Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Income Tax

            What you are about to read will stun you.  We Americans have been brainwashed over the last 235 years – this is written in the year 2011 and the Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776.  Your elected officials are simply other people like yourself – they are pawns in this elaborate charade, as are we all.  Only a very few people understand what you are about to learn.

                                       HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

            The Constitution established the federal government of the United States.  The Constitution was written under the pre-established tenet put forth in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women).  Thus, the Constitution only grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) – the Constitution could not grant the federal government any jurisdiction over intrastate commerce because of that pre-established tenet that “all men are created equal”.  The United States Code (U.S.C.) states that the organic laws of the United States consist of the following documents, in this order:  “The Declaration of Independence”, “The Articles of Confederation”, “The Northwest Ordinance”, and “The Constitution”.  Therefore, the statutes (laws) within the U.S.C. must get their jurisdiction from the Constitution. 

            When all people are equal no one or group, including government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other person or group.  A sovereign American has no right to initiate force or fraud against “anyone else” as that is what sovereignty entails for the “anyone else” since “all men are created equal”.  You cannot convey a power that you do not have to any government agent.  All government agents are simply other people.  Since an individual American is sovereign, no government agent may ever initiate coercion against that individual.  Unless a sovereign American initiates force or fraud against someone else, that American is free to choose what to do. 

            Commerce is, in essence, human action.  Sovereignty in America lies with the individual, thus no man may regulate another man.  Under such a government, freedom would flourish and there could never be any such thing as federal regulation that applied to sovereign Americans.  A real crime consists of a perpetrator and a victim.  There can be no such thing as a “victimless crime” under a government based upon the tenet that “all men are created equal”.  A sovereign American cannot be required to do anything under penalty of law.  Only by initiating force or fraud against another can a sovereign American be guilty of committing a crime.  The government, as a defensive recourse, may then be called into play to determine the guilt of the accused.   

            Yet Americans are now burdened with the largest government in the world.  Nearly everyone believes that the United States government has trashed the Constitution.  But that’s not possible as all statutes and regulations must comport with the Constitution, as evidenced above where the United States Code states that it is based upon the organic laws of the country.  A law must be approved within the jurisdictional structure set by the Constitution.  If all this is true, how did we Americans lose control of the federal government?  It turns out that history is nothing like what you have been led to believe by the media.   

                           HISTORY NOT REPORTED BY THE MEDIA           

Even though it appeared that the colonies had secured their freedom by winning the American Revolution, Great Britain still intended to collect its taxes as it had put forth with its Stamp Act of 1765 and its Townshend Acts of 1767.  Since America was thousands of miles away from Great Britain, overt force was not the answer as the Revolution had proved.  But that did not deter Great Britain from its goal of securing its taxes, as royal families have absolutely no desire to establish freedom.  Royal families believe that they are more important than anyone else and that they are entitled to anything they want.  The very idea that the colonies could rule themselves and not pay tribute to the royal families was intolerable.  As you will learn, nothing would stand in the way of Great Britain collecting its taxes.  If you don’t believe that this is so, go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-5X and you will see that Great Britain still shares ownership with the United States of the Mississippi River today.

In order for Great Britain to secure its taxes from America, it sent its international counterfeiters (bankers) to immediately begin their delegated plans to take over America.  (Today the world’s banking is controlled by the city-state known as the “Crown” within London).  They infiltrated every meeting of the Founding Fathers.  The front man for the bankers was Alexander Hamilton and he became the first Secretary of the Treasury.

Since the Constitution did not grant (and could not grant) any jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, the bankers’ goal was to slowly take over the federal government through the foreign commerce clause in conjunction with the grant from the Constitution that the federal government has total control over its own possessions (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2).  Under foreign commerce the federal government is sovereign, and within its possessions the federal government is sovereign as well.  The federal government may impose any tax or regulation it likes under these jurisdictions.  This was the blueprint that Great Britain’s bankers would use to create the “New World Order”.  This does not mean a “world order” that is “new” – it means the “Order” established in the “New World”.

Just two years after the ratification of the Constitution (March 4, 1789, was the date that the First Congress convened), on March 3, 1791, the bankers’ man, Alexander Hamilton, wrote the Act of Congress that initiated “internal duties” within the United States.  This Act of Congress was the tax upon stills and the stills’ distillate and caused what is now known as the “Whiskey Rebellion”.  Hamilton termed this resistance to the tax on stills as a “rebellion” so that the federal government could use the militia to enforce its collection.  Hamilton did this in order to prevent anyone from challenging the constitutionality of the Act of Congress that initiated “internal duties”.  This was a tax on an intrastate activity and, therefore, without the government’s jurisdiction.  In a country where “all men are created equal” there can be no such thing as an “internal duty”, since its collection would be based upon the threat and use of initiatory force by the government, which only consists of other Americans, against sovereign Americans.

Settlers in the frontier at that time were using alcohol as a medium of trade, in other words, money.  Alcohol could be “gauged” and measured so that, for instance, a pint of 80-proof alcohol would have a pre-set value.  A quart of 90-proof alcohol would have a higher pre-set value.  That settlers in the frontier were using “gauged” alcohol for their trade evidences that people can mutually come to an agreement on a form of money, something with intrinsic value, for commerce.  This would be intolerable to the international bankers’ long term plan to print their counterfeit money since it is backed by nothing but debt.

Knowing full well that this Act of Congress was unconstitutional, Hamilton pressed President Washington to quell the “Whiskey Rebellion”.  Washington led the federal militia as far as Bedford, Pennsylvania, and then returned home.  At that point Hamilton assumed control of the militia and ran rampant over western Pennsylvania.  Under what jurisdiction could the Secretary of the Treasury assume control of the federal militia?  There is no such jurisdiction, but this action evidences that the bankers had no intention of allowing freedom to be established over the long term.  It was of paramount importance that Hamilton’s Act of Congress not be challenged.  Within this Act it stated that the revenue collectors of this tax on stills and the stills’ distillate would be the same as those who were already empowered to collect the previously laid taxes.  The only taxes laid at that time were based upon importing and tonnage (the displacement of the ships in the harbor), which is properly under foreign commerce – these revenue officers are all members of the customs.  By hiding the fact that the government was using customs collectors to collect the tax on stills and the stills’ distillate, Hamilton’s actions evidence that he knew that he was collecting a tax based upon an unconstitutional Act of Congress.  This was the beginning of the A.T.F. – now part of the Customs Service.  This was the foundation for taking over America through the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution.  Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-1b for more on the Whiskey Rebellion.

The federal government’s use of force allowed Hamilton’s Act of Congress that initiated “internal duties” to be presumed to be the law of the land and became the basis for a series of other federal laws, including federal transportation taxes.

After several generations of slowly indoctrinating Americans to the concept of “internal duties”, it was time for the next big step in the bankers’ quest to allow Great Britain to secure its taxes that had caused the American Revolution.

On August 5, 1861, the income tax was established as a tax on the collectors and assessors of the “internal duties” within an Act of Congress concerning importing – “An act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay interest on the public debt, and for other purposes”.  Note that the income tax was established for the benefit of the bankers within foreign commerce (importing) – it was within an Act of Congress approved to pay interest on the public debt.  The public debt consists of the money loaned to the government by the international counterfeiters, along with the interest on the loans.  On July 1, 1862, the Act of Congress “An act to provide internal revenue to support the government and to pay interest on the public debt” created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  This Act (7/1/1862) that created the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s office cites back to the Act (8/5/1861) that created the income tax.  This was the beginning of the I.R.S. – also part of the Customs Service.  Since the collectors of “internal duties” are within the customs, internal revenue (with its income tax) is also within the customs.  To see the actual statutes that define the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-3Z and go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-4A to see the actual Act of Congress that created the income tax.

Under Title 31 U.S.C. “Money and Finance”, Subtitle I “General”, Chapter 3 “Department of the Treasury”, Subchapter I “Organization” are listed the various bureaus and services within the Department of Treasury.  The sections are as follows:

Sec. 301  Department of the Treasury, Sec. 302  Treasury of the United States, Sec. 303  Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Sec. 304  Bureau of the Mint, Sec.  305  Federal Financing, Sec. 306  Fiscal Service, Sec. 307  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Sec. 308  United States Customs Service, Sec. 309  Office of Thrift Supervision, Sec. 310  Continuing in office

Conspicuous by their absence are the Internal Revenue Service, as well as The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  The very first section above (Sec. 301) includes a reference to the Internal Revenue Service in subsection (f)(2), yet the I.R.S. is not listed as a department of the U.S. Treasury.  The reason that the I.R.S. and the A.T.F. are not listed separately is because they are within the United States Customs Service.

The next step was to cause as much destruction and confusion as possible – by funding both sides of the Civil War.  At this time Albert Pike was the most notorious of the bankers’ men.  The bankers have always relied upon warfare to increase the powers of the federal government.  Slavery was put forth as a major cause of the war, but it actually had to do with strengthening the federal government’s apparent power and jurisdiction.  Slavery was abolished slowly by a Public Resolution of Congress approved on April 10, 1862, and then entirely by the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865.  The 14th Amendment, part of the Reconstruction Period, was ratified on July 9, 1868, under the propaganda that it would eliminate any inequalities between the races.  The truth is that the 14th Amendment was all about extending the federal government’s apparent jurisdictional power.  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:  “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 where they reside.”.  As noted above, the Constitution does not and cannot grant the federal government any jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the Declaration of Independence trumps the Constitution and states that “all men are created equal”.  Therefore, a sovereign American, one born in one of the States, is not subject to the federal government’s jurisdiction.  How can a sovereign American become a 14th Amendment citizen – one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction?  This is now known as the “U.S. citizen”.  The example of a “U.S. citizen” is buried deep in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) as a person born in one of the sovereign States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship (see 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) for the example).  This person (a legal fiction), the “U.S. citizen”, is now born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.  Now who would ever do such a thing as give up sovereignty and volunteer to become a possession citizen?  No one would, of course, but that’s what the birth certificate is all about in today’s timeframe – you have unknowingly claimed to be a “U.S. citizen”.  The birth certificate is used in trade by the international counterfeiters within foreign commerce.  By establishing the legal fiction known as a “U.S. citizen”, the banker-controlled legislative draftsmen may make laws that appear to apply to sovereign Americans as well as to U.S. possession citizens.  The banker-controlled courts can now render decisions that appear to apply to sovereign Americans by making decisions that use both of the legal terms “U.S. citizen” and “possession citizen”.  It’s clear that by this time in history, the bankers were writing the laws of the land and controlling the courts.  For more behind the 14th Amendment go to “The 14th Amendment Destroyed America’s Sovereignty” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-7B .

