The federal government defines various words within its statutes and regulations – these words are known as “terms”. Once the legislature defines a term, the original definition of that word as found in a dictionary no longer has any relevance.
There are many “terms” that are common, ordinary, and everyday words within the Social Security/personal income tax scam. Some of the “terms” that are used in the Internal Revenue Code that fall into this category of common, ordinary, everyday words are “U.S. citizen”, “taxpayer”, “employee”, and the one that includes all of these – “U.S. resident”. (All of the legal definitions of these “terms” are also evidenced on the main page of this blog which includes the link to my court document filed in federal case #08-273 (WDPA)).
A quick summary of these “terms” follows:
(1) “U.S. citizen” – an American, in other words, someone born in one of the sovereign states, who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (including Puerto Rico) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship (including Puerto Rican citizenship). This definition is exemplified within Title 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1 at subsection (c), which in turn references back to Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 2501 at subsection (b) where it states that this is the definition of the term “citizen” throughout the title. Notice that it states here that “citizen” is a term. This definition is contrasted with the definition of U.S. possession citizen within 26 U.S.C. section 2501 at subsection (c). The same contrast between “U.S. citizen” and U.S. possession citizen is found at Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 2208 and 2209.
(2) “Taxpayer” – a “citizen” who establishes, or seeks to establish, a construction reserve fund under the provisions of Section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (and may include a partnership). This definition is found at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) and within the same set of definitions (Title 26 C.F.R., “Internal Revenue”, Section 2.1-1 “Definitions”) at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) it states that the terms used there have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder for computation and collection of taxes. Notice that it states that “taxpayer” is a term.
(3) “Employee” – a federal employee. This definition is found within title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701, “Definitions”, subsection (j) (4), “Tax treatment of Federal Thrift Savings Fund”, where it states that the term “employee” has the same meaning as when used in subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5 U.S.C. Title 5 U.S.C. is “Government Organizations and Employees”. Subsection (j)(4) states that these definitions are for the purposes of the subsection, which in turn is preceded by subsection (j)(1) which states that its purpose applies to the entire title. Also, as evidenced above, the definition of the term “taxpayer” has to do with the Merchant Marine – federal employees. Notice that the definition states that “employee” is a term.
(4) “U.S. Resident” – This is the granddaddy of all of the federal legislature’s terms. It includes all of the above terms as well as the cite to 26 U.S.C. Section 911, which is the cite for importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws. “Resident” is defined within 26 U.S.C. Section 865, “Source rules for personal property sales”, at Title 26 U.S.C. subsection 865(g) “United States resident; nonresident”. Here it states the following: “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection- (A) United States resident. The term “United States resident” means – (i) any individual who – (I) is a United States citizen or a resident alien and does not have a tax home (as defined in section 911(d)(3)) in a foreign country or (II) is a nonresident alien and has a tax home (as so defined) in the United States and (ii) any corporation, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701(a)(30)). Notice that the statute states that “U.S. resident” is a term. The reference to “tax home” is the coordination to the term “taxpayer” (a “taxpayer” has a “tax home”).
The use of the term “resident” by the federal government obviously includes a lot of hidden definitions by including other terms in its own definition. It is of extreme importance to note that the definition of “resident” includes a corporation, a trust, and an estate. A corporation, a trust, and an estate are all legal entities, in other words, these are entities created by the government within the filing of the relevant legal papers.
The government naturally has control over its own legal entities, such as corporations, trusts, and estates. However, the government does not have control over sovereign Americans. After all, “We the People” created the government, not the other way around, as in the case of a corporation or a trust or an estate.
The Supreme Court has held that sovereignty in America lies with the people, not the government. The following are a sample of such rulings by the Supreme Court:
(1) “Under our system the people, who are there (in England) called subjects, are here the sovereign…Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch. The citizen here (in America) knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him…” – United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 208.
(2) “The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” – Hale V. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 at 74.
(3) “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld.” – Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.
(4) “Here (in America) sovereignty rests with the People.” – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed (2 Dall.) 415.
U.S. possession citizens do not have the freedom that sovereign Americans are supposed to have as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The U.S. government owns the U.S. possessions and, therefore, U.S. possession citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
The Internal Revenue Code immediately informs everyone of the jurisdiction under which it is proceeding at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1, “Income tax on individuals”, subsection (c), where it states: “Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Naturality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459).”. Title 8 U.S.C. is “Aliens and Nationality” and it concerns gaining U.S. citizenship within the U.S. possessions. Why would an American, a person born within one of the sovereign states, have any nexus with acquiring U.S. citizenship within the provisions of title 8 U.S.C., “Aliens and Nationality”?
