Corporation sole and corporate sole info
Corporate sole home Corporate sole Q&A Corporate sole church unlicensing conferences Corporation sole unlicensing materials Corporate sole articles Contact for corporate sole info
Email from Burney Brushears, the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries, to
Peter Kershaw of Heal Our Land Ministries


Below is the content of an email I received from the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries, a corporation sole sales company, along with my response. The "Bishop's" email was the result of a brief comment I posted regarding Gamaliel Ministries, a Corporation Sole, on my ministry's web site.

The "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries, as reflected in the Nevada Secretary Of State corporate records, is Burney Brushears. However, Burney doesn't appear to be eager to acknowledge as much in his correspondence to me. Indeed, Burney Brushears has a strong propensity for hiding, whether it be hiding behind impressive self-appointed sham titles, or hiding out in Mexico.

Burney Brushears is the author of Strategic Withdrawal, The Peaceful Solutions Manual. Burney Brushears advocates a "peaceful" and "strategic withdrawal from contemporary Babylon." In theory this could make sense (if withdrawing from contemporary Babylon were your objective). However, in practical application Burney Brushears' strategic withdrawal is anything but "peaceful." Burney's "strategy" of "withdrawal" involves putting a multitude of government agencies on notice that you're "withdrawing."

The fact of the matter is that there is no "peaceful withdrawal from contemporary Babylon" so long as contemporary Babylon suspects that it's your intention to withdraw (masters never stand idly by and just watch as their slaves leave the plantation). Any affiliation with high-profile "goverment-disfavored persons" (such as Burney Brushears) is likely to sabotage even the best-laid plans for withdrawing from the system. Burney Brushears' "strategic withdrawal" accomplishes little more than pasting a great big target on your chest, with instructions, "Shoot right here."

Burney Brushears' strategic withdrawal works so well that Burney himself had to flee the country. Among the many things that Brushears fails to disclose to his clients is that his "peaceful withdrawal" may necessitate withdrawing entirely from their homeland, and that it's unlikely that they could achieve any greater degree of "personal sovereignty" outside the United States.

Brushears now makes his home in Sonora, Mexico, a nation which doesn't particularly have an exemplary human rights record. Nor does the Mexican govenment in any way concur with Brushears' "personal sovereignty" theories. Burney Brushears is not welcome nor permitted to cross any U.S. border, which means that his ability to support and defend his own clients is severly hampered. When his clients are criminally indicted he won't be able to make a court appearance to defend them or testify in their behalf.

Among his high-profile attention-getting tactics Burney Brushears places heavy emphasis upon the use of the corporation sole (for which Gamaliel Ministries charges $5,000 each) as an "umbrella" for avoiding (or rather evading) taxes. Gamaliel Ministries attempts to portray that any corporation sole it creates is a "church" or "office of" a church and, therefore, entitled to all the tax benefits that real churches enjoy.

Furthermore, Burney Brushears tells his clients that they can claim numerous tax benefits that even real churches could never legally take advantage of. Even if Gamaliel Ministries were setting up any real churches or church offices (which is highly doubtful) they'd still be committing tax fraud because they're giving illegal tax advice, and any clients of Gamaliel Ministries who actually follow that advice are in very serious jeopardy of facing a criminal indictment.

It would appear that Gamaliel Ministries peddles corporation soles not because they're righteous or principled men who are in any way serious about starting real churches and advancing the Christian religion, but because they think the corporation sole can help them, and their clients, avoid taxes. From all accounts the "Bishop" and his buddies are getting rich in the process, but their clients are in for some deep trouble with the IRS.

Not only will the IRS destroy your life for taking Burney Brushears' nescient advice, you'll get to pay him for doing it. Strategic Withdrawal, The Peaceful Solutions Manual is Burney Brushears' detax program in the form of a $400.00 book, and a $1,250 seminar held in Sonora, Mexico. But in order to achieve real freedom, you'll also have to make additional purchases, such as a $5,000 corporation sole.

Burney Brushears is highly critical of government entanglements, whether it be Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, birth certificates, automobile plates and registration, land titles, etc., which he asserts undermine "personal sovereignty." Brushears is especially critical of corporations. Yet, given an opportunity to peddle corporation soles for $5000.00 each, he makes an exception by claiming that the corporation sole isn't a corporation, and that a corporation sole is "not in the system." Such hypocrisy and duplicity is commonplace among corporation sole hucksters. Like his fellow "paytriots," Burney Brushears is eager to cast aside his principles where there's a buck to be made.

Burney Brushears may have some strong sales acumen; but legal acumen not. If he had any legal acumen he'd have some original thought to go along with it; but Burney has no original thought, whatsoever. Everything Brushears sells he's plagiarized from others (several of Burney's clients have sent me copies of Strategic Withdrawal and asked me for my legal opinion, so I'm quite familiar with what he's peddling). Everything Burney Brushears recommends to his clients I've seen a hundred times before, and no one has ever succeeded using such neophyte tactics. One would hope that a plagiarist like Burney would at least be able to plagiarize something that could work!

Burney Brushears' method of "strategic withdrawal" is a disaster for his clients, both legally and theologically.

Gamaliel Services wrote:

Mr Kershaw,

I just had an opportunity to read your comments about Gamaliel Ministries that you have published on your web site.