After the Civil War in the early 1870’s the banker-controlled Congress created a corporation titled “The United States of America”.  This set the stage for contract law that would control a “U.S. citizen”.

In 1898 the Spanish-American War resulted in the United States gaining several possessions –Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.  Remember that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over its possessions.  Now everything was in place for the bankers to initiate their “end game” – the bankrupting of the corporation known as “The United States of America”.

Most people have heard of the “Creature from Jekyll Island” – the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.  But without Hamilton’s Act of Congress that surreptitiously used the customs for revenue collections of “internal duties”, the establishment of the Federal Reserve would not allow the complete takeover of the United States government.  It was now 1913 and the Act of Congress that created the Federal Reserve System was approved and the 16th Amendment was ratified to allow the federal government to go forward with the income tax.  As ruled in several Supreme Court decisions, the 16th Amendment was constitutional as the federal government was held to have always had the power to tax income and that no new jurisdiction was granted to the federal government.  (Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-3a to see more detail concerning the Supreme Court decisions).  As pointed out several times in this article, the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce because “all men are created equal”.  It has no jurisdiction over human action.  So since the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government always had the power to impose an income tax, then that tax must be within one of the federal government’s already existing jurisdictions as originally granted by the Constitution.  As it has been shown above, the income tax was created within an Act of Congress that concerns importing – foreign commerce.  And as it has also been shown above, the A.T.F. and the I.R.S. are within the Customs Service – foreign commerce.

The three federal commerce jurisdictions are cited separately in title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, at chapter 85, “District courts; jurisdiction”.  These are the sections of the United States Code (U.S.C.) that convey jurisdiction to the courts from the Constitution. Title 28 U.S.C. §1336, “Surface Transportation Board’s Orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s Orders” in 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Title 28 U.S.C. §1362, “Indian Tribes”, is obviously the trade with the Indians jurisdiction.  And title 28 U.S.C. §1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”, is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.

Once established, the Federal Reserve immediately went to work to bankrupt America.  One of the most important things the bankers did was to create the Prohibition through the approval of the 18th Amendment (ratified on January 16, 1919).  Of course, this all goes back in time to the unconstitutional Act of Congress (3/3/1791) taxing stills and the stills’ distillate that Alexander Hamilton authored.  Without this unconstitutional Act of Congress in place, the federal government has no jurisdiction to control anything within intrastate commerce.  The Prohibition would be extremely critical in order to finish the construction of “internal revenue” as part of foreign commerce.  Then came the time of the “Roaring Twenties” when everyone relied on smugglers for alcoholic beverages.  This was also the time that the Federal Reserve engineered the great stock market crash of 1929.  The intent of the bankers was to cause as much wide spread poverty as possible.

In 1933 the corporation known as “The United States of America” was officially bankrupted by the Federal Reserve – this was when the United States quit redeeming paper money for gold in the United States because it couldn’t pay its interest to the Federal Reserve.  During the mid-1930’s the banker-controlled legislative draftsmen created the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) in order to keep within the constraints of the Constitution and evidence the underlying relational jurisdiction of the statutes (laws) within the United States Code (U.S.C.).  Title 11 U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections” – this evidences the bankruptcy of the United States.  All we Americans are voting on is the election of a bankruptcy “administration”.  The year 1933 was also the time that the Prohibition was abolished by the approval of the 21st Amendment (ratified December 5, 1933), which repealed the 18th Amendment.  What really happened of importance for the bankers was that the internal revenue laws were exported to the U.S. possessions, specifically the Virgin Islands (see title 48 U.S.C., “Territories and Insular Possessions”, §1402) and Puerto Rico (see title 48 U.S.C. §734a).  Within the internal revenue code the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries – this fits within foreign commerce (see  26 U.S.C. §865(i)(3), §872(b)(8), and §2014(g)).  By deeming the U.S. possessions as foreign countries, all U.S. possession citizens and “U.S. citizens” could be treated as foreigners.  There is nothing wrong with declaring the U.S. possessions to be foreign countries, because the Constitution grants the federal government complete control of its possessions.  U.S. possession citizens are considered property of the U.S. government.  The creation of the legal fiction known as the “U.S. citizen” allows the U.S. government to own them as well since they unknowingly have claimed to have U.S. possession citizenship.  Internal revenue is within the customs.  Customs gains revenue from the collection of importing duties from foreign countries, while internal revenue gains revenue from the collection of importing duties from the U.S. possessions, thus a source of “internal revenue” from the banker-controlled government’s perspective.

The “Great Depression” of the 1930’s followed the stock market crash of 1929.  The banker-controlled media cajoled the public to ask the federal government for help.  The banker-controlled government was being pressured to come up with a solution that would never allow such a thing as the “Great Depression” again, or at least provide some kind of safety net for Americans.  The bankers had bankrupted the government and now could proceed under the foreign commerce clause, however, they still needed some way to make all Americans pay for the interest on their counterfeit money loans to the government.  By controlling the economy and creating the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve had everyone clamoring for the government to help, so the bankers came up with the Social Security Scam.  The next thing that the banker-controlled government did was to create F.I.C.A. – the propaganda was that this would be an insurance program for Americans.  But since the federal government has no intrastate commerce jurisdiction, the government could only create F.I.C.A. as a U.S. possession tax (see 26 U.S.C. § 7655(a)).  Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-5i for more on exactly what F.I.C.A. is – it’s a railroad retirement plan.

A “U.S. citizen” could apply for F.I.C.A., a U.S. possession tax, since such a citizen is presumed to have U.S. possession citizenship.  As you can now understand, it was first important to establish the legal fiction known as the “U.S. citizen” long before the need for F.I.C.A.  It was also important that the concept of an income tax be in the public’s conscience long before the bankruptcy occurred.  All of the bankers’ plans were laid out immediately after the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence since the very idea that “all men are created equal” is never to be allowed by the bankers.

Now that the bankers could move forward under the foreign commerce clause, in conjunction with the federal government’s control of its own possessions, there was only one more step in enslaving all Americans.  There is one other facet of the Constitution that the bankers used – most of the Constitution concerns the federal government’s own employees.

The “SS-5” Form that Americans use to apply for a Social Security number is actually a federal employment form.  When one applies for a S.S. #, that person has become a “taxpayer”.  A “taxpayer” is a member of the Merchant Marine.  (See 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) within the Internal Revenue Code and also see 46 C.F.R. part 287 – title 46 is “Shipping”, which includes the Merchant Marine).  Preceding and during the War of 1812, Great Britain was impressing the United States Merchant Marine into service on British ships – the Social Security Scam ensures that nothing has changed today.  Now with the Social Security Scam in place, Great Britain is now able to collect its taxes as internal revenue taxes and the bankers’ income tax.  Many “internal duties” are paid by stamp, the very taxes that Great Britain laid upon the colonies in the mid-1700’s.  (See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6801 through 6808 – §6808 in particular cites to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms).

The banker-controlled legislative draftsmen created the “U.S. resident”.  This “term” includes both of the previous definitions of “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen”.  (See 26 U.S.C. §865(g)).  A “U.S. resident” is a “U.S. citizen” living in America, thus a foreigner.  A “U.S. resident” is not only a foreigner, but also a federal government employee – the “taxpayer”, a member of the Merchant Marine.  All of the federal government’s powers now control a “U.S. resident”.

But even all of the above was not enough for Great Britain and its international counterfeiters.  You must understand that Americans are viewed by the royal family of Great Britain as “tax protesters” – people who must be punished in every way imaginable.  Royal families are known for their ruthlessness – nothing must get in their way of taking whatever they want from whomever they want.  By filing an I.R.S.  Form 1040, the “taxpayer” is unknowingly claiming self-employment income – this income is within an undistributed dividend based upon the collection of “internal duties” (see the definition of “Net earnings from self-employment” at 26 U.S.C. §1402(a)).  It is this undistributed dividend that conveys the jurisdiction to the government to collect income taxes from all Social Security applicants since it is based upon the collection of “internal duties”.  This is foreign income within the U.S. possessions attributed to a “U.S. resident”, in other words, a foreigner.  All “U.S. residents” are deemed to be “U.S. shareholders” (see 26 U.S.C. §958(b) concerning constructive ownership), in other words, shareholders of the bankrupt corporation “United States of America”, and now all of the corporate income tax laws apply as well.  There has never been any more enslaved creature then the “U.S. resident”.

The government uses the term “resident” within its I.R.S. indictment to bring in all the elements of the crime in a surreptitious, deceitful manner.  The federal courts and the Department of Justice are playing in a game without telling anyone the rules.  The “gold-fringed” American flag in the courtroom denotes that the court is proceeding under the foreign commerce clause.  Go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g for all the actual definitions, including evidence of the federal court’s docket tampering in order to avoid ruling on my challenge to the sufficiency of the I.R.S. indictment that surreptitiously charges its victims as a “resident”.  “U.S. citizen”, “taxpayer”, “U.S. resident”, and “employee” are all terms within the law and the law must remain consistent within the limited jurisdiction of the federal government as constrained by the Constitution.  It is also apparent that a lot of federal tax lawyers are part of the scam – a federal tax lawyer should be aware that “internal revenue” is foreign commerce as evidenced above by title 28 U.S.C. §1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”.

The Census Bureau’s overly inquisitive questionnaire was directed to “U.S. resident”.  The Census Bureau is within the Department of Commerce.  Title 15 U.S.C., “Commerce and Trade”, is implemented by title 15 C.F.R., “Commerce and Foreign Trade”.  Once again the jurisdiction is based upon foreign commerce since it applies to a “U.S. resident”.

