***Federal Reserve/IRS trying to murder Sherry Jackson for exposing their crimes

Author Topic: ***Federal Reserve/IRS trying to murder Sherry Jackson for exposing their crimes  (Read 19990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mp3228

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82

"America: Freedom to Fascism" Star Sherry Jackson is Being Murdered
The feds seem intent upon MURDERING SHERRY JACKSON.  See her own report below, and you'll understand. She details how the feds denied her medical care in prison and right now she IS IN THE PROCESS OF DYING.
Sherry was one of the stars of Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism. She was the former IRS agent who cried out, "SHOW ME THE LAW!". Right now she deserves the support of the entire Freedom Movement. We can give it to her by calling her Congressional Representative imploring him to intercede to save her life. For her service to the Cause of Liberty, WE SHOULD DO NO LESS!!
Sherry's Representative is Hank Johnson, representing the 4th Congressional District of Georgia.
Call and fax him at each office and demand immediate medical attention for Sherry:
Washington, DC Office
1133 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-1605
Fax: (202) 226-0691
Lithonia Office
5700 Hillandale Dr., Suite 110
Lithonia, GA 30058
Phone: (770) 987-2291
Fax: (770) 987-8721
Tucker Office
3469 Lawrenceville Highway, Suite 205
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: (770) 939-2016
Fax: (770) 939-3753
Slam his Facebook page with comments demanding immediate medical Care for Sherry:
Forward, post, and blog this email EVERYWHERE!!!
From: "Colin L. Jackson" <<http://us.mc840.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=colinljackson@msn.com>colinljackson@msn.com>
Date: November 30, 2009 12:34:03 PM PST
Subject: Sherry Peel Jackson
Hi Friends and Family,
Please, pray for my wife, Sherry Peel Jackson. She's still having challenges while she's incarcerated. Thank you, in advance, for your prayers and encouragemenet. Here's a letter from Sherry to our Congressman, concerning her current situation.
God bless you.
In Christ, Colin
Dear Congressman Johnson
I am Sherry Peel Jackson, your former CPA. I am writing you because I am concerned about my health and my life. Prior to becoming a political prisoner I was the picture of health. In late June, 2009 I started experiencing a rapid heart beat on an irregular basis.
Since this had happened infrequently in the past I did not think much of it. However, in Mid July it started happening on a regular basis and I became concerned. I went to the medical staff twice in Mid July only to be given a one-minute EKG test and powerful meds without proper diagnosis. I did not take them because I had not been seen by a specialist. One week later, on July 21 at 12:45am I left the dorm in flip flops to go tell the officers that I was having a heart attack. The officers on duty called the ambulance and the ambulance checked my heart on their portable EKG machine. It was beating at 150 beats per minute. They took me to Leesberg (spelling) hospital where I remained until Friday, July 24th at 11:30pm. During the hospital stay it was determined that my heart was healthy but my thyroid was producing too much hormone, thus speeding up my heart.
This is called hyperthyroidism or Graves disease. I was given two medications by the hospital - Methimazole, which is an anti-thyroid agent used to reduce the amount of thyroid hormone produced by the body and Metoprolol, which is a beta blocker used to slow the heart.
The hospital doctor told me that in four weeks (approximately August 21) the prison medical unit was to do blood tests to determine how the thyroid medication was affecting my body.
The blood test was taken in late August and I was told that I would be placed on the appointment schedule to come over and review the results. I was never called. I went over in early September and inquired of Dr. DeLeon as to how to get blood test results. He told me to put in a request to staff, so I did that on September 15th. It simply asked to see the results of the tests.
Sometime after September 23rd I received a response in writing, from Ms. Marich, that stated that I could either make a sick call (come over early in the morning wait in line and fill out forms) or come to Open House to see the results. Open house is held only on Thursdays from 3:00pm to 3:30pm. I went to Open House Thursday September 30th and was told by Ms. Marich that she could not find the results! I watched her look through and around several piles of folders in her office but at no time did she look on a computer for them. She told me to check back later. On Wednesday October 28th I passed out around 4pm and was taken to medical and cleared.
On Friday October 30th my lips started turning black as if I had been a lifelong smoker. By Sunday November 1st my lips were fully black.
My boss, the Chaplain, called medical and a male nurse was sent over from the medium security men's prison on this complex (there are two maximum security, one medium security and one low security men's prisons on this complex with the women's camp). He took my blood pressure and oxygen and said there was nothing else he could do. He told me to go to sick call Monday morning, which I did.
I showed Mr. Coucho my lips and told him that something was wrong with my blood, I could tell. (I am leaving out gross details here).
He said I would be put on the schedule. However, the very next day, Tuesday morning, November 3rd, I found blood in my stool and rushed over to medical because I am smart enough to know that this is a major problem. I was chewed out for coming over to medical without a staff member telling me to come. I told Charlie, the female nurse and Mr. Coucho the PA that I was in the hospital in July, never got the blood work results and something was terribly wrong.
I am 46 years old and I know my body! I finally convinced them that I was not playing and was not stupid, so they 'treated' me with a packet for a stool sample test. Mr. Coucho looked on the computer for the blood test results from August and found them there!
The blood test showed a problem with the thyroid way back then!
He said I would be put on the schedule for new blood work later that week because these results were too old. He had a short conversation with Dr. DeLeon in Spanish and then said the thyroid count was off.
This was November 3rd. I administered the stool tests and returned them to Nurse Charlie on Friday November 6th.
Today is November 26th, Thanksgiving. I have not received the results of the stool test. I have not been given any new blood test.
My neck is swelling up like a blow fish and I am having trouble talking. I have been feeling very ill for the last two weeks.
Congressman, I don't want them to kill me in here. As you well know, I am being punished for exposing government fraud.  However, millions of people don't file tax returns and I was just used as an example by the DOJ for their new program called the Tax Defiers Initiative.
I have a wonderful husband and two beautiful children. I have already spent 21 months in prison for a non crime, and I refuse to come out dead or maimed for life. I have not caused these people any problems. This is no threat but just for your information.
I also wrote the warden today. Things can't go on this way as I languish in here for someone's political gain. God doesn't like ugly and He is the ultimate judge and vindicator.
Sherry Peel Jackson 59085-019
P.O. BOX 1032
Please do not pass up this email. Take action with us today and all this week as we call for immediate and proper medical care for Sherry.
Do not let another voice go down.
In Freedom,
Gary Franchi
Not an RTR member yet?


