Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Law

          If the actions of the federal government in Washington, D.C., seem at odds with the Constitution and, as well, at odds with the general public’s views and desires, you must know that the Federal Reserve now owns the U.S. government.  Owning the U.S. government was not enough to enslave Americans due to their inherent natural-born sovereignty.  So the Federal Reserve has also created Social Security in order to destroy that sovereignty.  This is the basis of EVERYTHING that the government is doing.  By applying for a S.S.# an American entered into an employment contract.  There are no Constitutional restraints concerning the government’s own employees.  

          The Federal Reserve bankrupted the U.S. federal government in the 1930’s.  This is clearly evidenced by the law itself:  title 11, U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections”.  The Federal Election Commission is charged with implementing the laws of bankruptcy.  Our elections are simply to elect a bankruptcy “administration” – the Fed is in charge, so it really doesn’t matter who gets elected.  President Obama ran his election on the “change” platform, but once elected, he increased the bailout money to the same people and increased the number of troops overseas.  Nothing has changed at all because the Fed has ordained what will be done.  Republican or Democrat, it would not have mattered who won the election.  

          The following is from the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993: 

          “It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent.  H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress session of June 5, 1933 – Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.” 

          As the Congressional Record states above, the gold standard could no longer be upheld.  This means that the federal government no longer could pay gold to back up the dollar – there were too many dollars in circulation.  This is bankruptcy.   

          After bankrupting the government, the Federal Reserve then moved to enslave all Americans and make them pay the interest on their (counterfeit money) loans to the government.  

          However, bankrupting the U.S. federal government wasn’t enough to make Americans pay the Fed’s interest because the American is sovereign, not the federal government.  This has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions, such as, United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43, Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, and Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419.  It is expressed quite clearly within Julliard v. Greenman as follows: 

          “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States.  In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it:  All else is withheld.”   

          The American is sovereign not because of the Constitution, but because the organic law of the land, the Declaration of Independence, stated that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) is a self-evident truth.  The Declaration of Independence supercedes the Constitution, so the Constitution cannot change anything to do with the self-evident truth “all men (and women) are created equal”. 

          Besides the sovereignty issue that the Federal Reserve had to deal with, the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  Actually, this is a consequence of American sovereignty – there would be no sovereignty if the federal government could rule Americans in their commercial endeavors.  The Constitution in Article I, section 8, only grants the federal government jurisdiction “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.  This is known as foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  

          In order to get around the Constitutional restraints to complete the Fed’s control over America, Social Security was created, along with the deceptive use of legal “terms”.  Once the law defines a word it is known as a “term” and you can throw the dictionary definition of that word out the window.  An American who applies for a Social Security number has become a federal employee.  The “SS-5” Form is an employment form.  After all, only federal employees would be liable for federal employment taxes.  The Constitutional restraints do not apply to the government’s own employees.  Social Security was created to destroy American sovereignty. 

          You may wonder, “What is the employee?”.  It is the “taxpayer”.  A “taxpayer” is a term defined at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1, “Definitions” at paragraph (a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine, a federal employee.  26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) states that the terms used here are the same throughout the Internal Revenue Code and the implementing regulations. 

          The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a free, sovereign American so it cannot write laws that subject an American to any duty.  

          Has any government agency ever addressed any correspondence to you as “Dear Sovereign American”?  Of course not, but you are constantly bombarded with the term “taxpayer”. 

          Now what exactly is F.I.C.A.?  It is defined as a U.S. possession tax (26 U.S.C. section 7655).  Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (commerce within a State) and no jurisdiction over sovereign Americans, it only has the limited jurisdiction as noted above.  In addition, the Constitution at Article IV, section 3 grants the federal government power over its property and territory.  So it may make any tax is pleases in the U.S. possessions.  

          This leads to the “U.S. citizen”.  This is a term defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2208 and at 26 U.S.C. section 2501 subsection (b) and exemplified in the implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) as a person born in one of the States who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship.  This is the 14th Amendment citizen who is born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction.  A person born in one of the States is sovereign (as the above Supreme Court decisions have held) and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.  However, someone with U.S. possession citizenship is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government as there is no guarantee of any rights to U.S. possession citizens in the Constitution.  The U.S. possession citizen is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2209 and at 26 U.S.C. section 2501 subsection (c).  The U.S. possession citizen is contrasted with the “U.S. citizen” between 26 U.S.C. sections 2208 and 2209.  The same contrast is evidenced within 26 U.S.C. section 2501 between subsections 2501(b) and 2501(c). 

          F.I.C.A. is a U.S. possession tax, so the government (as directed by its owners, the Fed) is relying upon the old adage that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and presumes that an American has U.S. possession citizenship and, therefore, is a “U.S. citizen” since that person has applied for F.I.C.A.  Actually, an American applicant has checked the box “U.S. Citizen” on the application form, the “Form SS-5”. 

          The federal government has jurisdiction over its own employees and its possession citizens.  Applying for a Social Security number makes an American into both a federal employee and a citizen with U.S. possession citizenship.  The Social Security enrollee has given away all sovereignty and become a slave for the federal government and its owners, the Federal Reserve.  This allows the Federal Reserve to collect taxes from Americans to pay off the interest on its counterfeit money loans to the government.    

