Skip navigation

          Any inquiry into a federal government jurisdiction must begin at the beginning – the Constitution.  Article I, Section 8 lists the powers granted to the Congress.  Clause 3 has to do with the regulation of certain types of commerce:  “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.  This is where the Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce. 

          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.  The connotation of “internal revenue” is not readily understood to be within foreign commerce, but there can be no question that customs duties is foreign commerce.

          The inquiry into the jurisdiction of internal revenue must then go to title 19, “Customs duties”.  The index to title 19, “Customs duties” lists several statutes referencing internal revenue laws, in particular Title 19 U.S.C. Section 1309Title 19 U.S.C. Section 1311Title 19 U.S.C. Section 1753, and Title 19 U.S.C. Section 1754.  Within the first section listed in the index, section 1309, there is a citation to another statute with a reference concerning internal revenue, that being title 19, section 1317.

          Title 19, “Customs duties”, section 1317, “Tobacco products; supplies for certain vessels and aircraft”, subsection (a) states in part; “… for consumption beyond the jurisdiction of the internal-revenue laws of the United States, as defined by section 2197(a) of title 26…”.  Here is a link to Title 19 U.S.C. Section 1317.

          The section that defines the jurisdiction of the internal-revenue laws, title 26, section 2197, “Territorial extent of law”, is from the 1939 Internal Revenue Code.  Here is a link to Title 26 USC Sec. 2197 (1939 Code)

          Title 26, section 2197, subsection (a) states, in part:  “shall be held to extend to such articles produced anywhere within the exterior boundaries of the United States…”.  Subsection (b) states, in part:  “…consumption beyond the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws of the United States, as defined by subsection (a)…”.  Thus both title 19 section 1317 subsection (a) and title 26 section 2197 subsection (b) cite to title 26 section 2197 subsection (a) for the definition of the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.

          The jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is therefore  stated within title 26, section 2197, subsection (a) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code as “anywhere within the exterior boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “anywhere within the interior boundaries of the United States”.  In other words, the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is within the United States possessions and territories.  The U.S. possessions and territories are the “external boundaries” of the United States.

          As the legislative draftsmen of Congress have issued new versions of the Internal Revenue Code, they have continued to try to hide the true basis of the laws.  The 1939 version of section 2197  from title 26 U.S.C. has been broken up in the 1986 version.  Title 26 U.S.C. section 2197, subsection (a) is now codified at 26 U.S.C. Section 5065, “Territorial extent of law”, while title 26 U.S.C. section 2197, subsection (b) is now codified at 26 U.S.C. Section 5704, “Exemption from tax”, subsection (b).  Here it states, in part:  “… beyond the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws of the United States…”, but there is no citation to the new location of the definition of the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws at 26 U.S.C. section 5065. 

          Further inquiry into the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws must be within title 26, “Internal Revenue”.  Within the table of contents of the Internal Revenue Code is chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title.”.  This is a very important chapter, but, of course, the legislative draftsmen have buried this chapter with other “miscellaneous provisions” of the Code.  (One must remember that the Internal Revenue Code is just what it says it is – a code.  It is not meant to be understood by a casual reader.) 

          Within chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title” are the following subchapters:  Subchapter A, “Examination and Inspection”, Subchapter B, “General Powers and Duties”, [Subchapter C which is repealed], and Subchapter D, “Possessions”.

          The first two subchapters, “Examination and Inspection”, and “General Powers and Duties”, obviously have to do with the “Enforcement of Title”.  Since subchapter C is repealed, that leaves only subchapter D, “Possessions” for “Discovery of Liability”.  This is in harmony with the inquiry into title 19, “Customs duties”, above.

          There are five sections of code within Subchapter D, “Possessions”:  Section 7651, “Administration and collection of taxes in possessions”, section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, section 7653, “Shipments from the United States”, section 7654, “Coordination of United States and certain possession individual income taxes”, and section 7655, “Cross references”.

          The word “shipments” in both section 7652 and section 7653 is the key to the underlying jurisdiction of revenue from the collection of duties on importing. 

