WHO IS LIABLE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX?
The Internal Revenue Code (IRC or code) is written in a very misleading manner. As an illustration, let’s turn to section one of the code. This Section declares that a tax is "imposed on the taxable income of every ... individual". (This section is divided into subsections that impose the tax on ‘every married individual’ [sec. 1(a)] and on ‘every unmarried individual [sec. 1(c) -- in other words: every individual.) A grammatically correct way to read section one is to assume that it includes every individual on the face of the globe. There is nothing in section one to indicate anything less than universal application of the tax. But a little common sense and knowledge that the tax is not imposed in Canada or Mexico (someone please tell me if I’m wrong) should tell us that "every individual" doesn’t mean every individual on the face of the globe.
2. Our lack of faith in section one should be confirmed if we read a little further in the code. Section 2(d) reads "In the case of a nonresident alien individual the tax imposed by section 1 shall apply only as provide by section 871 or 877." Here, we have our first proof that the purpose of the code is deception. Section 2(d) tells us that some individuals, under certain conditions, are excluded from the tax imposed by section one: that "every individual." does not mean every individual. We are being told that, whoever wrote the code, is trying to deceive us.
3. Indeed if we look in the code of Federal Regulations (CFR), we will find what the IRC means by "every individual. "The CFR amplifies and explains federal codes and is judicially recognized in federal courts. Section 1.1-1 clarifies section 1 of the IRC: "Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b) on the income of a nonresident alien individual."
4. Of course, we all know that we can’t be a nonresident alien, but, just for the sake of exercise, let’s look at section 871(b). It reads: "(1) A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1, 55 or 402(e)(1) on his taxable income which business is within the United States."
5. This section should give no trouble to the nonlogical reader. And, I can safely say that we all were, or are, nonlogical readers - including myself.
1. What is the meaning of "within the United States"?
1. Section 871 contains a phrase that is very misleading and very significant: "within the United States." What is meant by this phrase? Furthermore, how can a "nonresident" be "within the United States?" Can an individual live "within the United States" and be a nonresident?
2. There is a very fundamental principle in constitutional law: a constitutional government can exercise only those powers that are granted by a constitution. A constitution defines the persons and things a government may exercise jurisdiction over. Such persons and things are said to be "within the jurisdiction of that government" and all other persons and things are outside of the jurisdiction of that government. Furthermore, a constitutional government is incapable of enlarging its powers - it is incapable of altering the constitution that created it.
3. Once again, what is meant by "within the United States?" When considering the force of an act of the U.S. congress, the phrase "within the United States" can have meaning only by interpreting it as "within the jurisdiction of the United States government." Any other interpretation would be pointless. What are the limits of this jurisdiction? A clue is given by a supreme court case. "It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories, though within the United States, were not citizens." (Slaughter-house Cases 83 U.S. 407)
4. In other words, if "the District of Columbia (and) the territories (are) within the United States," we should be able to conclude that all land areas outside of the District of Columbia and the territories are without the United States. What other interpretation is possible? Why does the supreme court confine "within the United States to only "the District of Columbia (and) the territories?" Here, the supreme court is recognizing the geographical jurisdiction given by the federal constitution to U.S. congress. Jurisdiction over the District of Columbia is granted at Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 17 (1,8,17) and congress controls the territories from the grant at 4,3,2. The federal constitution contains no other grants of geographical jurisdiction to the federal government.
5. (As an abbreviation, I’ll use ‘federal zone’ to designate the land areas where the federal government exercises jurisdiction.)
6. We need to examine in some detail this concept of geographical jurisdiction of the federal government.
7. A very early supreme court case illustrates the relationship between federal and state governments. In this case, Chisolm v Georgia, a citizen of another State was attempting to bring an action against the State of Georgia which was contending it was immune from lawsuit. The case was carried to the U.S. supreme court which had to determine if it had jurisdiction over States. The supreme court held that the federal constitution did grant authority to the federal government to exercise judicial authority over the several States. The court ruled that Feorgia had to answer the charges brought by Chisolm. Immediately after this decision, the Georgia legislature "answered by an act...declaring the penalty of death against any or all persons who should attempt the enforcement of the decision." (Andrews, American Law, 167-8.)
8. The Chisolm decision was shortly abrogated by the eleventh amendment. "The authority of this case was abrogated by an amendment. Article 11 of the Constitution U.S., which provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State." (Chisolm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 480.)
