Table of ContentsPatriot's Field Guide Public Disclaimer..........................................1What is the Patriot Movement?.......................................................2Groups within the Patriot Movement..............................................3The Law...........................................................................................5Constitutions..................................................................................16Citizenship.....................................................................................26The 14th Amendment Clarified.....................................................35Constitutional Issues of Taxation...................................................45Debunking IRS Lies......................................................................59The United States Code.................................................................68Code of Federal Regulations.........................................................71Federal Income Tax.......................................................................76The “Willful Failure to File” Scam!..............................................88Employment Taxes........................................................................91Inside the Tax Honesty Movement: ............................................108Hard Lessons Learned.................................................................116Common Mistakes To Watch For................................................119State Sales Tax.............................................................................121INS Form I-9...............................................................................127Trusts...........................................................................................135The Federal Firearms Act............................................................143THE MAGNA CARTA...............................................................149Mayflower Compact : 1620 ........................................................156Declaration of Independence.......................................................157The Constitution of the United States..........................................160Bill of Rights and amendments to the U.S. Constitution............168Additional Resources found online at the following links:.........178

Watch this FIRST!!!America: Freedom to Fascismhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

1

Patriot's Field Guide Public Disclaimer

This document is for informational purposes only.

The founder of Original Intent, and the editor of this document, is a Citizen of California and is exercising his unalienable right to engage in free and open political discourse concerning the deeds and misdeeds of the governments which comprise the states of the Union, and/or the National government, and/or the Federal government. This document is a petition for redress of grievances to the states of the Union, and to the United States government.

The states of the Union are barred from interfering with such political discourse by the applicable provisions in their respective constitutions, and the United States is barred from interfering with such political discourse by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The purpose of this document is to encourage The People to understand, and thus obey, the laws pertaining to a myriad of State and Federal subjects.

The founder of Original Intent, and the editor of this document, is not "anti-government". Every society requires a government of some nature. America has its governments and this document hopes to encourage Americans to work toward restoring this nation to the principles established under the original Constitutions of the states of the Union, and in federal matters, the principles sought after by this nation's Founding Fathers and memorialized in the Constitution of the United States. The principles espoused by the Founding Fathers created the finest Republic yet invented by the mind of man. The founder of Original Intent, and its editor, is opposed solely to the unlawful and unconstitutional acts of certain elected and appointed government officers and employees; the concerns focusing upon acts that are both immoral and unlawful.

The founder of Original Intent, and the editor of this document, is not an attorney or a licensed tax professional, nor is the content of this document written by any attorney or licensed tax professional. No tax or legal advice of any kind is offered in this document. Nowhere in this document will one find false or fraudulent statements about the federal tax laws intending to cause irreparable injury to the United States or to cause a substantial loss of revenue to the United States Treasury. Any incidental loss to the Treasury can be attributed to the conclusions arrived at by The People, who have undertaken to read tax laws for themselves and have come to the conclusion that many of those laws are being misapplied in a manner that is both unconstitutional and unlawful. Original Intent, and its editor, has no control over conclusions that are independently and individually arrived at by each American Citizen. It is the duty of each Citizen to determine if he is a "taxpayer" and then to take personal responsibility for whatever decision he makes.

Nothing in this document is intended to interfere with the proper administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, nor can there be found any false, deceptive, or misleading commercial statement regarding the excludability of income that the founder and editor knows or has reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter, nor any information pertaining to the organizing or selling of an abusive tax shelter, plan or arrangement that might incite taxpayers to attempt to violate the internal revenue laws, or to unlawfully evade the assessment or collection of their federal tax liabilities, or to unlawfully claim improper tax refunds.

2

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

What is the Patriot Movement? Most people reading this will remember the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Even if you didn’t live through it, you’ve likely read about it in school or heard about it. The civil rights movement of the 1960’s was intended to strengthen the rights granted by Congress to certain minority groups living in America. However, not all rights in America are “granted by Congress”. The vast majority of American citizens are vested with “inalienable rights” at the time of their birth. Accordingly to the Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights are bestowed upon us by “the Creator” [God], and government is powerless to alter, modify, or abolish these rights. These “inalienable rights” belong to every Citizen of a state of the Union. They belong to you, and may never be taken from you, even if you don’t know what they are or can’t name a single one of them! In the system of government that our Founding Fathers established (and under which you live), these inalienable rights are intended as your primary protection from government’s arbitrary use of power or its encroachment into your private affairs. Unfortunately, due to gaping holes in both the public and private education systems, as well as a concerted effort on the part of government to deny the existence of such inalienable rights, average Americans are no longer even aware (except possibly in some vague philosophical sense) that they possess such rights and that these rights are intended to be actively and aggressively used for your protection and happiness. Most are unaware that these inalienable rights are their birthright as Americans. The Patriot Movement is dedicated to an intellectual revival of these rights and the active application of them by American Citizens in their day-to-day lives. Only in this way, can America halt (and reverse) the stealthy encroachment of government into every nook and cranny of our private lives. Only in this way can Americans live with true liberty, which so many sacrificed to establish and preserve. To be frank, most Americans wouldn’t know what it meant to live with liberty if it bit them on the bottom. That’s because there are few left alive today who can remember America before the vast and dramatic changes of the early 1900’s that propelled our nation away from the principles of liberty, and towards principles that are antithetical to liberty. We do not wish to preach, so we merely invite you to explore these pages. As you do so, the picture will become clear.

3

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Groups within the Patriot Movement Like all large-scale movements, the Patriot Movement is a compilation of different groups who see different issues as their primary concern. While exploring the positions of these different groups, one should keep in mind that while their primary focus may be different, virtually every group supports the fundamental goal of revitalizing American liberty through Constitutional and law-abiding government. It should also be noted that many Patriots fall into more than one sub-group within the Movement. *Tax Honesty Movement – The Citizens within this category are primarily focused upon exposing the American people to the truth about tax law in this country. Having read the law and the federal court cases interpreting tax law, these people know what the law really says and really means, as opposed to the inaccurate “socialized” view that is spoon-fed to the ill-informed public. [See Taxation, within this document.]

*Social Security Opponents – Although we have used the word “opponent”, we are not sure that it is the correct word. The Citizens in this group do not so much “oppose” Social Security, as they want the truth of the matter to be known by the public. People in this group have performed the legal research and know that SS is a completely voluntary program for Citizens of the states of the Union. And of course as such, so is FICA withholding. [See Social Security Tax within this document.]

*Social Security/Non-enumeration – This group believes that enumeration of the population, whether made mandatory by law (such as a national ID) or, as a mere “consequence” of Social Security, is unacceptable. Some hold this view for practical and political reasons, while other object to enumeration on religious grounds. [See Social Security Tax within this document.]

*Judicial Reformers – These Citizens feel that the courts in America no longer dispense much justice, but consistently rule in favor of those who hold the political and/or financial power, essentially disenfranchising the average American from his own court systems. This group feels that the best way to resolve the problem is to hold judges accountable for the decisions they make that are plainly incorrect and unlawful. No such system of accountability exists today. [See http://www.jail4judges.org/ ]

*State’s Rights Advocates – These Citizens feel that through various mechanisms, the federal government (sometimes with the cooperation of State officials) has conspired to defeat the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution and undermine the Republican character of our nation by unconstitutionally expanding federal jurisdiction into broad areas of subject matter that the Founding Fathers clearly reserved to the states.

*Federal Reserve Opponents – These Citizens feel that the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the delegation of our national monetary policy to a group of private bankers is fundamentally unconstitutional as well as injurious to The People of this nation. They also feel that since Federal Reserve Notes (which is what most Americans call “money”) were “de-monetized” (i.e. removed from the gold standard) they are worthless and our currency has been debauched. {Google: Creature from Jekyll Island}*Right to Keep and Bear Arms Advocates – These Citizens believe that our inalienable right to keep and bear arms is slowly, and intentionally, being eroded by the government. Given the proliferation of

4

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

gun control laws in the last 30 years, it would difficult to argue against their perspective. These Citizens agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, " The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”, and with George Washington who said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”. Given that this document is dedicated to revitalizing this nation’s sense of liberty by educating The People about the egregious, immoral, and at times unlawful conduct of our government, it is easy to see why many Citizens still see Mr. Jefferson’s and Mr. Washington’s remarks as compelling truths that cannot be ignored. [See http://www.gunowners.org/ ]

*Federal Expansion Opponents – These Citizens are concerned about the continual encroachment of federal authority into areas not intended under our system of Republican government. Various mechanisms, such as the Interstate Commerce clause, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the US Constitution have been misused to justify ever-increasing federal jurisdiction into the lives of average Americans. This group holds views very similar to that of the State’s Rights advocates. [See Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction within this document.]

*United Nations Opponents – These Citizens believe that our participation in the United Nations is antithetical to the proper administration of the United States government. This group sees the stated goals of the United Nations as incompatible with American liberty, as expressed and secured by the Founding Fathers. Additionally, this group sees solid evidence that the ultimate goal of the United Nations is to undermine the sovereignty of individual member nations until these member nations accept the United Nations as their ultimate governmental leader. This phenomenon is frequently referred to as “one world government” or “The New World Order”.

*Church and State Advocates – These Citizens believe that it is the right of every American to freely exercise his conscience in the administration of his duties as a public officer. This group knows that there is no “separation of church and state”, nor was such a doctrine ever intended by the Founding Fathers. This group knows that the “separation of church and state” doctrine imposed by the US Supreme Court conflicts with 178 prior US Supreme Court decisions in which God was acknowledged as the ultimate sovereign of this nation. The “separation of church and state” doctrine was the only instance in the Court’s history in which the Court rendered a decision without making reference to any prior Supreme Court decisions.

5

135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

The Law [Editor’s Note – This section is not intended to give the reader the tools to fully understand the scope and nature of the laws under which the states and the federal government operate. That goal takes years to achieve and I doubt any single resource could make a significant contribution to that end. This section is intended as a “wake-up call” concerning the idiosyncrasies and complexities of the law so that when you come in contact with “law”, you are not immediately overwhelmed, and that you have some understanding of the issues you may be facing.] How would you define, “law”? Most people have never really stopped to consider this question. For most Americans “law” is something the police officer uses to make an arrest or issue a traffic ticket. To others it is a bunch of confusing books that lawyers use to bamboozle you out of what is rightfully yours. If you hold these opinions, you are right – but you’ve barely scratched the surface! “The Law” is any system (or part of that system) that creates or recognizes rights, duties, or obligations, and provides a forum through which to seek a remedy in the event that any of those rights, duties, or obligations are breached. Although one would ordinarily think that in the course of history there have been many different forms of law, one would likely be surprised, if not downright shocked, to learn how many different forms of “law” exist in America at this very moment. Here are but a few of the styles of law that you may be called to operate within if you find yourself head-to-head with the legal system:

Common Law Constitutional Law Corporate LawEquity Law Treaty Law Contract Law

Admiralty/Maritime Federal Law Tax LawAdministrative Law State Law Civil Law

Private Law Municipal Law Criminal Law Public Law Probate Law Labor Law

International Law Family Law Bankruptcy Law As you can see, things can get challenging rather quickly. Each form of law has its own special doctrines and standards. Many times one form of law “nests” within another. Unless one understands the idiosyncrasies of the type of law being used or applied in a certain case, one will often feel railroaded toward an unpleasant outcome. Although this manual cannot possibly educate you in every area of the law, it is our goal to make you aware of the broad concepts that govern the legal trade. After that, it is you who must do the work if you wish to better understand the Byzantine maze that is our legal system.

6

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

Fundamental Forms of American Law In America, our laws are comprised of several fundamental levels. The first is Constitutional law. No other law, of any form, is valid unless it comports itself with the applicable Constitution. A law that cannot find its basis in the applicable Constitution is an unconstitutional law, and thus null and void. At the state level, the next operative form of law is the common law. The government has done everything within its power to wipe common-law from the face of America, but the common law was, is, and always will be, the proper form of law for the de jure state Citizen. Some modern expositors have stated that the common law is “harsh”. We might observe that it is unforgiving and inflexible when a person transgresses the rights of others. We are not convinced that this makes the common-law harsh, so much as it does strict. Next in significance is Equity law. Equity law covers a broad scope of legal issues and is used extensively in today’s courts. Equity is distinct from common-law.

Equity – “…a system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, ‘law’”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Equity Jurisdiction – “That portion of remedial justice which is exclusively administrated by courts of equity as distinguished from courts of common law”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

And here is a fascinating definition, from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary [1856]:

Equity, Court of - A court of equity is one which administers justice, where there are no legal rights…

The most succinct (although not exhaustive) definition of “Equity” would be this:

“The term ‘equity’ denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men” Gilles v. Dept. of Human Resources Development, 11 Cal.3d 313

It is important to note that whenever the word “fair” is involved, it means that a third party will decide what is fair for you. Despite the lofty ideals of “equity”, what is thought to be “fair” in the mind of one person, may often times be thought completely unfair in the mind of another. If the common-law is competent to provide a remedy, one need not acquiesce to the jurisdiction of a court of equity.

Next would come statutory law. This is the form of law that most Americans know as “the law”, although it is in reality a form of law with very limited power. Statutory law is comprised solely of the acts of the legislature that have become law and are currently in force. Most of these legislative acts (statutes) have been codified to one “title” or another within a set of “codes”. There are a couple of significant points to remember. First, most codes are not law, but are merely indicative of the law; the law is the actual statute that was passed by the legislature. It is conceivable that a statute could have been repealed, yet the code section still exist. If you are in a legal fight, always check the statute behind the code section. Second, keep in mind that not every statute passed into law is codified; some statutes simply stand-alone and remain non-codified, hence the name “statute-at-large”.

7

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

And here’s the real kicker concerning statutory law:

A statute is an enactment by a legislative body bringing into existence its creatures (e.g. corporations) and setting forth the privileges, immunities and responsibilities of each creation. A statute applies only to the “rightful subject of legislation” (i.e. the creatures created by statutory fiat). The “rightful subjects of legislation” does not mean The People, unless the statute specifically states its intent to apply to private Citizens.

Of course one should remember that one can create an obligation to a law that would not otherwise bind him by involving himself in various regulated activities or by entering into an agreement with the government (such as acquiring a business license, resale permit, etc.)

Other Important Distinctions

Classifications Every law that defines an offense falls into one of two categories. The first category is mala in se, and the second is mala prohibita. A mala in se offense is a crime that is, by the laws of nature and God, a true crime. Examples of this would be, murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc. A mala prohibita offense is one that would not be an offense were it not for the legislature passing a law that makes a particular act a punishable offense. Examples of this would be, possessing or smoking marijuana, buying and selling more than 7 cars a year without a dealer’s license (in California), not obeying road signs and speed limits, etc.

Application Various laws also only apply to certain “groups” of persons and not persons outside that group or groups. An example if this would be laws concerning “licensed contractors”. The state has no blanket authority to require every person who, for profit, plumbs, or installs a lighting fixture, or builds a patio deck, to apply for and acquire a license. Here is a list of the persons who must have a contractor’s license:

1) Any person conducting certain defined types of construction on State property. 2) Any person who has entered into a contract with the State to perform certain defined types of construction. 3) Any person who has acquired a contractor’s license and has not properly canceled it. 4) Any foreign corporation doing business in your State.

8

260

265

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

Nature

All legal actions fall only within one of two broad categories; civil or criminal.

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 24:

Actions are of two kinds: 1. Civil; and, 2. Criminal. The Penal Code of each state is the code from which crimes are prosecuted. In California, the Code of Civil Procedures states:

Section 31 - The Penal Code defines and provides for the prosecution of a criminal action. Please note that there is no criminal action that is prosecuted from any other code. Civil actions arise out from either an obligation, or an injury. Here is how the California Code of Civil Procedures defined those two terms:

Section 26 - An obligation is a legal duty, by which one person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing, and arises from: One--Contract; or, Two--Operation of law.

An “injury” is defined thusly:

Section 27 - An injury is of two kinds: 1. To the person; and, 2. To property.

An injury is fairly self-evident, as is an obligation connected with a contract. However, the obligation that arises from an “operation of law” may seem less clear.

Operation of law – This term expresses the manner in which rights, and sometimes liabilities, devolve upon a person by the application to the particular transaction of the established rule of law, without the act or co-operation of the party himself. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

In other words, an operation of law is simply some event or circumstance that lays a right or liability upon a person through no action of his own, and that right or liability may justify a civil court action. [Editor’s Note: We frequently use California law because we are most familiar with it. However the concepts discussed are general in nature, and apply in your state as well as California.]

How Federal Law Differs from State Law Federal law only defines mala in se crimes that occur within the “federal places”. [See the federal territorial jurisdiction section of this document for more details on geographic jurisdiction of the US.] In other words, federal law cannot define “murder”, as such term may be used within, say…Arizona.

9

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

That’s because the federal government has no general police powers within the states of the Union. The federal government may only define a mala in se crime for use within places that a re under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress. Compared to a state penal code, there are relatively few mala in se crimes defined with the United State’s equivalent of a penal code [Title 18 of the United States Code]. Most “crimes” that are contained in 18 USC are actually regulatory in nature [ mala prohibita]. When dealing with federal law, the trick is to determine (through research) what is the exact nature and authority of the law being examined. It will fall into one of three categories:

a) A true criminal statute [ mala in se] that applies to persons and property located within the geographic United States (i.e. Washington DC, other federal lands, US possessions and territories). b) A regulatory law [mala prohibita] that applies to persons and property located within the geographic United States (i.e. Washington DC, other federal lands, US possessions and territories), and/or to those who have entered into a licensed activity under the authority of the United States. c) A regulatory law [mala prohibita] that applies to persons and property located within the states of the Union under the enumerated powers of the federal government, which are expressly defined in the US Constitution.

Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction The federal government frequently moves in Admiralty Jurisdiction. The term used by the government more recently is “Special Maritime Jurisdiction”. They are the same animal. Admiralty jurisdiction deals primarily (or maybe we should say “originally”) with ships and occurrences upon the water. This special jurisdiction was a result of the issues of international shipping, questions of ownership over ships and their cargo, “prize” issues [defeating a ship in battle at sea], piracy, controversies over shipped goods when the owners are not in America, salvage of vessels and goods, and various Customs issues. When our nation was first founded, Admiralty jurisdiction was restricted by the “rule of tides”. Under this rule, Admiralty jurisdiction could only be invoked if the circumstance took place on water (or at dock) subject to the natural forces of the tides. However, over time that yardstick was throw aside and Admiralty’s reach was expanded (by court decisions) to embrace all actions previously cognizable under Admiralty, but which took place on any navigable waterway under the jurisdiction of the United States. In other words, if it’s a navigable waterway that is in the United States (federal territory) or if the waterway is used for interstate commerce, certain controversies that arise in such circumstances can be heard in Admiralty jurisdiction. It should be noted that the states of the Union also have Admiralty jurisdiction when dealing with issues of intrastate commerce, or when a state is acting as an agent (under agreement with the US Secretary of Transportation) for the federal government in the enforcement of interstate commerce regulations associated with navigable waterways. It is widely theorized by tax law researchers that IRS seizures are all made under Admiralty jurisdiction

10

350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

derived form an alleged violation of a Custom’s regulation. The government is currently disputing this argument by stating that federal court actions involving seizure are commenced under the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. However, many (but not all) procedural aspects of Admiralty actions are controlled by the Federal Code of Civil Procedure.

Civil Codes with Criminal Penalties? Having discussed the difference between civil actions and criminal actions, one might wonder why some offenses contained in civil [non-penal] codes can result in consequences usually thought to be exclusively for criminal acts (such as going to jail). Here in California there are two doctrines that seem to be in conflict at first glance. One item of controlling case law states that if you are engaged in an activity that is cognizable under the authority of one the various civil codes, these codes can include penalties that are, in their nature, criminal penalties. While the court was not specific as to when such “ criminal penalties” attach to a civil offense, we can only conclude that they are limited to cases that are regulated through a license. It is only in such a circumstance that the defendant made a prior agreement to abide by the conditions of the code and is therefore presumed to know that criminal penalties are a part of the “agreement”. In short, the court appears to be saying, “If you don’t like water, stay out of the pool.” In the second case, the a California appeals court struck down the jail-time portion of a sentence handed down to a former Los Angeles County Supervisor who’d been convicted of the misuse of campaign funds. In its decision, the court stated that the offense was civil in nature and therefore the maximum sentence that could be imposed was a fine, not jail time. This would appear to be a regulatory violation that was not supported by any form of “license” (i.e. prior agreement) and therefore the defendant had never “agreed” to allow criminal penalties to be applied to him for a civil offense.

The Amazing Disappearing Law Laws do not actually disappear, but their language is altered over time to obscure the true purpose and intent of the law. One would think that once a law is passed it would not need to be altered unless some flaw or shortcoming becomes apparent, or some circumstance changes that requires the statute to keep up with the times. I think the average citizen would be surprised to learn that statutes are amended to alter their language for no apparent reason. We stress the word “apparent” because the legislative draftsmen who propose these changes know exactly what their purpose is. In the following fictitious example, we are going to provide you with the year that the statute was passed as well as the text. I will then give you the year of each amendment of the statute that changes the prior language. After viewing the progression of the changes, look again at the original version and take note of all the clarity that has been lost. You will see how the changes have rendered it impossible for a person to know the original intent of the law. This practice is more common than you would believe.

1959 – It shall be illegal for any foreign corporation to produce widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without

11

400

405

410

415

420

425

430

435

having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1970 - It shall be illegal for any corporation to produce widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1973 - No corporation shall produce or sell widgets except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Widgets may not be sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1979 - No person shall produce or sell widgets except during the times allowed by law. Widgets may not be produced or sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1990 - No person shall produce or sell widgets except in accordance with regulations pertaining to this section. Widgets may not be produced or sold without having first obtained a license in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 12345.

1994 - No person shall produce or sell widgets without first having obtained a license.

What is important for the reader to know is that the intended meaning and application of the law, as indicated by its original language, cannot be altered by amendment! The 1994 versions still means the same exact thing as the 1959 version. If there are any questions as to the proper meaning and application of a law, the prudent person will seek out the earliest possible version of the statute in order to confirm the issues.

The “Other” Law There is a form of “law” that is not really law at all. It’s commonly referred to as “case law” (also known as “decisional law” or “precedent”). Case law is the previous ruling on a point of law by a court of competent jurisdiction. Case law, when used properly, was/is intended to provide consistency concerning points of law over time. In theory, this allows a person to go into court on particular subject in the year 2005 and feel confident that the court will make the same ruling on a particular point of law that a neighboring court made in 2000. On the surface, who can complain?! Unfortunately, that leaves the meaning and/or application of specific points of law up to a just about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who wears a black robe. We believe that today most practicing attorneys will admit that case law has become a quagmire of conflicting opinions that all to often lead to more confusion, than clarity. There are two institutionalized problems with case law that need correction before this disaster called “case law” can be rectified; they are integrally connected. The first problem is a general unwillingness on the part of lawyers to challenge existing case law. There are two arguments that can be used to challenge case law:

12

440

445

450

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

1) Aver that the circumstances that led to the ruling on a point of law in the previous case are not substantially the same as are at issue in the current case and therefore the ruling on the point of law in the previous case is not controlling in the current case. 2) Aver that the circumstances that led to the ruling on a point of law in the previous case are the same as in the current case, but that the previous court simply ruled in error concerning the issue of law in question. 3) Show that what has been passing for case law is actually nothing more than obiter dictum.

Stated plainly, most lawyers are just too lazy tackle option number one. This sort of argument takes time and effort to put forth and is rarely seen except in high-dollar corporate legal battles. In most courtrooms case law is never challenged – even when it’s not terribly applicable. Option 2 is basically dead on arrival. Lawyers will almost never aver to one court that the decision of a previous court is just flat out wrong. Even on the rare occasions that an attorney is motivated enough to make the argument, the court is virtually never willing to overturn a fellow judge’s ruling on a point of law. We get the impression that like the aristocracy of old, today’s judges consider it impolite or ungentlemanly to publicly declare another learned and honorable judge to be wrong. Option 3 would require an attorney to actually read the court’s decision and sometimes all the briefs, motions, and others filings from the very beginning of the case. Reading previously decided cases is very time-consuming and at times exceedingly boring. Neither of these are the kind of things with which attorneys like to involve themselves. For most attorneys that kind of arduous effort ended on the day they graduated law school. The second significant problem with case law is that while many judges are willing to follow it blindly, other judges seem unwilling to follow the precedent of their state Supreme Courts or the decisions of the US Supreme Court, even when the issue before the court is well settled by the higher courts. While the motives of such judges may be speculated upon by layperson and lawyer alike, the solution is cheered by the public and dreaded by the BAR associations. Judges who disregard case law that is clearly and correctly applicable to the matter before them should be removed from the bench by a panel of Citizens, their pensions should be forfeit upon removal, and judgments should be issued against them for any injury done to their victims.

The Language of Law One of the greatest stumbling blocks for the American public in understanding the laws their representatives enact is that laws use words in a different manner than we do in common speech. There are two kinds of language that are primarily used in law – one is “words” (just as we use in common speech) and the other is “terms” (which can be substantially different than we use in common speech). “Words” are just that – words. They are presumed to be used in their ordinary manner and they are subject to the “plain meaning rule” when interpreting a statute. Their meaning must be sought through the common English dictionaries of the era in which the statute was written. In the absence of any clear contrary intent by the legislature, the meaning found in these dictionaries is the sole meaning that must be given to the word.

13

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

525

530

“Terms” are another matter. Terms appear no different, to the layperson, than words. The difference is that terms are not subject to the “plain meaning rule” because the legislature has provided its own definition for the term being used. Where the legislature has provided its own definition, the ordinary English dictionary must be thrown out the window; the definition given to the term by the legislature controls the meaning completely. The meanings of terms can be identified by seeking out the “definitions” section applicable the text that you are reading. Unfortunately, this may not always be as straight forward a proposition as one might imagine. Most codes provide a section that gives definitions that are generally applicable throughout the entire code, however any of the definitions given for the entire code are subject to be redefined in any given subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause. Any time a term is redefined for a specific subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause, that redefinition of the term takes precedent (within that subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause) over the general definition provided for the entire code. Of course, to make matters more confusing, any time a term is redefined for use in a subtitle, chapter, section, subsection, or clause, it can be redefined again and again as you move from subtitle to chapter; chapter to chapter; chapter to section; section to section; section to clause, etc. In other words, you always have to be on your toes and make sure you know the definitions that apply to the exact text your reading!

Here is an example. 26 USC 7701 contains definitions that applicable for the entire Internal Revenue Code. Section 7701(a)(20) defined “employee”:

For the purpose of applying the provisions of section 79 with respect to group-term life insurance purchased for employees, for the purpose of applying the provisions of sections 104, 105, and 106 with respect to accident and health insurance or accident and health plans, and for the purpose of applying the provisions of subtitle A with respect to contributions to or under a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan, and with respect to distributions under such a plan, or by a trust forming part of such a plan, and for purposes of applying section 125 with respect to cafeteria plans, the term ''employee'' shall include a full-time life insurance salesman who is considered an employee for the purpose of chapter 21, or in the case of services performed before January 1, 1951, who would be considered an employee if his services were performed during 1951.

The term is redefined for use in chapter 24 of the Code: (26 USC 3401(c))

For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.

As you can see the terms are defined very differently. The title-wide definition addresses insurance salesmen, while the definition for chapter 24 addresses only government workers under the direct or indirect authority of the federal government. [The corporation that is mentioned is a corporation wholly owned by the federal government.]

14

535

540

545

550

555

560

565

570

575

Words of Art Although “Words of Art” are often placed (by the layperson) in the same category as “terms”, they are not the same thing. Words of Art are words or phrases that are particular to specific technologies, sciences, arts, professions, etc., and generally do not have the same meaning, or any meaning at all, outside their own field. One example of this is the medical word, “orthopod”. The word, “orthopod” is generally used within the medical community to indicate a person who has surgical training and experience in arthroscopy. Outside the medical field, “orthopod” has no meaning whatsoever. While “terms” are often used by politicians and lawyers to mask the true intentions or application of legislation from the general public (especially in tax law), Words of Art are a proper and necessary parts of effective communication in the legal arena.

Does the Law Work? At this juncture we would like to warn the uninitiated reader that politicians, lawyers, government employees and officers, and judges, do not really care what the law says. Read that sentence again and then burn it into your memory; it will save you a lot of angry days and sleepless nights. There is a vast difference between what the law says and “how the system works”. Here is something else for you to burn into your memory – the system has been hijacked from The People and it now functions for four primary purposes: 1) Government control of persons and property.

2) The receipt of revenue, either by lawful action or extortionate conduct. 3) The protection of the system that provides for points 1 and 2. 4) The protection of persons who facilitate points 1, 2, and 3.

If you are one of the uninitiated, the statement made above may seem somewhat reactionary to you. However, all one need do to learn that these statements are true is to stand your ground when the government accosts you and they are legally in the wrong. If you are a person of integrity and good faith, you will expect your government to sit down with you, read the law, and cease their unlawful actions against you. What you will not be prepared for is the attack that will be made upon you by your government in retaliation for your audacity! On the other hand, if your government is not accosting you, but you notice that it is acting in a manner that is contrary to the written law, if you bring that fact to the government’s attention, the government will fall completely silent and never respond (with anything substantive) to your comments, observations, or requests for correction.

“The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it.” -- John Jay, Castilian Days II, 1872

The government generally uses the law as an offensive tool to compel the population to comply with its edicts. In most cases the government could care less whether it is acting lawfully, or whether it is even applying the law to the intended persons or property. The government only cares that there is a superficial appearance of legality. Americans can use the law as either an offensive tool or a defensive tool depending on the circumstance and your preference.

15

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

Lawyers Many people despise lawyers. We suspect that much of that is due to various realities of the legal trade and not because the men and women who become lawyers are inherently bad or evil. However, nearly all lawyers have one fatal flaw that damages the law, the truth, your rights, and the very fabric of our nation. The flaw is their unwillingness to argue the law. That may sound odd, but it is true. For the most part, lawyers operate within the courts. Those who do not function within the courts, usually function within the corporate environment. Both the courts, and most corporations, operate within “the system”. One might hope t hat “the system” means our system of laws. Unfortunately, “law” takes a very distant backseat to politics and monetary objectives. Sadly, in the America of the new millennium, “the system” is whatever government bureaucrats, politicians and money-powers say it is. Lawyers understand this, and with rare exception, are unwilling to buck “the system”. If we have one direct criticism of lawyers, it is that the majority of them are moral cowards, not caring what is truly right, nor being willing to fight for it. Let us give you a common example: We will speak to an attorney about something of a general nature. During the discussion, we will state a rule of statutory construction and ask the attorney to agree. He/She will agree that the rule has been stated correctly, including its proper application. We will then lead that attorney to a more controversial area, such as tax law, and apply the rule that was just discussed to the exact same circumstance of construction. Once we point out how the rule must be applied and make note of the consequences thereof, the attorney either falls silent or becomes defensive and angry. We do not wish to leave you with the view that all attorneys are rotten or worthless. Like all professionals, they may serve a purpose at times. However, we encourage you to gain as much legal expertise as possible on your own through reading and study, and we urge you to not blindly place your faith, you future, your rights, or your possessions, in the hands of lawyers because we know that they will generally not serve you well or faithfully.

16

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

660

Constitutions

CONSTITUTION, government. The fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the manner it is to be exercised as. Definition from: A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION by John Bouvier (1856 Ed.) Here is how Constitutional scholar Henry Black defines a Constitution:

HANDBOOK of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. Fourth Edition; West Publishing Company. 1927

Constitution Defined - § 3 . . .

A constitution differs from a statute or ordinary act of legislation in three important particulars:

(1) It is enacted by the people as a whole( that is, by vote of the qualified electorate) who are to be governed by it, instead of by their representatives in a congress or legislature.

(2) A constitution can be abrogated, repealed, or modified only by the power which created it, namely, the people in the sense stated above, whereas a statute may be repealed or changed by the legislature. The people, however, can modify or repeal their constitution only through the medium of a constitutional convention or constituent assembly, or by affirmative vote on amendments or on a new constitution duly submitted by the legislature. In those states where the initiative and referendum are in use, the provisions of the constitution are as binding on the people in the exercise of their legislative prerogative as upon the legislature, that is, these devices cannot be used to alter the constitution in any other mode than as the constitution itself provides. [State v. Dixon, 59 Mont. 58, 195 P. 841; State v. Stewart, 53 Mont. 18, 161 P. 309; City of Ft. Collins v. Public utilities Commission, 69 Colo. 554, 195 P. 1099 ]

(3) The provisions of a constitution refer to the fundamental principles of government and the establishment and guaranty of liberties, instead of being designed merely to regulate the conduct of individuals among themselves. [Constitutions announce principles, while statutes apply them. Sproules v. State, 97 Tex Cr. R. 561, 262 S. W. 757.] But the tendency towards amplification in modern constitutions derogates from the precision of this last distinction.

At present there are at least 51 Constitutions operative in the United States of America. There are the Constitutions of the 50 states of the Union, and the Constitution of the United States. I say “at least” 51 because many of the states of the Union have more than one Constitution. As an example, California has two and Oklahoma had at least six different versions that have been found as of the date of

17

665

670

675

680

685

690

695

700

705

this writing. As noted above by the famous John Bouvier, a Constitution’s essential element is that it is, “…containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers…” You will note that in Bouvier’s definition, nothing appears about regulating Citizens. That is because, at least in a free nation, it is The People, in agreement with each other, who create the Constitution for the sole purpose of establishing, defining, and limiting the scope of government.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." -- Patrick Henry

Every state of the Union has a distinct and unique Constitution of its own. Of course if you are a state Citizen, as opposed to a “citizen of the United States” [federal citizen], then you should attempt to locate your state’s original Constitution because that’s the one that establishes the true and original structure, powers, and limitations of your state government…at least when the state addresses you. [See the Citizenship treatise for the distinctions between state Citizens and “citizens of the United States”.] All state laws must be made pursuant to the Constitution of the state and all federal laws must be pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. Laws that are manifestly incompatible with the language or intent of the Constitutions are null, void, and unenforceable. While it is commonly understood that a Supreme court of a state, or the United States, will declare a law unconstitutional, most people fail to recognize that the first step in that process is for a Citizen to decide, for himself, that a law is incompatible with the Constitution and refuse to obey the law. In other words, if we never take a stand, all laws will be presumed to be Constitutional. It is only through the belligerent actions of a nation’s Citizens that laws are brought under review and then can be judicially declared unconstitutional. Constitutions must be read and interpreted in plain English. One should take into account the way certain words or phrases may have been used or defined at the time the Constitution was drafted, and how they may differ from the use or definitions now in effect. The use and definitions of words or phrases as they existed at the time the document was written must control the interpretation of the provision(s) under review. Because most pre-Civil War Constitutions are intentionally succinct, significant weight must be given to the intended meaning of each section. If the intended meaning is not immediately clear from the language of the document, the “original intent” can be ascertained by review of the historical context of the issue being addressed and goals that must have been in the minds of the framers of the Constitution as they wrote the words. Usually the authors and signers of a Constitution will have written privately and/or publicly about the document or the various issued addressed within. Such writings have been routinely used to establish the exact meaning of various parts of Constitutions. Additionally, as we enter the 21st century, many of the questions we may ask have already been answered by various Supreme courts. Constitutions are not “living documents” as is contended by some ignorant and verbose commentators. Because a Constitution defines the structure, powers, and limitations of the government, such elements are fixed, except as such may be altered by the amendment process. When a Constitution includes language that protects personal liberties (sometimes called “natural rights” or “God-given rights”), these provisions must remain in effect, and remain fixed as they are for all time. They are not subject to modification by amendment because no one, not even our fellow Citizens, has the authority to

18

710

715

720

725

730

735

740

745

750

deprive us of our liberty. If the Constitution in question is a Constitution that is operative in America, there is the added aspect that such Constitutions are controlled by the principles espoused in our Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence it states,

“…all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

In other words, if a Constitution was altered in such a way as to diminish personal liberties or remove their protections, then the government constituted by that Constitution would cease to be a valid government and the Citizens would be greatly justified in using whatever means necessary to bring that government to an end. As our society grows in size, evolves socially, and advances technologically, various issues that have never before been tested upon the Constitution will need to be so tested. It has been this way since the first state Constitution was created and it is still that way today. Fortunately, since the nature of man hasn’t changed in thousands of years, the principles contained within these constitutions remains valid and enduring. When all is said and done, the underlying purpose of a Constitution is to keep the ways of men in check.