          Chapter 77 within title 26 is titled “Miscellaneous provisions”.  Within chapter 77 is section 7510, “Exemption from tax of domestic goods purchased for the United States”.  It states:  “The privilege existing by provision of law on December 1, 1873, or thereafter of purchasing supplies of goods imported from foreign countries for the use of the United States, duty free, shall be extended, under such regulations as the Secretary or his delegate may prescribe, to all articles of domestic production which are subject to tax by the provisions of this title.”.

          The use of the terms “imported” and “duty free” in section 7510 above are obvious consequences of foreign commerce.  To apply the terms “duty free” and “imported” to all articles of domestic production subject to internal revenue leads to the conclusion that such “domestic production” is from “within the exterior boundaries of the United States” – the U.S. possessions and territories.

          Black’s Law Dictionary defines “duty” as a term used only within importation and exportation.  The Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing export duties from any of the States.  However, there is no such prohibition of exporting duties that applies to the U.S. possessions. 

          Within the context of foreign commerce the term “internal revenue” makes sense.  As the Constitution limits the federal government’s taxing authority in such ways that importing is its main source of revenue, the “importing” of articles into the States from its external boundaries, the U.S. possessions and territories, would create a source of “internal revenue”.

          Since there is no prohibition of imposing exportation duties within the possessions, this would require a different set of laws from customs duties.  In addition, all commerce within the U.S. possessions and territories is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.  Unlike within the States where the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, no such limit exists in the U.S. possessions and territories.  See the definition of “commerce” within Title 27 U.S.C. Section 214.  This section at (4) defines “commerce” at (A) as commerce between any State, possession, or territory and any place outside thereof; at (B) as commerce between points in any State, possession, or territory, but through any place outside thereof; and at (C) as commerce wholly within a possession or territory, including the District of Columbia.  So the there are several valid reasons for the implementation of a separate set of laws within customs known as the internal revenue laws.

=============================================

Advertisements

          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”.   

==============================================

I’ve just written a new Blog (February 25, 2014) that will confirm everything herein with even more Supreme Court decisions.  Everything here is still relevant, but what I have just recently uncovered that is the basis of my new Blog makes it even more important that this message gets out in front of the public.  Go to http://wp.me/p4nMlQ-1q to read “Supreme Court Decisions Concerning the 16th Amendment, Sovereignty, and Corporations”.

The Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution.  In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution grants jurisdiction to the federal government to regulate three areas of commerce:  “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” – in other words, foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and Indian commerce.

The 16th Amendment, the income tax, has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions.  The IRS always cites to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), to inform the public that the income tax was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.  What the IRS doesn’t inform the public about Mr. Frank Brushaber, the central character in the Supreme Court case, is that he was a withholding agent for several foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.

The Supreme Court, obviously being aware of all of the pertinent details, ruled in the Brushaber case that the federal government always had the power to tax income as an excise tax and, therefore, the 16th Amendment is constitutional.

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.

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 …”.

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 derived by 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.”.

By realizing that Mr. Frank Brushaber was a fiduciary for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, it becomes obvious that the revenue being derived by the federal government from the income tax must come from foreign commerce.

After the Brushaber and Stanton Supreme Court decisions were rendered, the Treasury Department issued its own decision, Treasury Decision 2313 (TD 2313).  TD 2313 was issued to “collectors of internal revenue” and it stated that the Internal Revenue Form 1040 is to be used only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien who has received interest from bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien.  This Treasury Decision, which was based upon the Supreme Court decisions, confirms the foreign commerce nature of the income tax.

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).

The Social Security scam was created to enslave free, sovereign Americans.  An American applying for a Social Security number has become a federal employee by joining a partnership (the Social Security number is the partnership number) that is attributing an undistributed dividend to that American as a partner in that partnership, said dividend being the link to foreign commerce that subjects that American to Treasury Decision 2313 and the requirement to file an Internal Revenue Form 1040.  The undistributed dividend, known as a patronage dividend within the Internal Revenue Code, is offset by the American’s foreign tax credit, FICA.