9. An 1855 supreme court case, Dred Scott v Sanford, gives additional confirmation of the limited jurisdiction of the federal government. The issue of this case consisted of Dred Scott’s liberty. He was a black slave and his master carried him from the state of Missouri into the state of Illinois in the year 1834. Two years later, Scott was removed by his master to a military fort on the west bank of the Mississippi River in the territory then known as Upper Louisiana and located north of the state of Missouri. In 1838, Scott was carried back to Missouri where he filed suit asserting his freedom. Scott claimed that, since he resided in a U.S. territory where slavery had been prohibited, he had become a free man and could not legally be compelled to return to the state of Missouri with his master. To arrive at a decision in this case, the court had to exhaustively review the geographical jurisdiction of the federal government. The court explained the issue in these words:
10. The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff (Scott) relies, declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not include within the limits of Missouri. And the difficulty which meets us at the threshold of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and incapable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the States. (Scott v Sanford, 16 Wall 432.)
11. Subsequent to the paragraph just quoted, the court used twenty pages examining the limits and history of the federal government’s geographical authority. Between pages 432 and 452 of the decision, the court constantly referred to clauses 1, 8, 17 and 4,3,2 of the federal contract. No other clauses are mentioned for a very simple reason; no others give geographical jurisdiction to the federal government. Regarding the relationship of federal and state jurisdiction, the court had this to say:
12. This brings us to examine by what provision of the Constitution the present Federal Government, under it delegated and restricted powers, is authorized to acquire territory outside of the original limits of the United States, and what powers it may exercise therein over the person or property of a citizen of the United States, while it remains a territory, and until it shall be admitted as one of the States of the Union. (Scott v Sanford, 16 Wall 446).
13. That is, "while it remains a Territory, and until it shall be admitted as one of the States of the Union," the federal government has jurisdiction over the territory. And further (also at page 446), "if a new State is admitted, it (the former territory) needs no further legislation by Congress,..."
14. The court is plainly telling us the federal government has no geographical jurisdiction within the states of the Union. What’s more, the court (at page 452), ruled that the act in question was void: "it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind (slaves) in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory..."
15. (Scott lost his case not because of the issues treated above, but - because American law gave no capacity to the black race to become state citizens who, alone, were - and are - protected by the federal and state constitutions.)
16. Does Congress exercise any jurisdiction over the states? The Scott court, at page 432, refers to an "act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies, (which) declares that slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever prohibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri." Except for the geographical references, this act reads exactly as the thirteenth amendment. The problem is, however, at the time of this decision (1855), there was no thirteenth. This act had no effect over the states. If Congress had jurisdiction over the states, the thirteenth would have been unnecessary. The language of the thirteenth was already contained in an act of Congress and if Congress had power over the states, why would it go thru the amendment process which is considerably more difficult than a mere act of Congress?
17. Let us look at the geographical jurisdiction of the United States as explained in Hooven v Evatt, a 1945 supreme court case. In this case, the court had occasion (at head note 14) to defined the meaning of the term "United States."
18. The term "United states" may be used in any one of several senses. (1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty (sic) of the United States extends, or (3) it may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. (Hooven v Evatt, 394 U.S. 671.)
19. The first definition is a mere general term and refers to no government in particular. It could be used to describe the United States of Mexico, the United States of Canada and so on. This meaning of the term will rarely enter into our legal opinions.
20. The second definition (United States-2) refers to the government created by the federal contract. Of the three definitions, this is the only one that exercises political jurisdiction.
21. The third definition (United States-3) refers to the several states. This meaning refers to no organized government and exercises no political jurisdiction. This meaning is analogous to the term North America which comprises several independent government but there is no government of North America just as there is no government associated with the United States-3.
22. The second and third meanings of "United States" are distinct terms. The former refers to a particular government, the latter does not; the former exercises political jurisdiction, the latter has none. When we discuss the term "United States" relative to the obligation or requirement of any law enacted by U.S. congress, we can only mean the second definition of "United States. When we discuss the land area of the several states, we are discussing are where, as the Hooven Court stated, U.S. congress does not exercise "sovereignty." If United States-2 is where Congress exercises its "sovereignty," it would seem reasonable to conclude that Congress does not exercise "sovereignty" in United States-1 or United States-3.
23. Where does U.S. congress exercise its "sovereignty?"
24. It is no longer doubted that the United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by sec. 3 of Article IV of the Constitution "to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." (Hooven v Evatt, 394 U.S. 673.)
25. (I have the word sovereignty in quotation marks because its use relative to federal or state government is not authorized. A government is either sovereign (and "unlimited...(or)...unrestricted," Bouvier’s) or it is constitutional (e., etc.,., limited and restricted by a constitution): American constitutional governments cannot be sovereign. A "power...conferred by ...the Constitution" is not a sovereign power.)