First of all, I agree with your assessment of the majority of the people who are hawking corporation sole information.

Your comment on your web site was 'The following search result is the registered information of a corporation sole by the name of "Gamaliel Ministries" run by Burney Brushears. Gamaliel Ministries will charge you $5,000.00 if you want to buy a corporation sole from them. Yet they are registered as a "nonprofit corporation." '

And this brings us to the second point. Gamaliel Ministries has never sold a corporation sole. We assist the existing heads of religious societies, churches, and/or leaders of other qualified organizations in creating their own articles of incorporation for their own organization. We assist in filing the articles, and we teach these men and women how to operate within the legal structure of the corporation sole statutes. We also provide a virtually unlimited number of hours of research and support, all for the same donation amount. I notice that after all of the items and services that your organization has for sale, you charge $100 per hour (suggested donation) for information on how to set up and run a religious society. You should know that this leaves people hanging, being torn between spending the money for more education that they know is needed, or making a mistake. Gamaliel has chosen to collect donations upon initiation of the service for the new corporation sole, and not worry about small charges, ever, and you have chosen to charge a rather steep fee for hourly consultation. I have not chosen to criticise you for your choice, and I do not believe that it is logical, fair, or right for you to publically defame the choice made by Gamaliel.

Until and unless you become familiar with our work, I would appreciate it very much if you would not lump Gamaliel Ministries with the likes of the Prophetess, Geoff Thayer, and Glen Stoll. Your derrogatory comments are totally without foundation or evidentiary support, and I am asking politely for you to remove your comments and any reference to Gamaliel Ministries off of your web site.

Thank you.
Bishop of Gamaliel Ministries, and his successor, a corporation sole



Dear "Bishop,"

Given that you don't care to identity yourself by name, but only by a title, I will respond only with comments, and not enter into any form of negotiations with you, such as a discussion of modifying my web site, as you have requested. If you care to respond and identity yourself by name, rather than by a title, we can have a more meaningful discussion.

I concede that, in some measure, I have probably just "lumped Gamaliel Ministries with the likes of" so many other corporation sole "hawkers." However, I would challenge your allegation that my statements are "totally without foundation or evidentiary support." The evidence comes from not only the Nevada Secretary of State, but also right off your own web site. If the public record is incorrect, or if I have not correctly referenced information that was taken directly from your own web site, do feel free to document those factual discrepancies and forward them to me, and I will take steps to correct it.

What I have disclosed on my web site about Gamaliel Ministries is minute and more than diplomatic. The fact is that there is considerably more that I could say of Gamaliel Ministries, than the brief comment I have made on my web site. Should I choose to disclose more, the evidentiary support would be based upon the content of the your web site, and of the published materials of Burney Brushears (e.g. Strategic Withdrawal; The Peaceful Solutions Manual).

You demand that I provide evidentiary support for the claims I have made against Gamaliel Ministries and Mr. Brushears. The fact is I have already done just that. It seems to me that you should be held accountable to the same standard by which you wish to hold me accountable. As just one example of the numerous unsubstantiated claims you make on your web site, where is the evidence for a "Bishop being moved between a cathedral and a golf course, he may be carried in a stretched limousine, but he is still under a vow of poverty..."?

You, like every other corporation sole peddler, are making unsubstantiated claims based upon nothing more than speculation and assumption. Where is the evidence that any Catholic Bishop has ever taken a vow of poverty? Where is the evidence that Catholic Bishops go golfing in limos? Mr. Brushears is more than entitled to his opinions, but if his opinions lack merit, and if they are based upon nothing more than speculation and assumption, then he'd better plan on being challenged for it, and if he cannot provide the evidence then he'd better amend his web site, his seminar and his written publications.

No corporation sole peddler may go so far as to post on their web site: "For only $5,000 you too can be the Presiding Bishop of your own sham church. The corporation sole is the best tax dodge we've ever come up with! Just take a vow of poverty, assign all your income to your sham church, and you'll never have to pay taxes again! You can get away with it because it's really no different than what the Catholic Bishops are doing. They get to ride around in stretch limos to the golf courses and they never have to pay taxes. Now you can do the same thing." It doesn't require a devious mind to read between the lines and see that's pretty much what you, and every other corporation sole peddler, is promoting.

I am not necessarily opposed to (or in favor of) what Burney Brushears alleges regarding the personal income tax system. I don't like the tax system any more than anyone else. However, I do take strong opposition to anyone who tries to use the church of Jesus Christ as "an umbrella" for avoiding taxes. There are few things in this life that are as important to me as ensuring that the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ is not sullied or undermined by scofflaws and charlatans: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written." (Romans 2:24)

It is not the amount of money you charge that troubles me, but the fact that you hold yourself out to be a "ministry," when in point of fact you're anything but that. If rather than claiming to be a "ministry" you acknowledged that you were a business, you would be entitled to charge anything you want for a corporation sole. I'm a firm believer in the free enterprise system. If, as a business, you want to charge $5,000 or $50,000 or $500,000 for a corporation sole, that would be your prerogative to do so. However, you are holding yourself out not as a business, but as a "ministry," all while being registered with the Nevada Secretary Of State as a "non-profit corporation."

