Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Taxpayer

          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.

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

Advertisements

          The federal government defines various words within its statutes and regulations – these words are known as “terms”.  Once the legislature defines a term, the original definition of that word as found in a dictionary no longer has any relevance.

          There are many “terms” that are common, ordinary, and everyday words within the Social Security/personal income tax scam.  Some of the “terms” that are used in the Internal Revenue Code that fall into this category of common, ordinary, everyday words are “U.S. citizen”, “taxpayer”, “employee”, and the one that includes all of these – “U.S. resident”.  (All of the legal definitions of these “terms” are also evidenced on the main page of this blog which includes the link to my court document filed in federal case #08-273 (WDPA)).

          A quick summary of these “terms” follows:

                    (1)  “U.S. citizen” – an American, in other words, someone born in one of the sovereign states, who then establishes a residence in a U.S. possession (including Puerto Rico) and, further, acquires U.S. possession citizenship (including Puerto Rican citizenship).  This definition is exemplified within Title 26 C.F.R. 25.2501-1 at subsection (c), which in turn references back to Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 2501 at subsection (b) where it states that this is the definition of the term “citizen” throughout the title.  Notice that it states here that “citizen” is a term.  This definition is contrasted with the definition of U.S. possession citizen within 26 U.S.C. section 2501 at subsection (c).  The same contrast between “U.S. citizen” and U.S. possession citizen is found at Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 2208 and 2209.

                    (2)  “Taxpayer” – a “citizen” who establishes, or seeks to establish, a construction reserve fund under the provisions of Section 511 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (and may include a partnership).  This definition is found at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(a)(5) and within the same set of definitions (Title 26 C.F.R., “Internal Revenue”, Section 2.1-1 “Definitions”) at 26 C.F.R. 2.1-1(b) it states that the terms used there have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder for computation and collection of taxes.  Notice that it states that “taxpayer” is a term.

                    (3)  “Employee” – a federal employee.  This definition is found within title 26 U.S.C. Section 7701, “Definitions”, subsection (j) (4), “Tax treatment of Federal Thrift Savings Fund”, where it states that the term “employee” has the same meaning as when used in subchapter III of chapter 84 of title 5 U.S.C.  Title 5 U.S.C. is “Government Organizations and Employees”.  Subsection (j)(4) states that these definitions are for the purposes of the subsection, which in turn is preceded by subsection (j)(1) which states that its purpose applies to the entire title.  Also, as evidenced above, the definition of the term “taxpayer” has to do with the Merchant Marine – federal employees.  Notice that the definition states that “employee” is a term.

                    (4)  “U.S. Resident” – This is the granddaddy of all of the federal legislature’s terms.  It includes all of the above terms as well as the cite to 26 U.S.C. Section 911, which is the cite for importing within the jurisdiction of the internal revenue laws.  “Resident” is defined within 26 U.S.C. Section 865, “Source rules for personal property sales”, at Title 26 U.S.C. subsection 865(g) “United States resident; nonresident”.  Here it states the following:  “Except as otherwise provided in this subsection- (A) United States resident.  The term “United States resident” means – (i) any individual who – (I) is a United States citizen or a resident alien and does not have a tax home  (as defined in section 911(d)(3)) in a foreign country or (II) is a nonresident alien and has a tax home (as so defined) in the United States and (ii) any corporation, trust, or estate which is a United States person (as defined in section 7701(a)(30)).  Notice that the statute states that “U.S. resident” is a term.  The reference to “tax home” is the coordination to the term “taxpayer” (a “taxpayer” has a “tax home”).

          The use of the term “resident” by the federal government obviously includes a lot of hidden definitions by including other terms in its own definition.  It is of extreme importance to note that the definition of “resident” includes a corporation, a trust, and an estate.  A corporation, a trust, and an estate are all legal entities, in other words, these are entities created by the government within the filing of the relevant legal papers. 

          The government naturally has control over its own legal entities, such as corporations, trusts, and estates.  However, the government does not have control over sovereign Americans.  After all, “We the People” created the government, not the other way around, as in the case of a corporation or a trust or an estate.

          The Supreme Court has held that sovereignty in America lies with the people, not the government.  The following are a sample of such rulings by the Supreme Court:   

          (1)          “Under our system the people, who are there (in England) called subjects, are here the sovereign…Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of a monarch.  The citizen here (in America) knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself to whom he need yield the rights  which the law secures to him…” – United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 208.

          (2)          “The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation.  He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.  His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” – Hale V. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 at 74.

          (3)          “There is no such thing as a power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States.  In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it:  All else is withheld.” – Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421.

          (4)          “Here (in America) sovereignty rests with the People.” – Chisholm v. Georgia, 1 L.Ed (2 Dall.) 415.

          U.S. possession citizens do not have the freedom that sovereign Americans are supposed to have as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The U.S. government owns the U.S. possessions and, therefore, U.S. possession citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.                

          The Internal Revenue Code immediately informs everyone of the jurisdiction under which it is proceeding at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1, “Income tax on individuals”, subsection (c), where it states:  “Who is a citizen.  Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.  For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Naturality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459).”.  Title 8 U.S.C. is “Aliens and Nationality” and it concerns gaining U.S. citizenship within the U.S. possessions.  Why would an American, a person born within one of the sovereign states, have any nexus with acquiring U.S. citizenship within the provisions of title 8 U.S.C., “Aliens and Nationality”?