26. The Hooven court then goes on to tell us that the "sovereign" power of Congress is not available when it deals with the states of the Union.
27. In exercising this power, congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States (-3). (Hooven v Evatt, 394 U.S. 674.)
28. The Dred Scott case, the Slaughter-house cases and the Hooven case all consistently declare the geographical jurisdiction of Congress to be limited by two clause of the Constitution: 1,8,17 and 4,3,2. All land areas within the states and not described by those clauses are outside the jurisdiction of Congress. With the above information, we have a much better appreciation of what is meant when the Supreme Court declares "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." (In re Merriam, 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 624, 41 L. Ed. 287.)
29. Hence, when the Internal Revenue code uses the phrase "within the United States," we are not dealing with a casual phrase in some travel catalogue. And we are not dealing with a term (United States-3) where U.S. congress phrase that is intended to define the geographical jurisdiction of the US congress. This phrase can only mean "within the geographical jurisdiction of the U.S. congress.
30. This means that all who reside in the District of Columbia and U.S. territories are U.S. residents as defined at CFR 1.1-1. All others are nonresidents.
31. Well now, wait a minute. I thought I said that none of us cold be a nonresident alien individual. And here we are, we’re half way there. Could we also be alien to the federal government? If so, it is conceivable that, according to section 871 (b), we could have no income from "within the United States" and thereby be totally exempt from federal income taxes. (A federal excise tax would be payable - by anyone, regardless of citizenship - for any federal franchises used, such as royalties from federally registered copyrights, patents and trademarks, federal employment or dividends and interest paid by federally chartered corporations.)
Who is alien to the federal government?
1. Alien: In the United States one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States and who has not been naturalized under their constitution and laws. (2 Kent 50, Bouvier’s, 172.)
2. This definition uses the term "jurisdiction of the United States" and, as the Hooven case explained, there is only one United States that exercises jurisdiction: the one that controls the District of Columbia and the Territories. Thus, according to this definition, anyone born outside of these areas is alien to the federal government.
3. This definition is slightly puzzling in one respect: the last four words are "their constitution and laws." The word "their" is plural which implies that United States in this definition means the several states; but, the singular "constitution" is also used which implies that United States means the federal government.
4. The definition conveys more meaning if given as:
5. Alien: In the United States(-3) or, in the several states) one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States (-2) and who has not been naturalized under their constitution and laws.
6. Remember, there is no government of the United States-3 just as there is no government of North America (or Europe or Asia); hence, the jurisdiction mentioned can only attach to United States-2
7. This gives us a quick answer to "Who is alien to the federal government?" But we need to put more flesh on this answer.
8. To provide a full context answer to this question, we have to go back to the creation of the federal government. Some have said the federal constitution was drafted by men who had no authority to do so. Their instructions were to modify the Articles of confederation, to make the existing general government more effective. Instead, they decided to make a document that would create a new government to succeed the Confederation. Whether these men had authority to draft the federal contract or not, I believe, is a pointless issue. They were chosen as representatives of "The People" and, accordingly, declared "We the People...and our posterity" as the principals and creators of the federal contract.
9. Who are "We the People?" Can we give them a more precise term? A supreme court case of 1793 gives us the answer.
10. With the strictest propriety, therefore, classical and political, our national scene opens with the most magnificent object, which the nation could present. "The PEOPLE of the United States" are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen states... (Chisholm v Georgia, (1793) 2 Dall 463)
11. This passage refers to the Preamble of the federal contract which contains the phrases "We the People... ourselves and our Posterity."
12. "We the People" were, and "our Posterity" are, the citizens of the several states. No other answer is possible. They were not colonists or subjects of the king; for, the Revolution had been won four years earlier. They were not citizens of the United States government; for, it had not yet been created. In fact, for the next eighty years, there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States government, neither in fact nor in fiction.
13. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing (Ex parte Frank Knowles, (1855) 5 Cal. 302)
14. although the federal contact uses the phrase "Citizen of the United States" three times as it describes the qualifications for representatives (seven years a Citizen of the United States), senators (nine years) and president (fourteen years), the phrase can have meaning only if it is interpreted as "Citizen of one of the several united States." If the phrase meant "Citizen of the United States government," the newly created government could have no representatives, at least, for its first seven years or, more certainly, never; for, the federal contract has no provision for making anyone a citizen of the federal government.