Even legitimate ministries have expenses that need to be covered, and so it would not be unreasonable for you (if you were a real ministry) to ask for certain nominal costs to be covered by those who prevail upon you for your alleged expertise. I would be the first to admit that merely covering expenses doesn't turn a ministry into a business. Is $5,000 a reasonable fee to cover the costs for preparing articles of incorporation and filing it with the Nevada Secretary Of State? Even if that included some nominal ongoing support, would that be reasonable? I think that most pastors and ministers would question that. I am a minister, and I certainly question it. In point of fact, I think you'd have a very hard time selling it to any bona fide church or ministry. Which brings me to the next point.

It would appear that your real "market" is not with bona fide pastors and ministers at all, but merely to anyone who wishes to utilize your alleged expertise for nothing more than establishing sham churches for the purpose of avoiding taxes, such as the people who attend Burney Brushears' seminars in places like Sonora, Mexico. Why Mexico? Your own web site makes it clear, "The location is just 66 miles south of the Arizona border, which is just a little over an hour's drive, but far enough that we can discuss sensitive topics without having Uncle Sugar breathing down our necks."

I don't have to hold unlicensed church conferences outside of the country. The information I present isn't "sensitive." I've got nothing to hide from "Uncle Sugar." A free-church is a real church, not a sham entity used for hiding income and evading taxes.

Furthermore, it's very naive to suppose that the IRS doesn't attend your conferences, just because they're held in Mexico. It's not any harder for an IRS Special Agent to attend a conference in Mexico than it is for anybody else to attend. In fact, they get paid to do it, and based upon what you're stating on your web site I'd be willing to bet they've already been to your conference.

It's clear from your web site description of your Mexican conference that the corporation sole is being offered not exclusively to bona fide churches (if it were, why would you need to hide out in Mexico?), but to anyone who wants one: "Friday is the day that we show you how to cover all of your activities under the umbrella of a Corporation Sole, with total security." So apparently, Gamaliel Ministries peddles the corporation sole not for legitimate and bona fide church activities, but as an "umbrella" to "cover all of your activities" (such as riding to the golf course in a stretch limo under a vow of poverty?).

If by purchasing a corporation sole from Gamaliel Ministries, and then claiming to be a "church" (when there is no evidence of a legitimate church ever having been formed and operated) one could stop paying taxes and never get into trouble for it, then, as I have already stated on my web site, "it would be a bargain at any price." However, given that you have already acknowledged on your web site the need to hold your seminars outside the country, because the government is "breathing down our necks," it would seem that your corporation sole clients should have much cause for concern.

Of far greater concern, it seems to me that there are serious moral ramifications to your corporation sole formation activities, as well as to those who pay you for your services. I believe those moral consequences have not only temporal ramifications, but also eternal.

As I've stated on my web site, "If the corporation sole actually accomplished everything the salesmen claim, and if people weren't getting into serious trouble for using it, and if it could be used without bringing ill-repute on the church of Jesus Christ, then I'd be the first one to go out and get one for myself."

There are multiple reasons why I don't have a corporation sole. However, the biggest reason I don't have one and that I tell people to steer clear of them, is because all corporations, including the corporation sole, are "creatures of the State." There is no way to assert the Sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ over an incorporated church (see Incorporation Problems).

But far more egregious than the sin of church incorporation is the sin of using the church as a cloak to pursue personal material benefits. The benefits of the Christian religion are spiritual, not material. The church is an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ as a testimony to the world of His grace and love through being a selfless blessing to others. As such, every time the church chases after selfish and self-centered worldly pursuits, that church is in sin and it undermines the testimony of Christ Jesus.

By using the church as "an umbrella," you are in fact bringing ill-repute on the church and the Lord of that church. By pawning yourself off as a "Bishop" you are bringing ill-repute upon an office of that church. Surely, as a peddler of sham churches, you stand under God's most severe and awful judgement. I tremble when I think of what awaits you. I admonish you to repent of your sins and turn from your wickedness.

I pray that no genuine God-fearing Christian would ever set up a corporation sole as a sham church for a tax dodge, but I wouldn't doubt that, through the craft and deceit of corporation sole peddlers like yourself, it could happen. Given what you are doing, and the fact that you do it under the "umbrella" of pawning yourself off as a "Bishop," I don't believe there is any likelihood that you could be a God-fearing man.

As to your allegations that I am somehow profiting through my own ministry, I will answer and be held accountable personally, as Peter Kershaw, and not as a mere title. My ministry, like any other bona fide ministry, has costs which must be defrayed. I'm not embarrassed to ask that those who prevail upon the expertise of this ministry help to defray the costs. The vast majority of churches and ministries who work with my ministry can accomplish everything they need, and never have to arrange for even a single phone consultation, and they can do all that for $250 (suggested donation for the Unlicensed Church Conference videos).

If for some legitimate reason someone can't even afford that, I have often furnished the conference videos for whatever they could afford. If they need a phone consultation but can't afford it, I have often given my time away and even paid for the cost of the phone call myself.

For you to make an issue over my asking $100/hour for a phone consultation is amusing, to say the least, given that it comes from a "paytriot" like yourself, and given that I average less than one phone consultation per week. The fact is that most churches and ministries don't ever need to call on me because I have thoroughly covered what most churches and ministries need in the conference videos. They can watch the videos in the comfort and convenience of their home, and they don't have to hide out in Mexico to get the information they need.

