P.
MR. HANSEN: 10-P.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. Is Mr. Ogilvie a member of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty?
A. Yes.
Q. So these, this would represent his beliefs in a nutshell?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. And I've discussed them with him many times these exact issues.
Q. All right. Does the Book of Mormon say anything about a conspiracy to establish a Communist civil religion?
A. Yes, specifically it talks about the establishment, they're called the plans of Gadianton. In the Book of Mormon the plans of Gadianton has been defined by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints socialism and Communism and that when we see these, not if we see these, but when we see these come to us in the specifically in the Americas, that we should be aware of our awful situation, an awful situation which the Fellowship agrees with, which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has specifically stated and is found in those, the list of the Petitioner's documents, and is specifically found in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Ether. I believe it's in Chapter 7 in the Book of Ether. I could be wrong on the chapter.
Q. The LDS Church's Book of Mormon, James Statement, Chapter 8, I believe -
A. Is it 8?
Q. -- of the Book of Ether regarding conspiracies to be present in the latter days, which would be now. Is that correct?
A. Yes. Verse 22, for example, "And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations to get power and gain until they shall spread over the nation. Behold, they shall be destroyed for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints which shall be shed by them shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them, and yet, he avenge them not."
Q. Mr. Hanson, is the Book of Mormon and these other scriptures we've mentioned, the King James Version, the Doctrine of Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, are those officially recognized and canonized scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And is Mr. Ogilvie a member of the Church of Jesus 5 Christ of Latter Day Saints?
A. Yes, he is. He is a high priest.
Q. Okay. Do you have evidence that Communism/Marxism/socialism is a religion?
A. Yes. In fact, I've had discussions with religious professors and history professors around the country, including organizations such as Religious Tolerance, which at my recommendation, just added Communism as a religion.
Also, there are books that have included that statement. They absolutely meet for my studies, the definition basically attributed to what a religious belief is, although can't be specifically defined, for that would be an establishment of religion by the courts in and of itself.
But they meet the standards established for what a religion is within the Supreme Court, and I have letters and e-mails -- I should say e-mails from professors that state that they meet those requirements and have for a long time. In fact, one of the founders of socialism, Communism, anarchy, Bukanin, called the system a church, although he hated to use the word, because it so similar.
Q. Use what word?
HANSON – DIRECT 20
A. Use the word "church" to describe exactly the meanings of how socialism were to work. Without question, Adolph Hitler actually established the Church of the Reich with a 30 point plan, which I personally wrote a comparison on on what is being done in these United States of America to establish that and use it in the public schools, which is also the tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto. The income tax has been established as the second plank of the Communist Manifesto, and the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto is the Federal Reserve System.
Q. So it's the belief of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty that the religion of Communism/Marxism/socialism has been established as the official civic religion of the United States?
A. At least parts of it have, yes, without question. We're here in a part of that establishment. Tax court is a part of the establishment of the graduated income tax which is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto, which would be similar to the United States establishing a tax to keep people from working on the Sabbath.
Q. Okay. And what other planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented in the United States of America's government?
A. Almost completely, or completely the fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto was to establish a national using credit and to establish all credit through that.
They've done that more through fascism than they have strictly through Communism, although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Fellowship have recognized that basically it's just one big huge Satanic plan. And that the Federal Reserve System, which has destroyed the monetary system and has worked actively to destroy the monetary system to create a system of credit, using notes instead of dollars, that this system would be to help to enslave the people in direct violation of the Declaration of Taking Up Arms, which said that the reason that they took up arms was to keep their children from being forced into hereditary bondage, which through the Social Security system, the Federal Reserve System and the income tax has actually occurred in destruction of the very founding documents of the United States of America.
MR. HANSEN: Does counsel have an objection?
MR. FEINBERG: I'm sorry. I don't have an objection, Your Honor. I believe yesterday evening, you -- counseled, Mr. Hansen that they would have 20 minutes and at your request I've been keeping time. And that 20 minutes is now up.
THE COURT: Well, I'll give them until noon.