15. A possible source of confusion regarding the distinction between United States citizen and state citizen is the clause in art. I, sec. 8 of the Constitution that delegates the power to Congress "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization...throughout the United States." A cursory reading of this clause may leave the impression that it gives the power to Congress to naturalize alien as Unites States citizens. But this is not what the clause does.
16. If we examine the language closely, and according to the rules of rigid construction always applicable to delegated powers, we will find that the power to naturalize, in fact is not given to Congress, but simply the power to establish an uniform rule. The States are not forbidden to naturalize, nor is there anything in the exercise of the power by them, incongruous or incompatible with the power of Congress to establish an uniform rule...The power given to Congress was, according to my apprehension, intended to provide a rule for the action of the States, and not a rule for the action of the States, and not a rule for the action of the federal Government, (Ex parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal 303.)
17. It was then explained (at page 305) that an act of Congress or 1802 assigned the power of naturalization to state courts. Those naturalized in a state court could only be a state citizen - not a federal citizen.
18. With the federal government possessing no power to naturalize, it appears that the framers of the Constitution never intended for there to be a federal citizenship.
19. Until 1868, there was no such thing as a citizen of the federal government - neither in fact nor by legal fiction. The fraudulently ratified fourteenth amendment pretends to create federal citizenship. It reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
20. One of the purposes of the fourteenth amendment was to address the problems of the salve race after the Civil War. Before the War, the blacks had no rights and no privileges in this country: they had no standing in any court. Immediately after the War, the situation had not changed. To remedy this, U.S. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which reads, in part All person born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every state and territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, to contrary notwithstanding, Act April 9, 1866, c. 31 sec 1 (14 Stat. 27).
21. This Act had no effect on the States. Consequently, Congress condensed the Act and sent it to the States as a proposed federal amendment. It was rejected. Congress then passed the Reconstruction Acts which, by military occupation, abolished the governments of the ten Southern States that rejected the proposed amendment, disenfranchised almost all white voters and required, as a condition for readmission to the Union, the passage of the fourteenth amendment. (For ore on this bogus amendment, see, Dyett v Turner, 439 P. 2d 266.)
22. Now, please tell e, has the fourteenth amendment been ratified? Whether it has not, let us consider it. First let’s establish that it applies only to the non-white races. For this we turn to the slaughter house cases.
23. The most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race. (Slaughter House Casess 83 U.S. 407.)
24. Some people claim that this bogus amendment creates federal citizenship. But I have several problems with that opinion. Before we can address these problems, we have to examine the concepts of citizen and subject.
a) Roman citizenship.
1. The Roman government was organized by three large Roman tribes. Each tribe consisted of ten curiae and each curiae consisted of ten decuriae which consisted of one hundred families each. The Roman family could number from ten to fifty or more individuals. The reason for these large families was because a family consisted of the male head of the family and all of his unmarried daughters, his male descendents, their wives and children and anyone else who may have joined his family. All members of the family were known as citizens, although only the head of the family possessed "full privileges." All other members of the family, although they possessed minor privileges, were under the total dominion of the head of the family. To protect and enforce their privileges (the Romans did not recognize rights as we do), they created the Roman government. Relative to everyone else, Roman citizens were above the law. They did not create a government to impose burdens on themselves, but to protect and enlarge their privileges. Among themselves they, of course, had to answer for their actions; but, relative to others, only when advantageous or necessary, as, for example, relative to foreign merchants.
2. Roman citizenship was determined by the status of one’s mother and the restrictions of such citizenship were those of family, not government.
b) The English subject
1. English law, up to the American Revolution and probably to the present time, has never known the word "citizen". The English equivalent is "subject".
2. For the last thousand years England has been a feudal society. In such a society, only one person possesses full privileges: the monarch. all others are his subjects who owe him total allegiance which is more properly known as fealty. No subject of the king can exist without owing life, limb and all earthly worship to the king. To become an English subject, one merely has to be born on soil within the ligeance or jurisdiction of the century, was permanent. Once could not quit being an English subject - a condition truly consistent with the status of slavery.
c) American citizenship.
1. Those Americans who rebelled against the English crown changed everything. They created a citizenship that is unlike anything known in previous legal systems. In America, citizenship is determined by the location of one’s birth, just as the status of subject is created in England; however, no burdens or obligations attach to an American is born in full possession of his rights - a condition also unknown to the English and Roman lawyer.