          What about the 16th Amendment you ask?  It was ratified in 1913, 20 years before the government’s bankruptcy to the Federal Reserve.  The 16th Amendment was declared to be Constitutional in the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1(1916) decision three years later. 

          The Supreme Court then ruled in the very next case it decided, Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103 (1916), the following:  “… that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived…”.  The “previous ruling” cited in the Stanton decision was referring to the Brushaber decision.  In the Stanton case decision the Supreme Court has ruled that the government always had the power to tax income, which everyone has latched onto without paying attention to the rest of decision that clearly states that “the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation”. 

          A few years later the Supreme Court again ruled upon the 16th Amendment’s effect on the federal government’s power of taxation.  In Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), the Supreme Court stated, in part:  “The Sixteenth Amendment … does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects …”.  In the Peck decision the Supreme Court again is telling everyone that the 16th Amendment did not extend the federal government’s power or jurisdiction.    

          The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment.  These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning.  Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being generated for the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce.  After all, generating income is a commercial activity. 

          The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), where the Court stated the following:  “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.   

          The statutes that make up the Internal Revenue Code must, therefore, be read in mind with the above Supreme Court decisions as well as the following Supreme Court decision:

          “It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the Constitution.  However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.” – McCullough v. Com of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898).

          Since the revenue being generated by an income tax must come from one of the original commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution, this leads right back to foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. 

          These three commerce jurisdictions are listed separately within title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, chapter 85, “District Courts; Jurisdiction”.  Section 1336, now “Surface Transportation Board’s orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in late 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction.  Section 1362 is “Indian tribes”, obviously the trade with the Indians jurisdiction.  Section 1340 is “Internal revenue; customs duties”, which is the foreign commerce jurisdiction. 

          What the Supreme Court knew when it decided the Brushaber case (listed above) was that the plaintiff, Mr. Frank Brushaber, was a collector/assessor for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, acting as their fiduciary.  So the income tax is within foreign commerce, just as title 28 U.S.C. section 1340 defines above.  The federal government can tax its own tax collectors within its Constitutionally granted commerce jurisdictions.  The Brushaber case was actually a stockholder (Brushaber) versus the company (Union Pacific R.R. Co.) scenario.  The company was withholding taxes of the stockholder.   

          The jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws is defined at 26 U.S.C. section 2197 (1939 Code) as “within the exterior boundaries of the United States”, which is obviously the opposite of “within the interior boundaries of the United States”, in other words, the U.S. possessions.  Once again everything reverts back to the Constitution and the limited jurisdiction of the federal government.

          You must remember that in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified, the Federal Reserve Act was also approved by Congress in December of that year.  And the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which created the “U.S citizen”.  The income tax was originally enacted in an Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, and it applies to collectors and assessors of “internal duties”, which has now morphed into importing duties within the U.S. possessions.  This transformation into importing duties was accomplished by the preplanned Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment in 1919) and its preplanned repeal (Twenty- first Amendment in 1933) during the bankruptcy proceedings in 1936.  It was at that time that the internal revenue laws, along with the industrial alcohol laws (can’t have one without the other), were moved to the U.S. possessions.  The forces behind the scenes have been planning the government’s bankruptcy long ago, almost immediately after the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence stating that “all men are created equal”.

          When the government declares that “all taxpayers must file income tax returns”, that is absolutely true, but one must be a “taxpayer”.  A contract that is not entered into intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily is void ab initio (from the beginning) if the full ramifications are not known by all parties to that contract.  So Americans can simply abolish Social Security.  We can work out how to return everyone’s money (with interest) afterwards.

          The government has another term, that of “U.S. resident” (26 U.S.C. section 865(g)), which includes both of the terms “taxpayer” and “U.S. citizen” within it.  This is what the IRS indictments use to deceptively charge a defendant (victim).

          The Fed has now ordained that healthcare will become a federally controlled system.  The citizens of the U.S. have absolutely no say in this.  If the citizens did have any input, this would be an out-in-the-open debate.  But then, if we were free, sovereign Americans, there would be no debate on healthcare, since the government would only be the defensive force that it was originally set up to be.  The polls, even those polls that are using convoluted questions to predetermine the results, all show that the citizenry is not behind this healthcare fiasco.  What the Fed wants, the Fed gets.  Nothing will change until the Social Security Scam and the federal government’s bankruptcy are exposed. 

          ABOLISH THE FED!!      ABOLISH SOCIAL SECURITY!!      NOW!!         

          To see the entire Social Security Scam, see the main page of this Blog, “The Social Security Scam – Why Taxpayers Must File Income Tax Returns”, for an in depth examination of everything in this Post. 

          No one is going to give you freedom – you must fight for it!  

          I have been in the trenches with the Department of Justice/Federal Judiciary tag-team for nearly 9 years now.  I currently have a case in the federal court that exposes everything on this Post – even much more, for that matter.  Nothing needs to be done but to get exposure on this case.  The government and I filed cross motions for summary judgment in mid-June of 2009 and the court sat on it for over 7 months.  Then after all that time, the court simply obeyed the government’s wishes and ruled in its favor without ever addressing any of the underlying jurisdictional challenges.   America’s ongoing fight for freedom can be won in the federal court without bloodshed if enough people learn what is going on behind the scenes. 