The Internal Revenue Form 1040 has a large section titled “Tax and Credits”.  Within that area are various credits that can be claimed by attaching the corresponding form, for instance:  Form 2441 for credit for child and dependent care expenses, Schedule R for credit for the elderly or the disabled, Form 8863 for education credits, Form 5695 for residential energy credits, Form 8880 for retirement savings contributions, etc.  However, the foreign tax credit line states “Attach Form 1116 if required”.  It only states “if required” because the Form 1040 automatically is claiming a foreign tax credit, FICA.  FICA is a possession tax as stated at 26 USC Section 7655, and the possessions are treated as foreign countries (26 USC Section 865 and Section 872 for example).  This makes FICA a foreign tax and it is the credit that is used to offset the earnings represented by the undistributed patronage dividend.

Social Security is the biggest fraud ever instituted – making a free, sovereign American nothing more than a subservient slave for the federal government.  The federal government (actually its owners, the international counterfeiters who have bankrupted the federal government) has had to contrive this incredible fraud in order to get around the bedrock of America – the Declaration of Independence which states that “all men are created equal”.  Since all men (and women) are created equal, no one American or group of Americans may initiate fraud or force against another American or group of Americans, including the government, which is simply made up of other Americans.  No one may convey a power to any government agent that that person does not have.  In other words, Americans can not vote to give a power to the government that Americans do not have to begin with.  The government and its owners, the international counterfeiters (the Federal Reserve) know that the government has no power over free, sovereign Americans.  The prohibition, the depression, and wars have all been masterfully engineered in order to get Americans to give up their sovereignty by enrolling in Social Security.

Actually, the 14th Amendment was ratified in order to prepare Americans to be treated as foreigners by creating the “U.S. citizen”.  The 14th Amendment speaks of a citizen born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.  As noted above, the federal government only has jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  An American is sovereign – a person born in one of the States is not subject to the federal government’s limited jurisdiction.  The Birth Certificate is actually used by the federal government to establish U.S. possession citizenship.  This makes one born in one of the States and subject to its jurisdiction since the federal government is given total control over its possessions – Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.  Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-7B to read “The 14th Amendment Destroyed American Sovereignty”.

Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-3Z to see the actual jurisdiction of internal revenue.

Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-4A to see the actual Act of Congress that created the income tax.

Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-7h to see “The Bankers’ Blueprint to Destroy American Sovereignty”.

==============================================

          A free, sovereign American that has applied for a Social Security number has given away all sovereignty and become a “U.S. resident” as defined at 26 USC Sec. 865(g), which includes the definition of “taxpayer” as defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) and the definition of “U.S. citizen” as exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c), along with the cite to importing at 26 USC Sec. 911 – please read the first page of this blog to see the actual definitions and link to the Defendant’s Reply (Case # 08-273 WDPA) therein to see the actual laws – statutes and regulations.

          The Social Security number is a “U.S. resident’s” partnership number.  FICA is a U.S. possession tax (26 USC Sec. 7655) and the possessions are treated as foreign countries (26 USC Sec. 865(i)(3), 26 USC Sec. 872(b)(7), 26 USC 2014(g), etc.).  Therefore FICA is a foreign tax. 

          The basis of filing a personal federal income tax begins at title 26 USC Sec. 901, “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”.  This section allows a credit of any tax paid to a U.S. possession if the tax is a gross based tax, but not a net based tax (26 USC Sec. 901 (k)(1)(B)).  This is to distinguish between FICA, the gross based tax, and the income tax, the net based tax.

       Title 26 USC Sec. 902, “Deemed paid credit where domestic corporation owns 10 percent or more of voting stock of foreign corporation”, allows for a domestic corporation to be deemed as paying a percentage of its foreign affiliate’s income taxes, if the domestic corporation received dividends from its foreign affiliate.

          Title 26 USC Sec. 901 concerns the dividends that the domestic corporation, as the partnership in the definition of “taxpayer”, has attributed to the individual partners – identified by the Social Security numbers.  This dividend is known as a “patronage dividend”, and it includes as its basis a percentage of the income taxes paid by the domestic corporation’s foreign affiliate. 

          As identified within the Defendant’s Reply linked on page 1 of this blog, a partner is allowed to make the election under title 26 USC 901 individually, see 26 USC Sec. 901(m)(2) which cites to 26 USC 703(b).

          So by filing an IRS Form 1040, an individual is taking a foreign tax credit against his partnership self-employment earnings, which includes his patronage dividend.  This dividend is not distributed, so the individual never knows about this foreign tax credit.