Title 20 U.S.C., “Education”, is implemented by title 20 C.F.R., “Employee’s Benefits”.  The only employees that the government has jurisdiction over are its own employees.  Only a federal employee is liable for federal employment taxes.  So the school tax applies to government employees – the “taxpayers”, members of the Merchant Marine.  The 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto is to have the government control education.  This ensures that everyone will be taught that we Americans live in a democracy – democracy is just another form of Socialism based upon regulatory government backed by the threat of force.  Democracy, like any other form of Socialism (Fascism, Communism, Nazism, etc.) is incompatible with freedom since the government has absolutely no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  All forms of Socialism, including democracy, manifest poverty and cause increases in racism, homelessness, crime, illiteracy, innumeracy, terrorism, and ultimately war.

As well, an American’s property cannot be taxed, but a “U.S. resident” can be taxed as a foreigner under the foreign commerce clause.  Your property taxes and school taxes are directed to “U.S. resident”.  You apply for a checking account, savings account, credit card, or a loan by checking that you are a “U.S. resident”.  You have probably heard the phrase “residency restrictions apply” in many commercials concerning loans, but you never realized what that meant before now (actually, only very few people are supposed to understand this simple phrase, but by stating this phrase the corporations involved have indemnified themselves).

The medicine and drug laws are internal revenue laws – within foreign commerce.  To see the actual statutes and regulations go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-4M and you will see how the government’s legislative draftsmen have tried to hide the underlying jurisdiction of the law.  Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (human action)  it cannot regulate what a sovereign American wishes to eat, smoke, drink, or otherwise consume.  The banker-controlled federal government relies entirely on subterfuge

It’s clear that the media has also been controlled by Great Britain’s bankers.  The media has been the government’s lapdog, probably from the founding of this country.  The media simply states whatever the government declares without ever questioning the veracity of the statement.  How could anyone believe that the income tax (second plank of the Communist Manifesto) was a power that the government always had over all Americans when this government is based upon the tenet that “all men are created equal”, a government without any jurisdiction at all over intrastate commerce?  The media was certainly culpable in the bankers’ quest to destroy American sovereignty.  That goes as well with the media’s reporting of the 14th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment were ratified not for any American’s benefit, but to allow the banker-controlled government to proceed with their intended goal of destroying America.

Knowing all of the above, it’s quite clear that the Republican and Democratic parties are also controlled by Great Britain’s bankers at the national level.  When was the last time that either of these parties’ main issue had anything to do with restoring personal freedom?  The ridiculous posturing of both of these parties, be it to the “left” or the “right”, is promoted by the banker-controlled media to keep Americans occupied with the latest “crisis” or “emergency”.  Well, there is a “crisis” – it’s the lack of freedom under the United States government, a government supposedly created to uphold freedom.  There is no such thing as a “liberal” or “conservative” when it comes to freedom.  You are either free or you are not – there is no such thing as being a little bit free, or even mostly free.  The ultimate minority is the individual – only an individual has rights.  A government upholding the rights of the individual automatically upholds everyone’s rights.  All activists promoting some group’s rights are not upholding freedom, but simply obfuscating freedom.  The bankers are thrilled to have some “crisis” that seems to limit some group’s rights, but at no time will any true freedom activist be supported by the controlled media.

In July, 2011, the result of the first ever audit of the Federal Reserve was published on Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) website.  The article terms the result as “eye popping”, but now realizing the underlying deceit of Great Britain’s bankers, it is exactly what they had planned for long, long ago.  Even though the audit was scaled down from the original intent, it found that over $16,000,000,000,000.00 (that’s 16 trillion dollars) in financial assistance was given to the banks throughout the world.  That money all came from the “taxpayer” – an impressed member of the Merchant Marine in the service of Great Britain.

IT’S TIME FOR ALL AMERICANS TO

RE-ESTABLISH OUR SOVERIEGNTY

Obviously, we Americans need to abolish Social Security and have all monies paid into it and the income tax returned to the person who paid these fraudulent taxes.

The regulatory agencies of the federal government will be slowly phased out of existence, or at the very least, scaled down to their real jurisdictional realm (for instance, the E.P.A. gains its jurisdiction over federal government property).  But first the bureaucrats within these Socialistic regulatory agencies should return all the property they have confiscated to its rightful owners.  This will take time, but since the EPA, FDA, IRS, SEC, etc. have all the bureaucrats already in place, they simply need to undo all the crimes that they have committed under the false presumption that all Americans are “U.S. residents”.

The FED will be abolished, since it is nothing but a bunch of glorified counterfeiters.  There is no federal debt since nothing of value was ever obtained from the FED, just worthless pieces of paper.  Once there is no FED and no Social Security we Americans will restore the freedoms that the Declaration of Independence set out to establish under the tenet of “all men are created equal”.

The government has absolutely no jurisdiction over a sovereign American, but we Americans have given away our sovereignty by applying for a Social Security number and checking the “U.S. citizen” block on the “SS-5” form.  The “SS-5” form asks for citizenship in block #5 and the selections consist of “U.S. citizen” and legal aliens – this is another clue that the banker-controlled government is proceeding under the foreign commerce clause since that would include aliens.

Go to http://wp.me/PCW6e-E for a more elaborate explanation of the Social Security Scam.

If you wish to see that the income tax is based upon the collection of A.T.F. taxes, go to http://wp.me/pCW6e-6N (“How to Read the Internal Revenue Code”) and follow the establishment of liability in the Internal Revenue Code.

The Declaration of Independence states:  “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”.  It is, therefore, our duty as sovereign Americans to take back our government and restore our freedom as guaranteed under this organic document of the United States of America.  The Social Security Scam is the epitome of “evincing a design to reduce Americans under absolute despotism”.  It’s time for all Americans to come together peacefully and finish the American Revolution that our ancestors started by shedding all relationships with the international counterfeiters.  It’s time for a real Tea-Party!  It’s time not simply to occupy Wall Street, but to occupy Washington, D.C. and restore our freedom!

If you would like to learn more about the real history of the United States, I have written a memorandum titled “The United States Doesn’t Own the Mississippi River” that starts with my Post of the same name on this Blog and goes on to reveal the real history of the United States that no one was supposed to understand.  It is based strictly on the statutes, regulations, and official documents of the United States.

You will learn that the Civil War was preplanned long ago.  You will learn what the “Union” really means.  Find out why Social Security is headquartered in Baltimore, while all the other federal agencies are headquartered in Washington, D.C.  You will see that the “taxpayer” paid for 9/11.  Nearly everything that has happened in America’s history was preplanned long ago.

I have included an order form here:

Order Form

Order Form

THE SEARCH FOR LIABILITY IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

The Internal Revenue Code has been written intentionally to deceive.  It represents the pinnacle, the highest point, of achievement by the powers behind the bankruptcy of the United States.  To learn how to read the Internal Revenue Code, one must first establish exactly what is the basis of liability.

Before beginning the navigation through the dreaded Internal Revenue Code for the source of liability, the reader should understand the fundamentals involved.  If you have read the main page of this Blog, “The Social Security Scam” at http://wp.me/PCW6e-E you will already be familiar with the fundamentals.

Fundamental #1 – internal revenue is a part of the customs.  Customs gains revenue for the government by collecting importing duties from foreign countries.  Internal revenue gains revenue for the government by collecting importing duties from the U.S. possessions – thus a source of “internal revenue” from the government’s point of view.  In other words, internal revenue is under the foreign commerce clause. The Constitution in Article I, section 8 grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The three commerce jurisdictions are cited separately in title 28 USC, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”.  Section 1336, “Surface Board Transportation Orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s Orders” in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1362, “Indian Tribes”, is obviously the trade with the Indians commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”, is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.  The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce because the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that “all men are created equal”.  To make the importing of articles from the U.S. possessions fall under the foreign commerce clause, the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see 26 USC §§ 2014(g), 865(i)(3), and 872(b)(7) for examples).  Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution grants the federal government total jurisdiction over its own possessions and territories.

Fundamental #2 – the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is within the U.S. possessions and territories.  This follows naturally from the first fundamental since “internal revenue” is based upon the collection of duties on importing from the U.S. possessions.  Since “internal revenue” is a certain part of the customs, title 19 USC, “Customs duties”, section 1317, “Tobacco products; supplies for certain vessels and aircraft”, subsection (a) states in part; “…jurisdiction of the internal-revenue laws of the United States, as defined by section 2197(a) of title 26…”.  This is the statute that states where to find the actual definition of the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, which is at title 26, section 2197(a) – this section is from the 1939 Code.  Both fundamental #1 and #2 are evidenced on the Post “Internal Revenue Jurisdiction”, http://wp.me/pCW6e-3Z of this Blog.  The jurisdiction is cited to be “within the external boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “within the internal boundaries of the United States” – in other words, the possessions and territories of the United States.

Fundamental #3 – “Internal duties” were initiated in America by an unconstitutional Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791 – the tax on stills and the stills’ product, alcohol.  This was a tax on an intrastate commerce activity which is unconstitutional – I am challenging the constitutionality of this Act of Congress and the courts have so far failed to do their sworn duty.  See more of this on the Post “The Whiskey Rebellion”, http://wp.me/pCW6e-1b of this Blog.  This Act of Congress stated that the collectors of this tax would be the same as those already charged with the collection of the previous revenue acts – these revenue officers were within the customs since the only revenue acts to that point in time were based upon importing and tonnage.  This is why “internal revenue” is within the customs as evidenced in fundamental #1 above.  The importing of certain alcoholic articles within the U.S. possessions is now the basis of “internal duties” – this was finalized with the Twenty First Amendment that ended the preplanned Prohibition in 1933 when the gov’t was officially bankrupted by the FED.