          I have one of the actual court documents on the main Page of this  Blog that can be downloaded.  Anything on a court docket is in the public domain.  Please help publicize my federal tax case, #08-273 (WDPA).  The court document from this case on the main Page of this Blog evidences how to navigate through the dreaded Internal Revenue Code.  (It’s a “code” because no one is supposed to understand it).  We are very close to restoring the freedoms that we were originally guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence over 200 years ago. 

          My name is Larry L. Stuler.  I live at 565 Addison Street, Washington, Pennsylvania, 15301.  I am bringing all of this into the open and I want everyone to know about my case. 

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

          Americans have been brainwashed to believe that Social Security is a social-insurance program run by the federal government for the benefit of all Americans.  After applying for a Social Security number, all Social Security enrollees are liable for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, or F.I.C.A.     

          What exactly is F.I.C.A.?

          Title 26 U.S.C., Internal Revenue”, chapter 21 is titled “Federal Insurance Contributions Act”.  This chapter spans the numerical sections in the 3100’s of the current Internal Revenue Code, specifically sections 3101, 3102, 3111, 3112, 3121, 3122, 3123, 3124, 3125, 3126, 3127, and 3128.  Title 26 U.S.C. chapter 22 is titled “Railroad Retirement Tax Act” and it spans the numerical sections in the 3200’s of the current Internal Revenue Code, specifically sections 3201, 3202, 3211, 3212, 3221, 3231, 3232, 3233, and 3241.  These chapters are within subtitle C, “Employment Taxes”, of the current version (1986) of title 26 U.S.C. “Internal Revenue”.    

          The corresponding code sections from the 1939 version of title 26 U.S.C., “Internal Revenue”, are illuminating.  Chapter 9 under Subtitle B, “Miscellaneous Taxes”, of the 1939 Code is titled “Employment Taxes”.  Within chapter 9, “Employment Taxes”, is subchapter A, “Employment by Others than Carriers”, which is comprised of the section numbers within the 1400’s of the 1939 Code and correspond to the section numbers within the 3100’s of the 1986 Code – “F.I.C.A.”.  Also within chapter 9, “Employment Taxes”, is subchapter B, “Employment by Carriers”, which is comprised of the section numbers within the 1500’s of the 1939 Code and correspond to the section numbers within the 3200’s of the 1986 Code – “Railroad Retirement Tax Act”.  See the link to a table that lists these corresponding section numbers:  Cross Reference from 1939 to 1954 Internal Revenue Codes.

          Therefore the reference to “Carriers” from subchapter B within chapter 9 of the 1939 Code corresponds to the railroads.  A few notes from the 1939 Code specify exactly what “Others than Carriers” are.  Below is the note from the 1939 version of the Code immediately under the title “Subchapter B – Employment by Carriers”: 

                    “Coal-mining employees of railroads, transfer of social insurance and labor relations coverage to laws applicable to coal mining generally from laws applicable to railroad industry by Act Aug. 13, 1940, see note set out under this chapter preceding section 1400.”  See the actual note at this link:  Chapter 9 – subchapter B (1939 Code).  The above note is on the bottom of page 501 of the link.

          The following is part of the note preceding section 1400 as referenced from the above note: 

                    “whether conducted directly by carriers or by subsidiaries of carriers, should for purposes of a social-insurance program and for purposes of labor relations be covered by the system of laws applicable to coal-mining generally rather than the system of laws applicable to the railroad industry.”  See the actual note at this link:  Chapter 9 – subchapter A (1939 Code).  The above note is the last paragraph on page 479 of the link and on to the top of page 480.

          Further research into this Act of Aug.13, 1940, reveals that coal mining operations having a railroad from the tipple to the mine entrance would be considered under the coal mining laws.  In other words, the “Railroad Retirement Tax Act” becomes “F.I.C.A.” when the railroad is on a coal mine from the tipple to the mine entrance.  This explains what the term “Other than Carriers” means – it is a railroad on a coal mine that does not carry passengers as a “Carrier” would.  

          The “Jones Act” of March 4, 1915, (amended June 5, 1920, and again on December 20, 1982) was incorporated into the United States Code at Title 46 U.S.C., “Shipping”, section 688 and was recently (2006) reincorporated at Title 46 U.S.C. Section 30104.  This Act provided that the injury and death benefits of railway workers would apply to seamen.  The railway employee benefits were originally from the Federal Employers’ Liability Acts (Act June 11, 1906, Act April 22, 1908, Act April 5, 1910, and Act August 11, 1939).  The important thing to realize is that these benefits are codified under acts for “Federal Employers” and they apply to federal employees.  The railroads to which the benefits applied were originally federal corporations and the railroads were built through federal land.  Thus, the “Jones Act” preceded the laws that created F.I.C.A. and provided the link that would be used to apply railroad social-insurance and labor-relations laws to seamen.  