Heal Our Land Ministries is a bona fide ministry. My ministry takes in just enough financially to cover its own operating expenses (just barely), and nothing more. In ten years of ministry, my ministry has never paid me a dime. I don't operate under false pretenses, such as taking a so-called "vow of poverty." I make an honest living as a paralegal, and whatever time I can spare is then volunteered to my ministry without compensation. Like the Apostle Paul, I am a "tentmaker." Unlike the way you are operating, this is not a for-profit business venture that falsely claims to be a "non-profit" "ministry."

Irrespective of how you and I choose to operate in the area of finances is the far more significant issue of legitimacy and legal viability. What I offer is legal and will not get people into trouble. What I offer doesn't necessitate running off to Mexico to present. No one has ever gone to jail for establishing a bona fide church. Plenty of people have gone to jail for organizing sham churches and the various other tax dodges offered by Burney Brushears. It's more than just mere speculation on my part that has led me to the conclusion that you are peddling pretty much the same sham every other corporation sole peddler is peddling.

You're not the first corporation sole peddler to tell me, "I agree with your assessment of the majority of the people who are hawking corporation sole information." Like you, they claim that what every other corporation sole peddler is doing is a sham, but what they're doing is somehow legitimate and so much different from what everyone else peddles. However, their own web sites (and your own web site) make it obvious that there are no substantive differences from one corporation sole peddler to the next.

You make the same bogus and unsupportable claims that every other corporation sole peddlers makes. For example you assert, "Two examples of well-known Corporations Sole are the Christian Brothers Winery and the Sierra Club." Such ridiculous claims are just further evidence of your incompetence and your inability to perform credible research.

Christian Brothers Winery was sold to Heublein, Inc. in 1989. Heublein is a for-profit business corporation aggregate, not a corporation sole. Prior to its sale to Heublein, Christian Brothers Winery had a history of wine making that extended back to at least 1882. In 1957 the winery did indeed incorporate (as Mont La Salle Vineyards), but not as a corporation sole. As for the Sierra Club, there are dozens of Sierra Club chapters scattered all over the country, and none of them are corporation soles. The parent organization is "The Sierra Club Foundation." The Sierra Club Foundation is not a corporation sole, nor are any of the local chapters. The Sierra Club Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit corporation operated as a foundation and governed by a board of directors. The very definition of a corporation sole precludes governance by a body aggregate.

Your propensity for making bogus and unsupportable claims calls into question whether there is anything at all you say that is trustworthy. It's good that you acknowledge, "I agree with your assessment of the majority of the people who are hawking corporation sole information," but such an acknowledgement does nothing to distance yourself from your corporation sole peddling peers. The claims on your web site are quite the same as any other corporation sole web site, and every bit as ludicrous. Any apparent differences are so minor as to make you indistinguishable from any other flimflam corporation sole huckster.

If you'd care to respond with specifics as to what significantly differentiates your corporation sole business from any other corporation sole business, feel free to do so. I'd especially be interested in knowing why you think that the IRS won't terrorize your corporation sole clients, and why they won't lose all their assets and wind up in jail.

Is your plan to offer your clients a safe and comfortable place to live with you there in Sonora, Mexico when they get criminally indicted? Have you told them to liquidate all their assets and move the cash into a Mexican bank? I'll at least give you credit for thinking through where a man in your line of work should live, and how to get away with it.

Corporation sole peddler "Bishop" Eddie Kahn didn't think to flee the country until after a federal court had issued a Permanent Injunction and bench warrant for his arrest for contempt of court.

Since Mexico has no extradition treaty with the U.S. for tax crimes, you can continue safely peddling your tax shams for many years to come. And since "there's a sucker born every minute" (P.T. Barnum) you'll never run out of clients.

I welcome your response. However, please don't waste your time or mine unless you care to identify yourself by name, so that I have some reasonable assurances that you actually speak with some authority on behalf of Gamaliel Ministries.

In the service of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His church,

Peter Kershaw
Heal Our Land Ministries 


Update 10-31-05:

I had originally received the above email from the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries on 4/16/04 at 8:29 PM from the email address It was to that email address that I responded on 4/17/04 at 3:04 PM. I also posted that response, as you see it immediately above.

In checking today I discovered that email address is invalid (anything sent there will bounce). It's anyone's guess just how long that email address has been invalid, or if it ever was valid. As such, I'll give the "Bishop" the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that it's entirely possible the "Bishop" never received my response.

Up until today, and to the best of my knowledge, the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries had never responded in any fashion to my email response and web site posting, either by sending me any further email, or posting a response to his web site.

However, today I received an email from a gentleman who informed me that Burney Brushears had posted in October 2005, on at least one of his web sites (others may exist that I'm not aware of), "a lengthy diatribe about your comments about him." Indeed, it is quite lengthy. His "initial response" and "current response" now total 74 pages! Burney is a prolific ranter, but very little of anything he says is on-point or responsive to the comparatively brief comments that I originally posted.

Burney Brushears characterizes his tedious 74-page screed as a "rebuttal." Apparently he doesn't comprehend what the definition of "rebuttal" is. Burney's raving commences at

Burney claims to have sent me an email response on June 6, 2004 ( Perhaps he did, but if he did (and I'm highly skeptical of that) I never got it. I've had the same email address for years. Burney has changed his multiple times, so if there was a technical or administrative problem it's far more likely to have been his fault than mine. Irrespective, I find it quite telling that it took him a year and a half to post his rebuttal, and that his excuse for taking so long is that, as he alleges, I never responded personally via email.