2. While the Americans made a mind shattering break from previous legal systems, they did not extend their liberties to all: the non-white races were not included. The least we can say for them is that they created a condition of freedom for fifty to sixty per cent of the population - compared to zero per cent in England and Rome.
d) Back to the fourteenth
1. With these remarks about citizen and subject, let’s return to the unratified fourteenth.
2. Once again, the fourteenth reads: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.?
3. What is meant by "in the United States?" A clue is given by the phrase the jurisdiction." "The’ is singular. There is one United States government. Thus, "in the United States" means "the District of Columbia (and) the territories" Slaughter House Casess, 83 U.S. 407).
4. Thus, according to the bogus fourteenth, one must be born in the District of Columbia or the territories to be a citizen of the United States government. However, owing the nature of this person’s status he would more properly styled a subject, not a citizen.
5. The thirteenth amendment provides the reasons for this opinion, it reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." What do we mean by the phrase "within the United States." The clue, "their jurisdiction," tell us that United States, in this amendment, means the States of the Union and may or may not include the District of Columbia and the territories. This is indicated by a 1945 supreme court case: "In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting territory belonging to the United States, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States (i.e., the States of the Union). (Hooven v Evatt, 324 U.S. 674.)
6. In other words, the constitution is operative within the States but not in the federal zone.
7. Therefore, since the act of birth is an involuntary act from the perspective of the once being born, no obligation or burden can attach to anyone because of his birth within any one of the several States. Conversely, those born within the federal zone are not covered by the thirteenth amendment and such birth allows obligations to attach to them merely because of their birth - a condition consistent with the subject of English law not the citizen of American law.
8. In other words, if one is born in full possession of his rights and with no burdens attached to oneself, one is a citizen of one of the several states. If obligations or burdens attach to oneself merely because of one’s birth, one is a subject of Congress.
9. Thus, one born within the federal zone is obligated to pay an income tax merely because of his birth while one born within one of the several states not so not so obligated; for, otherwise, it would be involuntary servitude.
e) Does government recognize difference between U.S. and State citizenship?
1. For this, we turn again to the Slaughter House Casess.
2. It is quite clear, then that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
3. We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of the same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.
4. The language is: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended a protection to the citizen of a state against the legislative power of his own state, that the words "citizen of the state" should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to "citizens of the United States" in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.
5. Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the Amendment.
6. If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the state as such, the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the Amendment. (Slaughter House Cases 83 U.S. 408.)
7. Embrace means ‘to include,’ hence, this case is telling us that State citizens are not included in the jurisdiction of the federal government.
8. What is the definition of an alien? - "one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States." And here, by United States we mean the government created by the federal contract. The exercise of jurisdiction attaches to no other meaning of the term. If state citizens are born out of the jurisdiction of the United States government and do not naturalize, do they remain out of the jurisdiction of the federal government?
9. Let’s look at that question from a different perspective: if a state citizen is within the jurisdiction or within the protection of the federal government, what is the act that creates that condition? It seems to me that the federal government has no authority to make anyone a federal citizen by birth nor by naturalization. Owing to the thirteenth amendment, the federal government cannot compel anyone to become a Us. citizen. the bogus fourteenth has no affect on white citizens and it can only invite non-white persons to become U.S. citizens.
10. Let us make some concluding observations about the Slaughter-house case. These cases arose from disputes between a corporation created by the Louisiana legislature and the meat packers it was intended to displace. This corporation was given monopoly privileges in three parishes around New Orleans. All cattle were to be landed at the company’s docks, penned in the company’s stockyards and slaughtered in the company’s warehouse. Quite naturally, some butchers and meat packers objected to losing their livelihoods. The brought suit in the state courts and lost. They appealed to the US. supreme court which effectively concluded, ‘look, you’re white men, you’re state citizens and you’re complaining against a creation of a state legislature and we - the U.S. supreme court - must "hold ourselves excused from" this case: we have no jurisdiction over any of these persons.’
11. Having shown that the privileges and immunities relied on in the argument are those which belong to citizens of the states as such, and that they are left to the sate governments for security and protection, and not by this article placed under the special care of the Federal government, we may hold ourselves excused from defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States which no state can abridge, until some case involving those privileges may make it necessary to do so. (Slaughter-house Cases, 83 U.S. 409.)
12. Is it possible to state more emphatically that state citizens are not United States citizens - and "that state citizens...are not embraced within" the jurisdiction of the federal government?
13. One who is out of the jurisdiction of a government is alien to that government. Hence, relative to the federal government, a state citizen is an alien.
f) How are U.S. government citizens created?
