If the actions of the federal government in Washington, D.C., seem at odds with the Constitution and, as well, at odds with the general public’s views and desires, you must know that the Federal Reserve now owns the U.S. government. Owning the U.S. government was not enough to enslave Americans due to their inherent natural-born sovereignty. So the Federal Reserve has also created Social Security in order to destroy that sovereignty. This is the basis of EVERYTHING that the government is doing. By applying for a S.S.# an American entered into an employment contract. There are no Constitutional restraints concerning the government’s own employees.
The Federal Reserve bankrupted the U.S. federal government in the 1930’s. This is clearly evidenced by the law itself: title 11, U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections”. The Federal Election Commission is charged with implementing the laws of bankruptcy. Our elections are simply to elect a bankruptcy “administration” – the Fed is in charge, so it really doesn’t matter who gets elected. President Obama ran his election on the “change” platform, but once elected, he increased the bailout money to the same people and increased the number of troops overseas. Nothing has changed at all because the Fed has ordained what will be done. Republican or Democrat, it would not have mattered who won the election.
The following is from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993:
“It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.”
As the Congressional Record states above, the gold standard could no longer be upheld. This means that the federal government no longer could pay gold to back up the dollar – there were too many dollars in circulation. This is bankruptcy.
After bankrupting the government, the Federal Reserve then moved to enslave all Americans and make them pay the interest on their (counterfeit money) loans to the government.
However, bankrupting the U.S. federal government wasn’t enough to make Americans pay the Fed’s interest because the American is sovereign, not the federal government. This has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions, such as, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, and Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. It is expressed quite clearly within Julliard v. Greenman as follows:
“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.”
The American is sovereign not because of the Constitution, but because the organic law of the land, the Declaration of Independence, stated that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) is a self-evident truth. The Declaration of Independence supercedes the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot change anything to do with the self-evident truth “all men (and women) are created equal”.
Besides the sovereignty issue that the Federal Reserve had to deal with, the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce. Actually, this is a consequence of American sovereignty – there would be no sovereignty if the federal government could rule Americans in their commercial endeavors. The Constitution in Article I, section 8, only grants the federal government jurisdiction “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This is known as foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.
In order to get around the Constitutional restraints to complete the Fed’s control over America, Social Security was created, along with the deceptive use of legal “terms”. Once the law defines a word it is known as a “term” and you can throw the dictionary definition of that word out the window. An American who applies for a Social Security number has become a federal employee. The “SS-5” Form is an employment form. After all, only federal employees would be liable for federal employment taxes. The Constitutional restraints do not apply to the government’s own employees. Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty.
You may wonder, “What is the employee?”. It is the “taxpayer”. A “taxpayer” is a term defined at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1, “Definitions” at paragraph (a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine, a federal employee. 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) states that the terms used here are the same throughout the Internal Revenue Code and the implementing regulations.
The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a free, sovereign American so it cannot write laws that subject an American to any duty.
Has any government agency ever addressed any correspondence to you as “Dear Sovereign American”? Of course not, but you are constantly bombarded with the term “taxpayer”.
Now what exactly is F.I.C.A.? It is defined as a U.S. possession tax (26 U.S.C. section 7655). Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (commerce within a State) and no jurisdiction over sovereign Americans, it only has the limited jurisdiction as noted above. In addition, the Constitution at Article IV, section 3 grants the federal government power over its property and territory. So it may make any tax is pleases in the U.S. possessions.
This leads to the “U.S. citizen”. This is a term defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2208 and at 26 U.S.C. section 2501 subsection (b) and exemplified in the implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship. This is the 14th Amendment citizen who is born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. A person born in one of the States is sovereign (as the above Supreme Court decisions have held) and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. However, someone with U.S. possession citizenship is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government as there is no guarantee of any rights to U.S. possession citizens in the Constitution. The U.S. possession citizen is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2209 and at 26 U.S.C. section 2501 subsection (c). The U.S. possession citizen is contrasted with the “U.S. citizen” between 26 U.S.C. sections 2208 and 2209. The same contrast is evidenced within 26 U.S.C. section 2501 between subsections 2501(b) and 2501(c).
F.I.C.A. is a U.S. possession tax, so the government (as directed by its owners, the Fed) is relying upon the old adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and presumes that an American has U.S. possession citizenship and, therefore, is a “U.S. citizen” since that person has applied for F.I.C.A. Actually, an American applicant has checked the box “U.S. Citizen” on the application form, the “Form SS-5”.
The federal government has jurisdiction over its own employees and its possession citizens. Applying for a Social Security number makes an American into both a federal employee and a citizen with U.S. possession citizenship. The Social Security enrollee has given away all sovereignty and become a slave for the federal government and its owners, the Federal Reserve. This allows the Federal Reserve to collect taxes from Americans to pay off the interest on its counterfeit money loans to the government.