Whether or not Burney Brushears ever got my email, and whether or not he actually ever sent the follow up email he alleges to have sent on June 6, 2004, is just a feeble excuse to try and regain his lost credibility for failing to respond publicly to my web site posting. 18 months is a long time to be so negligent. If, indeed, he sent me an email on June 6, 2004, he could have, and he should have, posted it on his web site back then, not wait 18 months to do so.

What took you so long, Burney? Do you actually believe that any thinking person would view your own negligence as somehow being my fault? In the future I won't waste my time with emailing Burney at all. Anything I have to say to him (or rather about him) will be posted on my web site.

One of the legal tricks taught in many law schools is, "When you don't have a good defense scream at the plaintiff." In other words engage in ad hominem attacks, e.g. "He's a LIAR!" (the old "Liar, liar, pants are on fire" tactic). Attorneys are also trained in the use of subterfuge and obfuscation. They attempt to overwhelm their opponent by the sheer volume of paperwork they generate (Burney's 74-page "rebuttal" to my single-page denunciation is a classic example of attorney-style subterfuge). I doubt that Burney Brushears ever went to law school, but he certainly understands how to play the attorney game well.

The "Bishop" sets the tone for his entire non-responsive "rebuttal," starting in the third paragraph of the very first page, with:

Peter Kershaw is claiming that people have sent him copies of Strategic Withdrawal – The Peaceful Solutions Manual. Were these pirated, unauthorized copies, that violate the laws of the land that Peter Kershaw claims to hold in such high esteem? Were these stolen intellectual properties that violate the commandments of the Most High God? Was Peter Kershaw participating in the crime of copyright violation? Encouraging people to send him pirated copies of Strategic Withdrawal is as much of a crime as the actual theft of the book by making an unauthorized copy. The evidence is mounting that Peter Kershaw is not only a liar, but is also a thief and a receiver of stolen property.

Sorry to disappoint you Burney, but the evidence doesn't support your ludicrous hypothesis that I am either a liar or a thief. The "manuals" I received weren't stolen, pirated or copied. They were originals. To the best of my knowledge they were bought and paid for, to the tune of $400 each, by those who mailed them to me. I don't "encourage people to send" me copies of copyrighted publications, quite the opposite. What they send are bought and paid for originals. In the case of the two originals of Strategic Withdrawal – The Peaceful Solutions Manual, I didn't ask for either one. They both arrived unsolicited. I responded to both gentlemen who sought my legal opinion on your Strategic Withdrawal "manual," in part with:

Contrary to the title, there are no "peaceful solutions" contained in Strategic Withdrawal. Following Burney Brushears' nescient advice is a surefire strategy to infuriate multiple government agencies and invite their retaliation. The only folks I could consider recommending to Burney Brushears are those who are bent on self-destruction.

Burney Brushears appears to be a Johnny-come-lately in the patriot movement. He doesn't have a shred of original thought. That in and of itself is most telling. Intelligent and learned men develop new strategies, not merely plagiarize old ideas that no one has ever had any success with. There's not one single thing contained in Strategic Withdrawal that I haven't seen a hundred times before, and that I didn't start seeing years before Burney Brushears got involved in the patriot movement. The same is the case with respect to his theories about the corporation sole.

Moreover, nothing he offers has ever worked for anyone. The only people that such "strategies" appear to "work" for are people who are so poor that it's not worth the government's effort in going after them. And when I say "work" I mean work long-term. The government is slow in responding to the kinds of notices that Brushears advocates sending the government, so the mere fact that many of Burney's clients may not hear anything for several years means nothing. Most people assume, "No news is good news," but in the government's case, no news is often bad news. All it may mean is that they've got you under investigation, and perhaps even under surveillance, and are building a criminal case against you.

Burney Brushears should really be including an adhesive-backed target with instructions for his clients to paste it on their chest. Printed on the target should be an arrow pointing to the bull's-eye with bold print, "SHOOT HERE."

I receive a plethora of tax protest and patriot publications from people all over the country on a regular basis. They do so for the purpose of getting a second legal opinion (that's a service provided separate and apart from this ministry). Some seek a second legal opinion before they act on the materials; but in many cases they ask for my opinion after they have already acted on the materials and are beginning to feel the effects of the government retaliation that ultimately follows. As such, I also develop strategies for getting people out of the legal lion's den that paytriots like Burney Brushears have tossed them into. For any of Burney's clients, perhaps I might refer to my service as a "strategic withdrawal from 'Bishop' Burney Brushears' Strategic Withdrawal."

In reading through Burney Brushears' ad hominem attacks and subterfuge at his web site, I have to admit that I was initially tempted to respond, point-by-point. But then I remembered the Scripture:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. (Proverbs 26:4)

A point-by-point response is unnecessary, and would be a foolish waste of my time. All that is necessary is for me to discredit Burney with several examples of his parsing of phrases, his duplicity and self-contradiction, and his misguided legal theories. My comments here are not to be construed as a rebuttal, but only as an object lesson to the reader about the modus operandi of corporation sole hucksters and flim-flammers masquerading as "Bishops."