         This means that the railroad laws are being used to implement F.I.C.A. after an American applies for a Social Security number.  This is verified by the connection between title 45 U.S.C., “Railroads”, and the implementing regulations from title 45 C.F.R., “Public Welfare”. 

          This Post began with the statement that Americans have been brainwashed to believe that Social Security is a social-insurance program run by the federal government for the benefit of all Americans.  At this point, it is obvious that you have not been fully informed as to what F.I.C.A. is.        

          What you have not been told about Social Security and F.I.C.A. is based upon the following facts and law.  

          The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it states that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) is a self-evident truth.  Therefore, no person or group of persons may initiate force or fraud against any other person or group of persons, including the government.  

          The Constitution is subordinate to the Declaration of Independence and it only grants the federal government jurisdiction over commerce as specified in Article I, Section 8:  “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.  These jurisdictions are otherwise known as foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians. 

          The federal government has no jurisdiction over commerce that is intrastate, in other words, commerce that is entirely within a sovereign State.  The Supreme Court has held that sovereignty lies with the individual American.  The two previous sentences are true because of the self-evident truth put forward in the Declaration of Independence that “all men (and women) are created equal”. 

          In the 1930’s the Federal Reserve bankrupted the federal government.  This is evidenced by the law itself:  title 11 U.S.C. “Bankruptcy” is implemented by title 11 C.F.R. “Federal Elections”.  In other words, the federal elections are held to elect a bankruptcy administration.  The C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) was created in 1935 as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.  

          The Federal Reserve is nothing more than an international counterfeiter – printing unbacked paper money.  A real “dollar” is a unit of measure – a “dollar” is defined in the law as a specific amount of gold or silver.  If someone asked you to go the store and buy a “gallon”, what would you buy?  A “gallon” is simply a unit of measure and could apply to nearly any commodity.  A Federal Reserve “dollar” is only backed by debt – it is counterfeit money.  The bankruptcy is therefore a fraud since the federal government never received anything of value – simply unbacked paper money worth only the ink and paper of which it’s made.  

          Since the federal government has no jurisdiction over commerce that is intrastate and, as well, since sovereignty lies with the individual American, bankrupting the federal government did not help the Federal Reserve with its plan to make Americans pay for its interest on its counterfeit money loans to the federal government. 

          However, the bankruptcy of the federal government was long ago preplanned by the international counterfeiters.  They had preplanned the Social Security scam.           

          By applying for a Social Security number, a free sovereign American has made a contract with the federal government.  The federal government can offer no social-insurance program to a sovereign American due to the constraints built into the Constitution which prevent initiatory force, thus precluding any enforcement provisions.  Therefore, the contract that a sovereign American has unwittingly made with the federal government is an employment contract – an American gave away all sovereignty and became a federal employee by applying for a Social Security number.  Think about it – only federal employees are liable for federal employment taxes.  

          In addition, since the federal government’s jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution, the only social-insurance program that it is capable of offering must legally apply within its own limited jurisdiction.  Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution states, in part:  “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”.  The U.S. possessions and territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government since these areas have not become sovereign States.  This means that F.I.C.A. must be a tax within the jurisdiction of the federal government – within the U.S. possessions (there are no territories currently).  This is stated in the law at Title 26 U.S.C., “Internal Revenue”, Section 7655 “Cross References”, where both F.I.C.A. and the self-employment tax are declared to be U.S. possession taxes. 

          The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was approved to allow multiple taxing authorities to tax federal employees, specifically F.I.C.A. within Social Security.  Title 4 U.S.C. Section 111, “Same; taxation affecting Federal employees; income tax”, is part of the codification of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.   Under the “Notes of Decisions” within the United States Code following this section is this: 

                    “The Puerto Rican Legislature is a “duly constituted taxing authority” within meaning of this section, whereby the United States consented to the taxation of compensation of federal employees…”.  Rivera v Buscaglia (1944, CA1 Puerto Rico). 

          This means that in addition to becoming a federal employee by applying for a Social Security number, an American enrollee is also presumed to have acquired U.S. possession citizenship.  This type of citizen is defined as a “term” known as a “U.S. citizen” in the law at title 26 U.S.C., “Internal Revenue”, section 2208, “Certain residents of possessions considered citizens of the United States”, and subsection 2501(b), “Certain residents of possessions considered citizens of the United States”.  The “U.S. citizen” is exemplified at 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1(c) as a citizen born in one of the States who establishes a residence in Puerto Rico and, further, acquires Puerto Rican citizenship.  See the Post titled “U.S. Resident” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g on this Blog for more detail concerning “U.S. citizen” and other legal “terms”. 

          How could a “Railroad Retirement Tax Act” that is considered to be “F.I.C.A.” when on a coal mine, and, due to the “Jones Act”, applicable to seamen, have anything to do with applying for Social Security?  As noted above, an American applying for a Social Security number has made a contract with the federal government and become a federal employee.  Specifically, the Social Security enrollee has become a “taxpayer”.  A “taxpayer” is a term within the law defined at Title 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) as a member of the Merchant Marine, in other words, a seaman.  Note at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) it states that this is the definition for all calculations of taxes throughout the code and the regulations.   