What about the 16th Amendment you ask? It was ratified in 1913, 20 years before the government’s bankruptcy to the Federal Reserve. The 16th Amendment was declared to be Constitutional in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1(1916) decision three years later.
The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following: “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”. The “previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision. In the Stanton case decision the Supreme Court has ruled that the government always had the power to tax income, which everyone has latched onto without paying attention to the rest of decision that clearly states that “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”.
A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation. In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part: “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”. In the Peck decision the Supreme Court again is telling everyone that the 16th Amendment did not extend the federal government’s power or jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning. Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being generated for the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.
The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.
The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:
“It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).
Since the revenue being generated by an income tax must come from one of the original commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution, this leads right back to foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.
These three commerce jurisdictions are listed separately within title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”. Section 1336, now “Surface Transportation Board’s orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction. Section 1362 is “Indian tribes”, obviously the trade with the Indians jurisdiction. Section 1340 is “Internal revenue; customs duties”, which is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.
What the Supreme Court knew when it decided the Brushaber case (listed above) was that the plaintiff, Mr. Frank Brushaber, was a collector/assessor for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary. So the income tax is within foreign commerce, just as title 28 U.S.C. section 1340 defines above. The federal government can tax its own tax collectors within its Constitutionally granted commerce jurisdictions. The Brushaber case was actually a stockholder (Brushaber) versus the company (Union Pacific R.R. Co.) scenario. The company was withholding taxes of the stockholder.
The jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2197 (1939 Code) as “within the exterior boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “within the interior boundaries of the United States”, in other words, the U.S. possessions. Once again everything reverts back to the Constitution and the limited jurisdiction of the federal government.
You must remember that in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified, the Federal Reserve Act was also approved by Congress in December of that year. And the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which created the “U.S citizen”. The income tax was originally enacted in an Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, and it applies to collectors and assessors of “internal duties”, which has now morphed into importing duties within the U.S. possessions. This transformation into importing duties was accomplished by the preplanned Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment in 1919) and its preplanned repeal (Twenty- first Amendment in 1933) during the bankruptcy proceedings in 1936. It was at that time that the internal revenue laws, along with the industrial alcohol laws (can’t have one without the other), were moved to the U.S. possessions. The forces behind the scenes have been planning the government’s bankruptcy long ago, almost immediately after the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence stating that “all men are created equal”.
When the government declares that “all taxpayers must file income tax returns”, that is absolutely true, but one must be a “taxpayer”. A contract that is not entered into intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily is void ab initio (from the beginning) if the full ramifications are not known by all parties to that contract. So Americans can simply abolish Social Security. We can work out how to return everyone’s money (with interest) afterwards.
The government has another term, that of “U.S. resident” (26 U.S.C. section 865(g)), which includes both of the terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” within it. This is what the IRS indictments use to deceptively charge a defendant (victim).
The Fed has now ordained that healthcare will become a federally controlled system. The citizens of the U.S. have absolutely no say in this. If the citizens did have any input, this would be an out-in-the-open debate. But then, if we were free, sovereign Americans, there would be no debate on healthcare, since the government would only be the defensive force that it was originally set up to be. The polls, even those polls that are using convoluted questions to predetermine the results, all show that the citizenry is not behind this healthcare fiasco. What the Fed wants, the Fed gets. Nothing will change until the Social Security Scam and the federal government’s bankruptcy are exposed.
ABOLISH THE FED!! ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY!! NOW!!
To see the entire Social Security Scam, see the main page of this Blog, “The Social Security Scam – Why Taxpayers Must File Income Tax Returns”, for an in depth examination of everything in this Post.
No one is going to give you freedom – you must fight for it!
I have been in the trenches with the Department of Justice/Federal Judiciary tag-team for nearly 9 years now. I currently have a case in the federal court that exposes everything on this Post – even much more, for that matter. Nothing needs to be done but to get exposure on this case. The government and I filed cross motions for summary judgment in mid-June of 2009 and the court sat on it for over 7 months. Then after all that time, the court simply obeyed the government’s wishes and ruled in its favor without ever addressing any of the underlying jurisdictional challenges. America’s ongoing fight for freedom can be won in the federal court without bloodshed if enough people learn what is going on behind the scenes.
I have one of the actual court documents on the main Page of this Blog that can be downloaded. Anything on a court docket is in the public domain. Please help publicize my federal tax case, #08-273 (WDPA). The court document from this case on the main Page of this Blog evidences how to navigate through the dreaded Internal Revenue Code. (It’s a “code” because no one is supposed to understand it). We are very close to restoring the freedoms that we were originally guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence over 200 years ago.
My name is Larry L. Stuler. I live at 565 Addison Street, Washington, Pennsylvania, 15301. I am bringing all of this into the open and I want everyone to know about my case.