  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,344
  • "Yuppie Scum"
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2009, 03:35:26 PM »
DAMN ruthless.........
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, and their power of forgetting is enormous." --Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2009, 04:02:46 PM »
This is a crying SHAME

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2009, 05:30:38 PM »
Here she is with a good overview of her position (before her arrest of course)

Part 1: (10 min.)

Part 2 (6 min.)

Thank you Sherry and best of luck.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2009, 05:37:25 PM »
holy shit!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2009, 05:54:21 PM »
As she said herself, 'they (our representatives) don't give a shit about us' (paraphrasing) while appealing to individuals in Washington to address the concerns.

It's all fake - the whole damned thing - and this poor woman deserves a medal in addition to her freedom and immediate access to medical care.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,699
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2009, 07:49:03 PM »
As she said herself, 'they (our representatives) don't give a shit about us' (paraphrasing) while appealing to individuals in Washington to address the concerns.

It's all fake - the whole damned thing - and this poor woman deserves a medal in addition to her freedom and immediate access to medical care.

fREESKI, YOU SAID IT ALL..Its time to get the e mails sent, this courageous Mom needs backup.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2009, 07:59:09 PM »
They don't own us!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Feds trying to murder Sherry Jackson
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2009, 07:59:53 PM »
They don't own us!

Somebody had to say it! >:(
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
From 2 years ago:

Bill Haymin
November 06, 2007
By: Devvy

2007 - NewsWithViews.com

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution

My friend, Sherry Jackson, is the latest victim in the Federal Department of Justice's crusade to silence any American who dares tell the truth about the misapplication of the federal income tax. Sherry isn't some "tax protester" who wanted to get out of "paying her fair share." This intelligent, articulate woman is a former IRS Revenue Agent and Certified Public Accountant. She is a woman of rare qualities. A wife, a mother. A woman of deep religious faith. She also doesn't put up with liars, the railroading of the American people and has worked very hard over the years to get the factual truth to her fellow countrymen and women about how we the people have been had. Of course, this doesn't sit well with the criminal syndicate out there in Washington, DC.

Sherry determined many years ago that she was not one of those required to file and pay federal income taxes. Sherry didn't come to this conclusion overnight nor did she undertake her exhaustive research to "get out of paying her fair share." Sherry also came to understand the symbiotic relationship between the privately owned Federal Reserve and it's feeding artery, the IRS. Like so many others, DOJ went after her for willful failure to file and on October 30, 2007, she was convicted [Link. Go to www.newswithviews to access ALL links from this article] by a jury who obviously has zero knowledge of the law nor did they care. They did their civic duty!

When I heard the news, I was sick to my soul. Another friend found guilty of violating a law that doesn't exist. Another honest, decent, law abiding American will be stripped from her family and friends, taken to a federal pen, finger printed, strip searched, degraded and humiliated because twelve jurors not only have no idea of the subject matter, they didn't believe Sherry's testimony known as a good faith reliance defense. The feds brought in some highly suspect rebuttal witnesses (more on this later) and the curtain closed. Less than 45 minutes later, America's friend was made a felon. Have you ever been in a federal court room? I have and I state categorically that most people put on the stand, fighting for their life, their very freedom, would fill their drawers before the swearing in even begins. Sherry held her own on the stand.

The focus of this column is what isn't being discussed and that is ambiguity in the law and individuals all charged with the same "crime," with some juries convicting, while others acquit. The IRS uses the Sixteenth Amendment as justification for the income tax fleecing. For those who have never read any of my columns before, I have written a hundred over the past 18 years on the income tax; most are archived here, [Link]the rest are on my CD. Regular readers know of Bill Benson's incontrovertible proof, with court certified documents to back up his discovery, that the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never properly ratified. Therefore, it is a law that does not exist, [Link] yet your government has kept this lie intact to continue stealing the fruits of your labor.

In January 2000, a lawsuit was filed in Oklahoma challenging the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This suit was brought by the Wallace Institute on behalf of Bill Benson. The results were typical and due to lack of funding, no appeal was filed. One of the most important aspects regarding the making of our laws is what's called the journal entry rule; see here. [Link] When I interviewed Jeff Dickstein recently on a radio show I hosted, he told me this will be one issue included if they go to the U.S. Supreme Court on Bill Benson's case.