Fundamental #4 – The income tax only applies to collectors/assessors of “internal duties”.  See the actual law at the Post “The Income Tax and the Act of Congress that Established It”, http://wp.me/pCW6e-4A of this Blog.  The Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, “An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes”, was an act that concerned importing duties and it is within this Act that the income tax was first established.  The collectors of “internal duties” are within the Customs, as evidenced by the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, that initiated “internal duties” within America – therefore, the ATF is within the Customs.  The income tax only applies to those who are collectors/assessors of “internal duties” as evidenced by the Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, that created the income tax – the IRS is also within the Customs.                                                                                                                                             Under Title 31 U.S.C. “Money and Finance”, Subtitle I “General”, Chapter 3 “Department of the Treasury”, Subchapter I “Organization” is listed the various bureaus and services within the Department of Treasury.  The sections are as follows:

Sec. 301  Department of the Treasury.  Sec. 302  Treasury of the United States.  Sec. 303  Bureau of Engraving and Printing.  Sec. 304  Bureau of the Mint.  Sec. 305  Federal Financing.  Sec. 306  Fiscal Service.  Sec. 307  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  Sec. 308  United States Customs Service.  Sec. 309  Office of  Thrift Supervision.  Sec. 310  Continuing in office.

Conspicuous by their absence are the Internal Revenue Service, as well as The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  The very first section above (Sec. 301) includes a reference to the Internal Revenue Service in subsection (f)(2), yet the I.R.S. is not listed as a department of the U.S. Treasury.  The reason that the I.R.S. and the A.T.F. are not listed separately is because they are within the United States Customs Service.

Fundamental #5 – The “Form SS-5” that one uses to apply for a S.S.# is a federal employment form.  The federal employee is known as the “taxpayer”.  A “taxpayer” is defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine.  The applicant for a S.S.# has joined a partnership and the S.S.# is the individual’s identification number within the partnership.  The Merchant Marine is involved in foreign commerce.  In addition, applying for a S.S.# causes the applicant to be treated as a “U.S. shareholder” (as will be evidenced in this Post) to whom is attributed an undistributed dividend that includes the requisite income from the collection of “internal duties” that subjects the “U.S. shareholder” to the income tax through the subterfuge of the Social Security Scam.  This undistributed dividend is described in the statutes at 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”, chapter 2, “Tax on Self-employment Income”, section 1402, “Definitions”, subsection (a), “Net earnings from self-employment”, where it states, in part, “…plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702(a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member…”.  The makeup of this undistributed dividend will be evidenced below.

LET’S OPEN UP THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

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 – in fact, it is not meant to be understood at all.)  The Internal Revenue Code starts out with Subtitle A, “Income Taxes”, as if all of the thousand of pages in the rest of the Code are just to be ignored.  However, as evidenced above, the income tax only applies to the collectors/assessors of “internal duties”.  Foreign commerce is basically admiralty law, which is a fancy name for pirate law, hence a “Code”.

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” part of the chapter heading.  Since subchapter C is repealed, that leaves only subchapter D, “Possessions”, for the “Discovery of Liability” part of the chapter heading.  This is in harmony with Fundamentals #1 and #2 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”.

Under section 7655, “Cross references”, it lists both FICA and self-employment taxes as U.S. possession taxes.  This is because the federal government has no intrastate commerce jurisdiction because “all men are created equal”, but does have jurisdiction over its own possessions as granted by Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution.

The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules lists specifically the regulation(s) from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that implement a statute from the United States Code (USC), when such is needed.  In other words, not every statute from the USC is included if it is self-implementing.  Since the Code has evidenced that subchapter D, “Possessions”, is the source of liability, it is necessary to look to the implementing regulations for the USC sections 7651 through 7655 which comprise subchapter D.

The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules lists that sections 7651, “Administration and collection of taxes in possessions”, and 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, are implemented by title 27 CFR parts 26 and 41.  Section 7652 is then also implemented by title 27 CFR parts 17 and 275.  Section 7653, “Shipments from the United States”, is implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.  Section 7654, “Coordination of United States and certain possession individual income taxes”, is implemented by title 26 CFR parts 1 and 602.  Section 7655 is self-implementing and needs no cite from the Parallel Table.

This is very enlightening.  Sections 7651, 7652, and 7653 are implemented by various parts of title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”.  This is verification of Fundamental #3 above – “internal duties” are based upon the unconstitutional Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, that taxed stills and the stills’ product, alcohol.  It is also very enlightening to see that section 7654, “Coordination of United States and certain possession individual income taxes”, is implemented by title CFR 26, part 1, which is “income taxes”.  This verifies that income taxes are within the jurisdiction of the possessions, which it has to be as part of internal revenue.

Now note that section 7651, “Administration and collection of taxes in possessions”, and section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, are both implemented by title 27 CFR parts 26 and 41.  Section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, represents importing.  Section 7653, “Shipments from the United States”, represents exporting and, therefore, is not tied to section 7651, “Administration and collection of taxes in possessions”.  Fundamental #1 is that internal revenue is within the customs, foreign commerce, which is based upon importing duties.  The Parallel Table has evidenced this by the regulations that implement both section 7651, “Administration and collection of taxes in possessions”, and section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, which represents importing.

Going further into the regulations, part 26 of title 27 CFR is “Liquors and Articles from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands”.  Part 41 of title 27 CFR is “Importation of Tobacco Products, Cigarette Papers and Tubes, and Processed Tobacco”.  Part 41 goes right to the heart of things – importation.  The ATF includes alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.  Each of these is based upon Acts of Congress that piggyback upon the unconstitutional Act of Congress that initiated “internal duties” in America.  This is most obviously apparent with the federal government’s constant intrusion into an individual’s right to bear arms which is prohibited by the Second Amendment.  The federal government cannot require a sovereign American to register a firearm as this would constitute an infringement on the firearms’ owner.  However, an applicant for a S.S.# has become a federal employee and, as such, the government can pass laws that regulate firearms possession by its own employees.

It is necessary to dig deeper into the actual regulations within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”, part 26, “Liquors and Articles from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands”.  Title 27 part 26.11, “Meaning of Terms”, lists a lot of very important definitions.  For instance, in the heading of title 27 CFR part 26, the term “article” is defined here as beer, wine, distilled spirits, industrial spirits, and denatured spirits.  Once again it is important to understand that when the government defines a “term” it must remain within the government’s limited jurisdiction.  So “articles” does not mean just anything, but only something that includes alcohol.  Of course, the very basis of importing alcoholic articles is the unconstitutional Act of Congress approved March 3, 1791, which initiated “internal duties” in America – but as this Act has never been heretofore challenged as to its constitutionality, the government has gone forward with its subterfuge.

But of the utmost importance for everyone to see is the following “term” defined under title 27 CFR part 26:  “Revenue Officer – any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the Department of Treasury of Puerto Rico”.  Here’s another very important “term”:  “Secretary – Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico”.  This is more evidence to verify Fundamentals #1 and #2 above.

The most important term is also defined within title 27 CFR part 26.111:  “Taxpayer – A taxpayer is a person who is liable for excise tax under 26 USC 7652 under the same Employer Identification Number as defined in 26 CFR 301.7701-12”.  The definition is buried deep in the implementing regulations concerning the importing of  “articles” (within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”) pursuant to 26 USC 7652, “Shipments to the United States” – this is what a “taxpayer” actually is.  Note that this definition of “taxpayer” establishes liability since it was found in the regulations within title 27 CFR that implement subchapter D, “Possessions”, of chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, of title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”.  The definition of “taxpayer” at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) that references the Merchant Marine is the definition as used throughout the Code (title 26) and the regulations for the calculation of taxes as cited at 26 CFR 2.1-1(b).  One definition of the term “taxpayer” establishes liability in title 27 while the other definition of the term “taxpayer” is used for all calculation of taxes in title 26.  Liability is established as a “taxpayer” importing “articles” (“internal duties”) within the jurisdiction of title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms”.  Then the collectors/assessors of “internal duties” become liable for the income tax.

As evidenced above, 26 USC section 7652, “Shipments to the United States”, is also implemented by title 27 part 17 which is “Drawback on Taxpaid Distilled Spirits Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage Products”.  Drawback may only occur with respect to articles upon which internal revenue taxes have already been paid.  This applies to warehouses specifically built for internal revenue, just as there are warehouses for customs.  When an article upon which internal revenue taxes have been previously paid is now to be shipped to somewhere beyond the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, the taxes are returned (minus a charge for the warehouse’s use) as a drawback.

Title 26 USC section 7653, “Shipments from the United States”, is implemented by title 27 part 70 “Procedure and Administration”.  This is “Procedure and Administration” within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”.

The law itself has evidenced that the basis of liability for title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”, is found in the implementing regulations for title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”.  Only the collectors/assessors of “internal duties” are liable for income taxes.  Fundamental #4 has been proven by the correlation between the USC and the CFR, as they had to do since the income tax was within the Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, “An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes” – an Act having to do with importing.

Even though the Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, is unconstitutional and, in addition, hides the fact that the basis of the ATF and the IRS are within the Customs, it would appear that the income tax within the internal revenue laws would not have anything to do with a sovereign American.

The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and its main tenet is that “all men are created equal”.  Under such a tenet no American or group of Americans, including some group of Americans called government, may ever initiate force or fraud against any other American or group of Americans.  This is the basis of individual sovereignty.  The Constitution was adopted to form a government that would uphold this tenet.

The Constitution acknowledges this where in Article I, section 8 it grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  The federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce since the law is based upon the tenet that “all men are created equal”.  The Constitution is subordinate to the Declaration of Independence and, therefore, cannot be amended in any way that would violate the tenet that “all men are created equal”.  The individual American is sovereign, not the federal government.  See the following Supreme Court decisions that uphold the sovereignty of the individual – United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed. (2 Dall.) 415.

The Founding Fathers fought to set up a country founded by the most important document ever crafted – the Declaration of Independence which declares that “all men are created equal”.  This is the basis of individual sovereignty.  All other countries at that time were literally owned by the monarchy (or dictatorship) of that country.

The Founding Fathers then fought to adopt the Constitution to form a government that would uphold that most important tenet – “all men are created equal”.  A government was formed to protect the rights of the individual sovereign.

Name which of the Founding Fathers would have ever run to the federal government for any kind of insurance or health assistance – NOT ONE!!