          If the individual fails to file an IRS Form 1040, then the individual has taken a credit that the individual is not eligible to take – the offsetting foreign tax credit of FICA.  So under title 26 USC Sec. 901(m)(4) the individual is cited to 26 USC Sec. 6038, “Information reporting with respect to certain foreign corporations and partnerships”, for a reduction of credit for failing to file his partnership earnings.

          Title 26 USC Sec. 6038(a)(4) is the requirement that all individuals treated as “shareholders” having income (under subpart F of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1) must file a return.  The income from subpart F of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 is revenue from the collection of duties on importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.  This income is what makes a person liable for the income tax. 

          Title 26 USC Sec. 6038(f)(1) is the cite to 26 USC Sec. 7203 for provisions for violating 26 USC Sec. 6038.   Title 26 USC Sec. 7203 is “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax”.  

          So a charge of failure to file is not for the failure to file income taxes because of simply earning income per se, it is for failing to file partnership earnings, which include a patronage dividend based upon revenue from importing duties within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, and taking a foreign tax credit that the individual is not allowed to take without filing. 

          The income tax only applies to collectors/assessors of internal revenue taxes (Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, in sections 49 through 51).  The patronage dividend is based upon income taxes paid by the foreign affiliate of the domestic corporation, which itself is the “taxpayer” (the agreement made by the “American employer” under title 26 USC Sec. 3121(l)).  Once the patronage dividend is attributed to the individual partner, then that individual is subject to the income tax.  A partnership does not pay income taxes, but instead, the partners are liable to file for their proportionate share of the profits or losses (26 USC Sec. 701).

          Now title 26 USC Sec. 7203 is within subtitle F, “Procedure and Administration”.  Within subtitle F is 26 USC Sec. 7701, “Definitions”.  At 26 USC Sec. 7701(a)(28) , “Other terms”, it states that any term used in this subtitle shall have the same meaning as in any other subtitle.  So the definitions of the terms “taxpayer”, “U.S. citizen”, and “U.S. resident” have the same meaning here as elsewhere in the Code.

          However, at first glance, title 26 USC Sec. 7203 doesn’t use any of the above terms.  It simply states “Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return…”.  But within 26 USC Sec. 7203 are the cites to 26 USC Sec. 6654 and 26 USC Sec. 6655.  These two sections include all of the terms required to define the income tax – Sec. 6654 is for individuals and Sec. 6655 is for corporations.  Within Sec. 6654 are all of the following references and terms:  chapter 1 (income tax), chapter 2 (self-employment tax), “taxpayer”, “citizen of the United States”, “resident of the United States”, “gross income”, “taxable income”, “self-employment income”, “the Secretary”, and “regulations”.  The “any person” cited at the beginning of 26 USC Sec. 7203 is a “U.S. person” and it is defined also under 26 USC Sec. 7701 at (a)(30) as a citizen of the United States, a resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, a domestic corporation, an estate, or a trust.  So the charge of violation of 26 USC Sec. 7203 of willful failure contains all of the necessary terms of the charge  (imported from sections 6654 and 6655) without anyone realizing exactly what the charge is, making it appear that the simple act of earning money is somehow under federal jurisdiction.  However, since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land, superceding the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, and it states that “all men are created equal”, no individual or group may own any other individual or group.  The bottom line is that the Social Security fraud, leading to the enslavement of sovereign Americans, was the only way that the federal government could subvert the phrase “all men are created equal”.  The federal government, and its owners, the international counterfeiters (Federal Reserve Board), know that they have no jurisdiction over sovereign Americans and have resorted to the most malevolent fraud in history.

==============================================

          The Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, initiated the first “internal duty” in America.  This Act placed a tax on stills and the stills’ product, alcohol.  This is a tax on intrastate commerce and, therefore, an unconstitutional tax.   This Act is the basis of what has evolved into what is now known as “internal revenue”.  In a country where “all men are created equal” no American or group of Americans, including some group of Americans called government, may initiate force or fraud against any other American or group of Americans.  Therefore, there can not be any such thing as an “internal duty”.