MR. FEINBERG: I'm just bringing that up.
THE COURT : You need to keep track of lodestar for the time he's spent authenticating documents which have been authenticated.
MR. FEINBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Hanson.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. I don't know if we got an answer to the question in what way does the government substantially burden a member of the Fellowship's religious exercise. Could you be specific?
A. It specifically forces members to sign documents that they know are lies under penalties of perjury.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well
Q. Is this part of the religion that you're talking about, the First Christian Fellowship?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what is that? How is that a burden?
A. Well, to be forced to lie under penalties of perjury is a burden because we are required to tell the truth.
Q. What are you talking about?
A. Thou shalt not bear false witness and thou shalt not lie, so we're forced to lie. We're forced to use unequal weights and measures. We are forced to be involved in a system that is in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and is a Satanic religion and called so by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also.
Q. What system are you talking about?
A. Communism, the religion of Communism and the Internal Revenue Service specifically.
Q. What does that got to do with taxes is what question is?
A. What does that have to do with taxes?
Q. With the income tax?
A. Well, we're required to render under Caesar what is Caesar’s. And in the United States of America the Caesars are the sovereigns. And the sovereignty comes from the people.
Q. This is part of Mr. Ogilvie's religious beliefs?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. And the sovereignty comes from the people, and therefore, we have certain unalienable rights. And what the government has attempted to do is to create a congressionally created right which can only be heard in particularized tribunals such as tax court in order to tax or to alien or to lien the wages which is, are specifically required to be held by the sovereign. In other words, we are forced to become bad stewards of that which the Lord Jesus Christ has given them to us by this taxing system which is a system to establish another religion.
It would be like being forced to pay tithing to Buddhism if you're not a Christian, or if you're a Christian, or to be forced to be paid any kind of dues to support any other religion. It is strictly a violation of the establishment of religion and a destruction of the Constitution. And the Constitution of the United States is specifically a part along with the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Taking of Arms, of the teachings of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty up through the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Q. So you were talking about having to be forced to sign documents under oath that were lies. What do you mean?
A. Well, for example, if people are ordered to sign a 1040 form and it's called -- first of all, it's called a voluntary compliance, but if you don't sign it, you are threatened with jail. For example, you just got done with a 198-count indictment on people that are being charged with such things, and you're forced to put down how much income you have. We don't know what income is. It's a totally vague term. Everything that comes in is specifically not income. We can't find out. We've asked our representatives what the word means. We get many different answers. We go to the court cases, we find many different answers. The word "dollar" is unknown. No one knows -
Q. Mr. Hanson, the Court is -
A. -- what the word is.
Q. Mr. Hanson, the Court is -- and I want to make specific reference to this the Court admonished me yesterday not to bring up the issue of what is a dollar. At this point is that important in your testimony with regard to this issue?
A. It would be impossible for me to tell the whole truth without discussing the dollar issue, and so I would not even be able to tell the whole truth. It would be like supporting perjury not to allow me to talk on that issue.
MR. HANSEN: Your Honor, I've admonished the witness.
THE COURT: All right. Well, very briefly, is your point that we have these things with George Washington's picture on them that are called dollars and we also have minted silver dollars?
THE WITNESS : No, that's not my point at all, Your Honor. That is a silver dollar.
MR. HANSEN: For the record, the witness has shown the Court a silver dollar.
BY MR. HANSEN:
Q. Now tell us what the silver dollar is, Mr. Hanson.
A. The silver dollar is created by Congress, by order of Congress, by the United States Mint. It is one ounce of pure silver. They have been minted since 1986. The reason that they were minted according to the Congressional record was to restore the honest weights and measures. Now, with 14 or 15 or 16 or many more Federal Reserve Notes, one can exchange those for one single dollar. Both can't be a dollar. The United States, from all of the research that I have done on this religious issue, have never defined a Federal Reserve Note as a dollar, but only as a note. They are said that they can be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank, and yet if you take one in, all you can get again is a Federal Reserve Note. Black's Law, 6th edition, specifically says that notes are not money. Therefore, Federal Reserve Notes cannot be money for they are notes. You cannot have a dollar that is worth one thing over here and yet another thing over here. When I use these to pay for things, people accept them and give me 150 percent discount if I pay for things. We write contracts in these dollars, so the huge court case that you were just personally involved in and that I was personally involved in was specifically on this issue. And people were being paid in these. No one can give a definition of this. And Congress specifically has never defined a Federal Reserve Note as a dollar, and yet, they have defined these as a dollar.
