Public versus Private

Learn to distinguish between public and private. The term "public" (adj.) in common meaning is sometimes used to refer to the entire population. In [the] strict legal sense the term "public" only applies to government political and municipal corporations and to no one else. Found in Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, page 1195, defining "private" as affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally, not official; not clothed with office. SEE, People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N. K 372, 373. In other words, if you are not in, or of, any office or government such as public school teacher, administrator, bank personnel at any level, police, fire officials or any type of city, county, state or federal government worker, military, - in other words, subject to the US constitution, then and only then are you a private citizen and a part of the private sector.
In regards to protecting oneself from "abusive" public servants: check out the [your] State laws on "stalking" and "exploitation" as well as "neglect to protect" provisions in State law [upholding and enforcing the law by parties under Oath of Office] as well as Title 18 USC §1621 concerning the "neglect to protect" by persons under Oath, and Title 42 USC § 1986, wherein a person having "knowledge of the law", "the power to stop a wrong" and the "duty to prevent a wrong from being done" is liable for any failure to act. Should they fail to prevent a wrong, having knowledge of the law, the power to prevent, and the legal or moral duty to prevent the wrong, which causes deprivations of your religious and/or civil rights or Liberties, suit can be brought for violations.
Thought: Jurisdiction can always be challenged on the grounds that the constitution states that ALL matters in LAW and EQUITY must be conducted in an Article III court. If this court is not an Article III court then the accused requests that the matter be transferred to an Article III court or dismissed with prejudice.

Ask the judge if he has taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution - he has to say yes. If you ask the judge if he intends to conduct his duties in compliance with that oath, what can he possibly say but yes? The judge knows if the court is an Article III court, but he is hoping you will not understand this or how to force him to comply with his oath of office.

The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890)  Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 AmJur 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank 468 F.Supp 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. 

Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title. Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income.

Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the  system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1,000 personal deduction when filing his return. 

The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.  

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and  H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender The Commercial Credit System  4 / 9 for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974).

Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness  which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder.

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html