For the sake of argument, let's say the Sixteenth Amendment was actually ratified. What have the courts said on its meaning? Jeff Dickstein, a constitutional attorney with decades of experience in the federal court rooms and expert on this issue, can tell you:

"In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to the current income tax law. That law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax, the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned, and the act passed by Congress was not apportioned. The United States Supreme Court agreed and held the income tax act was unconstitutional in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)." Ah, but what about Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), both U.S. Supreme Court cases? Jeff gives you a complete overview here and unless one is willing to take the time to research this issue, they will continue to believe a lie. This comprehensive and easy to understand explanation of what the courts have said is crucial. The bottom line as Jeff says is this:

"Whether you agree with Brushaber that the tax is an excise tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, or agree with Eisner that the tax is a direct tax that doesn't have to be apportioned, without the 16th Amendment, the law reverts back to Pollock. The serious student will find my book, Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, an in depth study of the history of the income tax, with two chapters devoted to the issue of direct and indirect taxes, and an extensive analysis of the Pollock and Brushaber cases."

As the courts have been divided on this law and can't make up their mind, how can any American be charged and convicted for violating this so called law? It's called 'uncertainty of the law' and this is what constitutional attorney, Larry Becraft, with about 30 years experience in federal court rooms has to say:

"Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes, direct and indirect. Via Art. 1, §8, cl. 1, of the Constitution, indirect taxes (excises, duties and imposts) must be uniformly imposed throughout the country. Direct taxes are required via Art. 1, §2, cl. 3, and Art. 1, §9, cl. 4, to be imposed pursuant to the regulation of apportionment. These tax categories are mutually exclusive and any given tax must squarely fit within one category or the other. To which constitutional category does the federal income tax belong? Is it a direct tax, or is it an indirect tax? Do American courts speak with unanimity about this simple question of what is the nature of this tax?" Larry provides an understandable overview on this issue that you must read to fully understand what's happening to our fellow Americans like Sherry. Take the time this week or this weekend to read Jeff's analysis cited above and Larry's analysis here. They aren't that long and will validate what I'm saying in this column.


I have written before about ignorant juries who want nothing more than to "feel good about themselves" by convicting "tax protesters" when they don't have a clue about the laws or the history of tax laws. They don't even know their rights as jurors or jury nullification. [Link] They only know what these buzzards from the U.S. Attorney's office tell them: This defendant wanted to cheat you! He/she didn't want to pay their fair share! But, what about these juries who are all over the place on convictions?

2000: Whitey Harrell was charged in state court (Illinois) on willful failure to file income taxes. Just like Sherry Jackson. He was acquitted by a "jury of his peers." In Whitey's case, his jury fore person was a remarkable and lovely woman named Marcella Brooks; I had the pleasure and honor to share the podium with her at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on my birthday, June 29, 2000. You can watch Marcella's speech here and I recommend you take the 14 minutes to listen to what she has to say about the case and her role as a juror.

2006, Dr. Tom Clayton, a learned and generous man, was convicted on six counts of willful failure to file and making a false return using the 861 argument. State of Texas. Like Sherry, Dr. Clayton believed what he read and didn't read in black and white: that the income tax laws are being misapplied to most Americans and that he was not required to file. The most putrid statement was made following the conviction by a smarmy government employee: "The majority of people are willing to pay their taxes, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said after Clayton's conviction, "but those who aren't must be held accountable. This conviction is a reminder that the obligation to pay taxes is not negotiable." Johnny boy Sutton is the same U.S. Attorney responsible for the railroading of U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean into long federal prison sentences.

1993, Lloyd Long was charged with willful failure to file and he was acquitted [Link] by a jury of his peers. Larry Becraft was his attorney. State of Tennessee.

2007: Tommy Cryer, attorney at law; State of Louisiana. Charged with two counts of willful failure to file. Larry Becraft was his attorney. A jury unanimously found him not guilty. [Link]

2003: Vernie Kuglin, a former FED-EX pilot was acquitted on six counts of tax evasion. [Link] Her attorneys were Larry Becraft and Bob Bernhoft. State of Tennessee.

2005: Joseph Banister, former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent [Link] was charged as follows: Alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371- Conspiracy; 18 U.S.C. § 287 - False Claims Against United States (Two counts); 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) - Filing False Tax Returns; 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) - Aiding and Assisting the Filing of False Tax Returns (Three Counts); 26 U.S.C. § 7202 - Willful Failure to Withhold and Pay Taxes (10 Counts). The indictment contains several bald faced lies that I personally know to be false. The feds wanted Joe bad, but a jury of 12 acquitted him on all charges. [Link] His legal team was Jeff Dickstein and Bob Bernhoft. State of California.

2007: Sherry Jackson charged with four counts of willful failure to file. Legal counsel, Larry Becraft and Jeff Dickstein. Found guilty by a jury of 12. State of Georgia.

1991, U.S. v Sanders. Attorneys Larry Becraft and Jeff Dickstein represented Mr. Franklin Sanders, Jr. and 16 other people. Charges ranged from conspiracy to failing to file tax returns. All defendants were found not guilty on all counts by a jury of 12 in the federal case. The state then went after Franklin and he was convicted. State of Tennessee. "But acquittal in federal court did not end Sanders' ordeal. The IRS had sent an agent to work for the Tennessee Revenue Department (Sanders contends) to cook up some state charge against him." See link below, The Franklin Sanders Case.