HANSON – DIRECT 27
And so we have to somehow select some form of dollar to be able to determine what a dollar is. And the Fellowship has determined that this is the only dollar that can be used, for even the gold dollars which are minted don't have an equal value. For example, a $50 gold piece is one ounce of gold, and yet a $10 gold piece is one quarter of an ounce of gold. So that once again is an unequal weight and measure, which according to the bible and the teachings of the Fellowship, is an abomination to God. So we're being forced into this abomination which is to establish this system where we are serfs and these bankers who have stated, "allow me to print the money of a nation and I care not who make the law," and who Thomas Jefferson said, "we're thieves," and who President Andrew Jackson said that "I will roust them out," and did so until Abraham Lincoln came in and in the same year establishing the income tax 14 years after the Communist Manifesto was written, also passed the National Banking Act which was supported by the Rothschilds, which specifically is to do this. This is the kind of stuff. It is without question a conspiracy to establish a Tierney of Communism over Americans and over members of the Fellowship which substantially burden the members' religious exercise.
(Comment by CHH: The reporter misspelled this word. It is “Tyranny” I commented on it because I thought it was funny that the Tax Court reporter did not know how to spell “tyranny.”)
Q. Does this silver dollar have something to do with a less restrictive way of imposing the taxes on Mr. Ogilvie?
A. Yes. If taxes could be calculated, if you actually had income that you could calculate them in dollars that had been prescribed to be dollars by the United States government, then the tax could be collected on all income from Congressionally-created rights and privileges by using this form of dollar --
Q. When you say "this form of --
A. - instead of a non-dollar Federal Reserve Note.
Q. For the record, when you say "this form of dollar," you're holding up the silver dollar. What's the date on it?
A. The date on this is 2003. It is a Liberty dollar, one ounce, states on the reverse side, "United States of America, one fine ounce, One Dollar," which is very specific because that is where the value of this dollar is calculated is in Title 31 of the Code, I think it's Section 5112 of I think it's at (d), which specifically says the value of the coin shall be placed on the back side of the coin.
Q. How is that a less restrictive way of imposing taxes on Mr. Ogilvie.
A. Well, it would be specifically that you have a specific weight and measure. The original dollar in the Constitution of the United States wasn't minted by the United States because the United States Mint didn't exist. It was refereed to as the Spanish dollar which had a specific weight, which is less than this current dollar.
But in the Constitution of the United States, Congress can establish the value of money so they could change it if they wanted to. They went from a silver standard to a gold standard for example, and then after the Federal Reserve was fraudulently placed into our monetary system without any constitutional authority, that system came in and eventually, slowly degraded as Nikita Khrushchev told President Ezra Taft Benson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who was also the former agricultural secretary, he informed him that Americans are so gullible that we will fall to Communism out of our gullibleness, because we would fall like ripe fruit into their hands and that we wouldn't even know, the majority of Americans wouldn't even know that America has succumbed to Communism, which is what has occurred.
Q. Now, you also indicated in some of the documents that the tax court system where you don't get a jury trial was also a substantial burden on the rights of the members of your, of the First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty and that there would be a less restrictive means which would be a jury trial. Is that correct?
A. Without question, the Seventeenth -- the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial of any controversy that exceeds $20.