“Let no more be said about the confidence of men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution”. -- Thomas Jefferson

At this point it is probably prudent to explore why many states have more than one Constitution. Prior to the Civil War, each state of the Union had but one Constitution in existence. There was no apparent need for more than one because that single document could be amended by a vote of the People of the state. However, with the advent of the 14th Amendment to Constitution of the United States, the landscape was radically altered. [See Citizenship treatise for the distinction between state Citizens and “citizens of the United States.] Citizenship under the 14th Amendment, is not a result of one’s birthright [unalienable right], as is the citizenship status of a state Citizen. The status of “citizen of the United States” (aka – federal citizen) is one that is bestowed by the Constitution. In other words, the status of “citizen of the United States” is a statutory privilege granted by the government. The original Constitutions of the states were created by The People of the states and were designed to serve the de jure [legitimate] state Citizens. As such, these Constitutions limited the operation of government in the manner required for addressing state Citizens. However, the state governments were not bound by the same limitations when governing “federal citizens” because these federal citizens did not have the same protections from government interference as do state Citizens. [See case law on the lack of rights of “citizens of the United States”.] As can be seen from the following US Supreme Court holding, “federal citizens” do not inherently possess the same rights as do state Citizens:

“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear

19

755

760

765

770

775

780

785

790

795

800

arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.” Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

One can clearly see that when dealing with federal citizens, a state could act with much greater flexibility. It could act toward federal citizens in ways that would be unconstitutional if done to state Citizens. So why did this require new state Constitutions? In section 1 of the 14th Amendment, it states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

By ratifying this language, the states agreed to consider federal citizens living within their borders, a form of state citizen. We say, “a form of” because these federal citizens could not lay claim to the unalienable rights expressed in Declaration of the Independence, and thus were plainly in a different “class of citizenship”. [See Citizenship page on this document for the distinction between state Citizens and “citizens of the United States.] When the states agreed to consider federal citizens as a form of state citizens, it raised significant state Constitutional issues – not the least of which was that these new citizens were not a party to the original state Constitutions! These new citizens were not The People, and never could be. The original Constitutions of the states were written by and for The People of the states, not these new hybrid (State/Federal) citizens. Normally these non-de jure state Citizens would simply have been considered aliens within the state, but the 14th Amendment changed that. The individual states of the Union now needed to create a new State government (operating in parallel to the de jure state government) that was established under a Constitution by and for these hybrid citizens, with their different set of privileges, immunities, and disabilities. To achieve this end, the legislatures of the states of the Union created new Constitutions under which to govern their new hybrid citizens. These new Constitutions are not “constitutions” in the true sense. A true Constitution creates a government of, by, and for, The People; The People being the de jure Citizens of that society/community/nation. These new Constitutions are actually nothing more than “statutory laws” that are dressed up as Constitutions and referred to as such. The original Constitutions of states admitted to the Union before the Civil War are based on the fundamental beliefs and concepts espoused in the Declaration of Independence. State constitutions drafted after the Civil War must be studied with a careful eye. Under the long standing and well-settled doctrine of citizenship law, a person becomes a Citizen at birth, by the fact of the land upon which he is born, without there being any law necessary to grant him such citizenship. This is exactly the basis upon which state Citizens become Citizens of their

20

805

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845

respective states. However, 14th Amendment citizens would have no citizenship at all were it not for the adoption of the Amendment. This makes their citizenship a “fiction of law”. A Constitution can only be created by real “Citizens of the land” and the government that is created by a Constitution can only govern these “Citizens of the land” (and aliens within its borders); that is because the government (at least in America) must derive its power from The People. Now, here we approach fundamental issue – there is no such thing as a legitimate government that governs only “fictions of law”. And while federal citizens obviously are real people, their citizenship is a fiction of law, thus rendering “their” constitution a mere statute (created by the de jure state legislature) and their newly formed [parallel] State government a mere appendage of the legitimate and original, state government. Unfortunately, we have long ago come to a place where the “mere appendage” is far larger and more well recognized than the original and legitimate state government.

Amending a Constitution Amending a Constitution is the act of legally changing the document in such a way as to achieve a desired political objective, and make that objective the Supreme Law of the land. In general terms, an amendment may change the document by adding to it, taking from it, or modifying existing elements of it. However, not every element of a Constitution is open to amendment. While the method of amending a Constitution is generally fixed by the original language of the document, the reasons for amending a Constitution are without specified limits. They can be as pragmatic as determining that a provision within the document does not function very well in practical application, or as whimsical as the transient morays of an era. The 11th Amendment to the US Constitution would be a good example of the former, while the 18th Amendment would be a good example of the latter. The steps required to amend a Constitution are generally to be found within the main body of the Constitution and must be followed precisely if an amendment is to lawfully become a part of the Constitution. While different Constitutions mandate different procedures for the amendment process, there are several practical steps that are fairly universal:

* Draft the amendment. * Explain its implications to the legislature and The People. * Promote it. Reinforce why it needs to become a part of the Constitution. * Vote on it. * Certify that the amendment received the required number of votes.

Once certification is complete, the amendment then becomes an official and lawful part of the Constitution. However, because certain elements of a Constitution are not open to amendment; amendments that trespass upon those areas may be declared unconstitutional by the courts, if challenged. The three principle purposes for amending a Constitution are the following:

1) To establish a “right” as a part of the nation’s Constitutional law.

21

850

855

860

865

870

875

880

885

890

2) To protect a right already understood to exist. 3) To expand or further limit the government’s authority.

Whether an amendment, or a part of the main body of the Constitution, each provision of a Constitution falls within two categories. The first being self-executing; the second requiring the legislature to enact legislation to implement the intended purpose of the provision.

"A constitutional provision may be said to be self-executing if it supplies a sufficient rule by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and protected, or the duty imposed may be enforced." Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 121; Winchester v. Howard, 136 Cal. 432, 439 [64 P. 692, 69 P. 77, 89 Am.St.Rep. 153]; People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 612. [15 Cal.2d 463]

It should be noted that the legislature has the prerogative to enact laws to protect a right contained in a self-executing provision. An example of this would be voter registration. By requiring voters to register, a citizen’s voting rights are secured from abuse by non-citizens. Further, while a state may impose reasonable and non-restrictive regulations upon the exercise of a Constitution right secured [recognized as pre-existing] to a Citizen of a state of the Union (such as the voting example cited above), rights granted by the Constitution may be controlled through legislation. Additionally, It is well settled that a right granted by the Constitution may be waived by the inaction of the person entitled to exercise such right. [Bigelow v. Ballerino, 111 Cal. 559 [44 P. 307]; Gurnsey v. Northern Cal. Power Co., 160 Cal. 699 [117 P. 906, 36 L.R.A. (N. S.) 185]; Sala v. City of Pasadena, supra; Yonker v. City of San Gabriel, 23 Cal.App.2d 556 [73 PaCal.2d 623]]. In America, we now have three forms of Constitutions in operation. The first is the original [de-jure] Constitution of a state. Unless one initiates a court action that relies upon a provision of an original Constitution, the states now function exclusively upon the second form of Constitution - the new state Constitutions for federal citizens. The third form is the federal Constitution. Because the states no longer actively function on their original Constitutions, they only amend the newer ones. In accordance with the limited protections of federal citizens, amendments to these newer Constitutions can address virtually any issue and can impose restrictions and limitations that are not enforceable upon de jure state Citizens. The federal Constitution currently has 16 amendments that have been added since the document was ratified by the states in 1789. These amendments not only vary in purpose, but also in the areas and persons effected. There is a general belief in America that all amendments to the US Constitution apply to all Americans, as well as to the states of the Union. An examination of the decisions of the US Supreme Court shows that belief to be in error. The first amendment that is illustrative of a significant point is the 13th. The 13th Amendment makes involuntary servitude and slavery unconstitutional (except as punishment after being duly convicted of a crime). The Amendment bans involuntary servitude and slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. Please note the word that we have emphasized – “their”. This is

22

895

900

905

910

915

920

925

930

935

940

the manner in which amendments and legislation must be written if the law is to apply within the sovereign lands of the 50 states and to their Citizens. The 14th Amendment works in just the opposite fashion. The 14th Amendment embraces persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not state the “plural nature” [i.e. “their”] that is required to refer to the states of the Union. In the absence of the plural language, the courts have ruled that the law applies only to federal places or persons. The other manner in which federal law sometimes addresses this issue is with the phrase, “…in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction”. Both phrases shown in this paragraph refer only to federal places. This would be a good place to toss in these legal tidbits for you to ponder:

“The persons declared to be citizens are, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject…” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884) [emphasis added]

“The provision of the Constitution of the United States, which gives Congress the power to establish ‘an uniform rule of naturalization,’ is construed to mean, that the rule when established shall be executed by the State. The Legislature of California has by express enactment, conferred the jurisdiction on the District Courts of this State to grant naturalization, according to the rules established by Congress”. Frank Nowles – Ex Parte, 5 CAL 300 (1855)

The 15th Amendment restricts the federal government and the governments of the states from denying “citizens of the United States” the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. This amendment applies exclusively to 14th Amendment citizens. You will notice that the 14th Amendment does not give federal citizens the right to vote, nor did the Enforcement Act, the Freedman’s Bureau Act, or the Civil Rights Act of 1866, upon which the 14th Amendment was based. There was much debate in Congress and in the press after the ratification of the 14th Amendment on the subject of black voters. While a handful of states allowed blacks to be Citizens and vote, the general consensus was that blacks should not be permitted to vote. Interestingly, many of the Congressmen and Senators who argued most strongly for the 14th Amendment, decried efforts to permit blacks to vote. The 15th Amendment ended that discussion. The 16th Amendment is addressed in the area of this document that covers income tax. The 18th Amendment created Prohibition. We’ve all heard the stories – especially about Al Capone. However, once again we find familiar language being used in the Amendment:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Does this mean what you’re thinking it means? Yes! In Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 43

23

945

950

955

960

965

970

975

980

985

S.Ct. 504 (1923), the US Supreme Court held that the language Congress used in the Amendment limited its application to areas under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress – which of course is not the states of the Union. The 19th Amendment, like the 15th, lays restriction on the governments concerning interference with voting by “citizens of the United States”; this time no one can deny federal citizens the right to vote based on sex. The 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, is really rather fascinating. As you just read, in the 18th Amendment, federal lands and other places of exclusive federal jurisdiction were referred to as, “the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. In repealing the Amendment, Congress describes those same places this way: “…any State, Territory, or possession of the United States…” It is important to note that in federal law, Congress defines various places of exclusive federal jurisdiction as “States”. These places are not “states of the Union”. They are also sometimes referred to by Congress as “States of the United States”. The 23rd Amendment is both illustrative and disturbing. In this Amendment, the Washington DC is granted the legal right [privilege] to appoint electors to vote for President and Vice-President. This amendment (and various federal court cases) clearly illustrate that the District of Columbia is not a state of the Union. If it were, it would have been appointing electors since the beginning of our nation to vote for these offices, and no amendment would have been required to grant them that privilege. It is also disturbing in that the people of the District of Columbia are not The People who are a party to the US Constitution. Why is a “State” comprised of solely non-de jure Citizens being given rights commensurate with the rights of true statehood? The 24 Amendment again deals exclusively with federal citizens. This time they may not be denied various voting rights in the event that they fail to pay a poll-tax or any other tax. The 26th Amendment again deals exclusively with federal citizens. This time they may not be denied voting rights based on age, provided that they have reached the age of 18. Amendments not specifically listed or discussed were not thought to be relevant the issues being addressed.

The Constitution In Time of War Many questions exist as to what steps the government may take in time of war, or other national emergency, concerning the US Constitution. The concerns range up to and include a concern that the federal government may attempt to suspend the Constitution. Let us be clear from the outset; the Constitution provides that the government may alter one element, and one element only, during time of war – that being that the government may suspend the right of habeas corpus. That’s it! Period! End of story!

24

990

995

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

1025

1030

Since the Founding Fathers were so thorough as to include the government’s power to suspend habeas corpus in time of war, we can safely and accurately say that it is the complete list of the Constitution’s provisions that can be suspended in time of war. If there was no mention at all within the Constitution of what provisions may be suspended during time of war, one might reasonably suggest that their failure to address the subject was an oversight that may be addressed by Congress or the courts if they see fit to do so. However, having the habeas corpus provision specifically raised within the Constitution dispels any argument that they had not thoughtfully considered the issues of the Constitution operating in time of war and reached the decision that suspension of habeas corpus was adequate to address the circumstance. At Original Intent we believe that the Founding Fathers intentionally and wisely limited the wartime suspension to only the right of habeas corpus in order to restrain future generations of US officials from using war as an opportunity to achieve ends not contemplated by the Constitution. We think that as in so many instances, the Founding Fathers showed great forethought and wisdom in thus restraining future prerogatives. Certainly our national history would suggest that if broader powers of wartime suspension were available, they would have been used, and likely not in ways of which we would condone. We must now tell you that the US Supreme Court has made egregious decisions in this area over the years. In many instances political expediency defeated the Constitution in their decisions. Such rulings can be cause for both anger and disappointment, but they are not unanticipated.

"...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one... when all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Who among us can read those words and not a feel a sense of dread; a feeling of fear for our way of life? This sense of dread does not come from the fear that such events may occur in the future. It comes from an immediate recognition that this is exactly what has been happening in this nation. In many court cases, the decision is incorrect because one side or the other did not present the proper argument to the court, and thus the “proper argument” simply was never presented to the court. Although we have no love of judges, for the rare judge with conscience, this must be one of the most difficult moments; knowing that a party is correct in their fundamental position, but having to rule against them because all of their arguments were off-point. In an effort to resolve that problem, let’s look at what one Constitutional scholar has to say about the Constitution in time of war:

HANDBOOK of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. Fourth Edition; West Publishing Company. 1927 THE CONSTITUTION IN TIME OF WAR.

25

1035

1040

1045

1050

1055

1060

1065

1070

1075

1080

§ 18. Even in the supreme exigency of a war in which the United States may be engaged, no provision or guaranty of the Constitution is abrogated, dispensed with, or even suspended.

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism; but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence. (ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 123, 18 L. Ed. 281@ 295.) Indeed, it has been said that in times of stress, such as war or great public clamor, the constitutional restraints should be all the more firmly binding. (State v. Rowley ( Iowa) 187 N. W. 7.)

And why can the Constitution not be suspended during time of war? Because the rights of a state Citizen do not come from the Constitution and therefore these pre-existing rights cannot be abrogated by the government and, according to the Declaration of Independence, the protection of these rights is the sole purpose for the government’s existence. What you are about to read does not apply to “citizens of the United States” because their rights are not pre-existing, but are granted by the Constitution.

§ 6. The constitutions of the American states are grants of power to those charged with the government, but not grants of freedom to the people. They define and guaranty private rights, but do not create them.

The state constitutions in this country grant and limit the powers of the several departments of government, but, generally speaking, they are not to be considered as the origin of liberty or rights. [ Ex parte Quarg, 149 Cal. 79, 84 P. 766, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 183, 117 Am. St. Rep. 115, 9 Ann. Cas. 747; People v. Warden of City Prison, 154 App. Div. 413, 139 N.Y.S. 277, 29 N.Y.Cr. R. 66.] But with more particular reference to the rights called natural, it must now be remarked that they exist before constitutions and independently of them. Constitutions enumerate such rights and provide against their deprivation or infringement, but do not create them. It is supposed that all power, all rights, and all authority are vested in the people before they form or adopt a constitution. By such an instrument, they create a government, and define and limit the powers which its agencies are to exercise, and they also specify the rights which the constitution is to secure and the government respect. But they do not thereby invest the citizens of the commonwealth with any natural rights which they did not before possess. This is shown by the provision found in the constitutions of many of the states that the enumeration, in the Bill of Rights, of particular rights or privileges shall not be construed to impair or derogate from others retained by the people.