          The federal government is bound by the Constitution, even under bankruptcy.  The federal government must always obey the law, otherwise the government has no legal standing.  The federal government can pass no law that has anything to do with regulating sovereign Americans since the Declaration of Independence states that “all men (and women) are created equal”, thus precluding any enforcement provisions.  But the federal government may make any laws it chooses that apply to its own employees and its own possession citizens.  By creating a contract known as Social Security the owners of the federal government, the Federal Reserve, have made their enslavement of Americans “legal”.  However, a contract that is not entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily is void ab initio (from the beginning).  

          For a complete understanding of the Social Security scam please see the Page on this Blog titled “The Social Security Scam – Why All Taxpayers Must File Income Tax Returns” at the top of this Post.

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

          Ever since the ink dried on the words “all men are created equal” within the Declaration of Independence, there have been powers behind the scene out to undermine America.  If the principles of the phrase “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women) are upheld, there would be no federal alphabet agency with any jurisdiction over a sovereign American.  Well, believe it or not, no federal alphabet agency has any jurisdiction over a sovereign American, but they all have jurisdiction over a “U.S. Resident”.  An American that has applied for a Social Security number is presumed to be a “U.S. Resident”.  A “U.S. Resident” includes being a “taxpayer”, which is a term that is defined as a member of the Merchant Marine (in other words, a federal employee – only federal employees are liable for federal employment taxes), and a “U.S. Citizen”, which is a term that is defined as an American that has also acquired U.S. possession citizenship.  If the reader is unfamiliar with the definitions of the legal terms “U.S. Resident”, “taxpayer”, and “U.S. Citizen” in the last sentence, please see more at the Post “The U.S. Resident” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g of this Blog.  All “U.S. Residents” are federal government tax collectors of revenue from importing duties within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws – the U.S. possessions.  The government’s regulatory agencies are implementing laws on its own tax collectors – the “U.S. Residents”. 

          The drug and medicine laws are derived from the internal revenue laws.  Since internal revenue is a special part of the customs, all legal actions are brought under the importing provisions of the law at title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”.  (See more at the Post titled “Internal Revenue Jurisdiction” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3Z of this Blog).  Keeping secret the source of jurisdiction for internal revenue (importing provisions) is of the utmost importance to the government. 

          The Revised Statutes from the 1870’s evidence that within title XXXV, “Internal Revenue”, there were specific objects that were subject to stamp taxes.  Here is a link from the Revised Statutes to title XXXV, “Internal Revenue”, chapter 9, “Stamp-taxes on Specific Objects”:  Revised Statutes – Title 35, “Internal Revenue”, Chapter 9  Note that section 3419, “Tax on medicines or preparations, perfumery, cosmetics, etc.” on the statute heading list is the statute that imposes a stamp tax on drugs and medicines.  Within section 3419 itself there is no mention of the specific items upon which the tax is imposed, but instead the stamp taxes are levied upon “the articles mentioned in Schedule A”.  Schedule A is a listing of medicines, preparations, perfumery, cosmetics, etc.  See this link:  Schedule A from the Revised Statutes.  “Internal revenue” is a special part of the customs – customs gains revenue for the government from importing duties dealing with foreign countries while internal revenue gains revenue from importing duties dealing with the U.S. possessions.  Within title 19 U.S.C., “Customs Duties”, all importing duties are determined by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule.  See the link to Title 19 U.S.C. Section 1202 – Tariff Schedule that describes the publishing of the tariff schedule.  Since internal revenue is a part of the customs, then it is natural for internal revenue to use a schedule to determine its duties.    

          Two sections of great importance from the Revised Statutes within title XXXV, “Internal Revenue”, are cited under chapter 11, “Provisions Common to Several Objects of Taxation”.  One of the sections within chapter 11 is section 3448, which defines the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws as “within the external boundaries of the United States” which is obviously the opposite of “within the internal boundaries of the United States”, or, in other words, the possessions and territories of the United States.  This is now referenced from title 19 U.S.C., “Customs Duties”, within section 1317, “Tobacco products; supplies for certain vessels and aircraft”, where it directs to title 26 U.S.C., “Internal Revenue”, section 2197, “Territorial extent of law” (from the 1939 Internal Revenue Code), to see the definition of the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.  Revised Statute 3448 is the predecessor of title 26 U.S.C. section 2197 (1939 Code), which is now found at title 26 U.S.C. section 5065, “Territorial extent of law”.  The other important section from title XXXV of the Revised Statutes is section 3464 which defines that importing is the basis of the internal revenue laws.  This is the predecessor of title 26 U.S.C. section 7510, “Exemption from tax of domestic goods purchased for the United States”, of the current Internal Revenue Code.  See Revised Statutes – Title 35, “Internal Revenue”, Chapter 11, “Provisions Common to Several Objects of Taxation”, along with sections 3448 and 3464. 

          The drug laws were transferred from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to the Secretary of the Treasury by an Act of Congress approved on March 3, 1927.  See the link to section 163 within Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 161 – 165

          As evidenced above, this was done in 1927 during the preplanned prohibition years in order to prepare for the preplanned federal government bankruptcy (in the 1930’s) by the Federal Reserve – the international counterfeiters.  The federal government is just a bankrupt tool for its owners, the Federal Reserve.  The law evidences that the government is bankrupt:  title 11 U.S.C., “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 C.F.R., “Federal Elections”.  This means that voting for federal officials is simply voting for the administration of a bankruptcy – all controlled by the international counterfeiters.  