So here we are in a trial in a particularized tribunal, non-Article III court, we're note even sure if it's an Article I or an Article IV court, we're not even sure what kind of jurisdiction they have in this court, without a jury trial, sovereign citizens not sitting in answer to in judgment to what the law and the facts are for a jury's decision, let judgment on both the law and the facts. And there's an entire section on jury rights inside of the Testament of Sovereignty, and that's being denied to him, and it appears that it is being denied to him because as is stated in the Supreme Court decision concerning Northern Pipeline that you have to accept a federally, a Congressionally-created right. And if you accept this Federally-created right, that they can create presumptions with the entire Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code, the entire thing is a presumption, and that it is to be adjudicated by particularized tribunals such as tax court, which is not an Article III court, and no jury trial.
So here we have property that's going to be determined whether it's going to be taken away in excess of a controversy of $20 without a jury trial. And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act establishes that if you can offer something that's least restrictive that would still be able to enforce the law, that you should be granted that, but there's been no offer by that by the government.
And the government has never demonstrated that even that they've met the substantial burden that they are required to meet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In other words, basically, we're attending the star chamber.
Q. You've indicated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of which Mr. Ogilvie is a high priest, that it has had some specific direction to its members, that they are not to participate in socialism or Communism or fascism or Marxism. Is that correct?
A. Yes, and those quotes are found in the exhibits.
Q. Okay. Can you tell me anything about that just for the -
A. Two specific, we are to eschew socialism. We are -
Q. "Eschew?"
A Eschew.
Q. E-s-c-h-e-w.
A. E-s-c-h-e--w socialism.
Q. Which means?
A. Eschew means to completely avoid it, to have nothing to do with it --
Q. All right.
A. to deny it, to get away from it. That we are to eschew socialism/communism, and that fascism President Ezra Taft Benson, the former agricultural secretary under President Eisenhower said that fascism is nothing but Communism, just another form of Communism, and that all of this is the -- in direct opposition and the Satanic plan in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Direct opposition.
Q. Has any president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints condemned the Social Security system?
A. Yes. He called it in direct violations of the teachings of Jesus Christ and Brigham Young and that we should not be participants in it.
Q. Who was that?
A. That was Hebert J. Grant in I believe 1936 A.D.
Q. Does the government's requirement that a person participate in the Social Security system burden a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' religion, specifically to Mr. Ogilvie?
A. I'm sorry, but I can find no requirement that anyone is required to participate in the Social Security system and have received letters from the Social Security system that no one is required to have a Social Security number to either live or work in the United States and that the number specifically belongs to the government. And we can find no requirement whatsoever. What it is it's a lie. It's supposedly voluntary. They get children to sign in to these things. They get parents to sign them. They get hospitals to sign them. But the only requirement for a Social Security number is for an alien working in the United States. According to everything that we've been able to discover in the Fellowship, if a person that is in Nevada, a Nevada citizen is actually an alien to the United States for the United States is a foreign jurisdiction. In fact, tax court's only jurisdiction is really from what we've been able to discover, within Washington DC --
Q. Is that part of
A. and yet here it is --
Q. Is that part of Mr. Ogilvie's religion?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. HANSEN: Your Honor, it's about one minute to 12:00. Did you have any additional questions of Mr. Hanson or the I have no additional questions for Mr. Hanson at this time. Let me put this on the record.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. HANSEN: That we have tried to give a very compressed version of this entire issue to the Court. I'm sure that as you can tell Mr. Hanson is quite well informed on these issues and we would, we had requested two days for this trial so that this would be properly articulated.
HANSON – DIRECT 34
Therefore, we object to the limitation, but in deference to the Court.
THE COURT: Your objection is noted.
MR. HANSEN: We are going to terminate the questioning of Mr. Hanson at this time.
THE COURT: You're not going to have any questions Mr. Green, are you?
MR. GREEN: None, Your Honor.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: We'll break for lunch and resume at 1:00.
MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the trial in the above entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at 1:04 p.m. this same day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(1:04 p.m.)
THE CLERK: All rise.
THE COURT: All right. Please be seated. We'll recall the Ogilvie case.