26

1085

1090

1095

1100

1105

1110

1115

1120

Citizenship As Americans, we are socialized to believe that we are all Citizens of this great nation we call the United States of America. Quite frankly, most Americans are pretty emotional about the issue. Try telling your neighbor, who fought against Hitler in WWII, that he’s not a citizen of the United States, and see what reaction you get! The problem is that the people who write laws don’t write them in the same manner that you and I speak. [See the section on “legal terms” within The Law page on this document.] Laws are written to achieve certain goals and the words used within laws are selected to achieve those goals. Sometimes the goals are legitimate and the language that is used, while confusing at times, is necessary to achieve the goal. Other times confusing language is used for no other reason than to obscure the truth from the casual reader. The issue of citizenship is no less clouded by such use of language than is any other area of law. The definitions of words or “legal terms” must be sought out diligently and the context in which they are used always carefully considered. [See The Law for information on “words” v. “legal terms” and issues of “context”.] In the Constitution of the United States, the phrase “Citizen of the United States” appears. Because this phrase appears within a Constitution, not a statute, the meaning of the phrase is determined by the meaning intended by those who wrote and signed the Constitution. If the intended meaning is manifest, there is no power on earth, including that of a criminal in a black robe, which can alter the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase “Citizen of the United States” is well understood. That phrase is shorthand for the sentence, “All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called “states”] that are a party to this Constitution”. The important element that you should understand is that the “Citizen of the United States” spoken of in the Constitution of the United States is more properly and accurately a Citizen of the s tate in which he lives. The phrase “Citizen of the United States” is actually a euphemism used for convenience and brevity, and not a legal title. After the Constitution was signed by all the states, the federal government began acquiring “territories”. At the time, these territories were limited to the lands west of the established boundaries of the states, and lands not claimed by the states. People born in those federally held territories, by parents who were not Citizens of a state, became de facto “citizens of the United States”. Although at that time there was no statutory authority for such a thing, international law had (and still has) a long established doctrine that, absent any extenuating circumstances, a person is a citizen of the national jurisdiction (or sovereignty) in which he’s born. The federal territories were outside of the sovereignty of the individual state governments, and within the sovereignty of the United States government; hence the de facto status as a “citizen of the United States”. This principle also applies to persons in Washington DC, which is under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States. [For the sake of clarity, we use a lower case “c” for a citizen of the federal government and an upper case “C” to denote a Citizen of a state of the Union.] It should be noted that “citizens of the United States” are not The People who created the states, then by state action, created the federal government. These “federal citizens” are not “parties to the Constitution” and therefore did not have legal claim to the same rights, privileges, and immunities that state Citizens did.

27

1125

1130

1135

1140

1145

1150

1155

1160

1165

1170

One should take careful note that the Citizens of the states of the Union are the only Citizens who possess all the rights, privileges, and immunities spoken of in the US Constitution, plus whatever additional rights are secured to them by their own state Constitutions. At the end of this section you will see federal and state court cases that clearly show that the rights of one class of Citizen are thoroughly different from the “rights” (actually Congressionally granted privileges) of the other class of citizen. This distinction in the “class of citizenship” continued without significant comment or concern until the end of the Civil War. Although the Civil War was not fought over slavery (despite what you were taught in the public schools), the end of the Civil War nevertheless brought about the end of involuntary servitude and slavery in America. [See Article XIII of the Constitution of the United States.] Prior to the Civil War, the southern states did not recognize blacks as persons who could become Citizens of their states. In fact it was well understood by the Citizens of these southern states that when their state Constitutions protected the right to own “property” or “chattel”, that right included holding slaves. That was exactly what the framers of these southern Constitutions had intended and so that understanding was accurate and factual. After the South lost the rebellion, the United States took the opportunity to free the slaves. This was easier said than done because the Constitutions of the Southern states hadn’t changed a bit just because the South had lost the War. Their Constitutions still did not recognize blacks as persons who could attain citizenship.

“Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same even afterward…except as such was surrendered to the federal government or they were expressly prohibited from exercising by the United States Constitution.” Blair v Ridgely, 97 D. 218, 249, S.P. People v. Coleman, 60 D. 581

Congress was faced with a difficult dilemma; it wanted the freed blacks to become Citizens, but there was nothing in the US Constitution that gave Congress the power to alter the Constitutions of the Southern states. The best Congress could do in an immediate sense was to consider the South under “military occupation” of the United States (which it was) and recognize that as such, the Southern states came within the authority of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. What this meant was that as long as the Southern states were held as a “defeated foe” Congress could pass legislation that would operate within the area known as “the Southern states”. However, in the future, when Congress would restored the Southern states to their former status as regular states of the Union, all such federal legislation would cease to operate in the Southern states. This meant that Congress needed a two-phase solution. The first phase being the enactment of federal laws to operate within the “occupied territories” and the second phase being a Constitutional amendment to secure the principles of those laws even after the laws themselves lost authority in the Southern states. It should be noted at this point that although the slaves were now free, and had been born in a state of the Union, they still were not Citizens of that state. In short, they had no citizenship at all. Under long established doctrines of law, a person who is not a citizen of a place in which he resides is an alien. The legal position of the freed slaves was tenuous – yes, they were free, but they were aliens in the

28

1175

1180

1185

1190

1195

1200

1205

1210

1215

land of their birth and were thus not entitled to the same rights, privileges, and immunities as Citizens. Although defeated in battle, the people of the South were not yet ready to capitulate on the slavery issue and they moved quickly to use the “alien” status of the blacks against them. Almost immediately after the surrender of the Confederacy, many Southern states started enacting “Black Codes”. These laws were intended to operate only upon “persons not citizens” (a phrase right out of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393), and thus effectively limit the new found freedom enjoyed by the former slaves by requiring them to apply for licenses to do anything from holding a job, to hunting for food. Because the Southern states were under the “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” of Congress at this time, any state or local laws that conflicted with federal law would immediately become void and unenforceable. Congress moved quickly to quash the Black Codes. In rapid succession Congress passed the Enforcement Act, the Freedman’s Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Collectively, these acts prevented the enforcement of the Black Codes and simultaneously imbued the freed black slaves with federally granted privileges that are euphemistically called “rights”. It is in the Enforcement Act that we first see the phrase “citizen of the United States” used as a “legal term” embracing only the recently freed black slaves. This term is then used again in the both the Freedman’s Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the same limited manner. It should be noted at this point that the phrase “citizen of the United States” had been used for nearly 8 decades before the Civil War, but always to speak of persons within federal territories. This was the first time that Congress had used the phrase to denote a person who had been born within a state of the Union. Congress could only apply the term in this way, within federal law, at that specific point in history because the South (where the freed blacks lived) was “federal territory” as long as it was being held by the United States military as a “defeated foe”. Phase two of Congress’ plan was put into action with the drafting of the 14th Amendment. Here are its pertinent parts to this discussion:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice P resident of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

In drafting the Amendment, Congress was looking to make its federal laws (the Enforcement Act, the Freedman’s Bureau Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866) a part of the US Constitution. In doing so they intended to ensure that the freed blacks would have certain privileges and protections remain in place after the United States pulled it's army out of the South and restored the Southern states to their

29

1220

1225

1230

1235

1240

1245

1250

1255

1260

previous status as states of the Union. The Amendment would also insure that Congress had the national authority to enforce the provisions of the Amendment upon any state that attempted to violate them. Because the Congressional Acts were merely intended to “hold the line” until the 14th Amendment was ratified, their intent is significant in determining the intent of the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizen of every race and color shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.”

Please note that when the drafters of this bill meant to indicate a Citizen, they clearly used the word “citizen”, however when defining “who” the Act applies to, the drafters used the word “person”. As they used both words within the same paragraph, it is obvious that the drafters were keenly aware of the distinction. Clearly Congressional intent was to provide non-citizens with the same fundamental rights as de jure state Citizens (who in that day, were exclusively white). This intent was further clarified in President Johnson’s speech when he vetoed that bill. President Johnson made this statement as part of his speech:

“It [the Civil Rights Bill of 1866] comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, Negroes, mulattoes and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races born in the United States is made a citizen thereof.”

Once again, it can clearly be seen that the intent of the this Act was to embrace “persons” (as defined in Dred Scott case), but in no way was intended to address or alter the relationship of the de jure white Citizen to his state of birth or domicile. In the case of United States v. Otherson, the US Supreme Court found it necessary to review the historical foundations of the Enforcement Act. The Court found that Senator Stewart, who had sponsored the Enforcement Act legislation, had made the following remarks regarding the Act’s intent. Stewart noted that the bill,

“…simply extends to foreigners, not citizens, the protections of our laws”. He also added that,

“This bill extends [the equal protection of laws] to aliens, so that all persons who are in the United States shall have the equal protection of our laws.”

These realities were not lost upon the various courts that were later called upon to make determinations as to the intent of the various civil rights acts or the 14th Amendment. In Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43

30

1265

1270

1275

1280

1285

1290

1295

1300

1305

1310

Cal Sup Ct. 43, the Court made the following statement:

“No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”

As we are now repeatedly drawing a distinction between blacks and whites, this is probably a good point to stop and address the topic of racism as it relates to this article. This is a historical examination of the law as it existed in the various states and the United States prior to, and after, the Civil War, and how the foundations laid down in those laws and court decisions may still affect our lives today. This article is not intended to critique or pass judgment upon the moral correctness (or lack thereof) of the laws which existed at that time, or upon the decisions of the US Supreme Court in reference to slavery, the Civil War, the various Civil Rights Acts, or the 14th Amendment. It is merely a history lesson with certain inevitable conclusions drawn at the end. Please do not impute any bias, in either direction, to Original Intent. Having said that, let’s carry on. As we have examined, courts in the latter part of the 19th century were quite clear on the intended purpose of the Freedman’s Bureau Act, the Enforcement Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment. However, what has the Supreme Court said in this century? In Hurd v. Hodge (1948), the court explained that in order to understand the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

“…reference must be made to the scope and purpose of the 14th Amendment; for that statute and the Amendment were closely related both in inception and in objectives which Congress sought to achieve”.

The Court further stated that the purpose of the 14th Amendment,

“…was to incorporate the guaranties of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the organic law of the land”.

The “original intent” link can also be found in several other cases as well. Justice Harlan noted that privileges and immunities protected by the 14 Amendment included [used in its restrictive sense] those set forth in the first section of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Thurgood Marshall noted that,

“the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment is the same Congress that passed the 1866 Freedman’s Bureau Act”,

and he concluded that the rights set forth in the Freedman’s Bureau Act were dispositive of Congress’ intent in the 14th Amendment.

In 1987, Justice William Brennan traced the “rights” [actually congressionally granted “privileges”] that are secured by the 14th Amendment to the Freedman’s Bureau bill. He then went on to state that,

“The main target of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were the ‘black codes’ enacted in the Southern States…”

As can be readily seen, even relatively recent Courts have acknowledged the fact that the 14th Amendment was simply intended to integrate elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the

31

1315

1320

1325

1330

1335

1340

1345

1350

1355

Freedman’s Bureau Act into the Constitutional structure of the nation. Accordingly, the 14th Amendment only applies to non-citizens (aliens) who were the exclusive focus of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Freedman’s Bureau Act. Now that the intent, meaning, and proper application of the 14th Amendment have been illustrated, it is clear that the Amendment made “federal citizens” out of specific aliens who otherwise would have had no form of citizenship at all. By converting these “aliens” into “federal citizens”, they fell under the protection of the federal government with regard to those “rights” that had been conferred upon them by the 14th Amendment. In consideration of these facts, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines the 14th Amendment this way: The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;… Note the vagueness in the definition – “…creates or at least recognizes for the first time…”. This vagueness is because Congressional intent purported to embrace only the recently freed slaves, but at the same time, the bare language of the Amendment, (without consideration of Congressional intent) seems to merely recognize the long standing principle that the federal government has its own citizens, who are not state Citizens; a legal reality that existed long before the 14th Amendment. We have covered a lot of ground in this piece and it is important to note that with all of the evidence that is available, it has never once been asserted by any member of Congress, or by the courts, that the 14th Amendment, or the legal term “citizen of the United States” as used before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, applies to native born Citizens of a state of the Union (except when used in laws pertaining to international relations). It should also be noted that the original use and application of the phrase “citizen of the United States” still continues today, unaffected by the 14th Amendment, which embraced only a very narrow and specific group of persons. To summarize the points that we have touched upon thus far:

1) There is an original Citizen of a state of the Union. 2) There is a “citizen of the United States” as that phrase has always been used. 3) There is a “citizen of the United States” as that term is used in the 14th Amendment.

At this juncture one might rightly ask what the practical distinctions are in the three forms of citizenship. Before we move forward with that, we should observe that the 14th Amendment merely constitutionalized the concepts by which the United States had been operating for decades under the doctrine of international law, defining the derivation of citizenship. What made the 14th Amendment necessary was that for the first time the federal government intended to grant federal citizenship to persons born within a state of a Union.

32

1360

1365

1370

1375

1380

1385

1390

1395

1400

Rights of Citizens of the states of the Union The Declaration of Independence states that, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” This clearly lays out the foundation of our rights – we are a ll equal before God, and the law; we possess rights which are “unalienable”; those rights are given to us by God (our Creator). Although the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence said that “all men” are created equal, when it came time to create the legal framework of a government, they understood that they could not include “all men” in a Constitution, but could only speak of those people who had formed the states, which then resulted in the states creating a national government of limited power. It is the state Citizens to whom the phrase “all men” would have to be limited for governmental purposes. Accordingly, as the form of our governments began to take shape, the people who would be able to claim these, “unalienable rights”, which the “Creator” granted, would only be the Citizens of the states. While this may seem like a narrow restriction, one must remember that a government can only make laws (including its Constitution) for its own “body politic”, and no one else. So what are these mysterious “unalienable rights”? The Declaration of Independence says that, “among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. While “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is pretty all encompassing, the words of the Framers tell us that there are more rights involved, and that “among them” are found the rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. In other words, the language of the Framers tells us that “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a designated group of rights within a larger body of rights referred to as our “unalienable rights”. This larger body of “unalienable rights” is vast. In fact, it is so vast that no one, not even the judicial branch, has ever attempted to list the rights contained therein. This is best illustrated by the old adage that, “My right to swing my fist ends somewhere before it hits your nose”. In short, a Citizen can do virtually anything he or she wants, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another Citizen, or endanger the community. Also inclusive in these rights are your protections against mistreatment by the government; the primary protections being expressly stated in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution.

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." -- John Adams, Second President of the United States. (1792-1801)

The US Supreme Court has stated that because these rights existed antecedent [prior to] the formation of either the states or the national government they are outside the government’s power to alter, modify, or abolish. How’s that for some strong protection! With these powerful rights in our hands, one might wonder what sort of “rights” are possessed by “citizens of the United States”.

33

1405

1410

1415

1420

1425

1430

1435

1440

1445

The Poor Stepchild “citizen” If the Citizens of the states of the Union have their “unalienable rights”, what then do “citizens of the United States” have? Frankly, not much of value. For the balance of this section, we will use the term “federal citizen” to denote a “citizen of the United States”. A federal citizen has only those rights that have been granted to him by Congress by way of the numerous and various civil rights acts, and such rights as may have been invested in him by an activist US Supreme Court that felt it could legislate from the bench. Let’s be clear – the “rights” of federal citizens are not given to them by God, as are our unalienable rights. Their rights are given to them by Congress alone, and the most significant point to understand and keep in mind is that, “What Congress giveth, Congress may taketh away”. It has always been this way and it will always be this way. The only thing that may be surprising in all of this is that this is the first time you’re hearing it! Most Americans have no idea that there are two “classes of citizenship”, nor do they understand the vast distinction between the two, and what it means in their lives. Let’s look at what the courts have said about federal citizenship:

“A ‘civil right’ is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.” 82 CA 369. 373, 255, P 760.

“The persons declared to be citizens are, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject…” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94, 101, 102 (1884)

While Elk v. Wilkins is a 14th Amendment case, the concept is still true concerning all federal citizens. In other words, all federal citizens must be, by their very definition, a person who is “completely subject” to the jurisdiction of the federal government (such as a citizen of Washington DC). Virtually any legal concept stated by the courts concerning a 14th Amendment citizen is operative upon all federal citizens.

“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. (See Slaughter House cases, 83 US (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)). Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 839 F. Supp. 1226

“…the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not to be protected from state action by the privilege and immunities clause [of the 14th Amendment].” Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520

“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment,

34

1450

1455

1460

1465

1470

1475

1480

1485

1490

made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.” Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state". Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155;48 So. 788 (1909)

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other". Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

"...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship". Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such". Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual". Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36; 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873)

It should be noted that many of the rights not attributed to federal citizens in the cases above have since been granted to them either by Congress or by the courts. These early decisions simply clarify and solidify the reality that federal citizens are not the same “class of citizen” as state Citizens. Like so many areas in which the federal government has tread, it has unbalanced the equation. Where at one time there was no real problem with there being different classes of citizenship, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Congress went into overdrive with civil rights legislation. The result was a labyrinth of “rights” and protections for federal citizens. Some of these have even found their way into additional Constitutional amendments. Because the state Citizen is a member of The People; the people in whom the sovereignty of the states, and by association, the national government resides, such a Citizen is left to protect his own rights, with no special process to help him accomplish that end. In short, he must defend his rights with all his will, his energy, his money, and passion in the courts for as long as it takes to reach a final outcome. Conversely, the federal citizen need only lodge a complaint with the appropriate federal agency and the power of the federal government moves to punish the person who has allegedly violated that federal citizen’s rights. Of course this is legally appropriate since a federal citizen is little more than a ward of the national government. Such second-class citizens must be cared for by the government as they are not the masters of their government, but mere servants to it, and it is the master’s responsibility to care for his servants.