Burney Brushears alleges:

Nowhere do we claim that by forming a corporation sole, one is thereby exiting the system or becoming a sovereign. This lie was made up by the self proclaimed “Minister” of Jesus Christ named Peter Kershaw.

It's remarkable how many times in his screed that Burney Brushears alleges that I have "lied" or "made up" something about him and Gamaliel Ministries, when in point of fact I took it right off his own web site. Here's what I quoted from on his site (emphasis mine):

Corporation Sole Services By Gamaliel Ministries and Burney Brushears, author of Strategic Withdrawal. . .
Staying Separated
Are you getting the picture of how advantageous it is to be completely separated from the system? Because Sovereignty, at its most basic level, means being free of both debt and legal disabilities (immunity), then being completely separated from the system also means that we have protected ourselves in advance from IRS liens, levies, and land grabs. With no debt or legal disability, our rights are not compromised.

"Sovereignty" is listed on the same page as among one of "The following benefits of corporation sole." Later in his screed Burney Brushears alters ever so slightly his rebuttal over the same issue with:

Nowhere do we claim that the office of a corporation sole is completely separate from the system. This is another distortion by the alleged Christian, Peter Kershaw.

Like so many other corporation sole hucksters, when backed into a corner Burney Brushears starts parsing phrases just like Bill Clinton. Technically Burney is correct regarding any comments he may or may not have made about the "office of" the "corporation sole" being "completely separate from the system."

Corporation sole peddlers are notorious for hair-splitting. When backed into a corner they'll claim that something isn't what it appears to be, but is actually something entirely different, or that something that they've said isn't really what they said. The alleged distinctions between the terms "corporation sole" and "office of the corporation sole," are a classic example. For legal purposes what Burney Brushears proffers here is a difference without a distinction. No judge would be the least bit impressed with such phrase parsing.

When Burney Brushears gets hauled into court he'll, no doubt, try talking down to the judge, just like he talks down to me, 1 and to anyone else who disagrees with him. The problem for Burney will be that no judge is fond of being talked down to. Furthermore, judges have little trouble determining when charlatans masquerading as legal experts have come before their bench.

What Burney spews in his ad hominem attacks is the inference that he's such a legal genius that a mere mortal like myself can't possibly understand the brilliant insights produced by his superhuman brain. In fact, Burney thinks he's such a genius that he's smarter than every other corporation sole peddler. Only his corporation soles are legit and everyone else's are defective. The funny thing is that's exactly what just about every other corporation sole peddler says about all the other corporation sole peddlers, too! Most of them claim to be a legal genius and that everyone else is just a dolt. Just like Burney Brushears, most of them claim they came up with the idea and that everyone else pirated it from them. It would really be funny if it weren't for the fact that these corporation sole charlatans are getting so many people into legal hot water.

Burney Brushears masquerades as a legal expert. However, it's not even a particularly challenging prospect removing the mask from this pretender. As an example:

When one is contractually-obligated to perform, the other side has every right to expect fulfillment of the obligation until and unless they receive due and timely notice of the rescission of contract.

Much of the legal theory espoused in Burney Brushears' Strategic Withdrawal is predicated upon the faulty proposition that it is possible to unilaterally rescind or revoke a contract. Just like other misguided legal ignoramuses, Burney Brushears will assert that the legal justification for rescission is that the contract was fraudulent, and "fraud vitiates the most solemn promise." Indeed, there's a great body of contract case law to show that fraud can serve to invalidate a contract.

Fly #1 in Burney's ointment: There are two or more parties to any contract. A legal principle of contract law is that no individual can legally terminate or vacate a contract absent the acquiescence of all other parties to the contract. Government agencies, in particular, are generally uncooperative in letting you out of any contract you execute with them. Any unilateral rescission is, on its face, of no legal effect, unless the terms and conditions of the contract itself authorize such a rescission (in my experience, such contracts are rare). If anyone could, of their own volition, unilaterally cancel a contract, the net result would be legal anarchy. Virtually all business and industry would grind to a halt. Government too would grind to a halt (not necessarily a bad idea), which is why the government has taken upon itself to ensure through statute and case law that all contracts remain binding.

Fly #2 in Burney's ointment: Vitiating a contract by fraud requires considerably more than the mere allegation of fraud. "Fraud" can only be established by a civil court of original jurisdiction. When fraud is alleged the burden of proof is entirely on the plaintiff to substantiate his allegation. Apart from the court's determination that certain terms and conditions of a contract are indeed fraudulent, a contract is assumed to be valid on its face and legally binding. Prior to making a determination the court must ascertain whether the necessary elements of a cause of action to establish fraud are present. These always include:

  1. False representation of a present or past fact made by defendant.
  2. Action made in reliance thereupon by plaintiff.
  3. Damage resulting to plaintiff from reliance upon such misrepresentation.

In certain cases the intent of the accused must also be determined, something which is usually a daunting prospect. As such the bar is set quite high before a determination of fraud will be affirmed by a court. The mere allegation by a plaintiff of "fraud" doesn't establish fraud. Only a court of law can make that determination. Once fraud has been so adjudged the court can then make a judgement about the contract in dispute. Most courts will hold that the legal remedy is to compel the accused to make restitution to the defrauded party, and then cure those portions of the contract which resulted in fraud, so that no further fraud can occur. In most cases a court will not invalidate the entire contract, but only those portions of the contract that materially resulted in fraud.