MR. HANSEN: Good afternoon, Your Honor
Yesterday the Court indicated that there would be sanctions imposed upon Mr. Ogilvie if he talked about the dollar issue. If you look at our page 2 of our pre-trial memorandum, that was one of the major -
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HANSEN: -- defenses or issues of the case. Therefore, Mr. Ogilvie was afraid to testify with regard to that and has returned to his home in Reno. Therefore, at this time, we would rest.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have anything to add to the record? Let's assume that the dollars are the little pieces of paper with George Washington on them. Do you have anything that you want to add to calculate this deficiency using those little pieces of paper with George Washington on them? Or is this just the -- you want this to be the test case on whether a dollar is a dollar?
COMMENT by CHH: The judge did not say that those “little pieces of paper with George Washington on them” were dollars. He said, “Let's assume that the dollars are the little pieces of paper with George Washington on them.” If they were dollars why did the judge not just quote the law that Congress wrote that defined “the little pieces of paper with George Washington on them,” as dollars. The reason why is because Congress has not defined “the little pieces of paper with George Washington on them,” as dollars. So why is an American to “assume” anything in the law? No American is required to “assume” a lie, except, I guess, in Tax Court.
What an interesting word assume is considering that this case was about law and the definition of a term that MUST, according to the Constitution, be defined by Congress.
2 a: to take to or upon oneself : undertake
3: seize, usurp
4: to pretend to have or be : feign
5: to take as granted or true : suppose
And my favorite:
6: to take over (the debts of another) as one's own.
MR. HANSEN: Well, Your Honor, I believe that we put enough into the record to make those arguments.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: I spent the summer making those arguments in front of Judge Jones, and so I would like to say that we would be citing, I would cite Your Honor to a couple of cases. I would like you to, Thompson v. Butler is a Supreme Court case with regard to that issue. I don't have the cites right here. It's about an 1870 case.
There's also another case entitled Linq Su Fan --
THE COURT: Hold on just a second, Thompson v.
MR. HANSEN: Ling Su Fan -- Butler --
THE COURT: Could you spell that one?
MR. HANSEN:- and the other one -- I will. L-i-n-g S-u F-a-n. I don't know the other party.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: This Thompson v. Butler, both of those case are -- they both hold that a bullion dollar or a coin dollar is indistinguishable legally from a paper dollar.
THE COURT: Yeah. They're from the area of legal tender cases.
MR. HANSEN: Yes, they are, and as you know, the legal tender cases discuss that also. There is also a Nevada Supreme Court case. It's Beatty -- and I could get Your Honor the cite. I don't have it right here. But it's we cited it in the other case. Beatty versus, I think, the State of State of Nevada. It's about a Nevada Supreme Court justice who won a debate in the old gold coins, and so he sued. And the Nevada Supreme Court he took himself off the board and he court said no, a coin dollar is legally the same as a paper dollar.
And then I would cite to the Court Ninth Circuit cases which all dealt with pre-1985 situations where people were paid in the old double eagles, which were taken out of circulation when the Roosevelt Administration made gold illegal. They were taken out of circulation back in about 1934. And those cases that were ruled on by the Ninth Circuit in about 1980, '81 and '82 are titled Cal. Fed. And the other one is Cordner. I don't have the cites here. I didn't know I was going to be arguing this today. But, anyway, those cases dealt with the old gold coins, and they said that if the coins were considered to be property then they would be taxed at face value, market value. But if they were considered to be money, they would be taxed at face value.
So our contention on that issue, Your Honor, would be that the new gold and silver coins that were put into circulation by Congress as a result of the 1985 Gold Bullion Act and the Silver Coin Act, that they are actually circulated money, that they're in circulation, that they are, have not been outlawed, and that they are money because Congress has mandated that they be minted in sufficient quantities in which, to meet demand. So they're not rare. They don't have any numismatic value to speak of. They just are in circulation. But the actual bullion value is different from of course the Federal Reserve Notes.
THE COURT: Are they sold by the government at one Federal Reserve Note dollar to one silver coin dollar?