The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 and immediately set to work to bankrupt the United States government.  The FED caused the great Wall Street crash and the depression.  If you don’t believe the previous sentence, then go to this cite from Congressman Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania made on the Floor of the House of Representatives in 1934:  http://www.freedomdomain.com/Redemption/mcfadden1.html and read for yourself what was said that day in Congress.

Prohibition was put into place by the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 to await the preplanned bankruptcy of the government.  Then as the bankruptcy was being administered, the Prohibition was repealed by the Twenty First Amendment in 1933.  This allowed the government to move all the internal revenue laws to the U.S. possessions.  The following statutes evidence this:

Title 48 USC, “Territories and Insular Possessions”, Section 734a, “Extension of industrial alcohol and internal revenue laws to Puerto Rico”, reads, in part as follows:  “Title III of the National Prohibition Act, as amended, and all provisions of the internal revenue laws relating to the enforcement thereof, are extended to and made applicable to Puerto Rico from and after August 27, 1935.”.

Title 48 USC, “Territories and Insular Possessions”, Section 1402, “Extension of industrial alcohol and internal revenue laws to Virgin Islands”, reads, in part as follows:  “Title III of the National Prohibition Act, as amended, and all provisions of the internal revenue laws relating to the enforcement thereof, are extended to and made applicable to the Virgin Islands from and after August 27, 1935.”.

Both of these sections from title 48 USC, “Territories and Insular Possessions”, have this note included:

“The National Prohibition Act, as amended, referred to in text, is act Oct. 28, 1919, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 305, as amended.  Title III of such Act was classified principally to chapter 3 (Sec. 71 et seq.) of title 27, Intoxicating Liquors, and was omitted from the Code in view of the incorporation of such provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and subsequently into the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”

The Twenty First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and by doing so abolished the Prohibition in America.  Title III of the National Prohibition Act, which was abolished by the Twenty First Amendment in the States, was extended to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  Then the provisions were incorporated into the Internal Revenue Code – more evidence that internal revenue jurisdiction is within the U.S. possessions.  And since Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution grants the federal government control over its possessions, the prohibition laws may still be administered within its possessions.

Social Security was created in 1935.  Then the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was created.  Combine the existing internal revenue laws together with the FICA tax from Social Security and the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and you get the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.

The Founding Fathers established a government with absolutely no nexus with sovereign Americans, but then we Americans threw everything away by running to the federal government for insurance and health coverage.  How disgusted must the Founding Fathers be at this time??

We Americans applied to the federal government, now owned by the FED, for Social Security through the FICA tax, which as evidenced above, is a U.S. possession tax as stated at 26 USC section 7655, “Cross references”, from subchapter D, “Possessions”, of chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, within title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”.

Since the federal government has no nexus with a sovereign American, the government cannot offer FICA directly to a sovereign American.  Remember that everything that has to do with liability must come from subchapter D, “Possessions”, within chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”.  Section 7655, “Cross references”, states that FICA is a U.S. possession tax and that it is found in chapter 21.  Chapter 21 is within subtitle C, “Employment Taxes”, of title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”.  Section 3121, “Definitions”, within chapter 21 is the next step in finding out how sovereign Americans became liable for the income tax, a tax on collectors/assessors of “internal duties”.

So the question remains, how could a sovereign American ever be eligible for Social Security?  This is where the concept of  “Agreements entered into by American employers with respect to foreign affiliates” comes into play as defined at title 26 USC section 3121(l).  An “American employer” (defined at 26 USC Section 3121(h)) is further defined under 26 USC Section 3121(l) as having a foreign subsidiary and that wants to extend the insurance system established by title II of the Social Security Act (FICA) to the U.S. citizens who are employed by its foreign affiliate.  Doesn’t that sound like a wonderful, caring “American employer”?  The regulations under this section at 26 CFR 31.3121(l) direct to more regulations at 26 CFR 36.3121(l)-0.  It is here that it states that the “American employer” has made an agreement with the IRS to extend the insurance coverage of Social Security, through FICA, to employees of a foreign subsidiary of the “American employer”.  This is the hidden connection between an American and the IRS.  The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a free, sovereign American so it cannot write laws that subject an American to any duty because “all men are created equal”.  The government (actually the owner of the government, the FED) has created the “American employer”, which is exactly what it says it is, an employer of Americans, in order to initiate the Social Security Scam.  Remember, the government is just made up of other Americans, so since “all men are created equal”, the government cannot write laws that require Americans to do anything under the threat of force.  We Americans cannot convey any right that we do not have ourselves to any government agent.  Every other American can vote against one other single American, but at no time can that majority use force against that other single American because “all men are created equal”.  The ultimate minority is the individual and holding up the rights of the individual is the government’s job.  Any group of Americans is composed of individual Americans, so when the government is doing its job all Americans have their rights protected.  There can be no “right” of any kind for any group – only the rights of the individual.  It makes no difference what your sexual orientation is, it makes no difference what your religious preferences are, it makes no difference what your ethnic background is, it makes no difference what your financial situation is, it makes no difference whatever, since “all men are created equal” and, therefore, all Americans have the same individual sovereign rights.  The government and the FED actually seem to be the only entities that do understand that “all men are created equal” (isn’t that a crazy realization?!), otherwise the convoluted, deceitful nature of the Internal Revenue Code would not be required, the Social Security Scam would not have been needed, and they wouldn’t have had to rely on an unconstitutional law to use subterfuge to hide the jurisdiction of the ATF and the IRS in foreign commerce (internal revenue) regulations.

The definition of “taxpayer” at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) states that it means that a citizen has established a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act.  Section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act sets up the provisions of what is known as a controlled corporation at 26 CFR 2.1-27, “Controlled Corporation”.  This matches the description of the American employer – a domestic corporation that owns a foreign affiliate.  So the American employer has a controlled corporation – the foreign affiliate.  The “taxpayer” definition also states that a “taxpayer” may be a partnership.

By applying for a Social Security number on the “Form SS-5”, an American has now become a “taxpayer” – an employee of the foreign affiliate of the American employer.  Further, the applicant for a S.S.# is also treated as an employee of the “American employer” as well, thus a member of the Merchant Marine.  Title 26, section 406, “Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121(l) agreements”, subsection (a), “Treatment as employees of American employer”, states, in part:  “an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and who is an employee of a foreign affiliate (as defined in section 3121(l)(6)) of such American employer shall be treated as an employee of such American employer…”.  This section concerns deferred compensation, such as pension, profit sharing, stock bonus plans, etc.  Further, by checking the box “U.S. citizen” on the “Form SS-5”, the applicant has given the government prima facie evidence that said applicant has U.S. possession citizenship.  A “U.S. citizen” is exemplified at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (Puerto Rico is cited in the example) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship (Puerto Rican citizenship is cited in the example).  The combination of the terms “U.S. citizen” and “taxpayer” is known as a “U.S. resident”.  This is defined at title 26 USC Sec. 865(g).  A “U.S. citizen”, in other words, a person born in one of the sovereign states who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and further acquires U.S. possession citizenship, who now resides in the United States would be a foreigner since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see Fundamental #1 above).  Now it has often been said that ignorance of the law is no excuse – but these terms that the government uses have been created to make sure that everyone is ignorant of the actual law.  The only thing that the government has preached is that “all taxpayers must file income tax returns”, but the government has buried the terms “taxpayer”, “U.S. citizen”, and “U.S. resident” deep in the regulations and statutes.  For more information concerning the terms “U.S. citizen”,  “U.S. resident”, and “taxpayer” see the post titled “The U.S. Resident” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog.  The recent Census questionnaire was addressed to “RESIDENT”.  The Census Bureau is within the Department of Commerce.  Title 15 USC, “Commerce and Trade”, is implemented by title 15 CFR, “Commerce and Foreign Trade”.  That’s why the questionnaire didn’t simply ask for the number of people living at a specific place as the government was granted the right to do in the Constitution (known as enumeration in Article I, section 2 of the Constitution).  The Census was questioning the government’s own employees involved in foreign commerce – the Merchant Marine.  It may ask nearly anything under this (false) presumption.

When a sovereign American applies for a Social Security number on the “Form SS-5”, he has unwittingly become an employee for the foreign subsidiary of an “American employer”, which itself is a partnership.  The sovereign American is also treated as an employee of the American employer as evidenced above at 26 USC section 406, “Employees of foreign affiliates covered by section 3121(l) agreements”.  A “taxpayer” is a federal employee under the provisions section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.  The Social Security number is the partner’s identification number within the partnership.

As evidenced above, once an American has applied for a S.S.#, said American is now considered a “U.S. resident”.  Everything must be based upon liability, so going back to subchapter D, “Possessions”, within chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, of title 26 USC, “The Internal Revenue Code”, leads us to section 7654 “Coordination of United States and certain possession individual income taxes”.  Under subsection (e), “Regulations”, it states, in part, “The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section and sections 931 and 932…and prescribing the information which the individuals to whom such sections may apply shall furnish to the Secretary.”  This leads to sections 931 and 932.

Section 931, “Income from sources within Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands” is for U.S. possession income from these possessions.  Section 932, “Coordination of United States and Virgin Islands income taxes”, subsection (a), “Treatment of United States residents”, is the entry point for Americans who have applied for a S.S.# on “Form SS-5” by checking the box labeled “U.S. citizen” – the combination of both “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” is the “U.S. resident”.

Title 26 USC section 932(e), “Special rule for applying section to tax imposed in Virgin Islands”, cites to section 934.  Title 26 USC section 934, “Limitation on reduction in income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands”, subsection (b), “Reductions permitted with respect to certain income”, (3), “Special rule for non-United States income of certain foreign corporations”, (B), “Qualified foreign corporation”, in turn, cites to 26 USC section 958 (section 934 also cites to Title 48, “Territories and Insular Possessions”, as well, where it leads to the indictment process within the Virgin Islands for income taxes).  Below is a selected part of section 958, “Rules for determining stock ownership”:

“(b) Constructive ownership                                                For purposes of sections 951(b), 954(d)(3), 956(c)(2), and 957, section 318(a) (relating to constructive ownership of stock) shall apply to the extent that the effect is to treat any United States person as a United States shareholder within the meaning of section 951(b), to treat a person as a related person within the meaning of section 954(d)(3), to treat the stock of a domestic corporation as owned by a United States shareholder of the controlled foreign corporation for purposes of section 956(c)(2), or to treat a foreign corporation as a controlled foreign corporation under section 957, except that – … (3) In applying subparagraph (C) of section 318(a)(2), the phrase ”10 percent” shall be substituted for the phrase ”50 percent” used in subparagraph (C).”