I know Dr. Clayton, Joe Banister, Tommy Cryer, Vernie and of course, Sherry. I am fully versed on all these cases and this is just a handful, believe me. So, we have Vernie, Whitey, Franklin, Tommy and Joseph all acquitted on willful failure to file charges. Yet, Dr. Clayton and Sherry are convicted on the same charges by different juries in different states. If the law is so clear cut, how is it some Americans are getting acquitted and some convicted on the same charges? Where is there justice in this insanity?

Congressman Ron Paul has promised that if elected president [Link] he will get rid of the IRS immediately. Every candidate from the Republican and Democrat parties promises more of the same fleecing or in multi-millionaire, John Edwards words, he wants to raise taxes.

Ron Paul introduced a bill on December 12, 2000 to end the withholding taxing scheme. [Link] I believe he will see this happen if elected president. No other presidential candidate from either party will even entertain discussing this rape of the American people.

Ron Paul has a current bill to abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve [Link] and I believe he will fight to get this done if elected. No other presidential candidate from either party will even broach this subject because they are either too ignorant of the subject matter. Many of them know that to continue funding these endless wars and wasteful spending, they need the central bank to keep borrowing, further enslaving we the people, our children and grand children into unpayable debt and indentured servitude.

There is one other educational piece you must read if you haven't already. This piece is titled, Why An Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the Federal Government.'[Link] As you will see, the first part deals with educating Americans on where your income taxes actually go, the debt and deficit. The next part deals with 'A Pioneer on the Withholding Issue', Vivien Kellems. This part is particularly important because it goes right to the heart of the court decisions discussed at the top of this column regarding apportionment of taxes. What a magnificent statement by this woman on the intent of those who birthed this republic. Vivien stopped withholding from her employees in 1948 and won the narrow battle she fought. Vivien's trial transcripts, her FBI file I obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request and all the Wallace Institute newsletters covering our Sixteenth Amendment lawsuit are on my CD. [Link]

Towards the bottom is actual testimony (Senate) on how and why this withholding taxing scheme was cooked up and it's sickening. If you don't have time to read Why an income tax isn't necessary, I've put it up in the audio section on my web site. Download it to your IPod or a CD [Link] and listen in commute traffic or any driving you do. I get more requests for reprints from newspapers, Internet sites and college professors for this piece than any other. You have my permission to copy, distribute; paper or CD, just please don't make any changes and attribute the proper copyright to me.

How many more Americans will be sent to federal prison for violating a law that doesn't exist? And, even if it did exist, does NOT apply to the majority of Americans? These U.S. Attorneys aren't stupid and neither are the federal judges who are allowing this persecution against we the people to continue. Instead of quitting their jobs like Joe Banister did, forfeiting an $80,000 a year secure job with a wife and two sons, these buzzards stay on the job and draw paychecks while they send the best of the best like Sherry Jackson, to prison. They are moral cowards. Gutless parasites that feed off the host, which is Congress, who have been conning the American people since 1913. The first step towards stopping this is getting Ron Paul nominated as our next president at that GOP convention next summer.

If you are a person of faith, please pray for Sherry, her family and all the other victims of this corrupt system.

To link to this original article go to: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd320.htm

Important Links:

1 - Sherry Jackson's web site

2 - Must watch: 4-minute video: Smearing Ron Paul by useful idiots

3 - Our biggest challenge in '08

4 - USDOJ: Who will stop this criminal enterprise

5 - Wrong law used by Johnny Sutton to convict border agents

6 - Vernie Kuglin's trial transcripts

7 - Four-month trial ends with no convictions

8 - The Franklin Sanders case

9 - Lloyd Long trial transcript

10 - The Right Argument on Taxes

2007 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Tax Time Covert Ops
Catherine and Daily Musings, March 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm

I just got back from town where I listened to the latest rumors - the local African-American gang is rumored to be planning a gang initiation. Initiates are required, or so it goes, to kill three women and three men at the local big box store.

Two years ago, two kids went on a “wilding,” breaking into a series of homes and businesses in my town. This was followed by presentations from local law enforcement about wildings and various violent gang initiations.

Now, having grown up in an urban community taken over by drug dealing and having spent a fair amount of time learning how secret societies, law firms, banks and government agencies manage the narcotics business and $500 billion - $1 trillion of US money laundering, when you say “local gang” what I hear is “local CIA distributor.” So when a local drug gang does something or is rumored to do something, what I hear is that covert ops is on the move and the orders are coming top down.

Think back to the race riots. My sources have convinced me that they were started by covert ops shutting off the drug supply and seeding violent behavior.  Or the school shootings. My bet is that people unwillingly put through mind control are being manipulated to help do shootings that make it easier to pass gun control laws. Sound far fetched? Spend some time studying how covert operations have been used and implemented historically and I think you will be surprised. If you have not read my online book yet, I would recommend reading it and the resource documentation provided as a good place to begin. Then watch the movies that illuminate mind control operations, including the new Manchurian Candidate, Bourne Identity, Telefon, Conspiracy Theory, Long Kiss Goodnight and La Femme Nikita.

When I heard the rumor today, I was not surprised. I have been expecting these kinds of rumors and ops. With bailouts up to $12-14 trillion, the Fed announcing another $1 trillion plus monetization and AIG bailing out Wall Street and paying out large bonuses, men and women on Main Street are frustrated. This is tax preparation time. When you are scrimping to come up with money to pay your taxes, the reminders that it will be liberally spent to make the rich richer runs the risk of setting off a class war or increased tax resistance.