1. According to CFR 1.1-1, the federal income tax is imposed on United States citizens. If this tax attached to a United States citizen because of his birth, a serious conflict would arise relative to the thirteenth amendment which forbids involuntary servitude. to avoid this conflict with the thirteenth, the Internal Revenue Service is constantly reminding the world that the income tax is voluntary, but it is not telling us what the voluntary act is.
2. I believe there are two so-called voluntary acts that can make one liable for the income tax: to be naturalized as a United States citizen or to obtain a social security number. (there is a great amount of misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion involved in both of these acts which can void their effects from the beginning.)
3. The relationship between the SS# and U.S. citizenship and, hence, the obligation of the income tax is indicated by Revenue ruling 57-576.
4. It is the position of the Internal Revenue Service that, since coverage under the social security program pursuant to the provisions of section 3121(1) of the Federal contributions Act is limited to United States citizens, coverage with respect to a United States citizen covered by an agreement would cease on the date which he becomes a citizen of a foreign country.
5. Thus, when one obtains a social security number, the IRS is allowed to presume that once has chosen to be treated as a U.S. citizen and to be liable for the income tax. When the IRS proceeds against such a person, The IRS is merely trying to enforce an obligation that was "voluntarily" accepted - a process compatible with the thirteenth amendment.
g) Brushaber case
1. The supreme court case BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U. S. 1 (1916) provides a convenient confirmation that the Internal Revenue Service regards state citizens as nonresident aliens. Brushaber owned shares of Union Pacific which withheld a tax on its dividends and paid it to the U.S. treasury. Brushaber protested and brought suit in federal court to recover the tax. He lost at the district level and appealed to the supreme court where he lost again. The issues that he contended for are unimportant here. His averments of citizenship and residency are what concern us here.
2. The first paragraph of his complaint (federal district level) begins with these words: "Frank R. Brushaber, a citizen of the State of New York and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the City of New York, brings this his bill against Union Pacific Railroad company...." (LRA 1917D, 814; AnnCas 1917B, 713.) At all levels of the judicial proceedings, Brushaber’s statements regarding citizenship and residency were never challenged.
3. Two months after the Brushaber decision, the U.S. treasury issued Treasury decision 2313, the first paragraph of which reads as follows.
4. Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v Union Pacific railway Co., (sic) decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.
5. By referring to Brushaber as a nonresident alien, the IRS conceded that a state citizen is alien to the federal government and someone living in Brooklyn is nonresident to the federal government. The only way that these relationships can be altered is by constitutional amendment - and there has been no such amendment since 1916.
6. Brushaber lost his case because Union Pacific was a domestic corporation, one organized by U.S. congress (in 1862). If Union Pacific had been organized by a state legislature it would have been regarded as a foreign corporation and the dividends and interest paid by it would have been exempt from federal taxation. Remember, the defendant in the Slaughter-house cases was a corporation organized by the legislature of Louisiana and the supreme court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the state legislature nor the corporation created thereby.
7. Despite the obvious reference to Brushaber as a nonresident alien by Treasury Decision 2313, the Brushaber case has generated several objections on this point. Some claim that he was a French immigrant; that, when he bought his Union Pacific shares, he listed a village outside Paris as his residence or that he was a withholding agent for Union Pacific.
8. Was Brushaber a French immigrant? If so, he would have been required to enter thru Ellis Island and register as a "resident" alien. Furthermore, he claimed to be a citizen of New York in his complaint, not a citizen of France.
9. Was he classified as a nonresident alien because he listed his palace of residence as a village outside Paris when he bought his shares? None of this information was before the court. Whether he had done this or not, the Treasury Department still classified him as an alien, not a U.S. citizen.
10. On this point it is worthwhile to compare the Brushaber case with a 1924 supreme court case, Cook v Tait (265 U.S. 47). Cook was a U.S. citizen living and working in Mexico City. the IRS sent an agent to Mexico City to examine Cook’s records and assess a tax against him. Cook protested, made an installment tax payment and sued to recover the tax. Cook was classified as a U.S. citizen by the court and Cook, who was living and working in Mexico during the time in question, was held liable for the income tax.
11. The text of the Cook case does not tell how he became a U.S. citizen. We can be certain he did not do so thru a Social Security number which was fourteen years in the future. What is more probable is that Cook became a U.S. citizen by leaving United States-3. When the federal government was created, its major purpose was to represent and protect state citizens relative to the rest of the world. Hence, when a state citizen left the country, he became, by legal fiction, a United States citizen in order to rely on the United States government for protection while traveling abroad. When he returned home, his U.S. citizenship was left at the border where he resumed his state citizenship. "Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government." (Slaughter-house cases, 83 U.S. 409.)