As cited above within §958(b) a United States person is treated as a “United States shareholder” as defined in §951(b).  Both of the terms “United States citizen” and “United States resident” are considered to be a “United States person” (See Title 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)).  Also within §958(b) is the provision to treat the stock of a domestic corporation as owned by a “United States shareholder” of the controlled foreign corporation, and the provision to treat a foreign corporation as a controlled corporation.  This sets up all of the necessary requirements under section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act to apply to the American employer and the shareholders of the foreign affiliate of the American employer.

Section 958, “Rules for determining stock ownership”, and the sections referenced from 26 USC §958(b) listed above – §951, “Amounts included in gross income of United States shareholders”, §954, “Foreign base company income”, §956, “Investment of earnings in United States property”, and §957, “Controlled foreign corporations; United States persons” are all within “Subpart F – Controlled Foreign Corporations” of Part III, “Income from Sources Without the United States”, of subchapter N, “Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States”, of chapter 1, “Normal Taxes and Surtaxes”, of title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”.  The nature of a controlled corporation is defined in Section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as referenced within the definition of “taxpayer” at 26 CFR 2.1-27.  What is known as “Subpart F income” is what makes up the undistributed dividend that all “U.S. residents”, as “U.S. shareholders”, receive as self-employment income (as noted above in Fundamental #5).

Now back again to subchapter D, “Possessions”, section 7655, “Cross references”, where it states that the self-employment tax is a U.S. possession tax.  To restate the last part of Fundamental #5 – This undistributed dividend is described in the statutes at 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”, chapter 2, “Tax on Self-employment Income”, section 1402, “Definitions”, subsection (a), “Net earnings from self-employment”, where it states, in part, “…plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702(a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member…”.  The definition of “taxpayer” states that it may include a partnership.  By applying for a S.S.#, the applicant has joined a partnership, the S.S.# being the applicant’s partnership identification number.  The definition of “Net earnings from self-employment”, cited above (26 USC section 1402(a)), references to section 702, “Income and credits of partner”, within subchapter K, “Partners and partnerships”, from chapter 1, “Normal Taxes and Surtaxes”, of subtitle A, “Income Taxes”, of title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”.

Your S.S.# is your partnership number, so subchapter K, “Partners and partnerships”, is then where one finds the next connection to the requirement to file an income tax return.  The first section in subchapter K is section 701, “Partners, not partnership, subject to tax”.  It states that partners, not partnerships, are liable for income tax only in their individual capacity.  Partnerships have no liability for income tax, they simply determine the overall profit or loss which is then attributable to the individual partners based upon the partner’s percentage of ownership of the partnership.  Section 702, “Income and credits of partner” (referenced within section 1402(a) above), subsection (a), “General rule”, states, in part:  “In determining his income tax, each partner shall take into account separately his distributive share of the partnership’s…” and then cites various gains, losses, dividends, and taxes, etc.  Paragraph (6) states:  “taxes, described in section 901, paid or accrued to foreign countries and to possessions of the United States”.  FICA is a U.S. possession tax as cited in 26 USC section 7655, “Cross references”, from subchapter D, “Possessions”, within chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, so as it states in 26 USC section 702 (a)(6) each partner shall take into account separately his distributive share of the partnership’s taxes described in section 901 paid or accrued to possessions of the United States.

Section 703, “Partnership computations”, subsection (b), “Elections of the partnership”, states:  “Any election affecting the computation of taxable income derived from a partnership shall be made by the partnership, except that any election under … (3) section 901 (relating to taxes of foreign countries and possessions of the United States), shall be made by each partner separately.”

The Code has now led us to section 901, “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”.  Subsection (a), “Allowance of credit”, cites that this section allows credits against the income tax and is limited by section 904, plus, in the case of a corporation, the taxes deemed to have been paid under sections 902 and 960 are allowed as credits.

Section 901, “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”, is within “Subchapter N – Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States”, Part III, “Income from Sources Without the United States”, Subpart A, “Foreign Tax Credit”.  Also within Part III, “Income from Sources Without the United States”, is subpart B, “Earned Income of Citizens or Residents of United States”, where the earned income credit and the housing credit are cited.  When one takes an earned income credit, or other credit, it is a foreign tax credit since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries (see Fundamental # 1), and also because internal revenue is within foreign commerce.  A “taxpayer” is in the Merchant Marine involved in foreign commerce.  A “U.S. citizen” has U.S. possession citizenship.  Also within Part III, “Income from Sources Without the United States”, is subpart D, “Possessions of the United States”, which includes the previously cited sections 931 and 932, the entry points from section 7654, “Coordination of United States and certain possession individual income taxes”, of subchapter D, “Possessions”, within chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”.  Subpart D also includes section 934, that was cited as limiting section 932 above and that led to section 958 which is within subpart F, “Controlled Foreign Corporations”, which includes the sections 951 through 965.

There must be an underlying basis of importing for the internal revenue laws to confer jurisdiction to the courts.  As evidenced in Fundamental #1, title 28 USC, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”, section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”, is foreign commerce which is based upon importing duties.  Part of the basis of the undistributed dividend that all “U.S. residents”, as “U.S. shareholders”, have attributed to them, are the income taxes paid by the controlled foreign corporation of the domestic corporation (the American employer).  The regulations under the self-employment statute, 26 U.S.C. §1402, cited within Fundamental #5 above, allow for a partnership to be treated as a corporation without affecting the self-employment directive in the statute concerning the distributive share of the partner.  This is found at 26 C.F.R. 1.1402 (a)-2(g).  Isn’t that convenient?  This allows the American employer to be treated as a partnership for the sake of the Social Security Scam, and to be treated as a corporation whenever the government has reason to do so.

As cited above, section 1402 under the self-employment tax provisions (all S.S.# applicants are self-employed as individual partners – the undistributed dividend is considered self-employment income), cited to section 702 under the partnership provisions (all S.S.# applicants are in a partnership), which in turn cited to section 901 under the foreign and U.S. possession tax provisions (all S.S.# applicants signed up for FICA, a U.S. possession tax), which in turn cited to section 902.  Under title 26 USC §902, “Deemed paid credit where domestic corporation owns 10 percent or more of voting stock of foreign corporation”, a domestic corporation that owns part of a foreign corporation is deemed to have paid a percentage of the foreign corporation’s income taxes.  As evidenced above, income taxes are paid by collectors of “internal duties”.  The foreign controlled corporation has been involved in shipping within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws, coastwise trade, and that includes importing “articles” (within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”).  Thus, the foreign controlled corporation is subject to the income tax as a collector/assessor of “internal duties”, the importing of “articles” (within 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”).  Section 902, subsection (c), “Definitions and special rules”, paragraph (8), “Regulations”, refers to section 904, “Limitation on credit”, and also to section 960, “Special rules for foreign tax credit”.  Then under Title 26 U.S.C. §960, “Special rules for foreign tax credit”, if the domestic corporation has included earnings of the foreign corporation, then that amount is deemed a dividend paid to the domestic corporation.  Section 902 stated that a domestic corporation is deemed to have paid a percentage of the foreign corporation’s income tax, so this amounts to the included earnings that section 960 is referring to that is now deemed a dividend paid to the domestic corporation.  Then applying the constructive ownership rules from section 958, “Rules for determining stock ownership”, as cited above, the “U.S. shareholder” (the “U.S. resident”) of the controlled foreign corporation is considered to own the stock of the domestic corporation.  This domestic corporation is the partnership under the self-employment statutes (26 C.F.R. 1.1402 (a)-2(g) as cited above), so the partners have received a dividend.  This undistributed dividend attributed to each partner constitutes the necessary legal requirement to file an I.R.S. Form 1040, since the dividend is based, in part, upon income taxes paid by the controlled foreign corporation of the domestic corporation (the American employer).  The statutes cited here have exported a dividend to all partners of the partnership, otherwise considered to be an American employer – that means all the partners have now become liable for the income tax by receiving income that constitutes being a collector/assessor of “internal duties” (importing of “articles” within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”).  Filing an I.R.S. Form 1040 (or having the IRS file a substitute-for-return – of course, the IRS agent is clueless about this underlying self-employment income) is declaring said self-employment income (in the Virgin Islands) and offsetting that income with a foreign tax credit (F.I.C.A.) as cited in section 901, “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”.  This filing is registered as a TC-150 Code in the individual’s master file maintained by the I.R.S.  It is within the previously cited section 932, “Coordination of United States and Virgin Islands income taxes”, and section 934, “Limitation on reduction in income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands”, where the exact breakdown of income occurs – what is liable to the Virgin Islands as self-employment income.

The undistributed dividend that was included in the definition of self-employment income is from the partnership that owns a controlled foreign corporation, so the election from Title 26 U.S.C. §962, “Election by individuals to be subject to tax at corporate rates”, now applies.  There are many provisions of the internal revenue code that use the word “elect” or “election” as if the “taxpayer” is aware of all of this subterfuge.  The election occurred automatically upon filing a Form 1040 or the IRS filing a substitute-for-return.  So once you filed a Form 1040, you elected to have this undistributed dividend taxed at the corporate rate.  Isn’t that nice of the government to allow the undistributed dividend to be taxed at the lower corporate rate?  You weren’t even aware of this dividend, since it was undistributed, yet you elected to be subject to the corporate rate for tax purposes.  What this does is allow the corporation tax laws to be incorporated into an individual’s tax return.