Given that so much of Burney Brushears' Strategic Withdrawal theories are based upon contract law, one would suppose that Burney would have expended some time in the law library familiarizing himself with contract law. Clearly, however, he knows nothing of contract law. Burney Brushears cannot cite any case law to support the theory that an individual can unilaterally rescind, revoke, cancel or annul any contract, whether it be with a government agency, or anyone else, because his theory is based upon a faulty legal assumption.

Just like every other one of Burney's faulty legal theories (of which there are many), he appropriated the "rescission of contract" theory from other tax protest leaders who were protesting the income tax when Burney was still in diapers. In this case Burney appropriated a theory that I've seen people using for over twenty years (the idea has probably been around even much longer). The results for those who have acted upon it have been disastrous.

Sending so-called "rescission" or "revocation" letters to a government agency, such as the Affidavit Of Revocation and Rescission Of Social Security Number, posted at
is actually much worse than a mere exercise in futility. All the Social Security Administration does with such "rescissions" is to forward them to IRS CID, where CID then opens a criminal investigation file. This is one of the best ways yet devised to invite the government to destroy your life. Burney Brushears advertises his "strategies" as being a "peaceful withdrawal." Yet, there is nothing "peaceful" about it, nor is IRS retaliation ever in any way "peaceful."

Those who would follow Kershaw’s trail would remain as slaves, shaking in their own boots while licking the boots of their bureaucratic masters.

More ad hominem. Those who know me know that I am an advocate and practitioner of personal liberty. In my estimation incarceration is about as far removed from personal liberty as one could hope for. Following the misguided legal theories of paytriots like Burney Brushears puts one in grave jeopardy of losing their liberty, not gaining it. If I ever did go to jail I'd want it to be for a righteous cause, not for a bogus legal theory that so many others have already tried and no one has ever succeeded with.

For paytriots like Burney Brushears the most important (and lucrative 2) element of personal liberty is tax liberty. For me the most important element of liberty is religious liberty. Thus my ministry of unlicensing churches. Without religious liberty there can be no other genuine liberties. As such, taxation and other personal liberty issues are subordinate and secondary to religious liberty.

Burney Brushears might claim that he supports religious liberty, but like so many other paytriots, Burney Brushears uses religion only as a front for evading taxes, or in his words, "we show you how to cover all of your activities under the umbrella a Corporation Sole." Clearly, "all of your activities" goes far above and beyond the religious activities intended by statute and case law for the corporation sole.

Paytriots like Burney Brushears quote the Bible not because they believe that it is the inerrant Word of God (and certainly not because they understand it). Rather, they cherry-pick only those passages that they believe further their tax protesting agenda.

Is this what Kershaw really believes that his Christian bible is telling people in Revelation 18:4, where it directs people to “Come out of her, my people, that you not partake of her sins and that you not receive of her plagues”? What part of “COME OUT” does Peter Kershaw not understand?

Born-again Christians have the Holy Spirit so that, among other things, they might correctly exegete Scripture. Unbelievers are incapable of properly exegeting the Word of God and, apart from repentance and saving faith in Christ Jesus, will perish in their sins and ignorance.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Cor. 2:13-14)

Though I pray for his salvation, Burney Brushears is, by the words of his own testimony, an unbeliever and thus a "natural man." The Christian should be wary of taking the counsel of unbelievers, but we should be especially wary of unbelievers who quote Scripture, for it is very likely that the only reason they do so is to attempt to gain credibility for their shady practices.

Furthermore, Christians should be skeptical of any man who would name his "ministry" after a Pharisee, and particularly a Pharisee that the Christian church has consistently denounced throughout church history as an unprincipled self-serving pragmatist. Pharisee Gamaliel's counsel was not motivated by any sense of personal integrity, nor any belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Gamaliel was an unbeliever and remained an unbeliever. Gamaliel may very well be a hero to Burney Brushears, but Gamaliel can never be a hero to any genuine Christian:

Using Gamaliel's logic we would have to conclude that religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and modern cults such as the Mormons, Bahai and the Jehovah Witnesses are all inspired by God because they have not "failed." Communist persecution of Jehovah Witnesses and Islamic intolerance of the Bahai faith did not crush them. Indeed many cults are growing at frightening rates. According to Newsweek there are now over 600 cults in Britain, 350 of which actively proselytise. The criteria for spiritual authenticity and Divine inspiration is not therefore whether something fails or survives over time, nor even the character of their advocates, but how these claims match up to the revealed Word of God.
Gamaliel – A Model Of Godly Wisdom?, Rev. Stephen Sizer

In his "rebuttal" Burney Brushears questions my motives, and even infers that I must be working for the government. This is a common ploy of paytriots like Burney Brushears – anyone who disagrees with them must be a government agent or a government shill. However, turnabout is fair play. I could just as easily reverse the argument and allege that Burney Brushears must be working for the government because he's throwing lots of fresh meat (his own clients) into the government meat grinder. He's thereby fulfilling a valuable service to the very government that he claims to oppose.