MR. HANSEN: No, they're not. They're -- the --I'm not denying that there is a difference in value, Your Honor. That's not our case. Our case is that the dollar has not been defined. There's no place in the federal – in the Tax Code or in the federal, in the United States Code that defines the word "dollar." And we put into evidence this morning that letter I referred you to yesterday where general counsel for the Treasury Department says that the Federal Reserve Note is not a dollar. However, the closest definition that we've been able to find to a dollar, for a dollar, I believe is contained in 31 U.S.C. 5112 or 5118, which talks about that those gold and silver dollars are actually dollars. But we haven't been able to find any place where the U.S. Code defines a Federal Reserve Note as a dollar. And we've not been able to find any place in the Tax Code where the word dollar is used that refers to, that it's -- or the alleged fact that it's supposed to be calculated in Federal Reserve Notes. The Code only says dollars, and so we have the silver dollar which says it's a dollar and Congress said that it was a dollar, and said that should be minted to say that it's a dollar. And we have a Federal Reserve Note which also says on the face of it that it's one dollar. So we have a dual monetary system.
But the Tax Code does not grapple with that issue. And I could -- I mean I've spent this entire year litigating this issue in federal court. Now, in order to be up-front with the Court, I don't want to mislead the Court, Judge Jones ruled in his case, which I'm sure we'll be appealing, that the tax was to be calculated based on the market value in Federal Reserve Notes of the coins. That's what the Federal District Court here said. However, that's an open question. The major case that he relied on in making that ruling was Smith v. Commissioner, which is a tax court case, which does rule on the gold and silver coins. No, it rules on the gold coins, not the silver coins. In Smith v. Commissioner, and that's the only reported case that I know of that we've been able to find, the tax court said that the gold coins were to be treated, or were to be forwarded at face value. However, I mean at market value -- I'm sorry. Market value, I get those two mixed up. At market value. However, the tax court was mistaken about the facts in that case because it said that the coins were commemorative coins, which they are not. There's no commemorative anything about them -- in fact they're specifically left out of the statute which establishes commemorative coins for the United States. They're not mentioned anywhere as commemorative coins. They're mentioned as legal tender by Congress. And also they are --the Court said in that case that they were not currently in circulation, which isn't true. They are in circulation. They're being used today even as we speak. So as to that case, we're saying the ruling is fine, but if you have commemorative coins which are not in circulation, then fine. The market value is what you should use because they are property. They're not being used as money. But if the coins are in circulation and mandated to be so by Congress, and Congress says they're dollars, which they do in the statute, and they're in circulation. They're called dollars by Congress. And they're not commemorative, and they're in circulation I think I said that, then they are dollars under all the case law that we've been able to find, even the case law that I quoted, Cordner, Cal. Fed. and Smith because they're not property because they're being used as money. So as they were used as money, then they should be accepted at their face value. That's basically the case that we made with Judge Jones. He disagreed. He ruled otherwise. That issue I'm sure will eventually end up at the Ninth Circuit.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to give you one last opportunity to discuss the redetermination of your client's deficiency as defined in Federal Reserve dollars. Are you declining that?
Comment: NOTICE THAT THIS TAX COURT JUDGE DOES NOT CALL THEM UNITED STATES DOLLARS. HE CALLS THEM FEDERAL RESERVE DOLLARS. WHAT THE HELL IS A FEDERAL RESERVE DOLLAR? What are they worth in Fair Market Value to a United States Dollar?
MR. HANSEN: Well, since the client felt intimidated by Your Honor's order, I don't have anybody to call. I will say this that he is figuring his deficiency based on being paid in gold and silver coins which would be substantially less than the face value of the Federal Reserve Notes. Therefore, the deficiency would not exist. In fact, he probably wouldn't even meet the threshold to have to file any income tax because he would be making less than the threshold of 6 or $7,000. So if he figures his income in the bullion coins, he doesn't have any tax liability. But he's not here to testify, and the reason he's not is because Your Honor indicated that he would not be able to testify with regard to that issue or he would be sanctioned. So he left and went home. So I don't -- I rest my case.
THE COURT: He avoids the sanctions that way. Do you have any witnesses, evidence, that you'd like to go and get introduced, Mr. Green?
MR. GREEN: None, Your Honor. But I would ask the Court to hold the record open in order for Respondent to get certified copies of the statutory notice of deficiency as well as --
THE COURT: Is there any problem in relying on the statutory notice of deficiency which appears to be complete and is attached to the petition in this case?