How do you prevent a class war? How do you stop people from starting or joining tax resistance movements? Well, believe it or not, you start a race war. You target people who understand their rights and are working to build self sufficiency. If people are afraid, they will want more law and order. So they will pay their taxes. They will worry about the gangs next door instead of the gangs in the City of London. They will not realize the two are intimately connected.

Hate. Divide and conquer. It’s a business. The media is pushing it. The people directing it are the same people who brought you the AIG bonuses. Indeed, AIG is my vote for one of the top three financial institutions involved in financing domestic covert operations.

We have nothing to fear from teenagers of any color. They are our future. We have nothing to fear from patriots. They are our conscience. If we have anything to fear, it is the IRS.

Make sure you file your taxes on April 15th. The government needs our money. They need to give it to rich traders in London and secretive banks who are laundering the profits from the drugs and gangs that plague our neighborhoods.

God forbid everyone who owed the IRS money this year should file tax extensions in protest. God forbid Wall Street should have to wait until October 15 for more bailout money.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
IRS is a Terrorism Organization by the Government's Own Definition

SOURCE:  Great IRS Hoax, section 7.1.7 version 3.12.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines terrorism as follows:

terrorism. "Act of terrorism" means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended--(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. 18 U.S.C.A. §3077.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1473]

And here is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) definition of “terrorism”, extracted from Dept. of the Navy training on terrorism:

“terrorism:  the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

The definition of “violence” and “violent” used above from Black’s Law dictionary is as follows:

violence. Unjust or unwarranted exercise of force, usually with accompaniment of vehemence, outrage, or fury. People v. McIlvain, 55 Cal.App.2d 322, 130 P.2d 131, 134.  Physical force unlawfully exercised; abuse of force; that force which is employed against common right, against the laws, and against public liberty. Anderson-Berney Bldg. Co. v. Lowry, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 401, 403. The exertion of any physical force so as to injure, damage or abuse. See e.g. Assault.

Violence in labor disputes is not limited to physical contact or injury, but may include picketing conducted with misleading signs, false statements, publicity, and veiled threats by words and acts. Esco Operating Corporation v. Kaplan, 144 Misc. 646, 258 N.Y.S. 303.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1570]


violent.Moving, acting, or characterized, by physical force, especially by extreme or sudden or by unjust or improper force.  Furious, vehement; as a violent storm or wind.  A violent attack marked by, or due to, strong mental excitement.  Vehement, passionate; as, violent speech.  Violent reproaches produced or effected by force, not spontaneous or natural; as, a violent death.  Displaying or proceeding from extreme or intense force; caused by unexpected unnatural causes.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1570]

Note that the object of terrorism can and often is the government.  Remember that in this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is their agent or servant.  They direct and manage their government using elections and jury service.  Therefore, terrorism directed at the people is effectively terrorism directed at the government.

So the essence of “terrorism” is any combination of the following:
Unlawful exercise of force either of a physical or of a financial or legal or political nature
Threats of force
Passionate or derogatory speech directed at a person who does not want to do something
Imposed danger to human life or to the living of a fulfilled or actualized life
Harassment or intimidation of any kind, including stalking, mailing threatening communications, and excessive and costly litigation as a punishment for those who don’t cooperate.
Any involuntary restraint against “public liberty”
Strong mental excitement
Intimidate or coercion against person or population intended to influence the policy of a government

That term “unlawful” is important.  Here is the definition for your benefit:

“Unlawful.  That which is contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law.  That which is not lawful.  The acting contrary to, or in defiance of the law; disobeying or disregarding the law.  Term is equivalent to “without excuse or justification.”  State v. Noble, 90 N.M. 360, 563 P.2d 1153, 1157.  While necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is broad enough to include it.” 
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1536]

So if the government is using any kind of force against a member of society and cannot or will not cite a specific law either making the action they are opposing a crime within their jurisdiction or making you liable to do something that you aren’t doing within their jurisdiction, then they are involved in an act of “terrorism”, because they are applying force unlawfully.  There is no other way you can look at it.  Not only that, but if they evade or avoid justifying their behavior, then you can add to the charge that they are “obstructing justice” and covering up wrongdoing!  Hiding the unlawfulness of what they are doing by evading responsibility for justifying it or refusing to address the legal issues authorizing it is obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 73: Obstructing Justice.

Do any of the above elements describing terrorism decribe the activities of the IRS?  They sure do!  Therefore, the IRS is a “terrorist organization” and the USA Patriot Act and 18 U.S.C. Part I, Chapt. 113B can and should be used to oppose unlawful IRS efforts at enforcement against either natural persons or any kind of business that is outside the federal zone.  Such unlawful enforcement actions include:
Notice of levies
Notice of liens
Malicious and unwarranted prosecutions, which abuses the legal system to harass, intimidate, and financially plunder innocent Americans.
Harassing automated notices
Falsification of tax electronic tax records (see our MF Decoder on how to recognize these)
Seizures of property
Destruction of people’s credit rating
Violation of due process of law
Denial of due process hearings which could be used to document the illegallity of their activities

All of the above are terrorist activities if the law does not specifically authorize them or if they are accomplished outside of the federal zone, and chapter 5 provides over 300 pages of proof showing why any efforts on the part of the IRS to enforce income taxes, and especially in the 50 states and outside of federal enclaves within those states, are unlawful activities in the context of Subtitle A income taxes of natural persons.