          The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states in section 1 the following:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”.  It is obvious that the cite above from 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) is referring to the 14th Amendment citizen, otherwise known as the “U.S. citizen”.       

          As evidenced on the main page of this Blog, the U.S. possessions are all treated as foreign countries within the Internal Revenue Code (see 26 U.S.C. section 865(i)(3), section 872(b)(7), and section 2014(g) for example).  Since the U.S. possessions are treated as foreign countries, then the act of acquiring U.S. possession citizenship is, therefore, considered foreign under the internal revenue laws.

           The following will reference the definition of “U.S. resident” as cited above.  The use of the term “resident” to include at 26 U.S.C. section 865(g)(1)(A)(i)(I) a United States citizen along with a resident alien and at section 865(g)(1)(A)(i)(II) a nonresident alien is a giveaway to the foreign nature that must exist within the definition of the term “U.S. citizen”.

          By considering a sovereign American instead as a “U.S. citizen”, the federal government has done two things in order to establish jurisdiction over them:  (1) presuming that the American has acquired U.S. possession citizenship and become subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government and (2) deeming the U.S. possessions as foreign countries and, thus, considering the “U.S. citizen” as a foreigner for the purposes of the internal revenue laws.  As evidenced on the main page of this Blog, internal revenue is a subset of the customs, and is based upon the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution.

          All IRS indictments secretly hide the actual charge against a defendant (victim) by simply designating the defendant as a “resident”, usually within the section “Parties” of the indictment.  This is how the government and the courts have been able to claim jurisdiction over sovereign Americans. 

          I was falsely indicted and convicted in 2001 for three counts of the violation of title 26 U.S.C. section 7203, “Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax”.  Back in 2001 I had no understanding of the internal revenue laws – after all, no one outside of the government is supposed to understand the law.  But I did eventually discover all of the information that I am publishing in this Blog.

          Since I now understand that the word “resident” is the secret charge of the indictment against me, I filed to have my appeal reinstated and to have the appellate court rule on my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to include all of the elements of the charge of being a “resident”.  There have been many Supreme Court decisions that have stated that an indictment must go to the specifics.  If a person doesn’t understand the charge in the indictment, it is impossible to defend oneself.

          The Supreme Court most clearly addresses this issue within Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, where it held the following:  “Although the language of the statute may be used in the general description of an offense in an indictment upon the statute, it is not sufficient to set forth the offense in the words of the statute unless those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished; where the statutory language does not apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him, it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform him of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.”

          The challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time, including long after the court has closed the case.  I filed my motion to reinstate my appeal and then rule on my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the indictment for failing to include all the elements of the charge of “resident” around May 19, 2006.  This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 8, 2006:  Court Docket – June 8, 2006.  This docket was printed on June 8, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page.  As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of May 19, 2006, at 6:03 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket.  Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is designated as “Appellee” and I am designated as “Appellant”.  This is the correct designation.  

          This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 9, 2006:  Court Docket – June 9, 2006.   This docket was printed on June 9, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page.  As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of June 8, 2006, at 6:03 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket.  Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is no longer designated as “Appellee”, while I am still properly designated as “Appellant”.  This is the court’s way of acknowledging that both parties have joined in the motion.  This is blatant docket tampering. 

          This is a link to the appellate court’s order dated June 8, 2006:  Court Order of June 8, 2006.  This is the same day that the docket was tampered with in order to make it appear that the government had joined in my motion (the date of the court order is circled in turquoise on the lower left hand side of the page).  As it states on the docket, the court denied my motion because a “Response was due 5/30/06”.  Obviously, since I filed the motion I do not have a response due.  However, had the government joined in the motion and then if the government failed to respond, the motion could be denied for the lack of response.  This docket tampering allowed the government to literally hijack my motion.   

          This is a link to the court docket as of the morning of June 10, 2006:  Court Docket – June 10, 2006.  This docket was printed on June 10, 2006, as circled in pink on the lower right hand side of the page.  As shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, it states that this is the docket as of June 9, 2006, at 6:01 P.M., which means that this was the last time that anything was updated on the docket.  Also shown within the turquoise marker on the docket, the United States of America is once again designated as “Appellee” and I am designated as “Appellant”.  This is now back to the correct designation.  

          I then filed another motion to reinstate my appeal and included the above docket sheets as evidence of docket tampering.  The government tampered with the docket in the exact same manner again by removing the designation of the United States of America as “Appellee” on July 13, 2006.  Here is a link to the court order dated July 13, 2006:  Court Order of July 13, 2006.  Once more the court denied my motion because a “Response was due 6/29/06.”.  The designation of “Appellee” was again restored on the following day.  Here is a link to copies of the court docket for July 12, 2006, through July 14, 2006 (printed on the following mornings of July 13 through July 15):  Court Dockets as of July 12 – 14, 2006

          The United States government is nothing but a bankrupt entity for the international counterfeiters (Federal Reserve System) who are trying to collect their interest from their loans of counterfeit money to the government.

          It is quite clear that the government will not allow the court to ever sit in judicial review of my supplemental brief that challenged the sufficiency of the IRS indictment to include all of the elements of the charge of “resident”.   

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

          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. 

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