12. Thus by such reasoning if Brushaber had been living in France during the time of his dispute, he would have been classified as a U.S. citizen - just as Cook was classified. (This issue can have serious consequences for those people who attempt to protect their assets and income from the income tax by using off-shore devices. If a state citizen becomes a U.S. citizen by leaving the county, the Cook decision tells us that our body and other property outside the United States-3 is within the authority of the IRS.)
13. Was Brushaber a withholding agent for Union Pacific? If this had been the case, Brushaber would have taken his argument to the Company’s legal department which, if it had agreed with Brushaber, would have taken the case out of his hands and we never would have heard the name Brushaber. The case, then, would have been styled, Union Pacific v Commissioner of the IRS.
C. Who is liable for state income tax?
1. Word games
1. Let us suppose that you are a French citizen living in Paris with income derived from a source in Orange County. Federal and state income taxes have been withheld and you want to recover those taxes. Popular wisdom has it that you file a 1040NR to recover federal taxes and a 540NR to recover state taxes. It must be done in this order according to 540NR instruction. But, in this case, we have problems.
2. The 1040NR is a federal document and is to be used by nonresident alien individuals. In our example, popular wisdom holds that a French citizen, living in Paris, is nonresident and alien to the United States government. The facts are consistent with all the commonly held definitions of resident, alien and United States.
3. But, when we contemplate the 540NR, something should bother us. This document is a return for California ‘nonresidents.’ Before one can begin this document, one must have completed a 1040NR. This seems all right so far; a French citizen living in Paris is nonresident to Orange County according to common usage of the word ‘resident’. But, isn’t a French citizen also alien to California? Why is the 540NR styled for ‘’nonresidents’ only - regardless of citizenship? This means that one’s citizenship is not a factor in determining whether one can use a 540NR. It means that California citizens can use a 540NR. If they could not, the document would be styled ‘nonresident alien.’ If it were so styled, it would be available to all except California citizens.
4. To complete a 540NR, one must complete a 1040NR and one’s status must be consistent with both documents. A California citizen living in Orange County and outside of any federal enclave is nonresident and alien to the federal government and he can also be nonresident, but not alien, to the California government.
5. This is where we have to examine the word resident.
1. The following definitions are from Bouvier’s.
2. Resident. One who has his residence in a place.
3. Residence. A residence is different from a domicile, although it is a matter of great importance in determining the place of domicile. The essential distinction between residence and domicile is that the first involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which one has taken up his abode ceases. The other has no such intent; the abiding is animo manendi (the intention of remaining). One may seek a place for the purposes of pleasure, of business, or of health. If his intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent be to leave as soon as his purpose is accomplished, it is his residence; Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 Fed. 311.
4. In other words, if one intends to remain in California, one is a nonresident of California. My purpose for living in California is to visit Disneyland once or twice a year. Upon completion of each of those visits, I intend to remain in California. Hence, I am a nonresident of California. To confirm this let us look at some definitions of ‘domicile.’
5. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. (White v Crawford, 10 Mass 188; Bouvier’s,  915.)
6. The term citizenship ordinarily conveys a distinct idea from that of domicile; State v Adams, 45 Ia 99, 24 Am Rep 760; but it is often construed in the sense of domicile; Morris v Gilmer, 129 U.S. 315, 9 Sup Ct 289, 32 L. Ed. 690. (Bouvier’s, 916.)
7. Any person, sui juris, may make any bona fide change of domicile at any time; President, etc., of Harvard College v Gore, 5 Pick. (Mass) 370;35 E.L. & Eq. 532. (Bouvier’s, 920.)
8. It is crucial to understand, that, when dealing with legal matters, every word has a particular meaning. Courts can know your intent only by the words that you use. They have to assume that you know what those words mean. If you use a wrong word, you could unintentionally or unknowingly create an obligation for yourself. Resident is one of those trick words.
D. The Principal - Agent relationship.
1. When we distinguish between domicile and residence, between citizen and subject and between state citizen and U.S. citizen, are we quibbling over inconsequential issues - or, are we contending with a fundamental legal principal?
2. In the American theory of government, all political power, all sovereignty derives from state citizens. They, and they alone, are the parties to state and federal constitutions. These constitutions derive authority from no one else. The purpose of governments created and limited by those constitutions is to protect the rights and property of state citizens - not to impose burdens on them. Anyone else who derives protection therefrom does so as a gift or privilege. To the extent that a government does not protect the rights and property of state citizens, it is a rogue organization and operates without authority.