          The federal government and its owners, the Federal Reserve, have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that the jurisdiction of “internal revenue” is based upon importing laws.  In order to make it appear that the government also had jurisdiction to control drugs, the government had to separate those laws from the internal revenue laws.  However, the original jurisdiction of the drug laws is still based upon the internal revenue laws, and, therefore, importing duties.  The government cannot change its Constitutionally granted powers or jurisdiction without an Amendment to the Constitution. 

          There is no listing under title 18 U.S.C., “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”, in part I, “Crimes”, that is based directly upon the drug laws.  Here is a link to the list of all the chapters within Title 18 U.S.C., “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”, Part I – “Crimes”.  Chapter 17A, “Common Carrier Operation Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs”, is the only chapter with a reference to drugs.    

           However, chapter 68, which is now repealed, originally had to do with drugs.  Within it, at section 1403 and 1404, it evidences that the basis of jurisdiction for the drug laws was originally based upon importing and exporting.  See link to Title 18 U.S.C., “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”, Chapter 68 which is now repealed. 

           This is a link to Title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, Chapter 6, “Narcotic Drugs”.  This chapter has now been repealed and superceded by new statutes.  Note that the very first subdivision is titled “Importation or Exportation”.  Every statute within chapter 6 has either been repealed or transferred to a new location.  Of chief importance are sections 198a through 198c under the subdivision titled “Miscellaneous”.  See the link:  Title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, Sections 198a -198c.  Section 198a has been transferred to section 967, section 198b has been transferred to section 968, and section 198c has been transferred to section 969.  These sections will be examined further on in this Post.   

          Title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, chapter 13, “Drug Abuse Prevention and Control”, now lists the crimes concerning narcotic drugs.  What the legislative draftsmen have done is to write the statutes in such a way that anyone charged with a violation of one of the sections within Subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, is presumed to be charged under the jurisdiction of subchapter II, “Import and Export”, as well.  See the link here to Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 965, “Applicability of part E of subchapter I” .  Part E of subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, is titled “Administrative and Enforcement Provisions”.  Within section 965 it states that whatever administrative and judicial proceedings apply under subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, shall apply under the administrative and judicial proceedings under subchapter II, “Import and Export”.  At first blush it would seem that the provisions under subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, are the source of the jurisdiction for the proceedings within subchapter II, “Import and Export”.  However, section 965 then states that for the purposes of application of this section (965) any reference in section 880 or 881 to “this subchapter” (both sections 880 and 881 are within part E, “Administrative and Enforcement Provisions”, of subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”) shall be deemed to be a reference to this subchapter (“Import and Export”).  It then states that any reference to section 823 (within subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”) shall be deemed to be a reference to section 958 (within subchapter II, “Import and Export”).  It further states that any reference to section 822(d) (within subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”) is to be deemed to be a reference to section 957(b)(2) (within subchapter II, “Import and Export”).     

          What title 21 U.S.C. Section 965 has done is to deem that the sections that actually convey jurisdiction to the administrative and judicial proceedings set out in part E, “Administrative and Enforcement Provisions”, of subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, be based upon the sections cited above within subchapter II, “Import and Export”.  These sections are simply “deemed” to be referenced – this “legally” bases the drug laws on the importing/exporting laws without ever stating it in the charge itself.  Once any of these cites are used as the basis of a drug violation, then the administrative and judicial proceedings have jurisdiction, since the actual basis of the jurisdiction has been deemed to be cited by the provisions of section 965.  Further, since subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, details all of the provisions that apply in the administrative and judicial proceedings, there is no need to cite the underlying basis of any charge from subchapter II, “Import and Export”. 

          Title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, section 965 specifically states that any time that section 880, “Administrative inspections and warrants”, or section 881, “Forfeitures”, references “this subchapter” it shall be deemed a reference to subchapter II, “Imports and exports”.   Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 880 “Administrative inspections and warrants” uses the phrase “this subchapter” in the following of its subsections:  (a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(3)(A), (b)(3)(B), and (d)(1) – sometimes more than once in each subsection.  Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881 “Forfeitures” uses the phrase “this subchapter” in the following of its subsections:  (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9), (c), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2)(A), (e)(4)(B), (f)(1), (f)(2), and (g)(1) – again, sometimes more than once in each subsection.     

          Also note that the sections from the repealed chapter 6, “Narcotic Drugs”, within title 21 U.S.C. listed above – section 198a through section 198c (transferred to sections 967 through 969) – are now within subchapter II, “Import and Export” (comprising sections 951 through 971), of chapter 13.  Section 967 grants the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, compel attendance of witnesses, take evidence, require production of records, etc.  Section 968 concerns the serving of subpoenas and the proof of service.  Section 969 grants the court jurisdiction for contempt proceedings.  See the link to Title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, Sections 967 – 969.  As evidenced above, title 21 U.S.C. section 965 deems that part E (“Administrative and Enforcement Provisions”) of subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement” is based upon subchapter II, “Import and Export”.  Everything that was the original basis of the narcotic drugs – importing/exporting – is still intact.  Since an American who has applied for a Social Security number is presumed to be a “U.S. Resident” involved with collecting importing duties within the U.S. possessions, the drug laws are necessarily based upon importing. 