MR. GREEN: Um --
THE COURT: Think bench opinion, Mr. Green.
COMMENT by CHH: How nice of the Tax Court to ASSIST the IRS attorney in helping to get evidence into the record so the Court can rule that Ogilvie owes something called Federal Reserve Dollars.
MR. GREEN: We wouldn't have an objection to that, Your Honor. They do appear to be complete or at least enough information that the Court I think can establish jurisdiction.
THE COURT: And is the government challenging any of the figures or conceding any of the figures in the notice of deficiency that's attached as Exhibit A to the petition in this case?
MR. GREEN: No, Your Honor. There are no concessions.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: And I would, for the record, Your Honor -
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. HANSEN --like to object to the government being allowed to put any of these documents into evidence without authentication. They have no witnesses here to authenticate these documents. Therefore, I object to their being admitted into evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. That is noted as well.
Comment By CHH: The judge just admitted evidence that was not authenticated by a witness.
MR. HANSEN: Or the Court relying on any documents which have not been admitted into evidence or authenticated by a live witness or by proper procedure which would have been to get certified copies which the government has neglected to do.
THE COURT: Mr. Green, do I have a copy of the notices of deficiency for years other than 2001?
MR. GREEN: Other than 2001?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. GREEN: For tax year 2002, for years 2002, it appears that that notice of deficiency for 2002 and 2003 in docket number 17380 –
THE COURT: Hold on just a sec. Well, I will sort this out. I'll have my opinion in this case at 4:30 right after Ulrich and maybe Meyer.
MR. HANSEN: Do you want us to come back here and hear the opinion, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You can if you want. It's optional. We always send a copy of the transcript if you're not here, actually even if you are here to give to your client. That's a free transcript, so that's entirely up to you. All right. We need a brief break then to set up for the Kovacevich case. Do you have anything else?
MR. FEINBERG: Your Honor, well just a point of clarification.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. FEINBERG: I don't know if the Court is -- the Court had asked me to keep time on -
THE COURT: Oh, forget about that. We're not wasting your time this afternoon. That'll be fine. No sanctions. How long will you need to set up for the Kovacevich case and the lawyers handling this one? Is this you again, Mr. Green?
MR. GREEN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Oh, Okay.
MR. GREEN: Can we have 20 minutes?
THE COURT: Twenty minutes to set up because there's a lot of paper that needs to be moved.
17 MR. HANSEN: If I might add one thing to the record. My client felt that his religious beliefs were being threatened to be sanctioned by the Court. That's the reason he didn't want to show up.
THE COURT: Okay. That can be noted.
2MR. HANSEN: I want to make sure that's on the record.
THE COURT: That is fine.
MR. HANSEN: And again, as far as our defenses on the deficiency. You asked me only about the dollar issue. Of course, we can incorporate everything that we've presented to the Court in our pretrial motions. Everything's been presented in one way or another this court can incorporate all of that as part of our defenses--
THE COURT: Very good.
MR. HANSEN: -- to help this case.
THE COURT: Very good.
MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the trial in the above entitled matter was concluded.)
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Certificate of Transcribe and proofreader
Case Docket Nos. 13448-05 and 17380-06
Case Name: Bret W. and Merry C . Ogilvie, et al.,
Petitioners, vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,Respondent .
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 45, inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the tape made by electronic recording by Karen Whelan, on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, before the United States Tax Court at its session in Las Vegas, Nevada in accordance with the applicable provisions of the current verbatim reporting contract of the Court, and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript against the verbal recording.
Diane M . Robinson Transcriber
Michael J . Williamson
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(202) 628-4888
A few additional comments and questions by Christopher Holloman Hansen
Where was the government witness that “demonstrated that the government had a compelling government interest?
When did the government demonstrate that their actions were the least restrictive upon the Ogilvie’s Religious exercise?
And why was this being heard in Tax Court and not an Article III court?
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) In General: Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception: Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial Relief: A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