3. When we equate state citizen to the phrase "nonresident alien," the initial reaction is invariably negative. The phrase evokes connotations of "strange, foreign or unconnected" to the American experiment. These negative reactions often take the form of "If you don’t like it here, why don’t you move to red China?" The problem with this response, as I’ve indicated, is that state citizens created state and federal governments for the purpose of their protection.
4. When the federal government classifies state citizens as nonresident aliens, it is observing the legal principle that a thing created has no authority over its creators. A state government does the same when it classifies a state citizen as a nonresident.
5. The reason that so many people react negatively to the phrase "nonresident alien" is failure to appreciate the unique nature of the federal government. It is probably the only government in all of human history that was never intended to exercise jurisdiction over individuals or territory, except in extraordinary and temporary situations. Those court cases I have cited in this essay did not create those governments nor the contract that limits those governments. These court case are merely the most authoritative opinions regarding the meaning of the contract and the intent of its framers.
6. Can the courts overturn the Dred Scott and the Slaughter-house decisions, to name a very few? Of course they can. But such decisions would not alter the federal contract and they would not prevent future law suits to restore "the blessing of liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity."
E. Can the government expand its authority?
1. The Internal Revenue Service and the Internal Revenue Code are creations of Congress. Congress created the IR Code which imposes limits and restrictions on the IRS. The IRS has no authority to alter the IR Code nor to impose burdens upon Congress, except with the voluntary consent of Congress. This incapacity is so obvious that its violation has probably never been tried and, consequently, there may be no court cases to cite on this particular issue.
2. The U.S. congress and the federal constitution are creations of state citizens ("We the People...and our Posterity".) State citizens created the federal contract which imposes limits and restrictions on Congress. Just as the IRS has no authority to alter the IR Code nor to impose burdens on congress, so congress has no authority to alter the federal contact nor to impose burdens on state citizens, except with their voluntary consent. This incapacity of congress to alter the federal contract is confirmed by every case I’ve cited had probably several thousands more.
3. There is no provision in the Constitution to alter it by executive order, nor by court decision, nor by an act of Congress. This contract is without the reach of Congress, the judiciary and the executive. The only way a constitution may be altered is by the amendment process.
4. Regarding land areas within the states of the Union, there are only two ways to enlarge the geographical jurisdiction of the U.S. government: first, by a state voluntarily ceding land to the federal government and, secondly, by a constitutional amendment which would require approval by thirty eight states.
5. I know of no such amendment since 1855, the year of the Dred Scott decision and, while various states may have ceded land to the federal government for military bases, ports or national parks, all other state land areas remain "without the jurisdiction of the United States."
1. Will the government recognize one’s status...
1. ...if one takes the steps necessary to become a state citizen or to correct fraudulently induced mistakes?
2. As one becomes aware of the states citizenship issue, one becomes aware of a certain amount of deception and fraud that has been perpetrated over the last two hundred years. The special interest groups that have thrive under this fraud will not issue public statements that say "Okay, we’ve stolen billions from you, murdered two hundred million of your relatives and friends and, now that you’ve discovered the core issue of our fraud, we’ll bother you again." We’ll never see such a statement. Instead, I think we’ll see a major effort to deny, discredit and derail state citizenship information.
2. How will the government survive if everyone becomes state citizens?
1. Before we answer this question, we have to ask: should the government survive - does it do anything honest people need or want? The selections in the following Reading List should provide enough evidence to determine who is protected and who is looted by the government - and whether or not we should worry about the fate of twenty to thirty million thieves.
3. Will I risk unnecessary attention or prosecution if I become a state citizen?
1. Until the 1960’s, it was common for people born outside of United States to naturalize in state courts as state citizens. Since that time, all naturalization is performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the paperwork provided by the INS gives the applicant a choice between state citizenship and U.S. citizenship. However, because of the near total ignorance regarding the advantages of state citizenship, it is hardly ever chosen. When one files a law suit in federal court, one is given a cover sheet to complete (for statistical purposes, they say) which requests the citizenship of the parties to the case. State citizenship is one of the options. The federal contract begins with "We the People...and our Posterity" who were and are state citizens; it contains the phrase "state citizen" several times.
2. Will the government prosecute someone who is protected by the federal contract?
3. Before learning the issues of state citizenship, it is understandable to be concerned about possible prosecution merely because one becomes a state citizen, but after learning the issues, one can see what an utter fiasco the government would be inviting if it prosecuted anyone on that issue. Not only would the government lose its case, but we would gain at least half of the jury as state citizens.