          Now let’s examine title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, for the jurisdiction and venue statutes based upon drugs.  Here is a link to a list of the sections of code within Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 85 and Chapter 87 – chapter 85 is titled “District courts; jurisdiction” and chapter 87 is titled “District courts; venue”.  Since as evidenced above that there is no crime listed for drug violations under title 18 U.S.C., “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”, it is logical that there is no jurisdiction cite based upon drugs in title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, either.  This is because the government wants to hide the fact that the jurisdiction of internal revenue is based upon importing laws and, further, that the drug laws originated within the internal revenue laws. 

          What there is listed as a jurisdictional grant to the courts in title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, is  Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1355 “Fine, penalty and forfeiture”.  Within section 1355(b)(1)(B) is a reference to section 1395.  Title 28 U.S.C. section 1395 is within chapter 87, “District courts; venue”, and it is also titled “Fine, penalty or forfeiture”.  Here is the link to Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1395.  Note under the “Historical and Revision Notes” of section 1395 it states that this section is based on previous title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, sections and also title 26 U.S.C., “Internal Revenue”, section 3745(c).  The cite to 26 U.S.C. section 3745 is from the 1939 version of the Code.  Here is a link to Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 3745 (1939 Code), “Suits for fines, penalties, and forfeitures”. 

          These sections grant the courts jurisdiction and venue for any forfeiture, including the drug laws, while burying the secret that the drug laws are within internal revenue, and, further, that internal revenue is based upon importing duties.

          Within title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, section 881, “Forfeitures” (one of the sections specifically cited within section 965 as evidenced above), is a further extension of venue jurisdiction at subsection (j) that cites to title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, section 1395, “Fine, penalty and forfeiture”.  Section 1395 within title 28 U.S.C. is the section evidenced above that was based upon previous title 28 U.S.C. sections and section 3745 from title 26 U.S.C. (1939 version).  This is more evidence that any drug charge within title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, from chapter 13, “Drug Abuse Prevention and Control”, subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, is actually based upon the jurisdiction of subchapter II, “Import and Export”, provisions.  These import and export provisions originated within the internal revenue laws.  A “U.S. Resident” is subject to the internal revenue laws as a tax collector for the federal government.

          Now returning to title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”, there is chapter 46, “Forfeiture”, which includes sections 981 through 987. 

          Title 18 U.S.C. Section 981 “Civil forfeiture”, was part of Public Law 99-570, which was chiefly the codification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the current Code).  This section cites to the “Controlled Substance Act” in several subsections:  (a)(1)(B)(i), (b)(4)(A), and (k)(1)(A).  As noted in the “References in Text” section at the end of the statute, this Act is codified in title 21 U.S.C. “Food and Drugs” under subchapter I of chapter 13, “Drug Abuse Prevention and Control”.  Subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement” derives its jurisdictional authority from subchapter II, “Import and Export” as evidenced above. 

          Title 18 U.S.C. Section 982 “Criminal forfeiture”, at subsection (b)(1) cites to the “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act” and notes that this is codified at title 21 U.S.C. section 853, which is also titled “Criminal forfeiture”.  Title 21 U.S.C. section 853 is within subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, of chapter 13, “Drug Abuse Prevention and Control”, which derives its authority from subchapter II, “Import and Export”, as evidenced above.

          Public Law 91-513, “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970”, was approved on October 27, 1970.  Its passage into law removed the last obvious connections between the drug laws and the internal revenue laws.  As evidenced above, chapter 68 within title 18 U.S.C., “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”, was repealed – it was repealed by Public Law 91-513.           

          Within the main page of this Blog, “The Social Security Scam” (at http://wp.me/PCW6e-E ) both FICA and the self-employment tax are U.S. possession taxes as evidenced at Title 26 U.S.C., “Internal Revenue”, Section 7655 “Cross references”.  Under the Amendments section at the end of section 7655 it lists Public Law 91-513 as having deleted paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4).  These paragraphs evidenced that the taxes on narcotic drugs and marihuana are U.S. possession taxes.  The U.S. possessions are the source of the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws. 

          Public Law 91-513 enacted title 21 U.S.C. chapter 13, “Drug Abuse Prevention and Control”, which has been elaborated upon in this Post.  Therefore, Public Law 91-513 created the separation of subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, and the underlying jurisdiction from subchapter II, “Import and Export”, by including title 21 U.S.C. section 965,   “Applicability of part E of subchapter I”. 

          Public Law 91-513, “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970”, which enacted title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, chapter 13, “Drug Abuse Prevention and Control”, is also known as other acts.  Title II of Public Law 91-513 is known as the “Controlled Substances Act” and it enacted subchapter I, “Control and Enforcement”, of chapter 13.  Title III of Public Law 91-513 is known as the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act” and it enacted subchapter II, “Import and Export”, of chapter 13.  All of this is separated in order to keep the basis of jurisdiction hidden from the public. 