35

1495

1500

1505

1510

1515

1520

1525

1530

1535

1540

The 14th Amendment Clarified In the time since Original Intent’s website went on-line, a small minority of people have attempted to argue against the proper meaning and application of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America, as stated in this document. If you have not yet read the Original Intent treatises on these subjects, you should stop now and read the treatises before proceeding further. Some of the arguments raised against the facts and conclusions provided in the Citizenship treatise are merely mistaken, others are inane; all are misleading. The casual student may at times be swayed away from the truth by the specious arguments of people who may be seen as some form of “authority”. These “authorities” may be people such as judges, attorneys, or law school graduates. Make no mistake – such people are not above misrepresenting the facts and conclusions. You should be the final arbiter as to the true meaning and application of the 14th Amendment. It is the purpose of this piece to clarify the issues so that the casual student will not be led astray by errant facts, specious arguments, or the flowery prose of legal refinement.

History Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent’s citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856). Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear. As is so often the case when one is dissembling, those who pervert the meaning and application of the Amendment refuse to even discuss quite a number of relevant facts while twisting and misrepresenting the few quotes upon which they rest their errant and flawed position. Amazingly, some even quote from various court decisions with the intention of destroying their opponent’s position, while failing to realize or understand that the quotes actually eviscerate their own position. But such is the consequence for those who oppose the truth. Let’s be clear about one thing – there are many people – with differing motives – who will tell you that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone. Even some decisions of the US Supreme Court, written long after the Court’s early 14th Amendment decisions were rendered, attempt to paint a picture that the Supreme Court justices who lived during the Amendment’s ratification were somehow confused about its meaning, but that they [the later justices] know better the true meaning of the Amendment. Such representations are legal poppycock intended to support a court’s political agenda. All judges know that one of the primary “rules of construction” (both constitutional and statutory) is that early decisions, made closer to the time of the event, are to be given far greater weight than the views of jurists who may have ruled on the subject many decades after the fact. We will not quote from the Dred Scott decision in this piece, instead preferring that you

36

1545

1550

1555

1560

1565

1570

1575

1580

1585

read the decision for yourself and then apply the facts, logic, and reason contained below in the sections labeled, “Truth”.

The Arguments Errant Position #1: The term “citizen of the United States” as used in the 14th Amendment, means the same thing in the opening verse of the U.S. Constitution. Truth: The phrase “Citizen of the United States”, as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, does not have the same meaning as the term “citizen of the United States”, as used in the 14th Amendment. The phrase “Citizen of the United States”, as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for “All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called “states”] that are a party to this Constitution”. This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise. Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase “people of the United States”, and its pre-Civil War synonym, “Citizen of the United States” (as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation. In other words, neither you, nor I, nor the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter). That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words. Because the phrase “Citizen of the United States”, as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed meaning for all time, it obviously can never be used to mean people of African decent brought here for the purpose of slavery, or their posterity; so says the US Supreme Court. [see Dred]. A constitutional amendment may change a mechanism or methodology of a constitution, but it can never change the meaning the framers had in mind when they wrote the document. Those who wish to dishonestly apply the 14th Amendment to people concerning whom it was never intended, will try to persuade you that even though the phrase “Citizen of the United States”, as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed and permanent meaning for all time, the 14th Amendment somehow changed what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that phrase. That proposition is obviously absurd and can only be promoted by people who are either ill-informed or dishonest. Since the term “citizen of the United States”, as used in the 14th Amendment, quite clearly does embrace people of African decent, brought here for the purpose of slavery, and their posterity, this “citizen of the United States” must be a new and different term, separate and distinct from that used in the opening stanza of the US Constitution. And it is!

37

1590

1595

1600

1605

1610

1615

1620

1625

1630

• Citizen of the United States (as used in opening of the US Constitution):

Any free white male who was a citizen of any of the original 13 states, and any free white male who is a citizen of any state thereafter admitted to the Union.

• citizen of the United States (as used in the Amendment):

Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state (at that time), not a citizen thereof.

In short, the 14th Amendment created another [new] class of citizen. This new type of citizen was not created by the well-settled and long existing rules and tradition of international law as relating to citizenship, such as is the case for men who gained their state citizenship by birth upon the land. This new class of citizen gained his citizenship by the citizens of the “original class of citizenship” agreeing to establish a new class of citizenship and gifting that new class of citizenship (by the Amendment) to a certain designated “class of persons” who, at that time, were without any form of citizenship. Errant Position #2: Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 of Title 42 of the United States Code prove that the 14th Amendment applies to all Americans. Truth: People who make this argument are not only wrong, but none too bright. Their pet theory can only pretend validity if §1983, 1985, and 1986 exist in a vacuum, which of course, they don’t. Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 are within Chapter 21, which is succinctly entitled “Civil Rights”. As the California Supreme plainly stated:

“A ‘civil right’ is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person’s enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.” 82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

As all Americans should know, our “inalienable rights” are not “given by law”, but according to the organic law of the United States, i.e. the Declaration of Independence, are given by God and are not subject to interference by the government. Since Americans claiming the original class of citizenship have “inalienable rights”, what rights have 14th Amendment citizens? The answer is as clear as it is unfortunate: mere civil rights. Proponents of this erroneous argument begin at §1983. They conveniently forget that chapter 21 begins with §1981. Isn’t it odd that the proponents of this erroneous argument happen to skip the first three sections [1981, 1981a & 1982] of the Civil Rights chapter? Not really, because if they directed your attention to the beginning sections of the chapter, their argument would immediately collapse.

42 USC 1981(a): All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens….

38

1635

1640

1645

1650

1655

1660

1665

1670

1675

1680

Clearly “persons” are being distinguished from “white citizens”. That is because the term “person” as used in §1981 is the same “person” as in the 14th Amendment, who is the same “person” as in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act, and the Freedman’s Bureau Act, all of which deal exclusively with one “class of person”, which is – Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state is not a citizen thereof. It is also crystal clear that §1981 gives “persons” that which “white citizens” already had/have. Certainly Congress didn’t write §1981 to give “white citizens” what they already had before §1981 was ever conceived! So how does §1981 affect §1983, 1985 & 1986? Let’s start by looking at §1983.

42 USC §1983 – Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution…

All federal civil rights laws since 1867 have been enacted solely on the constitutional authority of the 14th Amendment. [The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was applicable only to the Southern states that were being held by the Union Army as a defeated foe and therefore no constitutional question existed as to its applicability.] We have already explained who the 14th Amendment citizen really is, so we will not cover that again. However, who is it that is “within the jurisdiction thereof” as stated in §1983? The phrase “within the jurisdiction thereof” is taken from the language of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…

Put simply, “jurisdiction” is merely the lawful authority to act. Jurisdiction may arise from geography or subject matter. [See Federal Jurisdiction treatise.] In the case of the 14th Amendment, the jurisdiction is based on subject matter, not geography. The issue being addressed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is plainly “citizenship”. So where does citizenship come from? [See Citizenship treatise.] Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, citizenship could only be obtained at the state level. Any rights, privileges and immunities [main body of the Constitution] obtained under the federal Constitution were based exclusively on one’s status as a citizen of a state of the Union. It is still that way today for Americans who are within that original class of citizenship. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the citizens of the states of the Union agreed to give Congress a hitherto unpossessed power; the power to grant a form of federal citizenship to those “persons” who had been born in any state of the Union, who’d been held in slavery, and under the Constitution of that state could not become a citizen thereof. The states also agreed to consider this

39

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

1710

1715

1720

1725

new form of citizen as a citizen of a state if the person were to reside within a state. In other words, §1983 offers its protection to the very same “class of person” as does §1981. In fact, §1981 provides the underlying legal basis, i.e. “…[to] enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens”, upon which all other sections of chapter 21 are built. Or phrased another way, every section that comes after §1981 is merely a mechanism to enforce one or more elements of §1981. Errant Position #3: The 14th Amendment changed the constitutional landscape so that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was no longer operative in America. Truth: Yes, but not in the way the purveyors of this argument would have you believe – and the distinction is significant. The US Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to even hear the Dred Scott matter because there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution. The Court ruled that there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution because Dred Scott and his family were not “Citizens of the United States”, as such phrase was used in the Constitution, and as it was meant by the men who constructed the Constitution. As previously discussed, no amendment can change what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “Citizen of the United States” in the opening of the US Constitution. Therefore, the Amendment could not overturn the underlying Constitutional premise the Court used to reach its determination, which was that black folks (and their posterity) who were brought here for the purpose of slavery could never be citizens in the sense in which that term is used in the main body of the US Constitution. In other words, the Amendment could not revise history. What the Amendment did was to “add to” the Constitution by establishing a second “class of citizen” over whom the federal courts would have jurisdiction. However, underlying this seemingly favorable course of action was a pervasive and insidious problem in the making. Prior to the ratification of the Amendment, for people in the original class of citizenship, their state courts dealt with virtually every matter that was appropriate to be brought before a court, and the federal courts could only hear matters that dealt exclusively with issues in the U.S. Constitution, or federal action in connection with the first 13 amendments. In other words, the line between state and federal authority in the lives of citizens was crystal clear. Although the 14th Amendment was intended to serve a laudable purpose, the unintended consequence was to radically shift the balance of federalism and blur the lines almost beyond distinction. How did that happen? For people in the original class of citizenship, the courts of the United States had almost no jurisdiction in their affairs. Opportunity for federal intervention in the lives of the average American was virtually nil. [Ah, the good old days!] By contrast, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the United States government became the preeminent protector of every “right” of the persons granted citizenship by the Amendment. This meant that the federal government could tell the states how they could and could not deal with “its” citizens. In other words, a state legislature could vote to control this or that within it borders relating the proper view of life in that state, but the federal government had the right to say,

40

1730

1735

1740

1745

1750

1755

1760

1765

1770

“That’s fine for your citizens [original class], but we won’t permit you to apply that law to our citizens [14th Amendment] who may be living in your state”. This meant that for the first time in history, the United States government could haul a state official into federal court for enforcing a law duly passed by the elected officials of the state for which he worked! While this was a positive tool for protecting the recently freed black slaves from egregious state legislation such as the Black Codes, it flung the door open to federal intervention in the states in a way the Founding Fathers had never intended, nor would have permitted. Errant Position #4: The US Supreme Court has said that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect all Americans. Truth: This is a statement that requires a little deeper digging to understand. One of the cases frequently cited in support of that contention is Bartemeyer v. Iowa (1873). The Bartemeyer quote offered for that argument is:

"By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it has now become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressive legislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them without due process of law.”

This statement hardly supports the point of view it is offered to support. Let’s look at the court’s statement in two parts by breaking the sentence in half. The first part of the statement is, “By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” We can’t imagine why anyone would disagree with that statement – it certainly states exactly what the 14th Amendment was intended to provide for the “persons” to whom it applied. The second half of the sentence reads, “…it has now become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressive legislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them without due process of law.” We’ve emphasized the critical words within that sentence. While the Court (and others) might like the general population to presume that the 14th Amendment embraced everyone, the need for legal accuracy compelled the Court to delineate to which citizen it was referring, by referring to 14th Amendment citizens as the nation’s “humblest citizens”. In Dred Scott, the Court referred to recently freed black slaves as: “the unfortunate race”; “the subject race” [as in “subjugated”]; “inferior class of beings”; “the unhappy race”; “the unhappy black race”.

41

1775

1780

1785

1790

1795

1800

1805

1810

1815

1820

The Court classified the recently freed black slaves by saying, “The Negro race is a separate class of persons” and “The deepest degradation was fixed upon the whole race”. In distinction to these less-than-flattering comments, the Court referred to the white race as “the dominant race”, but more importantly held that only white citizens of the states of the Union could be considered “Citizens of the United States” (as such phrase is used in the opening paragraph of the US Constitution).

It should also be noted that the Bartemeyer decision was rendered in 1873, when language was used differently than it is today. When the Court used the phrase, “its humblest citizen” it is referring to “the unfortunate race”, “the subject race”, “inferior class of beings”, “the unhappy black race”. Because the 14th Amendment had provided the recently freed black slaves with a form of citizenship, the Court could no longer refer to that “separate class of persons” as it had in Dred, but needed to find a gentle manner of referring to the new class of citizens. Keeping somewhat in line with the outlook of the Court in Dred, which was the dominant perspective of the day, the Court referred to the new black citizens as America’s “humblest citizens”. While it is hard to believe today, the most vocal abolitionists of the day did not seek “equality” for freed blacks. In fact, they had no intentions of making black citizens equal to white citizens. The very idea was considered ridiculous in that day. [It would be ninety years until the now defunct doctrine of “separate but equal” would be uttered.] The new black citizens were expected to be, and remain, “humble” in the face of white citizens. Even though black men and women (and certain other minorities) were no longer slaves, the vast majority of white Americans at that time expected the new black citizens to humble themselves at all time before whites. No one in that day seriously considered that ending slavery had anything to do with equality of the races. Today, we tend to think of “humble” as being akin to “meek”. That is but one definition of “humble”. When the Bartemeyer Court used that word, it was applying the meaning more in line with the Court’s dicta in Dred concerning the condition of the black race. According to the 1994 Webster’s II dictionary, humble also means: Exhibiting deferential or submissive respect. The word “humbled” is defined as: To make lower in condition or status. Given the history of blacks in America, considering the words of the Court in Dred, and considering the historical reality that even the most ardent abolitionists of the day did not see blacks as being equal to whites, which definition of “humble” do you believe the Court was applying? In fact, at that time it was the well-recognized purpose of the 14th Amendment to vest the black citizens with only a short list of rudimentary rights. Those rights were:

1) To make and enforce contracts 2) To sue, be parties, give evidence 3) To the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.

The harsh historical reality is that if the 14th Amendment had been touted in that day as a means of promoting or establishing equality between the races, it would never have been ratified.

42

1825

1830

1835

1840

1845

1850

1855

1860

1865

The rights granted by the 14th Amendment are still codified to this very day in Title 42 of the United States Code, at §1981:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

You will see from the emphasized phrase that §1981 (which codifies the intention and limits of the 14th Amendment) makes it clear that “persons” [“a separate class of person” – Dred] are to be treated the same as “white citizens”. The meaning is so clear that it is amazing anyone would contend otherwise. Errant Position #5: The Due Process of Law commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment is a codification of the “One Law” rule prescribed in Deuteronomy Truth: There is no historical support for this argument. There is not one single utterance along these lines from the men who drafted or sponsored the 14th Amendment, or from any political commentary during the ratification period. Errant Position #6: If one does not believe that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, then such a person is saying that white citizens are left in the same position as was Dred Scott before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Truth: This ridiculous argument is a pathetic last-ditch effort by those who are desperate to somehow manipulate people into accepting a false proposition. The position is so clearly errant that it deserves no comment. However, for the sake of thoroughness… In Dred, the Court held that Scott was not a Citizen of the United States (as such phrase is used in the opening of the US Constitution) because he was a member of the black race, whose ancestors had been brought to America for the purpose of being slaves, and no such person, or such person’s offspring, could be considered Citizens of the United States. The 14th Amendment was drafted to create a form of citizenship for such persons, and thus [allegedly] rectify their plight. Nothing about Dred, or the 14th Amendment, has anything to do with white citizens of a state of the Union. Errant Position #7: The concurring opinion of Justice Field in Bartemeyer should be considered as spelling out the true meaning of the 14th Amendment. Truth: Justice Field was an activist justice. In other words, he cared little for what the law really said or really meant, but gave great weight to how the law might be bent to serve any social agenda he thought laudable. It should be noted that Justice Field’s opinion is just that – his opinion. It is not the decision of the Court in Bartemeyer. Further, Field is rebelling against the Court’s prior decision in The Slaughter-House Cases. In the Slaughter-House Cases, the Court held that the 14th Amendment applied only to those persons who had previously been held in slavery, and did not apply to white state Citizens. Field did not like the Court’s

43

1870

1875

1880

1885

1890

1895

1900

1905

1910

1915

decision in Slaughter-House, so in his concurring opinion in Bartemeyer he states his alternative view. Field even goes so far in his concurring opinion as to reveal that his view [that the Amendment should be perverted to cover everyone] does not comport itself with the true meaning of the Amendment. After stating his opinion that everyone should be covered by the Amendment, Field writes, “[The Amendment] clothes its possessor, or would do so if not shorn of its efficiency by construction, with the right….”

Construction – The process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper explanations of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisions…by reasoning in the light derived from extraneous connected circumstances or laws or writings bearing upon the same or connected matter, or by seeking and applying the probable aim and purpose of the provision. Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed.

Clearly, Field is saying is that his opinion (which he touts as “efficiency”) would clothe everyone with the protections of the 14th Amendment unless one actually practices the art of construction. If one practices the art of construction (i.e. seeking out the true intended meaning), then Field’s view of the Amendment is shorn. In short, Field admits that his view is only credible unless or until you look for the true application and meaning of the Amendment, at which time you find that his view isn’t factual, but fanciful. It is further evidenced that the concurring opinion of Field is merely wishful thinking because the actual holding of the Court in Bartemeyer is that the 14th Amendment had no bearing on the case. Despite the fact that the Amendment was irrelevant to the case, three justices, Bradley, Swayne, and Field, wrote concurring opinions that expressed their views on the 14th Amendment. Not surprisingly, all three justices disagreed with the Court’s decision in Slaughter-House. Considering the fact that the Court’s actual opinion in Bartemeyer held that the Amendment had no bearing on the case, it becomes plainly obvious that these justices were pursuing a political and/or social agenda that had nothing to do with the case before them. Accordingly, legal researchers should be aware that these justices were voicing personal political views outside the scope of the case. Their remarks are clearly dicta. Interestingly, the people who tell you that your opinion should be based on this kind of social agenda-dicta will not tell you that dicta has no precedent effect upon future cases.