The regulations from the CFR under this statute now apply the corporate tax rates on the shareholder’s dividend.  The regulations at 26 CFR 1.962-1(b)(2)(i) reference to §904 and §960(a)(1), two sections of the Code already cited.  The regulations under 26 C.F.R. 1.962-1(b)(2)(ii) direct that the term “domestic corporation” as used in §960(a)(1) and §78, and that the term “corporation” as used in §901, shall be treated as referring to such shareholder.  This means that even supposed tax professionals would not be aware of the fact that where section 901 uses the term “corporation” it actually is to be treated as referring to a shareholder.  However, this follows logically from section 703, “Partnership computations”, as cited above, where it directed that the partners of the partnership must use section 901 separately as partners.  The partners of the partnership are “U.S. residents” and pursuant to section 958, “Rules for determining stock ownership”, all “U.S. residents” are treated as “U.S. shareholders”.

Title 26 USC §901, “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”, is limited by 26 USC §904 which is “Limitation on credit”.  Title 26 USC §960 is “Special rules for foreign tax credit”.  Title 26 USC §78 is “Dividends received from certain foreign corporations by domestic corporations choosing foreign tax credit”.  These are the key sections that are behind the filing of an I.R.S. Form 1040.

It is this self-employment income and the offsetting foreign tax credit (FICA) that is the basis used within Title 26 USC §901 “Taxes of foreign countries and of possessions of United States”.  Since the regulations under 26 CFR 1.962-1(b)(2)(ii), cited above, state that for the purposes of applying §960(a)(1) the term “corporation” as used in §901 shall refer to the “shareholder”, this section now applies to “U.S. shareholders”.  Under 26 §901, subsection (m), “Cross references” is the following:  “(1) For right of each partner to make election under this section, see section 703(b)”.  The Code has come full circle – 901(m) references 703(b) and, as evidenced above, 703(b)(3) stated that for calculation of taxable income, section 901 was to be used by the partners separately.

When the IRS sends out a letter of inquiry, the letterhead states “Small Business/Self-Employed Division”.  All S.S.# applicants are partners of a partnership and are being attributed an undistributed dividend that is considered self-employment income.  The IRS has been telling you what it is doing, although the IRS employees are clueless.  They have no idea why their own letterhead states what it does.  An individual whose only income is derived as an employee of a corporation will be contacted by the IRS’s “Small Business/Self-Employed Division”.

Here’s the regulation that clinches the deal from title 26:  26 CFR 301.7321-1, “Seizure of property”.  “Any property subject to forfeiture to the United States under any provision of the Code may be seized by the district director or assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms).  Upon seizure of property by the district director he shall notify the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) for the region wherein the district is located who will take charge of the property and arrange for its disposal or retention under the provisions of law and regulations applicable thereto.”

Why would property subject to forfeiture under any provisions of the internal revenue laws be turned over to the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms)?  Because the jurisdiction of internal revenue is based upon the collection of importing duties on “articles” (title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”) within the U.S. possessions.  “Internal duties” have been promulgated based upon the unconstitutional Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, that put an intrastate tax on stills and the stills’ product, alcohol, and hid the fact that the revenue collectors for this tax were within the Customs.

It has been noted by others that in the organizational chart of the Department of Treasury the Internal Revenue Service is not listed under the chain of command of the Under Secretary for Enforcement.  The Internal Revenue Service was only created for the Social Security Scam – it is only referenced in the Code under the regulations concerning the American employer and the contract made between the American employer and the IRS (26 USC sec. 3121(l) and the implementing regulations).  That’s why everything must be turned over to the assistant regional commissioner (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) in the regulation above.  The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is found in the chain of command of the Under Secretary for Enforcement.

Liability is the key issue – without establishing liability there can be no jurisdiction conveyed to the federal courts.  The basis of liability to file an income tax return is found in title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms” as evidenced above by the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules.

The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules will now be useful in exposing that title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms”, is the basis for nearly all of the provisions of subtitle F, “Procedure and Administration”, within title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue”.

Subtitle F, “Procedure and Administration”, includes sections 6001 through 7874.

Let’s start right off with section 6001, “Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns”.  The IRS Privacy Act notice included in the instructions for the Form 1040 states that it has the authority to ask for the information based upon sections 6001, 6011, and 6012.

Section 6001, “Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns”, of title 26 USC is implemented by regulations from both 26 CFR (“Internal Revenue”) and 27 CFR (“Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”).  Section 6011, “General requirements of return, statement, or list”, is also implemented by regulations from both 26 CFR and 27 CFR.  These are the very first two statutes within subtitle F, “Procedure and Administration”.  Both require implementation by regulations within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms”, as well as regulations within title 26 CFR, “Internal Revenue”.  This is because anything to do with the income tax is based upon the collection/assessment of “internal duties”, the importing of “articles” (title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”) within the U.S. possessions.

Section 6020, “Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR parts 53 and 70.  As noted above, 26 USC section 7653, “Shipments from the United States”, within subchapter D, “Possessions”, within chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, is implemented by title 27 part 70 “Procedure and Administration”.  This is “Procedure and Administration” within title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms”.  The Secretary is preparing and executing returns within internal revenue based upon authority from title 27 CFR.

Let’s look at all of the sections that have to do with the IRS’s underlying authority for assessments, penalties, interest, levy, liens, additions, agreements, forfeitures, civil actions, and enforcement to see what regulations implement these internal revenue statutes.

Title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”, section 6201, “Assessment authority”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 6301, “Collection authority”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 53.

Title 26 section 6321, “Lien for taxes”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 6331, “Levy and distraint”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 6601, “Interest on underpayment, nonpayment, or extensions of time for payment, of tax”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 6651, “Failure to file tax return”, (this is under chapter 68, “Additions to the tax, additional amounts, and assessable penalties”, not the misdemeanor charge found at section 7203) is only implemented by title 27 CFR parts 24, 25, 31, and 70.

Title 26 section 6671, “Rules for application of assessable penalties”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 6701, “Penalties for aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7011, “Registration – persons paying a special tax”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR parts 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 44, 70, and 270.

Title 26 section 7121, “Closing agreements”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7122, “Compromises”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7302, “Property used in violation of internal revenue laws”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 72.

Title 26 section 7322, “Delivery of seized personal property to U.S. marshal”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 72.

Title 26 section 7323, “Judicial action to enforce forfeiture”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7401, “Authorization” (this is under chapter 76, “Judicial proceedings”), is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7403, “Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7505, “Sale of personal property acquired by the United States”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR 70.

Title 26 section 7510, “Exemption from tax of domestic goods purchased for United States”, is only implemented by title 27 part 19.  This section reads as follows:  “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 may subscribe, to all articles of domestic production which are subject to tax by the provisions of this title.”  This statute is as close as the legislative draftsmen come to coming out and saying that internal revenue laws are based upon importing.  A “duty” is a term used in importing.  Extending the privilege of purchasing supplies from foreign countries duty free to articles of domestic production means that the United States may import “articles” from the U.S. possessions duty free as well.  And the term “articles” hides the actual relation to title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”.

Title 26, “Internal Revenue Code”, chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, subchapter A, “Examination and Inspection”, includes the sections 7601 through 7613.  These are some of the most basic sections of law of enforcement.

Title 26 section 7601, “Canvass of districts for taxable persons and objects”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7602, “Examination of books and witnesses”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR parts 29, 46, 70, and 296.

Title 26 section 7603, “Service of summons”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7604, “Enforcement of summons”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 70.

Title 26 section 7605, “Time and place of examination”, is only implemented by title 27 part 70.

Title 26 section 7606, “Entry of premises for examination of taxable objects”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR parts 24, 25, 41, 44, 45, 46, 70, 270, 275, and 296.

Title 26 section 7608, “Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers”, is only implemented by title 27 CFR parts 70 and 296.  The very authority of internal revenue enforcement officers is implemented from title 27, not title 26!  Only the importing of “articles” (title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms”) gives jurisdiction to the internal revenue enforcement officers.  Don’t expect your local IRS office to understand any of this.

The last statute that will be listed here says it all.  Under title 26 USC, chapter 80, “General rules”, is section 7851, “Applicability of revenue laws”, which is only implemented by title 27 CFR part 24.

There are many more statutes from subtitle F, “Administration and Procedure”, that are implemented only by title 27 CFR, but the above list addresses the IRS’s underlying authority for assessments, penalties, interest, levy, liens, additions, agreements, forfeitures, civil actions, and enforcement – all of the above listed statutes are implemented only by title 27 CFR.

Fundamental #1 through Fundamental #5 have been evidenced by the actual statutes from the United States Code and their implementing regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Let’s put everything into one sentence:  The only way that a sovereign American can be subject to the income tax, the second plank of the Communist Manifesto, is to be considered a foreigner living in America who is involved in foreign commerce within the U.S. possessions collecting importing duties as a member of the Merchant Marine on “articles” within the jurisdiction of title 27 CFR, “Alcohol, Tobacco Products, and Firearms”.  That’s a bit much to say, but it isn’t easy to subjugate an entire country of sovereign Americans.

The Social Security Scam was established to do all of the above by having sovereign Americans apply for a S.S.# on the “Form SS-5” as an employee of a foreign affiliate of a domestic corporation, what is known as an “American employer”.

Since the earnings must be foreign to be under the government’s foreign commerce jurisdiction, the income taxes paid by the foreign affiliate are treated as a credit attributable to the domestic corporation, the “American employer”, as stated in 26 USC §902, “Deemed paid credit where domestic corporation owns 10 percent or more of voting stock of foreign corporation”.  Then at 26 USC §960, “Special rules for foreign tax credit”, the credit is then treated as a dividend from the foreign affiliate to the domestic corporation.  Since an American applicant for a S.S.# becomes a “U.S. resident”, the entry point to the Internal Revenue Code is at 26 USC §932, “Coordination of United States and Virgin Islands income taxes”, subsection (a), “Treatment of U.S. residents”, which is limited by §934, “Limitation on reduction in income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands”, which, in turn, cites to §958, “Rules for determining stock ownership”.  Under §958, all “U.S. residents” become “U.S. shareholders” of the foreign affiliate, along with all of the necessary rules to fit the requirements under section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (where the definition of “taxpayer” is found), including that the foreign affiliate be treated as a controlled corporation.  Section 958 also states that the “U.S. shareholder” of the foreign controlled corporation is treated as owning the stock of the domestic corporation.  This means that the dividend to the domestic corporation, the “American employer”, which is considered a partnership, is now attributable to all of the partners of the partnership – the S.S.# is the individual’s identification # within the partnership.  All partners have been attributed a dividend (although it remains undistributed so no one is aware of it) that conveys the requisite income to trigger the requirement to file an income tax return.