          The government has used the above evidenced subterfuge to hide their authority concerning drugs and medicine.  However, what about when someone is wrongfully convicted and their property has been forfeited?  The government must then have laws in place that will be followed to return the forfeited property.  Since the government does not want to expose the underlying jurisdiction that it is relying upon in certain forfeiture actions, the recovery provisions also must keep this secret.  Title 28 section 2461, “Mode of recovery”, has been set up to do this.  Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2461 evidences in the “Historical and Revision Notes” section after the statute that it was written because of what the government states to be a “serious ambiguity in existing law” concerning the recovery of fines, penalties, and forfeitures.  This would not have been the case if the government were not trying to hide the underlying jurisdiction that it is relying upon to aggrandize its powers.  Subsection (c) specifically cites to the “Controlled Substances Act” (title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 853). 

          One final important jurisdictional observation is found at the end of title 21 U.S.C., “Food and Drugs”, section 881, “Forfeitures”.  After the section of law under the heading of “Transfer of Functions” it states that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs is abolished and a new bureau to be known as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is created.  It further states that there will maximum cooperation between the DEA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

          The FBI is one of the many federal alphabet agencies created during the 1930’s when the Federal Reserve bankrupted the federal government.  The authority granted to the FBI is cited at title 28 U.S.C., “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, section 533, “Investigative and other officials; appointment”, where it directs that the FBI is charged with investigating crimes against the United States, protecting the President, protecting the Attorney General, and other matters under the Department of Justice and the Department of State.  See link Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 533.  The only people over which the FBI has jurisdiction is set out in title 28 U.S.C. section 535, “Investigation of crimes involving Government officials and employees; limitations”, as government officials and employees.  See link Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 535.  There is no section of law that grants the FBI any investigative jurisdiction over sovereign Americans.  An American has given up all sovereignty when applying for a Social Security number by becoming a federal employee and, therefore, subject to the FBI’s investigative powers. 

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

          If you have read the main page of this Blog, “The Social Security Scam” ( http://wp.me/PCW6e-E ), then you realize that this is the same kind of subterfuge behind the income tax provisions of the law.  The government and its owners, the Federal Reserve, have gone to great lengths to make it appear that simply working for a living and earning income is a federally controlled activity.  Under the principles of “all men are created equal” this could never be true.  In fact, an income tax is the most obvious tyranny possible – it’s the second plank of the Communist Manifesto.  So a long, slow process for over 150 years was executed to brainwash Americans that somehow the federal government, which is only made up of other Americans, owned all American’s labor and income.  The Social Security scam was the final piece developed by the international counterfeiters to enslave sovereign Americans.   

          Importing has been used as the basis of jurisdiction to constantly aggrandize the federal government’s seemingly endless powers.  But the reality is that Americans have the sovereignty in this country since the Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land and it states that “all men are created equal” (and, of course, women).  Therefore, no person or group of persons may ever initiate force or fraud against another person or group of persons, including the federal government.  When the Federal Reserve bankrupted the federal government it still had no way to make a sovereign American pay its interest on the counterfeit money that it loaned to the federal government.  Therefore, the Social Security scam was designed to enslave all Americans.  When an American applies for a Social Security number, the federal government presumes that the American is a “U.S. Resident”.  A “U.S. Resident” is both a “taxpayer”, a member of the Merchant Marine (a federal employee liable for federal employment taxes) and a “U.S. Citizen”, an American who also has U.S. possession citizenship.    

          Within the income tax laws that only apply to collectors and assessors of “internal duties” (see the Post titled “The Income Tax and the Act of Congress that Established It” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-4A on this Blog) all “U.S. residents” (see the Post titled “The “U.S. Resident” at http://wp.me/pCW6e-3g on this Blog) are deemed as “shareholders” of U.S. corporation stock and then as such “shareholder” each is attributed an undistributed dividend, such dividend being based upon income taxes paid by the corporation’s foreign subsidiary.  This corporation is deemed to be a partnership for the purposes of the dividends.  This undistributed dividend is the basis for the liability for the income tax.  The undistributed dividend is offset by the “U.S. Resident’s” foreign tax credit – FICA.  FICA is a U.S. possession tax.  The Internal Revenue Individual Tax Form (1040) is a foreign tax credit form automatically.           

          A real crime consists of a victim and a perpetrator.  The perpetrator has either initiated force or fraud against the victim.  This means that the victim’s rights have been violated.  The two sides are drawn in this type of scenario and the laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. are clear.  A court action may be initiated and the jury may deliberate after hearing all of the testimony.  This upholds the premise that “all men are created equal”.   

          But when some federal government agency files a complaint against an American, what is the basis of the crime?  The federal agency simply cites some regulation that the American violated – no victim is identified, no one’s rights have been violated.  This does not uphold the premise that “all men are created equal”, but presumes that the federal government, through some bureaucratic agency, can force an American to do its bidding.  How did this happen?  The answer is buried deep in the Social Security scam.  Applying for a Social Security number is tantamount to begging to be subservient to the federal government.

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

          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. 

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