          The Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, was responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion that is still commemorated in southwestern Pennsylvania.  To avoid anyone challenging the Constitutionality of this Act of Congress, the government resorted to using force against innocent Americans in the Whiskey Rebellion.  It was very important to the bankers that they initiate “internal duties” early in the history of our country.  Also, it was becoming a common practice in the frontier of those days to use distilled spirits as a means of exchange, something that the international counterfeiters could not allow.  Alcohol can be gauged and a “proof” can be determined.  This makes for a uniform measuring system – a pint of 90 proof liquor could be worth a certain amount, a quart of 90 proof liquor could be worth a certain amount more, etc.  (If you have read my Post titled “How to Read the Internal Revenue Code”, at http://wp.me/pCW6e-6N you will know that title 26 section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, is the basis of liability within the Internal Revenue Code.  Within section 7652 at subsection (c), “Articles containing distilled spirits”, there is a reference to how much percentage of alcoholic content must be attributable to rum.)  The bankers intended to eventually bankrupt the government with their paper money backed by debt – nothing that had real value could ever be allowed to be used as money.  It was Alexander Hamilton who authored the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, that initiated “internal duties” in America.  He then cajoled George Washington into believing that the people in the western areas of the States who were resisting the tax on stills were, in fact, instigating a rebellion – hence, the Whiskey Rebellion.  Actually, the people of the western frontier were simply demanding the freedom that they had just fought for against the British.  When Washington led the militias into western Pennsylvania, he stopped at Bedford.  At that point Hamilton, the Secretary of Treasury, led the militia into western Pennsylvania and wreaked havoc on anyone who resisted the tax on stills.  This was the first incident under the Constitution where the bankers evidenced their true nature – these creatures have absolutely no sympathy, they are overcome by insatiable greed and megalomania.  

          In 1933 the federal government went off the gold standard, thus proclaiming bankruptcy.  A slew of government regulatory agencies were created from 1933 through 1939 when the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was written and approved.  The first reorganization of the federal government occurred in 1939 – reorganization is a bankruptcy procedure.

          In my original answer to the government’s complaint against me I included a counterclaim in which I challenged the Constitutionality of that Act of Congress because it taxed Americans living in western Pennsylvania who were simply taking their product, the distillate of their crops, to Philadelphia.  This is a tax on commerce that is intrastate and, therefore, unconstitutional since the federal government only has the right to regulate foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The district court failed to rule on the Constitutionality of that Act of Congress even though that was all I included in the first count of my counterclaim.  Instead, the federal court pretended that the first count of my counterclaim wasn’t there and ruled that I could not sue the government since the government had not consented to waive its sovereign immunity.  (I did file for monetary damages against the government in other counts of my counterclaim, but these were all first predicated upon the court’s ruling on the Constitutionality of the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, which was in the first count).  The government only has sovereign immunity within its foreign commerce jurisdiction. 

          I then filed an interlocutory appeal (an appeal that is not based on the final disposition of the court) to have the appellate court rule on this Act.  On October 9, 2009, the appellate court dismissed the interlocutory appeal, thus, proving that the courts are under the total control of the Department of Justice, which is, in turn, upholding the bankruptcy of the federal government to the international counterfeiters.  Now both the district court and the appellate court have failed to do their most basic duty, that of ruling on the Constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

          Here is a link to my Appellant’s Reply that I filed in the appellate court:  Appellate Case # 09-2061 (CA3) Appellant’s Reply.  This reply in my interlocutory appeal evidences that the appellate court may view an interlocutory appeal as a mandamus to the lower court when the lower court has failed to do its duty.  In this instance, the challenge to the Constitutionality of an Act of Congress was not ruled upon by the district court – a truly astonishing situation, certainly what is known in the appellate courts as a “first impression” case.  But the appellate court would not rule on the Constitutionality of the Act of Congress, either.  Now the district court has failed to do its duty and the appellate court has dismissed the appeal by claiming that it doesn’t have jurisdiction since the appeal wasn’t based upon the final order of the district court case.  This is in direct conflict with the appellate court’s own previous decisions concerning mandamus.  This evidences that the government has no desire to uphold the tenet of “all men are created equal”, but instead, “evinces a design to reduce all Americans under absolute despotism” (as so phrased in the Declaration of Independence). 

          I am now appealing the final order of the district court.  The Department of Justice and the Appellate Court are now conspiring against me by trying to refuse my right of appeal.  As yet no briefing schedule has been issued. 

==============================================