Dicta – Opinions of judges which do not embody the resolution or determination of the case before the court. Expressions in court’s opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of author of opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Why would someone direct you to irrelevant dicta from a case where the Amendment was not an issue, when the Court had already decided the proper application of the Amendment in Slaughter-House? The word “deceit” leaps to mind. Errant Position #8: The 14th Amendment prevents the states of the Union from infringing upon various rights held by all Americans. Truth: This argument is flawed on a number of self-evident levels. As has been earlier noted, the 14th Amendment did not vest white citizens with any rights, and only vested the recently freed slaves (i.e.

44

1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

“citizens of the United States”) with very limited rights. The only rights that can be protected by the federal government under the authority of the Amendment are those rights given by the Amendment. As has been previously covered in this treatise, true American citizens have “inalienable rights”, which come from God, not government. Is it then supposed that somehow, 78 years after our nation was founded, the 14th Amendment suddenly gave us our rights? Some would say that the 14th Amendment simply prevented the states from infringing on the privileges and immunities clause [Article IV, Section 2], and the due process provision of the 5th Amendment. This silly theory is also easily debunked. The federal Constitution is a contract between all the states of Union. In Article IV, Section 2 of the main body of the Constitution, we find the privileges and immunities clause:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

This was one of the pivotal sections of the Constitution under review in Dred. There was/is no question that no state was at liberty to infringe on this provision, and if a state did so, there was no question that such a violation would raise a “federal Constitutional question” which would be heard by a federal court. In other words, the revisionist history claim that the 14th Amendment was needed to protect white state citizens from state abridgment of the privileges and immunities clause, is baseless and without a shred of merit. The issue was not that an amendment was needed to protect white state citizens of the day from state abridgement of the privileges and immunities clause; the issue was that the recently freed black slaves needed to be granted some form of citizenship so that they too could enjoy some level of protection from state action. The due process argument is just as vapid and meritless. Every state of the Union had/has a due process clause in their constitutions. Under the federal privileges and immunities clause [main body, not 14th Amendment], the right of due process would be secured to every American citizen traveling throughout the country. That was indeed the purpose of the privileges and immunities clause. Once again, the problem was not that white citizens were without “due process” as they traveled from state to state, or that the federal government was not Constitutionally authorized to rectify state abridgements of due process rights. It was that the recently freed black slaves were not considered citizens – and therefore the protections of the privileges and immunities clause and due process did not apply to them. As you can clearly see, white citizens did not need the 14th Amendment. Their protections were quite secure. The 14th Amendment was a grant of a special form of citizenship to the recently freed slaves (and their posterity), and also contained the framework of rights and protections that would be a part of this new type of citizenship.

45

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Constitutional Issues of Taxation Most Americans understand that all government functions must be authorized by their state constitution or the Constitution of the United States. While this understanding may not be as firm as it was in our grandparents’ day, it is still fairly well acknowledged. However, some feel that when it comes to matters of taxation, the government throws the Constitution out the window and all must follow the dictates of the government or pay the piper. While this is not legally true, there is ample reason for people to feel this way. The purpose of this article is to clarify what the Constitutional boundaries of taxation are and what we can do to stay clear of the boundary markers. First and foremost we want to assure you that even government’s taxing authority must be exercised in compliance with your state constitution, or if a federal tax, with the US Constitution. Some of you who have investigated the Constitutional limits of taxation know that the subject can be difficult and frustrating. The Constitutional issues of taxation must be understood not only through a proper view of law, but also through a proper view of history. Taxation is as much a part of our nation’s history as is King George III or George Washington. We will attempt to break down the Constitutional realities of federal taxation for you without inundating you with court cases and other citations. We will try to present a plain-English explanation that weaves together all the essential legal realities that are elsewhere [in other web sites and books] explored in such excruciating minutia (sometime correctly, sometimes not). We hope to give you a strong and logical framework into which you can place all that you have read or seen, as well as all that you may find in the future.

Historical Reference Prior to the creation of the federal Constitution, the United States had been operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation had a few glaring deficiencies, but the most problematic was the inability of the US to compel payments from the states to cover the operating costs of the federal government. In other words, Congress (which is nothing more than the states of the Union voting on what the national government will do) was authorizing the Executive Branch to take various actions, but then some of the states were not paying the bills responsibly for the actions Congress had authorized. When the US Constitution was created, the Founding Fathers sought to correct this problem by giving the federal government clearly defined taxing powers. Direct taxes were to operate solely upon the state governments, while indirect taxes were to operate upon whomsoever would avail himself of a privileged activity (i.e. indirect taxation). However, because the states (as colonies) had been subject to taxes that were used for political punishment, as well as at times enduring taxes rates that were considered intolerably high, the Founding Fathers clearly specified the forms of the taxation that could be laid, along with the rules that the government must follow in order to Constitutionally lay such taxes.

46

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

What Does The US Constitution Permit? The Federal Constitution only permits the government to lay two forms of taxation. One is a “direct tax” and the other an “indirect tax”. Together these two forms of taxation comprise the whole; much like the northern and southern hemisphere – there’s no third choice. The term “indirect tax” never appears in the Constitution. The Constitution permits the US Government to “ lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises…” [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.] Although there has been some debate about the meaning of the word “taxes”, as it appears in the above quote, it is generally held that its use refers to the direct taxes authorized in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, while “duties, imposts and excises” are the three species of taxes which comprise the class of indirect taxes. So how can we tell the difference between these two forms of taxation that the US Supreme Court has called “…the two great tax classes”? Here’s a solid definition of “direct tax” straight from the US Supreme Court:

“Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights”. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41

[See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, which grants the U.S. the power to lay a direct tax.] In other words, direct taxes cannot be avoided because they are upon things that are fixed – such as your physical being, your real property, and certain fundamental rights. By contrast, an indirect tax is a tax that you can avoid by choosing not become involved in the activity upon which the tax is laid. An example of this might be importing products from another country into the United States. In such a circumstance one is required to pay an import duty. However, one can avoid paying an import duty simply by not importing foreign products into this country. Another example might be distilling rum in the Virgin Islands and importing it into the states of the Union. If one wishes to avoid the taxes involved in such a process, one need only to refrain form the activity. In short, an indirect tax is a tax that you can choose to avoid without giving up the normal affairs of life. However, if one cannot avoid a taxable activity without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but direct. Since within the class of indirect taxes, the excise tax is the one most familiar to the American public; what exactly is an excise tax?

“The term ‘excise tax’ and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.” American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880

Here is a more detailed definition:

47

2055

2060

2065

2070

2075

2080

2085

2090

2095

“The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in performing the act, enjoying the privilege or engaging in the privilege which is the subject of the excise, and the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking” People ex rel, Atty Gen v. Naglee, 1 Cal 232; Bank of Commerce & T. Co. v. Senter, 149 Tenn. 441SW 144

You will note that two elements are mandatory upon the government if a tax is to be classified as an excise, and thus avoid the requirement of apportionment. The first is that your actions must be “voluntary”. In other words, as stated earlier, you must be free to steer clear of the “taxable activity” without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life. Secondly, if you steer clear of the “taxable activity” the government cannot make a demand upon you for the tax that you cannot avoid by stating (or showing) that you were not involved in any excise taxable activity. We will revisit this issue later in the article.

How Does “Income Tax” Fit Into The Constitutional Scheme? Although the tax that concerns most people is “income tax”, the Constitutional question really rests on whether a tax (any tax) is a “direct tax” or an “indirect tax”. As an example, Congress may pass a tax law that clearly structures a tax as a direct tax, and call that tax an “income tax”. The following month they may pass another tax measure that is clearly structured as an indirect tax, and also call that an “income tax”. If properly constructed, one bill would lay a direct tax, while the other bill would lay an indirect tax, and both would be referred to (by ignorant politicians) as “income tax” bills. You can see that the term “income tax” does not really answer a Constitutional question concerning taxation. For almost a century now people have been making the mistake of trying to define “income tax” as being exclusively within one tax class or the other, not understanding that it can be can be either depending on how Congress structures any particular tax. As a nation, we have been fixated by the phrase “income tax”, but it is important to know that term is one that can shift like the wind. We must focus on the issue of direct v. indirect. While the phrase “income tax” has a historic meaning in law, that formerly fixed meaning has been eroded to the point of near uselessness by misapplication of the phrase by Congress, the courts, and the public over the last 90 years. [Editor’s Note: Historically speaking, until the adoption of the 16th Amendment blurred the lines, the US Supreme Court had always viewed an “income tax” as a tax solely in the form of a direct tax. The Court did not view “excise taxes” as “income taxes”. In many of the Court’s decisions between 1913 and 1921, the Court clearly stated that the various tax acts passed by Congress, which laid excise taxes under the guise of “income taxes”, were not really “income tax acts”.]

Constitutional Regulations In addition to allowing the national government to lay direct and indirect taxes, the US Constitution also mandates two “rules” concerning how the government can lay such taxes.

?? Direct taxes must be “apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union”. [See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.] ?? “All duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States”. [See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]

48

2100

2105

2110

2115

2120

2125

2130

2135

2140

Although there has been some debate on what apportionment actually means in a political sense, it is safe to say that it requires the population data from the most recent census be used to distribute the tax burden evenly throughout the states of the Union. Uniform means that each person taxed in a given circumstance will be taxed at the same rate as any other person would be taxed in the very same circumstance. As an example, if a person produces 80 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into the United States at the port of New Orleans, he will be taxed exactly the same as any other man who would do exactly the same thing. However, if a man produces 100 proof dark rum in the Virgin Islands and brings it into port at New Orleans, it is Constitutional for him to be taxed at a different rate because his circumstance (bringing in 100 proof rum) is different from that of the first man (who was bringing in 80 proof rum).

The Dastardly 16th Amendment! Because this document is about facts, and not about rhetoric or hyperbole, we will not delve into the ugly waters of what the 16th Amendment might have been intended (secretly or otherwise) to accomplish, or how the politics of the 16th Amendment were devious, or whether or not the 16th was properly ratified. We will stick to “what is” in this day and age. We describe the 16th Amendment as “dastardly” not because of the politics attendant to its drafting or its alleged ratification, but because of the great misunderstandings that have followed its alleged ratification and the massive governmental theft of property from the American people that has occurred due to that misunderstanding. It is a completely factual statement to say that the 16th Amendment has resulted in the largest fraud ever perpetrated by a government against its Citizens. We say “fraud” because one of the elements of the crime of fraud is to remain silent when there is a clear duty to speak, and certainly our government has a clear duty to come out and tell the public that most Americans do not owe a penny of Subtitle ‘A’ or ‘C’ taxes, either under the original provisions of the Constitution, or under the alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (as you will see later). Although the government has always had a duty to speak out, recently representatives of the United States Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service had agreed to attend a hearing arranged by We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education and Congressman Bartlett. [The hearing was originally scheduled for Sept. of 2001, but was rescheduled for Feb. of 2002.] The purpose of the hearing was for the American people to get straight answers to some disturbing questions about US tax law and the administration of tax policy. Two weeks after receiving the first 199 questions, the DOJ and the IRS broke their word and pulled out of the hearing. The questions that were submitted to DOJ and IRS can be viewed at, http://www.givemeliberty.org/bartlettresponse/draftquestions01-22-02.html Furthermore, the federal government (with the state governments acting in complicity) continually seizes property not lawfully subject to seizure, routinely forces nontaxpayers into regulatory administrative tribunals, and repeatedly puts people in jail for not paying a tax they never legally owed. [See The Willful Failure to File Scam.] And all of this government deceit and manipulation became possible only because the 16th Amendment exists.

49

2145

2150

2155

2160

2165

2170

2175

2180

2185

2190

What Did The 16th Amendment Do? The 16th Amendment was an attempt to overturn, by Constitutional Amendment, the supposed tax limitations placed on the national government by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895). [While we see the 16th Amendment as being wholly unnecessary as a response to the Pollock decision, that discussion would require an entire separate article.] Here is what the 16th Amendment says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That’s it! That’s the entire text of the Amendment that has caused so much confusion and trouble. Historically, Americans of yesteryear were aware that a direct tax was upon their person, or their real property (including slaves), or their exercise of other fundamental rights. They were also aware that a tax on the fruits of one’s property (such as receiving payment from renting a piece of real property) was also a direct tax unless those earnings where in the course of a privileged activity, and then they were subject to an excise tax. In Pollock, the US Supreme Court stated that a tax upon earnings derived from one’s existing property (real or personal) must be considered a direct tax subject to the rule of apportionment. This gave rise to concern in banking and government circles because they felt (and we agree) that corporations are something that is legislated into existence by the government and therefore the fruits therefrom is properly subject to an excise tax. In other words, the Pollock decision made no distinction between a man earning rent from his private property, and a man earning a return on his investment in a corporation. The former must properly be considered a direct tax, while the latter should rightly be considered an excise. The rent from a man’s private property is his “private affairs”, and thus outside government’s authority to lay any tax except a direct tax subject to apportionment. However, profit or gain (to a shareholder) from a corporate enterprise should properly be income subject to taxation as an excise taxable activity – after all, there would be no opportunity for said profit if the state hadn’t granted the corporation into existence. We may never know whether the framers of the 16th Amendment had a legitimate concern about Pollock being used to challenge the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, or whether it simply provided a convenient excuse to try and alter the Constitution’s tax regulation (i.e. apportionment for direct taxes). Fortunately, it matters not what their intentions may have been; it only matters what was actually accomplished. The US Supreme Court has ruled on the meaning of the 16th Amendment many times. However, because each case has had different particulars, it is sometimes difficult to understand the decisions in a cohesive fashion or to give all the cases one settled meaning. Fortunately, we don’t need to spend a lot of time reconciling all the various particulars of each case because the Court has been very clear as to the definition of “income” as used in the 16th Amendment. Since the Amendment only grants Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes on incomes”, that definition is rather critical.

50

2195

2200

2205

2210

2215

2220

2225

2230

2235

Let’s look at what the various courts have said about “income” and the 16th Amendment:

“The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.” Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575

The last part of that quote is crucial to a proper understanding of the impact 16th Amendment, and indeed the entire tax structure of the federal government. It is essential that you understand that only “16th Amendment income” can be taxed without apportionment.

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals’ Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)

From these two decisions alone, we can pinpoint some very crucial information.

*All property (which includes income) other than “16th Amendment income” can only be taxed if the tax is constitutionally apportioned.

*“16th Amendment income” can be taxed without apportionment.

*Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between “income” in the ordinary sense, and “16th Amendment income”.

*A Citizen’s property (which includes ordinary income) cannot be taxed as an excise.

Do you feel like we’re narrowing in on the meat of the issue? Good, because we are! Now that we know the points indicated above, what we really need to know is what is “16th Amendment income”. Once w e know that, we should be getting a pretty good handle on what is Constitutionally taxable and under what rules! Interestingly, in order to find the meaning of the word “income”, as used within 16th Amendment, we must first explore the meaning of the word “income” as it is used within the 1909 Corporate Tax Act.

“As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation”. Stratton’s Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)

51

2240

2245

2250

2255

2260

2265

2270

2275

2280

As an indirect (excise) tax, the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 was not a tax upon property, but was a tax upon the privilege [enjoyed by the shareholders] of doing business in the corporate form, and the tax to be paid for exercising that privilege was determined by how much profit each shareholder took from the corporation. So why is the 1909 Corporate Tax Act so important?

“[Income]…must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court”. Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of “income” [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of “income” – and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court. So now that we know the “form” of the tax being laid in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, and we know that its definition must be used in every income tax act Congress might create, what has the Court said about the definition of “income” in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act?

“[Income is] derived--from--capitol--the--gain--derived--from--capital, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capitol, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value…severed from capital however invested or employed and coming in, being “derived”, that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description…”. [emphasis in original] Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

O.K…so now we know the “form” of the 16th Amendment income tax, the fact that all 16th Amendment income taxes must use the same definition of “income”, and we have the formula for determining what “16th Amendment income” is. The only thing we’re really missing at this point is specifically what activity is taxable under the 16th Amendment!

“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of ‘income’, it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.” Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:

“…I therefore recommend an amendment…imposing on all corporations…an excise tax

52

2285

2290

2295

2300

2305

2310

2315

2320

2325

2330

measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity…” Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

Two months later Congress drafted the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. So, if Congress could pass a tax bill laying a tax on the profits of corporations prior to the 16th Amendment, why was the 16th Amendment needed? We may never know what the true intention of the framers of the 16th Amendment were, but there are three prevailing opinions:

*They honestly felt that the Pollock decision could be a threat to taxing corporate investment profits and so they moved to overturn the Pollock decision’s holding that a tax upon the gains from existing property was a direct tax.

*They did not think Pollock was a threat, but it made a convenient excuse to attempt to undermine the constitutional rule of apportionment on direct taxes, which many greedy politicians found terribly restrictive to their goal of robbing the American people through taxation.

*They felt that shareholder’s profits from state-charted corporations could not be reached by the federal government for tax purposes without the Amendment.