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states in section 1 the following: “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.”. It is obvious that the cite above from 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) is referring to the 14th Amendment citizen, otherwise known as the “U.S. citizen”.
As evidenced on the main page of this Blog, the U.S. possessions are all treated as foreign countries within the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. section 865(i)(3), section 872(b)(7), and section 2014(g) for example). Since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries, then the act of acquiring U.S. possession citizenship is, therefore, considered foreign under the internal revenue laws.
The following will reference the definition of “U.S. resident” as cited above. The use of the term “resident” to include at 26 U.S.C. section 865(g)(1)(A)(i)(I) a United States citizen along with a resident alien and at section 865(g)(1)(A)(i)(II) a nonresident alien is a giveaway to the foreign nature that must exist within the definition of the term “U.S. citizen”.
By considering a sovereign American instead as a “U.S. citizen”, the federal government has done two things in order to establish jurisdiction over them: (1) presuming that the American has acquired U.S. possession citizenship and become subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government and (2) deeming the U.S. possessions as foreign countries and, thus, considering the “U.S. citizen” as a foreigner for the purposes of the internal revenue laws. As evidenced on the main page of this Blog, internal revenue is a subset of the customs, and is based upon the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution.
All IRS indictments secretly hide the actual charge against a defendant (victim) by simply designating the defendant as a “resident”, usually within the section “Parties” of the indictment. This is how the government and the courts have been able to claim jurisdiction over sovereign Americans.
I was falsely indicted and convicted in 2001 for three counts of the violation of title 26 U.S.C. section 7203, “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax”. Back in 2001 I had no understanding of the internal revenue laws – after all, no one outside of the government is supposed to understand the law. But I did eventually discover all of the information that I am publishing in this Blog.
Since I now understand that the word “resident” is the secret charge of the indictment against me, I filed to have my appeal reinstated and to have the appellate court rule on my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to include all of the elements of the charge of being a “resident”. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that have stated that an indictment must go to the specifics. If a person doesn’t understand the charge in the indictment, it is impossible to defend oneself.
The Supreme Court most clearly addresses this issue within Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, where it held the following: “Although the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offense in an indictment upon the statute, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished; where the statutory language does not apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him, it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform him of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.”
The challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time, including long after the court has closed the case. I filed my motion to reinstate my appeal and then rule on my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to include all the elements of the charge of “resident” around May 19, 2006. This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 8, 2006: Court Docket – June 8, 2006. This docket was printed on June 8, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page. As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of May 19, 2006, at 6:03 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket. Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is designated as “Appellee” and I am designated as “Appellant”. This is the correct designation.
This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 9, 2006: Court Docket – June 9, 2006. This docket was printed on June 9, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page. As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of June 8, 2006, at 6:03 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket. Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is no longer designated as “Appellee”, while I am still properly designated as “Appellant”. This is the court’s way of acknowledging that both parties have joined in the motion. This is blatant docket tampering.
This is a link to the appellate court’s order dated June 8, 2006: Court Order of June 8, 2006. This is the same day that the docket was tampered with in order to make it appear that the government had joined in my motion (the date of the court order is circled in turquoise on the lower left hand side of the page). As it states on the docket, the court denied my motion because a “Response was due 5/30/06”. Obviously, since I filed the motion I do not have a response due. However, had the government joined in the motion and then if the government failed to respond, the motion could be denied for the lack of response. This docket tampering allowed the government to literally hijack my motion.
This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 10, 2006: Court Docket – June 10, 2006. This docket was printed on June 10, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page. As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of June 9, 2006, at 6:01 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket. Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is once again designated as “Appellee” and I am designated as “Appellant”. This is now back to the correct designation.
I then filed another motion to reinstate my appeal and included the above docket sheets as evidence of docket tampering. The government tampered with the docket in the exact same manner again by removing the designation of the United States of America as “Appellee” on July 13, 2006. Here is a link to the court order dated July 13, 2006: Court Order of July 13, 2006. Once more the court denied my motion because a “Response was due 6/29/06.”. The designation of “Appellee” was again restored on the following day. Here is a link to copies of the court docket for July 12, 2006, through July 14, 2006 (printed on the following mornings of July 13 through July 15): Court Dockets as of July 12 – 14, 2006.
The United States government is nothing but a bankrupt entity for the international counterfeiters (Federal Reserve System) who are trying to collect their interest from their loans of counterfeit money to the government.
It is quite clear that the government will not allow the court to ever sit in judicial review of my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the IRS indictment to include all of the elements of the charge of “resident”.