Along these lines, below is an interesting letter from Larken Rose which he sent to the U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, a few weeks after they illegally raided his home for publicizing the illegality of the IRS’ enforcement activities.  He wrote this letter on June 11, 2003 and we obtained it off his website at  http://www.taxableincome.net/debate/war/ashcroft3.html:

June 11, 2003

Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20530-0001

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

I am writing to you to report terrorist activity happening on American soil.  The good news is that the perpetrators will be easy for you to find.  The bad news is this: they will be easy to find because many of them work for you.  You will probably want to ignore the rest of this letter, because it is not about the kind of terrorism you care about: the kind that endangers your power.  On the contrary, this terrorism increases your power, and only endangers the freedom of the American public, which is why you will do nothing about it (except condone it).  However, I feel compelled to report it to you anyway, because your unresponsiveness will show a lot of people that you do not care at all about their freedom or well-being.

On May 6th of this year, there was an armed invasion of my home carried out by the IRS under the guise of a “search warrant.”  In reality, my “crime” was that I spoke my mind, and the IRS did not like what I had to say.  So a dozen or so armed agents raided my house, confiscated my computers, and stole several cases of my “Theft By Deception” video.  Could it be that the IRS does not want a public discussion of this issue?

Both on my web site (www.taxableincome.net) and in my video (“Theft By Deception”), I explain my findings and conclusions—based entirely on the law itself—concerning the proper application of the federal income tax.. The video does not tell anyone to do anything, and if the web site tells anyone to do anything, it is to ask perfectly reasonable questions about how they should determine what they legally owe.  (The web site does not give legal advice, or tell people what to do in their own disputes with the IRS.)

The government will not tolerate this public expression of my beliefs, despite the fact that it is unquestionably “non-commercial” speech protected by the First Amendment.  Nor is the government willing to have an open, rational discussion about what your own law books say.  So the IRS and your underlings at the DOJ have tried to silence me.  In 2001, the IRS made the asinine accusation that the expression of my conclusions constitutes an “abusive tax shelter” under 26 USC § 6700, and that I should therefore be silenced via court order.  That allegation was utterly baseless, so they soon gave up on it.  The DOJ then attempted to subpoena everything I had ever written about taxes, privately or publicly, in a case that was not even about me.  (It was an injunction case against Thurston Bell, with whom I had no business dealings and very little personal contact.)  The U.S. Attorney in the case (Evan Davis) even admitted to me on the phone that the subpoena was overly broad.  So that attempt at intimidation and harassment also failed.

Then the government tried the most blatant thuggery against me so far: the armed invasion of my home last month.  By sending to your office (and to the IRS) letters swearing that I received income, and swearing that I did not file income tax returns or make payments to the IRS since 1997, and by making my situation and my actions completely public, I removed any need whatsoever for them to invade my home and steal my records and my computers.  I had given you all the factual evidence you could want (without being asked for it), and given you an explanation of why my actions were completely legal and proper (i.e. because I do not owe the tax).  The only things you would need to prove to convict me of tax evasion or failure to file a tax return is that my income is taxable and that I have no reason to suspect otherwise.  So why did the government choose thuggery?  Because in a “fair fight,” you would lose.

Very telling was the fact that while being deposed by Evan Davis (in the Thurston Bell case), and while being interviewed during the raid of my home, government agents kept asking me, in essence, what it would take to shut me up (though not in those words).  They asked whether a court ruling would make me change my mind and stop saying what I was saying; they asked if an injunction would do it; they asked if prosecuting me would do it.  They wanted to know what it would take to silence me.  I told them then what I will tell you now.  There is only one thing that will ever shut me up: showing me, using logic and legally-binding citations of law, that my conclusions are incorrect.  No amount of terrorism, insults, or threats will do it.  (I am happy to report that the IRS’ latest Gestapo-style stunt against me has back-fired dramatically, drawing the attention and anger of a lot of people who previously had paid no attention to the issue.)

Once again, I hereby request that you supply me with direct written answers to the enclosed six questions about how to determine one’s taxable income, and I am going to suggest that others also ask you to answer those questions as well.  However, once again you will not answer them because to do so would expose the largest financial fraud in history, which would endanger your power.  You will do what many other government officials have done when confronted with the evidence: you will show the world that you are willing to terrorize citizens who speak their minds, but you are either unable or unwilling to answer perfectly reasonable questions about what the law itself says.  The IRS and the “Department of Justice” care not at all about the “rule of law”; they care only about whatever will maintain or increase their own power.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: if you believe I am breaking the law, then prosecute me.  By being completely open about my situation and my actions, I have already done most of the work for you.  You do not need to invade my home, steal hundreds of copies of my video, censor my web site, or do any of the other fascist stunts that the government seems so fond of.  All you need to do is prove that my income is taxable, and prove that I have no reason to suspect otherwise.  I am even enclosing something you can give to any U.S. Attorney who wants to try me, describing exactly what he must prove to convict me.  If the only way to settle this is with you trying to imprison me, so be it.  If the government wants to shut me up, then stop the clandestine IRS/DOJ terrorism, and do it “by the book.”  Put me on trial, in view of the public, so they can see the evidence for themselves.  (Perhaps you know you would lose if you did.)