Because item #3 is the least well recognized, we’ll take moment to explain that theory (items #1 & 2 needing no explanation). The vast majority of corporations that existed (then as now) were corporations chartered by the legislatures of the states of the Union. While the federal government had the power to lay excise taxes, such power was limited to certain subjects that were traditionally and historically within the purview of the federal government for excise purposes. There was no historical, traditional, or constitutional basis for the United States to assume it had the power to lay an excise tax on Citizens of the states of the Union who were enjoying a privilege which was sought solely from their state governments. The 1909 Corporate Tax Act had authority over corporations created by Congress, corporations created in a federal possession or territory, and corporations operating in interstate commerce, but not plain old state-charted corporations generally. Under this theory, the 16th Amendment was necessary only to bring the profits of state-charted corporations within the Constitutional reach of the federal government.

How Does The Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Tie Together?

“[Income]…must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word ‘income’ thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

53

2335

2340

2345

2350

2355

2360

2365

2370

2375

Immediately at the end of that passage from Merchant, the very first citation provided by the Court is, Doyle. And how did the Doyle court define “income”?

“…gain or increase arising from corporate activities.” We wonder how much more clear the Court has to be before people will understand that “16th Amendment income” is only related to the privilege of profiting from investing in corporations. Let’s take this a bit further and explore this statement from a US Supreme Court decision:

“The word ‘income’ as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states…” Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

While a “cash dividend” represents profit to the shareholder, and is thus “income” under the 16th Amendment, a “stock dividend” is not profit that been “severed from capital” as is required to meet the definition of income under the 16th Amendment (ibid, Eisner). The Eisner quote featured above clearly illustrates that the apportionment clause of the Constitution is alive and well and has not been repealed or substantially altered by the 16th Amendment. Let’s take a moment to evaluate where we are:

*The Constitutional question we really need to be asking is whether a particular tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. What label that tax wears, such as “income tax”, has basically become irrelevant due to misapplication of the phrase for the last 90 years.

*In historical terms, an income tax (pre-16th Amendment) was always considered to be a tax that was direct.

*In historical terms, and in the words of the US Supreme Court, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act was not an “income tax” [direct tax].

*The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. This is confirmed by both Congress and the US Supreme Court.

*Profit from corporate business (“16th Amendment income”) is not that which the tax is laid upon, but merely a “yardstick” by which is computed the amount of tax that is due in exchange for exercising the privilege. In other words, profit from corporate business (“16th Amendment income”) determines the value of the privilege, and thus the amount of tax to be paid.

*The US Supreme Court has said that the definition of “income”, as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, must be used by Congress for all its (16th Amendment) income tax acts. *The US Supreme Court has stated that the definition of income used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is what the American people had in mind when they adopted the 16th Amendment.

54

2380

2385

2390

2395

2400

2405

2410

2415

2420

*The definition of “income” as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is the exact same definition that the US Supreme Court has said must be used when applying the 16th Amendment.

Is The 16th Indirect, or Direct without Apportionment? There has been much debate about whether the 16th Amendment authorized shareholder profits to be taxed by the federal government as a direct tax without apportionment, or merely confirmed that shareholder profits are taxable as an indirect (excise) tax, and therefore apportionment is of no constitutional concern. At this point in history there is a judicial split. Six federal circuits see it one way, while the remaining five federal circuits see it the other way. While we feel confident that “16th Amendment income” is taxable only as an excise (for reasons too numerous to delve into here), in a broader sense we say, “Who cares?” If we know that “16th Amendment income” only applies to dividends, patronage dividends, and interest paid as profit or gain from a corporate investment, do we really care which type of tax it is? The US Supreme Court has stated that the 16th Amendment must have been intended to “harmonize” the taxing clauses of the Constitution, so whichever way one views it, a tax on “16th Amendment income” has still been deemed proper and Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. The bottom line is this: If you invest your money in corporate activities and you receive dividends, patronage dividends, or interest from your investment, you owe the tax under the authority of the 16th Amendment! Before we leave this topic, we will tell you that in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR, Co., 240 US 1 (1916), the US Supreme Court made it clear that the purpose of the Amendment was to reverse the Pollock decision (at least in part) by taking [corporate] investment income out of the class of a direct tax, and placing it back in the class of an indirect [excise] tax, where it “inherently belongs”. [If you’d like to tie your brain in knots, we encourage you to read the Brushaber decision.] Interestingly, federal circuit courts on both sides of the direct/indirect issue cite Brushaber as their primary authority.

“Business” v. Private Affairs The law can be a tricky thing because words used in the law often times do not have the same meaning as when we use them in common speech. A prime example of that would be the word “business”. When we use the word the word “business”, we usually mean only that a person, or persons, is engaged in some effort to make money. We don’t mean to imply any special meaning beyond that. However, when the government uses the word “business” in its laws, about 95% of the time, they mean only the activities of corporations (and other state-created fictional entities). When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, such activity is not “business”, as such term is used in most statutes. When an American Citizen engages in a non-regulated activity from which he earns his living, he is actually engaged in the pursuit of his “private affairs”. However, he must keep his affairs private, lest he stumble into “business”! What are some of the actions that can change your private affairs into “business”? Getting a business license; getting a resale permit; filing state or federal tax returns that reflect the earnings from your livelihood; getting involved with your state’s department of Consumer Affairs, performing employee withholding

55

2425

2430

2435

2440

2445

2450

2455

2460

2465

under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, acquiring a Taxpayer Identification Number, giving out a Taxpayer Identification Number, etc. A “business” usually owes taxes and is generally subject to government regulation, but for most Americans the pursuit of their own “private affairs”, which includes the earning of one’s own livelihood, is not a taxable activity – unless you make it so. Original Intent consultants can help you steer clear of engaging in “business”. Www.originalintent.org www.nontaxpayer.org Also, to better understand this issue we encourage you to read the Original Intent piece on Federal Income Tax.

But What If I Don’t Have “16th Amendment Income”? If one does not have “16th Amendment income”, then one cannot have any tax liability under the authority of the 16th Amendment. However, it is important to note that there are others activities that can give rise to liability for other forms of taxes. A partial list of such activities might include; being an employee of the federal government or any of the governments indicated at 26 USC 3401(c); dealing in distilled spirits under any applicable parts of Title 27 of the United States Code and Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code; doing business in tobacco products covered under Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code; engaging in any of the various activities covered under Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, etc. All of the above referenced activities are excise taxes. In other words, if one wishes to avoid the tax, stay away from the excise taxable activity. If you don’t have any 16th Amendment income, and you aren’t involved in any excise taxable activity, the only way for the government to Constitutionally tax the money you earn in the course of pursuing your private affairs (which you now know includes earning your livelihood) is to do so by enacting a direct tax upon private earnings. No such tax exists today in America. And remember, Subtitle ‘C’ “employment taxes” are not upon private Citizens involved in exchanging their labor for compensation in the private sector. For more on this subject, go to our page on Federal Employment Taxes.

Ratification of the 16th Amendment There are serious and valid concerns about whether the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified in accordance with the requirements of the US Constitution and the constitutions of the states of the Union. We will not delve into that discussion here because we are attempting to deal with the legal realities that currently exist concerning federal taxation. We hope that those who are pursuing the non-ratification cause will eventually be successful in having the faulty ratification process acknowledged by the federal government, and thus have the 16th Amendment invalidated. If you wish to learn more about the issue of the non-ratification of the 16th Amendment, you may go to http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

56

2470

2475

2480

2485

2490

2495

2500

2505

2510

Is the Income Tax Voluntary? The answer to that question is a resounding “yes”…and “no”. Over the years some people have used the sentence, “Income tax is voluntary” as a mantra; chanting it over and over again as if it has magical qualities, or as if by repeating it enough times, their own tax liability (if any) might evaporate. Unfortunately, wishing income tax liability away will not alter reality. First we must understand that in tax matters there are two forms of “voluntary”. One is the voluntary act that creates liability; the other is “voluntary compliance”. The two are not the same issue. Voluntary compliance means that when a person properly and lawfully owes any tax, that person acts independently and responsibly to file his return and pay his tax timely. Without a reasonable amount of voluntary compliance the tax system would collapse. Of course taxation in general terms is a necessary feature of government and a collapse of the nation’s legitimate tax system is not in anyone’s interest. What Original Intent objects to, as we believe you do, is the unlawful and coercive collection of income taxes from American Citizens concerning whom no Constitutional income tax liability exists. Because no direct tax on private earnings exists in this country, our tax system is voluntary. But the part that is voluntary is whether or not you want to engage in excise taxable activities, and thus create liability that would not otherwise exist. However, if you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, the tax is not voluntary for you any longer – you volunteered and you must pay the tax. There is another way Americans continually volunteer to pay federal and state income tax when they would not otherwise owe anything – you give people who pay you money your Social Security Number when they request a “tax number”. By doing this, you declare that the money you are being paid is subject to state and federal taxation, even if it was not so subject until you gave out the number! For more on this, see our Federal Income Tax article.

How Can An Excise Tax Be Converted To A Direct Tax? As you may recall, one of the foundations of an excise tax is “ the element of absolute unavoidable demand is lacking”. Once this element is gone, the tax becomes a de facto direct tax, solely due to the mode of enforcement. Here is what the US Supreme Court has said on the subject:

“[The Pollock court] recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct tax was adapted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard the form and consider the substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation of apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916)

What the Brushaber court is saying is that any income tax, which has been structured as an excise tax, but is enforced in such a way as to effectively covert the tax to a direct tax, would cause the court to declare it unconstitutional due to lack of apportionment. What type of enforcement might effectively

57

2515

2520

2525

2530

2535

2540

2545

2550

2555

convert an excise tax to a direct tax? Once the demand for the tax money is unavoidable, and you can no longer avoid the demand and/or the collection of the tax, even when you have not engaged in any excise taxable activity, that is when the Executive Branch’s enforcement of the tax has converted the tax, in substance, from an excise into a direct tax.

I suspect that there are probably a couple of hundred million Americans who would agree that the way the IRS enforces today’s income tax has effectively converted the excise [income] tax to a direct tax, and thus the tax should be constitutionally apportioned among the state of the Union.

Summary This article could certainly have been at least twice as long as there is no shortage of material to examine concerning the Constitutional powers and limits of federal taxing authority. We hope that what we’ve given you has been effective in communicating the fundamental elements of the subject. We hope you have a better understanding of federal taxing authority than you did when you began reading the article. Let’s review what we’ve covered:

1) The US Constitution grants the federal government the authority to lay only two classes of taxation – direct and indirect.

2) Direct and indirect taxes are subject to Constitutional regulations concerning their mode of operation.

3) Direct taxes are subject to apportionment – even after the 16th Amendment.

4) Indirect taxes are subject to the rule of uniformity.

5) No direct tax on private earnings exists in this country – the disagreement of the federal courts notwithstanding.

6) The federal judicial circuits are split as to whether the 16th Amendment merely confirmed the government’s excise taxing power concerning shareholder profits from corporate investment, or whether the Amendment created a new “special” form of direct tax that does not require apportionment.

7) In the Brushaber case, the US Supreme Court stated that any tax act under the authority of the 16th Amendment must properly be considered an excise, and is thus not subject to apportionment.

8) The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 must be used in the income tax acts of Congress (passed under the authority of the 16th Amendment).

9) The definition of income used in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition that must be used when interpreting the 16th Amendment.

58

2560

2565

2570

2575

2580

2585

2590

2595

2600

2605

10) The 16th Amendment only pertains to “income” in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment.

11) The 16th Amendment tax is upon the privilege (to shareholders) of operating a business as an artificial entity.

12) The 16th Amendment tax is not upon “income”; the income is only the yardstick used to determine the value of the privilege, and hence the amount of tax to be paid.

13) If you have no 16th Amendment income, you have no liability for a tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment.

14) Other legitimate types of federal and state taxation do exist beyond the tax imposed under the authority of the 16th Amendment. They are all excise taxes.

15) Capital investment funds, even when invested in a corporation, are not subject to taxation except by a direct tax subject to apportionment.

16) A tax on your private earnings still needs to be apportioned to be constitutional.

17) If you wish to conduct only your private affairs, do not trespass into areas that give rise to the presumption of federal or state authority for taxation and/or regulatory authority.

18) In most statutes, “business” means the activities of a legislatively created entity such as a corporation, partnership, statutory trust, etc., and does not embrace the your private affairs, which includes your livelihood.

19) Giving out a SSN or TIN (when lawfully required) creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.

20) Signing any federal or state tax forms (including a Form W-4, creates a powerful presumption of federal and state taxing authority over your earnings.

21) The Gross Income(861) argument is legally accurate, but is not intended to take the place, and does not take the place, of a constitutional argument.

22) If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you must pay the tax.

23) If you choose to engage in an excise taxable activity, you are expected (by the government as well as your fellow citizens) to practice voluntary compliance.

24) An indirect tax can be effectively converted into a direct tax by improper enforcement by the Executive Branch. In that event, the US Supreme Court has said that it is its duty to declare the former excise tax to be a direct tax absent apportionment, and thus unconstitutional.

59

2610

2615

2620

2625

2630

2635

2640

2645

2650

Debunking IRS Lies

The United States government is pretty much in the full-time business of lying. Most of the state governments have jumped on the “lying” bandwagon as well. We wish it were not so. In fact, the purpose of this document is to educate the American public in the hope that such actions will no longer be tolerated by our “public servants”, and such egregious conduct will end. When a small child lies to us, it’s usually pretty easy to tell. When we see the empty cookie jar, and our child sitting in a circle of cookie crumbs, we know that he is lying when he tells us that he didn’t eat any cookies. Unfortunately, when the government lies, it’s a lot harder to pin down the lie. The government pays very good money, to some very skilled lawyers, to formulate very well structured lies, so we need to be very sharp to catch their lies. Fortunately, all their lies (at least about the law) rely on just a few readily discernible methods of misleading you. The government does not tell you a direct lie to your face. That would be much too easy to catch. Instead the government relies on the deceptive use of “legal terms” that you don’t understand the meaning of, nor are you even aware that the “words” you’re reading are actually “legal terms” that have been defined by the government to mean something completely different than what you think they mean in plain English. [See The Law within this document for more detail on this issue.] Additionally, the government uses “jurisdictional context” as a means of confusing the average American. The vast majority of Americans believe that when they read a publication written by a government agency, it has been written with the intention of clarifying matters for the Citizen. The reality is just the opposite. Let’s look at an example to illustrate the point: The Federal Food and Drug Act is only applicable in matters involving interstate or foreign commerce. In other words, if you make a cosmetic cream and sell it only within your state, the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate your product. However, a hypothetical section of the Federal Food and Drug Act might state, “Every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States must be…”[blah, blah, blah]. However, because the context of the Act is that it applies only to interstate and foreign commerce, the legislative draftsmen who wrote the law intentionally left that part out when selecting the specific language to be used. If they had been forthright, the statute would read as, “Every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States, and shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, must be…”.

[Editor’s Note: Many statutes passed in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s included such forthright language, but during the 70’s and 80’s most of that language was amended out of the law. We must now refer to the text of the original statutes to find the true limits of the government’s authority]

However, because the context of the entire Act is interstate and foreign commerce, those words are deemed unnecessary when constructing an individual statute within the Act. The problem arises when the government puts out an “informational” publication in which it states, “Under section 15000 of the Federal Food and Drug Act, the Federal Food and Drug Administration has regulatory authority over ‘every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States’”. Are they lying? It depends on your point of view. Do you believe that when the government

60

2655

2660

2665

2670

2675

2680

2685

2690

2695

communicates with its Citizens it is at liberty to intentionally leave out relevant and critical facts that alter the very foundations of the authority it is asserting? We don’t believe that government has that right. We believe that when government leaves out relevant and critical facts of which the Citizen should rightly be informed, the government is lying by omission. The justification that the government is “merely citing the text of the statute” does not wash if the Citizen is being denied information that is relevant to the government’s claim of authority; especially if such an omission would reasonably operate against the Citizen and his rights. The same “lying by omission” issue can be seen in the government’s use of “legal terms” instead of regular words. If the government issues a publication to purportedly inform the public on a particular issue, and that publication addresses “buildings”, but fails to tell you that they’ve defined “buildings” (in the law being discussed) as “…such free standing structures used for business purposes that exceed 200 feet in total height”. Without that definition being provided to you, you might easily misconstrue the law to apply to your own home! The government does not feel that it is under any obligation to define the “terms” it uses in publications it makes available to the general public. We disagree. We believe that if not providing the definition of a “term” creates confusion in the Citizenry, or is likely to create confusion in the Citizenry, then the government is once again lying by omission. It should be remembered that confusion of this sort only results in the government usurping authority to which it is not entitled, and any such usurpation by the government erodes the rights the Citizens. Whether one calls what the government is doing “a bald-face lie” or “lying by omission” or any other phrase is used to specify the degree to which the government is obfuscating, the undeniable truth is that the government is intentionally withholding information from you in order to trick you into acquiescing to authority the government doesn’t have. The government is also talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand the government says, “ We have provided this publication so that you may better understand your obligations under the law”, but if you act upon the information in the publication, and the government later determines that you committed some sort of violation, when you tell them that you simply followed the information provided in the publication, they will tell you, “You may not rely upon the information provided in forms and publications as a defense for an alleged violation because forms and publications are not law”! Now here’s the kicker – they’re not just talking about government claims. If you act in accordance with what’s contained in a publication and an employee or other person sues you and wins, you have no recourse against the government for misleading you in the publication! We believe the most honest and straightforward way to view a government publication is to appreciate that it is not an “objective” source of information, but rather that it is published and distributed with the goal of manipulating your actions through misinformation. This may seem like a harsh judgment, but as you read on you will see that the facts support no other rational conclusion.

61

2700

2705

2710

2715

2720

2725

2730

2735

2740

Dissecting IRS Sophistry The following are various written statements made by the IRS, followed by our “debunking” of their skillfully crafted lies.