However, as the entire Social Security Scam is based upon the unconstitutional Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791, it becomes obvious that the bankers were plotting the government’s bankruptcy since the beginning of this country.  Alexander Hamilton was the bankers’ man within the Founding Fathers and he authored the unconstitutional Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1791.

The Declaration of Independence states:  “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

It is time to abolish Social Security.  Social Security certainly fits the description above from the Declaration of Independence – a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evincing a design to reduce Americans under absolute Despotism.

There are a couple of things that can also be gleaned from the above statutes.  The undistributed dividend is described in the statutes at 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”, chapter 2, “Tax on Self-employment Income”, section 1402, “Definitions”, subsection (a), “Net earnings from self-employment”, where it states, in part, “…plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702(a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member…”.

The phrase “trade or business” is used in the above definition concerning the partnership.  Title 26 USC §162, “Trade or business expenses”, subsection (d), “Capital contributions to Federal National Mortgage Association”, states:  “For purposes of this subtitle, whenever the amount of capital contributions evidenced by a share of stock issued pursuant to section 303 (c) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C., sec. 1718) exceeds the fair market value of the stock as of the issue date of such stock, the initial holder of the stock shall treat the excess as ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business.”

Why would the value of stock of the Federal National Mortgage Association, otherwise known as Fannie Mae, be considered ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred?  Shouldn’t stock valuation be within capital gain or loss?  The only way this can be within the law is if Fannie Mae is tied into the American employer within the Social Security Scam.  Remember that under title 26 USC §958, “Rules for determining stock ownership”, all “U.S. residents” are treated as “U.S. shareholders” of the foreign affiliate and, as well, as owners of the stock of the domestic corporation.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are involved in “low income” housing.  Obviously, to determine “low income”, they must be within something to do with the income tax within the Social Security Scam.

And considering “capital gain” and “ordinary income” leads to title 26 USC section 7518, “Tax incentives relating to merchant marine construction funds”.  Remember that a “taxpayer” is defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5) as someone establishing (or seeking to establish) a construction reserve fund within the provisions of section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936.  Title 26 USC section 7518, “Tax incentives relating to merchant marine construction funds”, subsection (d), “Establishment of accounts”, paragraph (1), “In general”, states:  “Within a construction fund 3 accounts shall be maintained: (A) the capital account, (B) the capital gain account and, (C) the ordinary income account.”  Paragraph (2), “Capital account”, describes what a capital account actually is.  Paragraph (3), “Capital gains account”, describes what a capital gain account actually is.  And paragraph (4), “Ordinary income account”, describes what an ordinary income account actually is.  All S.S.# applicants are in the Merchant Marine.  Don’t expect anyone at the local IRS office to understand that they are working under an agreement with an American employer to extend FICA to the employees of the American employer’s foreign affiliate, “taxpayers”, otherwise known as the Merchant Marine.  Yet the very definitions that the IRS employees bandy about, such as capital account, capital gain account, and ordinary income account are only defined within the Merchant Marine construction fund.  And, of course, section 7518, “Tax incentives relating to merchant marine construction funds”, that establishes these accounts is within chapter 77, “Miscellaneous Provisions”.  Why, pay no attention to the thousands of pages of the Internal Revenue Code, just read the first chapter and give us all of your money.  What business is it of yours what’s in miscellaneous provisions of the Code?

Also within the above dissertation was the cite to title 26 USC §902, “Deemed paid credit where domestic corporation owns 10 percent or more of voting stock of foreign corporation”.  If one reads further into the statute, there is more involved than just the domestic corporation that owns a foreign corporation.  Therein are cites to lower tier corporations as well.  All throughout the Code are references to second tier, third tier, and other types of daisy chains of corporations.  The government is being used by the FED to control which corporations get favorable treatment and which don’t.  And, of course, it’s the financial services industry (banks) that are cited within section 904, “Limitation on credit”, which is cited from section 902.  Further in the Code are special considerations for the oil corporations and the mineral mining corporations.  It’s time to abolish Social Security and quit feeding the FED and its puppet, the United States government.

One final note needs to be addressed here.  The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is the basis of finding the implementing regulations for the statutes within subchapter D, “Possessions”, of chapter 78, “Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title”, within title 26, “Internal Revenue Code”.  Those were the sections of Code 7651 through 7655.  These sections are also implemented by title 40 CFR part 76.  Title 40 USC, “Public Buildings, Property, and Works”, is implemented by title 40 CFR, “Protection of Environment”.  Since Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution grants the federal government control of its possessions, title 40 represents the government’s property.  Title 40 CFR, “Protection of Environment”, part 76, “Acid Rain Nitrous Oxides Emission Reduction Program”, is where the government has put into place laws concerning coal burning residue.  FICA is an employee tax for railroads on a coal mine.  See the Post, “What is FICA”, at http://wp.me/pCW6e-5i for more details.  So the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with protecting government property.  The EPA is also cited under title 41 USC, “Public Contracts”, which is implemented by title 41 CFR, “Public Contracts and Property Management”.  Any property that the government owns can be environmentally controlled under the EPA.  Since everyone is considered a “U.S. citizen”, this has led to more encroachment of powers by the government through the Social Security Scam.

THERE IS MUCH MORE FOR ALL AMERICANS TO LEARN!!

THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS BEING PAID FOR BY “TAXPAYERS”!

I have written a memorandum titled “The United States Doesn’t Own the Mississippi River” which exposes the entire history of the New World.  What Americans have been taught is a fairy tale.  I have cited the actual statutes, regulations, and other official documents that reveal exactly what has been going on behind the scenes.  Here is the order form:

Order Form

Order Form

—————————————————————————————

          The official website of the Internal Revenue Service has a page titled “Brief History of IRS”.  It states there the following:  “The roots of the IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses.”. 

          Here is the Act of Congress approved July 1, 1862, that the IRS cites as the origin of the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue:  Act of Congress approved July 1, 1862.  I have enclosed the first two pages of this Act and a later page that contains Section 89 of the Act, which is listed under the heading of “Income Duty”.  In Section 89 it states that it is modifying and reenacting a previous Act of Congress that relates to income tax.  In other words, the income tax was already in existence before the Act of Congress that the IRS relies upon for its origin.  The income tax is specified as being enacted in sections 49, 50, and 51 of the Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861.

          The Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, “An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes” created the income tax.  Here is a link to that Act of Congress:  Act of Congress approved August 5, 1861.

          I have enclosed the first page of this Act of Congress and the pages that contain the sections referenced above, sections 49, 50, and 51.  Section 49 implements the income tax and states that :  “The tax herein provided shall be assessed upon the annual income of the persons hereinafter named …”.  Then in section 50 the President is authorized to appoint assessors and collectors to assess and collect internal duties and income tax.  These are “the persons hereinafter named” from section 49 (along with other government officials) that are now subject to the income tax.  Section 51 then grants the assessors and collectors the power to levy those that are delinquent in their payments.

          The Act of Congress that the IRS cites for its origin reenacts the income tax laws, but does not any longer cite “the persons hereinafter named”.  This is one of the most important things to understand about the legislative draftsmen that write the laws – the original Act of Congress must be read in order to find the basic jurisdiction of the laws.  None of the later Acts of Congress that create, amend, or reenact an income tax actually cite to whom the tax applies.  This is consistent throughout the history of legislation in the United States.  Since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land, and it states that “all men are created equal”, only the government’s own assessors and collectors could be subject to an income tax.  The income tax was implemented within an Act of Congress that concerned increasing revenue from imports – foreign commerce.

          In the 1870’s the Revised Statutes were written to help consolidate all the previous legislation of Congress.  Title XXXV of the Revised Statutes is Internal Revenue.  Section 3158 of the Revised Statutes defines the income tax return.  It states, in part, as follows:  “Every internal-revenue officer, whose payment, charges, salary, or compensation are composed, wholly or in part, of fees, commissions, allowances, or rewards, from whatever source derived, shall be required to render to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, under regulations to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, a statement under oath setting forth the entire amount of such fees, commissions, emoluments, or rewards of whatever nature, or from whatever source received, during the time for which said statement is rendered…”.  I have enclosed a link to section 3158, along with the overall title page of the Revised Statutes and the heading page for Internal Revenue here:  Revised Statutes – Section 3158.  Note the use of the phrase “from whatever source derived” in this section.  This is obviously the predecessor of the 16th Amendment – the income tax.  The 16th Amendment reads as follows:  “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”. 

          Since the income tax applies to the government’s own tax assessors and collectors it was naturally ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Congress always had the power to institute an income tax and that no new powers of taxation were granted to the government by the 16th Amendment.  (For a more complete examination of the Supreme Court decisions, link to “The Supreme Court decisions concerning the 16th Amendment” here at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3a on the “Posts for freedom” page of this Blog).

          When the federal government went bankrupt to the international counterfeiters in 1933 the Social Security scam was hatched.  A Social Security applicant is unknowingly becoming a federal employee who is receiving an undistributed dividend that is composed of income tax payments, thus turning that applicant into an internal revenue assessor and collector.  This is why the IRS states that this country’s income tax is based upon self-assessment. 

          Social Security is the most pernicious and destructive plot to undermine freedom ever devised by any government.  The United States government always talks about protecting the freedoms of Americans, while actually doing everything in its power to destroy freedom.  By taking an American’s money to do with whatever the government (actually the government’s masters, the international counterfeiters – the Federal Reserve) wishes an American’s vote has become meaningless.  As long as the government and its masters have an American’s money they will continue to undermine all freedom regardless of who is elected.    

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

          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.

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

          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. 

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