If this letter seems a bit harsh, it is because I do not like it when the organization whose sole purpose—according to the Declaration of Independence—is to protect the inalienable rights of the people, spends so much time and effort trying to shut me up, even going to such lengths as executing an armed invasion of my home!  (You may be interested to know that I have had more than one person who grew up in Nazi Germany telling me that they know how I feel, and that they sympathize.)

I (and thousands of others) know that the entire government, top to bottom, is utterly incapable of refuting my conclusions, because my conclusions agree with what the law itself says.  Every tyrannical stunt that the government tries will only make the public angrier when the truth becomes widely known.  But tyrants never learn from history; they always resort to any amount of violence to hang on to power, even though that tactic almost always backfires.  The IRS and your “Department of Justice” apparently are doomed to learn the same lesson, since you are utterly incapable of rational and open discussion, as you will now demonstrate by failing to answer the enclosed questions.


Larken Rose
P.O. Box 653
Huntingdon Valley, PA  19006

cc:  Eileen J. O’Connor
      U.S. D.O.J. / Tax Division
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC  20530-0001

Enc:  “Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income”
         “Things You Need to Prove to Convict Me”

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b), and the related regulations beginning at 26 CFR § 1.861-8, to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If some individuals—including myself—should not use those sections for determining their taxable domestic income, please show me where the regulations say who should or should not use those sections for that.

Reason for first two questions: The regulations under 26 USC § 861(b) (26 CFR § 1.861-8 and following) begin by stating that Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms “how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States” after gross income from the U.S. has been determined.  (The regulations then say that Sections 862(b) and 863(a) describe how to determine taxable income from outside of the U.S.)  Section 1.861-1(a)(1) of the regulations confirms that “taxable income from sources within the United States” is to be determined in accordance with the rules of 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8.  (See also 26 CFR §§ 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c).)

3) If a U.S. citizen lives and works exclusively within the 50 states, and receives all of his income from within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show such income to be taxable?

Reason for question: Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921, statutory predecessor of 26 USC § 861 and following, stated that income from within the U.S. was taxable for foreigners and for U.S. citizens and corporations deriving most of their income from federal possessions (but did not say the same about the domestic income of most Americans).  The regulations under the equivalent section of the 1939 Code (e.g. §§ 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9, 29.119-10 (1945)) showed the same thing.  The current regulations at 1.861-8 still show income to be taxable only when derived from certain “specific sources and activities,” which, concerning domestic income, still relate only to foreigners and certain Americans receiving income from federal possessions (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4), 1.861-8(f)(1)).

4) Should one refer to 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether the “items” of income he receives (such as compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

Reason for question: The regulations (26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)) state that a “class of gross income” consists of the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, etc.).  The regulations (26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(b)(1)) then direct the reader to “paragraph (d)(2)” of the section, which provides that such “classes of gross income” may include some income which is excluded for federal income tax purposes.

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is the income of the average American not on that list?

Reason for question: After defining “exempt income” to mean income which is exempt, eliminated, or excluded for federal income tax purposes (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)), the regulations give a list of types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are subject to tax), which includes the domestic income of foreigners, certain foreign income of Americans, income of certain possessions corporations, and income of international and foreign sales corporations, but which does not include the domestic income of the average American (26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

Reason for question: Older income tax regulations defining “gross income” and “net income” said that neither income exempted by statute “or fundamental law” were subject to the tax (§ 39.21-1 (1956)), and said that in addition to those types of income exempted by statute, other types of income were exempt because they were, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government” (§ 39.22(b)-1 (1956)).

Things You Need to Prove to Convict Me

This enclosure describes exactly what a U.S. Attorney must prove in order to have me convicted of willful failure to file (26 USC § 7203) or willful tax evasion (26 USC § 7201).  Since I have consistently made it publicly known that 1996 was the last year for which I filed a federal income tax return or made payments to the IRS, and since I have consistently admitted that I received enough income in each of those years that if my income was taxable, both returns and payments would have been legally required—and I would not hesitate to admit both of those facts to any jury—all you must prove is that: 1) the income I received is taxable, and; 2) I had no reason to suspect otherwise.

In fact, since judges often say that they alone will declare to a jury what the law is (and forbid any debate on it), and since the judge will most likely (incorrectly) assert that my income is taxable, probably the only thing left for you to prove will be that I believe my income is taxable according to the law itself.  So here is what you must prove:


First issue: Determining taxable domestic income

You must prove at least one of the following two things:

1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that I should use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 to determine my taxable domestic income (i.e. my “taxable income from sources within the United States”).

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since numerous legally-binding citations specifically state in plain English that I should use 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 to determine my “taxable income from sources within the United States.”  See 26 CFR §§ 1.861-1(a)(1), 1.861-1(b), 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.862-1(b), 1.863-1(c), and Treasury Decision 6258.)

2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 do not show my income to be taxable.

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the current regulations, as well as 80 years of predecessor statutes and regulations, plainly show that income is taxable under those sections only when it derives from certain specific sources or activities (which I do not engage in), which all relate to international or foreign commerce.  See Section 217 of the Revenue Act of 1921; Sections 29.119-1, 29.119-2, 29.119-9 and 29.119-10 of the 1945 regulations; and the current 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(a)(1), 1.861-8(a)(4) and 1.861-8(f)(1).)


Second issue: Exempt income

You must also prove at least one of the following two things:

1) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that the “items” of income listed in 26 USC § 61 (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, etc.) are not always taxable, but are in some cases exempt or excluded for federal income tax purposes.