Is it likely that Burney Brushears works for the government? Probably not. Based on what I've observed with Burney, I don't think that it's likely that he's a government agent. Burney's MO is much the same as a hundred other paytriot tax protest leaders that I've seen come and go over twenty years. None of them were government agents (although their organizations are almost always infiltrated with government agents or paid informants), so I think it unlikely that Burney is working for the IRS or anyone else. I just think he's a legally incompetent greedy opportunist masquerading as a "Bishop."

It would be redundant of me to detail my motives herein. Anyone who has reviewed this web site and/or my publications can readily determine God's calling in my life and what motivates me – the sanctifying of the church of Jesus Christ. Those who seek to prey upon the church, or who use the church or church offices as an "umbrella" to advance their own selfish and self-serving agenda, must be opposed and exposed. I need no other motivation than the Word of God:

And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; (Eph. 5:11)

I'm further motivated by my general concern that people not be duped by pied pipers who promise freedom and liberty, only to lead their devotees up a box canyon to get slaughtered by the government. Burney Brushears' strategies are high-profile and highly provocative. Such antics only invite government retaliation. See my article The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy for further insight on my motivations for publically challenging corporation sole peddlers like Burney Brushears.

Any more extensive response than what I offer here to the sham "Bishop" is not only unnecessary, it would be an unwise expenditure of my time. More than enough has already been stated here for people to determine the matter for themselves. Moreover, Burney Brushears the phony "Bishop" has already, with all his bellicose and monotonous ranting, done a noteworthy job of discrediting himself.


Update 11-8-05:

Burney Brushears the "Bishop" flees Mexico for Panama with fugitive mystery woman in tow.

Burney Brushear's disappearance proves to be great news for anyone who wants to destroy their life using Burney's Strategic Withdrawal, The Peaceful Solutions Manual.

Price slashed! Formerly $397. Now just $100!

Jeff Otto, who was for some four years Burney Brushears' chief promoter, has very generously slashed the price of the "Bishop's" book by 75%. However, he also offers the following warning:

"Use caution in the information provided below, most of which was authored by Burney Brushears, Bishop of Gamaliel Ministries, a man I no longer have any trust or confidence in whatsoever!"

There's no longer any "support" available, since Burney the "Bishop" is on the lam and nowhere to be found (not that Burney's "support" was ever worth anything, anyway). For more fun facts, see: Burney Brushears Betrayal.

 Burney Brushears with mystery woman




1. Not that Burney is likely to ever show up in court. The first challenge for any court would be to serve him legal process. However, it would be quite a challenge for any U.S. court to legally serve him in Mexico. I'll have to admit that Burney has thought through his personal "strategic withdrawal" carefully. Too bad other Americans don't have the luxury of "withdrawing" the way Burney Brushears has.

2. There's big money to be made in being a tax protest leader, as well as in peddling various tax evasion schemes (such as the corporation sole). All that's required to be successful is some marketing savvy – legal expertise is optional. Prominent tax protest leaders like Philip Marsh, Irwin Schiff, Eddie Kahn, Lynne Meredith, Johnny Liberty, Lamarr Hardy, "Judge" John Rizzo, and Keith Anderson have made millions peddling untaxing packages, tax protest conferences, and tax protest books, and have all been criminally convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Like Burney Brushears, Eddie Kahn was a tax protest leader and corporation sole peddler. Eddie has avoided arrest, as well as further indictments, by fleeing the country (the word on the street is he's hiding out in Panama). Eddie's clients are in deep trouble with the IRS, but Eddie is no where to be found. Keith Anderson, likewise, hid out in Costa Rica even as his own family members, and some of his clients, were being arrested, tried and convicted on various tax charges. This is typical of how tax protest leaders face the music – they often turn tail and run, leaving their clients to fend for themselves.

The feds aren't favorably disposed toward tax protesting (it's not politically correct) so, even if any of the tax protest leaders were 100% correct in their legal theories (that has never happened), the feds aren't about to just stand idly by. The feds are a little slow, but eventually they manage to get around to laying away every tax protest leader. The length of their prison sentences, in many cases, means that the only way they will ever depart jail is in a coffin.

Burney Brushears' legal theories are far less sophisticated and developed than some of the other tax protest leaders (e.g. Irwin Schiff) who have already been convicted and sentenced. However, since Burney Brushears directs his tax war against the IRS from Mexico, making it difficult for the feds to stop him, he doesn't need to personally worry about whether his legal theories have any merit or not. That, however, in no way impedes the feds' ability, nor their inclination, to squash Burney's Strategic Withdrawal or corporation sole clients like little bugs.



Home   |   Forum   |   Events   |   Catalog   |   Articles   |   About Us   |   Site Map
Copyright 2003, Heal Our Land Ministries, All Rights Reserved
A word about copyright

501c3 Tax-Exempt Status: 501c3 Tax Exempt Status and the Church
501c3 Church Facts | 501c3 Church Myths | 501c3 Church Problems
Church Incorporation: Church Incorporation Facts
Church Incorporation Myths | Church Incorporation Problems
Corporation Sole: Corporation Sole | Corporation Sole Intro | Corporation Sole Facts
Corporation Sole Myths | Corporation Sole Problems | Corporation Sole Legal Review
Corporation Sole, by: Maitland | The Modern Corporation Sole, by: James B. O'Hara
The Solution: The Free-Church Solution