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the income tax regulations show that those “items” are sometimes exempt (even if that income is not specifically exempted by any Title 26 statute).  See 26 CFR §§ 1.61-1, 1.265-1, 1.861-8(a)(3), 1.861-8(b)(1).  The regulations for decades have shown that the Constitution itself excludes some types of income from taxation.  See Article 71 of Regulations 62 (1922), Sections 39.21-1 and 39.22(b)-1 of the 1956 regulations, as well as 26 CFR § 1.312-6.)

2) Based on legally-binding citations I have already found or have already been shown, I cannot have even an “unreasonable” belief that where the regulations list types of commerce, income from which is not exempt (i.e. income from which is taxable), the type of income I receive is not included.

(That may be somewhat difficult to prove, however, since the income tax regulations have long included a specific list of the types of income that are not exempt, which has always been limited to certain international or foreign commerce (such as U.S. citizens receiving foreign income, and foreigners receiving U.S. income), but does not include my income.  See Article 31 of Regulations 62 (1922), Section 39.22(a)-1 of the 1956 regulations, and the current 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).)


Because the two issues above each lead to the same conclusion using independent citations and reasoning, you must prove at least one of the first two, and at least one of the second two.  In doing so, you can rely on only those citations that I have already seen (due to the “willfulness” factor), and that are the legal equivalent or superior to Treasury regulations.  In other words, you can rely only on statutes, regulations, or Supreme Court rulings.  According to the Internal Revenue Manual, any court rulings other than those of the Supreme Court, as well as any IRS letters, notices, letter rulings, revenue rulings, procedures, publications, or forms are insufficient and irrelevant, as they do not carry the legal weight of the regulations relied upon above.


Instead of the above, you may wish to argue that even though 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 do determine taxable domestic income, and even though those sections do not show my income to be taxable, I should nonetheless blindly assume that my income is taxable anyway.  In addition, you would have to argue that even though the “items” listed in 26 USC § 61 are not always taxable, and even though my income is not on the list of non-exempt types of income, I should nonetheless blindly assume that my income is taxable (non-exempt) anyway.  But the Supreme Court has had a few things to say about assuming that a tax applies to matters not specifically pointed out:

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.” (Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917))

“On behalf of the government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer… [If the government] seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be [quoting Lord Cairns].” [U.S. v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 (1923)]

(See also Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303 (1938); White v. Aronson, 302 U.S. 16 (1937); and Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U.S. 552 (1932).)

In addition, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition) says that the doctrine of “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others) means that “where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.”

Can you recognize the government’s terrorism against this man?  We sure can!  All he wants is an accountable government that is a servant and protector of its people.  What he gets in response is harassment, legal terrorism, evasion, and propaganda.  This is unconscionable in a free society and every bit as reprehensible as the acts of the Stalin in Russia or Hitler in Germany.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline SuzakaDusk

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,914
This is where they have her incarcerated :

Source : http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=sherry&Middle=&LastName=jackson&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=79&y=10



FCI Coleman Medium

The Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) - Medium in Coleman is a medium security facility housing male inmates. It is part of the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex. The FCI also has an adjacent, minimum security satellite camp housing female offenders.

FCI Coleman is located in central Florida, approximately 50 miles northwest of Orlando, 60 miles northeast of Tampa, and 35 miles south of Ocala. The FCC is located south of the town of Coleman, off Highway 301.

Judicial District: Middle Florida

Contact details :

FCI Coleman Medium
Contact Information
Prison facilities have a number of different addresses -- the one you use will depend on whether you are sending something to an inmate or to a staff member, and on the type of mail carrier you select. The United States Postal Service (USPS) is normally the exclusive means for inmates to receive mail and packages.

Inmate Mail/Parcels
Do not send funds to this address; for more information go to the Inmate Money page.  Use this address when sending correspondence and parcels to inmates confined at this facility.

P.O. BOX 1032
COLEMAN, FL  33521

Inmate Mail/Parcels - Camp
Do not send funds to this address; for more information go to the Inmate Money page.  Use this address when sending correspondence and parcels to inmates confined at this camp.

P.O. BOX 1027
COLEMAN, FL  33521

Physical Address (Do not use for mail unless it is the same as the mailing address listed.)
Use this address for in-person visits.

MapQuest® Map and Directions1

Phone:  352-689-5000
Fax:  352-689-5027

1Discretion is advised: In some cases MapQuest® may not find the exact address.
2This e-mail address should be used only if you have questions that are specific to this location. For general questions, go to our Contact Us page.

Use this address when shipping freight and non-USPS parcels. At most facilities, freight deliveries are generally processed through the warehouse.

COLEMAN, FL  33521

Staff Mail
Use this address when sending correspondence and parcels to staff.

P.O. BOX 1022
COLEMAN, FL  33521

Words can not describe how I feel, I am exiled in the UK away from my husband and babies and I so much love and miss them, I am heartbroken about my ordeal. I am so upset and overwhelmed by it all. I am not taking anything for my depression. I'm trying to hang in there, but it is hard.


  • Guest
What happened to her?

Offline LambOfGod

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors


Here's a blog entry from August 2011 relating to her imprisonment and release

And the blog homepage for those wishing to follow along...

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Stevie440

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
For me the links are not working. What did Jackson try to expose? If she was a child star (what I just investigated very briefly) perhaps it was information about project MKultra?
"The flame of will power burns in all of us"