IRS Lie #1 “Ever since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified (February 3, 1913) giving Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes on incomes" there have been citizens arguing that it was not properly ratified and income taxes are illegal. Unfortunately, some citizens continue to raise such arguments in spite of the fact that they have no basis in law and the courts have repeatedly rejected their arguments as frivolous”. Truth – In point of fact, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Mr. Bill Benson and Mr. M.J. “Red” Beckman traveled to every state that was a part of the Union back in 1913, and researched the voting records and other pertinent data from each of the state legislature’s historical archives. Their research is contained within a two-volume set entitled, “The Law That Never Was”. The inescapable conclusion of their research is that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. [“The Law That Never Was” can be found at www.thelawthatneverwas.com] Further, despite the IRS lies stated above, no US court has ever determined that the 16th Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified. What the courts have said is that because the [then] US Secretary of State, Philander Knox, “certified” that the Amendment was properly ratified, the courts of the United States must consider it properly ratified. The federal courts have stated that whether or not the Amendment was, in reality, properly ratified is a “political question”.

IRS Lie #2 “The IRS and Treasury have issued a notice warning taxpayers that if they file returns under the theory that U.S. citizens and residents aren't subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States, they may be subject to penalties.” Truth – This is an excellent example of IRS “word-smithing”. First, note that the IRS has warned “taxpayers” (not the public generally). This is because the federal courts have ruled that Congress makes no tax laws that apply to nontaxpayers!

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws”. [emphasis added] Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

In so far as the IRS statement applies exclusively to “taxpayers”, it is correct because a “taxpayer” is defined in the IRC as “a person liable for any internal revenue tax”. So, to claim to be a taxpayer, and then to claim that you’re not liable for taxes that apply to taxpayers is silly. The true question that needs to be asked is, “Who is a taxpayer and who is not?” [See Federal Income Tax and State Income Tax to assist you in determining if you are a taxpayer.]

62

2745

2750

2755

2760

2765

2770

2775

2780

2785

2790

The next bit of sophistry is the use of the “legal term” (not a “word”) “wages”. Under the IRC definitions of “wages” [within Chapters 21 & 24], the term is limited to the payroll of the following persons:

1) Officers and employees of the United States. 2) Officers and employees of a State government that has agreed to participate in Social Security. 3) Persons working in federal possessions or territories. 4) Citizens of the states of the Union, working within a state of the Union, who have declared their pay to be “wages” by executing a Form W-4. 5) Aliens working in the United States.

For these people, “wages” do constitute income that is subject to State and Federal taxing authority. However, you should know that the pay of a Citizen of the state of the Union, while working within a state of the Union, for a private firm, who has not executed a Form W-4 is not “wages” (as defined in the IRC). [See Federal Income Tax and Federal Employment Taxes for more on these issues.]

IRS Lie #3 (Under the heading, “Employment Tax Evasion Schemes”) – “Employee leasing is the practice of contracting with outside businesses to handle all administrative, personnel, and payroll concerns for employees. In some instances, employee-leasing companies fail to pay over to the IRS any portion of the collected employment taxes.” Truth – We love this one! The “evasion scheme” spoken of in this item involves companies failing “ to pay over to the IRS any portion of the collected employment taxes”. Can you connect this one to the discussion in item #2? Please note that the IRS statement speaks of “employee” payroll. This is again a very specific legal term, and workers who are not “employees” (as specifically defined in the IRC) don’t earn wages. Not all workers are subject to withholding upon their pay [because only wages are subject to withholding] so the IRS can only claim “evasion” of taxes if the “employer” [another “legal term” with very specific limits] withholds the tax and fails to pay it over to the IRS. Would you like to hazard a guess at who is an “employee”? O.K., let’s do it again!

1) Officers and employees of the United States. 2) Officers and employees of a State government that has agreed to participate in Social Security. 3) Persons working in federal possessions or territories. 4) Citizens of the states of the Union, working within a state of the Union, who have declared their pay to be “wages” by executing a Form W-4. 5) Aliens working in the United States.

The very same “class of person” [yet another legal term!] who earns statutorily defined wages is the same “class of person” who is the “employee”. Are you connecting the dots yet? In other words, not withholding from a Citizen is not tax evasion [because there can be no crime for not doing what the law doesn’t require], but if you have withheld money from a wage-earning “employee”, you’d better pay it over to the government! [See Federal Employment Taxes within this document for more on these issues.]

63

2795

2800

2805

2810

2815

2820

2825

2830

2835

IRS Lie #4 (Under the heading, “Employment Tax Evasion Schemes”) – “Paying employees in whole or partially in cash is a common method of evading income and employment taxes…” Truth – Are you getting the theme yet? Once again we see the legal term “employee” featured as the prominent element. We will not list who are “employees” and “wage” earners again; you should have that under your belt by now. We will observe that if you have workers who do not fall into any of the 5 categories shown above, there is no problem whatsoever paying them in cash because no withholding is required under the law! Furthermore, if no withholding is required under the law, then the person making the payments need not keep “payroll records” for the purpose of Subtitle C (Employment Taxes), although such payment records may be kept for other financial reasons. [See Federal Employment Taxes for more on these issues.]

IRS Lie #5 (Under “non-filer frivolous arguments”) – Internal Revenue Code Arguments – “The IRS can only assess taxes against people who file returns.” Truth – This is a typical example of the IRS telling a partial truth by leaving out facts that would be relevant to the reader. Taxes can be assessed against the following:

1) Persons who file tax returns. 2) Persons concerning whom the IRS has received “information returns” (if not properly contested). [See Federal Income Tax for more on “information returns”.] 3) Corporations and other statutory entities that have failed to file a required return. 4) Persons licensed for Subtitle E activities. 5) Foreign insurance companies doing business in the United States.

However, it is important to note that the IRS cannot assess a Citizen of a state of the Union, living and working in said state, who does not file a tax return, or have any “information returns” filed against him. So you see, the IRS would like you to believe that they can assess anyone, anytime, but in reality that’s hogwash. However, the IRS does sometimes assess a non-filing Citizen by committing computer fraud. The IRS enters a code into their computer system that converts you to a corporation in their database. In effect it changes “John Q. Citizen” into “John Q. Citizen, Inc.” (so to speak). Once that fraudulent entry has been made on their computer, it then “permits” them to [fraudulently] assess a tax against you. And you thought the government was honest! Ha!

IRS Lie #6 (From IRS CID Tax Fraud Alert – Fraudulent Trusts) – “All trusts must comply with the tax laws as set forth by the Congress in the Internal Revenue Code, Sections 641-683.” Truth – Remember, the IRS only deals with “taxpayers”; the IRS has zero authority over nontaxpayers. So when the IRS says “All trust…”, they actually mean “all trusts that are taxpayers…”. As we stated earlier, the IRS always writes from the concept of context. Everything they write is only directed at, and only deals with, “taxpayers”! Don’t fall prey to their “context” game. [For IRS admission that

64

2840

2845

2850

2855

2860

2865

2870

2875

2880

certain trusts are not “taxpayers”, see Trusts within this document.]

IRS Lie #7 (From “Abusive Trust Schemes”) – “A domestic trust must file a Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts, for each taxable year.” Truth – Note the last words in the text above – “taxable year”. (They’ve always got an angle!) “Taxable year” is defined at 26 USC §7701(a)(23), and means a year for which you filed a return under the provisions of subtitle ‘A’. And who would file a return? That’s right – a taxpayer! So…what the sneaky little bastards are really saying is, “A domestic trust, that is a taxpayer, must file a Form 1041…”.

IRS Lie #8 (From “Abusive Trust Schemes”) – “If the trust is classified as a Domestic Grantor Trust, it is not generally required to file a Form 1041, provided that all items of income are reported by the individual taxpayer on his own Form 1040…” Truth – As usual, this presumes the “grantor” to be a taxpayer. If the “grantor” is not a taxpayer, then neither the grantor nor the grantor’s trust need file any tax return whatsoever. [For info on “grantor’s trusts” see Trusts within this document.]

IRS Lie #9

(From “Abusive Domestic Trust Schemes”) – In many promotions, taxpayers are advised to create Asset Management Companies (AMC’s). The AMC, which lists the taxpayer as the director, is formed as a domestic trust. An individual on the promoter’s staff is usually the trustee of the AMC, but this individual is quickly replaced by the taxpayer. The purpose of the AMC is to give the appearance that the taxpayer is not managing his or her business and to start the layering process. Truth – Need we even say it? “…taxpayers are advised…”. In this scenario, some supposedly evil person is leading an otherwise splendid “taxpayer” into a labyrinth of tax deceit by promoting illegal methods of hiding the true substance of what’s taking place. We partly agree – there is some deceit taking place; we’d just disagree with who is perpetrating it.

IRS Lie #10 (From “Abusive Domestic Trust Schemes”) – Business Trust - The next step is to form a business trust, also a domestic trust. In effect, the client elects to change the structure of their business from either a sole proprietorship or corporation to a trust. The AMC is the trustee of the business trust. False administrative expenses may be deducted from the trust as a means to reduce taxable income. Truth – We’re sure you see the common thread now. The keys words are, “False administrative expenses may be deducted from the trust a s a means to reduce taxable income”. Once again, the trust they are referring to is a taxpayer. A nontaxpayer has no “taxable income” and has nothing to

65

2885

2890

2895

2900

2905

2910

2915

2920

2925

2930

“deduct” from. Once their con-job is easily recognized it gets old, doesn’t it?

IRS Lie #11 (From “Abusive Domestic Trust Schemes”) – The scheme gives the appearance that the taxpayer has given up control of their business to a trust; however, in reality the taxpayer is still running the day-to-day activities of their business and is controlling its income stream. Truth – (This is a direct follow-up to #9.) First, we note the use of the word “scheme”, which in common speech usually means something devious (and of course that’s what the IRS is intending to imply). However, in law, “scheme” merely means “a plan formed to accomplish something” and no devious nature is implied or inferred. The US Supreme Court frequently refers to US tax law as a “scheme”. Next of course we see the words, “…in reality the taxpayer is still…”, demonstrating that once again it is only unlawful for “taxpayers” to do this and such, not an ordinary American Citizen. [We encourage you to read Federal Income Tax and Constitutional Issue of Taxation to assist you in determining if you are a taxpayer.]

Conclusions We could go on and on, but we think these examples demonstrate the techniques the IRS uses consistently to mislead the public. While we feel the IRS chooses their words very carefully, with the intention of misleading you, we also recognize that technically speaking the IRS’ words are impeccably correct. By a subtle mixture of legal terminology and an unseen contextual framework, the IRS has managed to speak accurately, while leaving hundreds of millions of Americans with false impressions. Some may observe that if Americans were better educated on the subject matter, the problem would solve itself. We understand the point of such an argument, but we cannot agree with the underlying perspective. The problem with that “solution” is that it requires the American public to become experts in virtually every subject that the government (State or Federal) may address. The government exists to serve the Citizens of this nation. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, the sole purpose of our governments (State and Federal) is to protect our rights. The government is certainly not protecting our rights when it uses subtle and devious word-smithing to deceive us. The American people do not intend, nor have they ever intended, their government to deceive them or bamboozle them with legal jargon set within murky context. Americans expect their governments to be fair, just, and honest with them. The examples we’ve illustrated plainly demonstrate that this is not now the case. Some might contend that the IRS is only addressing that which is their place to address and nothing more; that it is we who are not perceiving things properly. To this we must repeat, the American public should not be, and cannot be, expected to become experts in every subject that the government (State or Federal) may address.

66

2935

2940

2945

2950

2955

2960

2965

2970

2975

Let us pose these questions to you:

* Is there anything stopping Congress from issuing a public report concerning the true limitation of its taxing power?

* Is there anything that prevents Congress from issuing a publication, in layman’s language, which clarifies the fact that private American Citizens, involved in the ordinary affairs of life, are not required to have a Social Security number, nor provide it to others for alleged “tax” reasons?

* Is there anything preventing Congress from requiring persons requesting a TIN (which includes a SSN) from including a “fact sheet” with the request, which clearly states who is not required to have or provide a TIN?

* Is there anything that prevents Congress from issuing a notice to all private firms instructing them that failure by a Citizen to provide a TIN is not a cause for termination, nor the withholding of payments owed? ß Is there anything preventing Congress from passing a law that would criminalize private firms denying American Citizens jobs or services due the Citizen not having, or not providing, a SSN?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding, NO! There is no reason that Congress cannot do any, or all, of the above listed things. If there’s nothing stopping them, why haven’t they done so? To do so would certainly be protecting (or at least insuring) the rights of American Citizens! The reason they won’t is because to do so would bring down the “house of cards” that is the US tax system. If Congress did any one of the things listed above, federal taxation would be seen for the paper tiger that it is and many Citizens would immediately recognize that they have never been under any duty to pay State or Federal income tax, and they would cease volunteering their hard-earned money. We believe that most Citizens would jump for joy if they could keep the 40% (combined state and federal) they now give away to the government and not risk garnishments, seizures, or jail! There is also one other small matter: Once the government confesses to hundreds of millions of Americans that the Federal and State governments have been robbing them for the last 40 years, I suspect there would be some political fallout. [The word “lynching” comes to mind.] This factor alone, absent any other considerations, would prevent the government from acting honestly in this matter after so many years of deceit.

Summary In this article we have reviewed the techniques the government uses in its publications to mislead American Citizens and keep them “in the system” even when they are under no legal duty to be a part of the system.

1) The government tells only portions of the truth when the whole truth would undermine their goals.

2) The government makes its remarks within a legal context, of which the reader is completely unaware, to make the public believe the government has authority greater than it actually possesses.

67

2980

2985

2990

2995

3000

3005

3010

3015

3020

3025

3) While the public thinks government publications are written for them in plain English, these publications actually rely almost entirely on “legal terms”.

4) Citizens are led to believe that publications are written in plain English because the publications generally state that they are intended to help the public better understand the law.

5) Government publications could be written in plain English if the government truly wanted you to understand the law.

6) Legal terms are used because the government knows that the public is unaware of the meaning of such terms and thus will be left with a false impression of what the publication means.

7) The government does not provide definitions (within the publications) to any of the legal terms it employs.

8) The government itself will tell you that you may not rely on their publications.

9) Congress could pass a law tomorrow if it wanted, requiring all US government publications (intended for distribution to the public) to be written in plain English and prohibit the use of legal terms in such publications.

10) Congress could enact a criminal law punishing private firms for firing a Citizen for not having or providing a SSN, or withholding payments owed to a Citizen if a TIN is not provided.

11) Congress will not pass any of these types of laws because it would reveal the extremely limited scope of State and Federal taxing authority.

12) Congress will not pass any of these types of laws because 274 million robbery victims can make a real ugly scene and Senators and Congressmen hate words like “treason” and “lynching”.

68

3030

3035

3040

3045

3050

3055

3060

3065

The United States Code The United States Code is a compendium of federal statutes that have been arranged within an orderly system so as to provide a simple manner in which to locate the text of a desired statute. The United States Code is the result of an evolutionary process that started back in the earlier 1800’s. In the early days of this nation, when Congress passed laws they were simply assigned a number (in addition to the name of the act) for identification purposes. This system resulted in the statutes that Congress passed being found solely by tracking down the “statute-at-large” number. Since these statutes-at-large were not arranged in any manner other than number and date, attempting to locate all the statutes that Congress had passed on a particular subject was very tedious. As the number of laws increased, the task went from merely tedious, to tedious and uncertain. The need for some form of logical organization became clear and compelling. Congress made several unsatisfactory attempts to organize its laws. The process finally came to fruition after the Civil War and the system of organization began to take shape in an efficient manner and one very similar to that which we see today. The system of organizing statutes is referred to as “codifying”. Today most of the laws of Congress have been codified into the United States Code (USC). The USC is comprised of 50 separate “titles”. Each title deals expressly with a particular area of federal law. These titles are then broken down into subtitles, which express a more detailed breakdown by subject matter. These subtitles are then broken down into chapter, and the chapters into sections. The index at the beginning of each title, as well as at the beginning of each subtitle and chapter can be helpful in locating the text that you need. A good site to view the USC is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/. The complete USC may also be purchased on CD-ROM from the US Government Printing Office, at http://www.gpo.gov/. It should be noted that not all federal statutes appear in the USC; some statues-at-large remain uncodified. One current example is the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. This legislation has not been codified. One cannot find its provisions by reading the USC. One must pull the actual statute-at-large (usually from a law library) in order to know what Congress has commanded within that act. In addition to being a compendium of codified federal law, the USC contains a nightmarish labyrinth of federal jurisdictional foundations. At this time, no bill pending before Congress is required to reveal to Congress, or to the American public, from what provision of the Constitution the legislation derives its authority. [See the Constitutions page within this document for more information about the requirement of all laws to conform to the Constitution.] Accordingly, one must engage in lengthy and arduous research in order to determine which provision of the Constitution provides the lawful authority for the act to exist. Congressional Acts (most of which end up codified to the USC) gain their Constitutional jurisdiction from one or more of the following Constitutional provisions. The jurisdictions sections are listed in order of frequency of application.

69

3070

3075

3080

3085

3090

3095

3100

3105

3110

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 – This section grants Congress exclusive [sole] authority over all placed where the United States is the sovereign. Examples of these places would be, Washington DC, areas within the borders of the states of the Union that have been properly ceded to the United States, and US embassies in foreign countries. This Constitutional authority is often referred to as “territorial authority”. This authority must be used with the authority shown immediately below. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 – This section is a handshake with Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (above) and grants Congress the authority to legislate for territory belonging to the United States (see examples above). [It should be carefully noted that the states of the Union do not “belong” to the United States.] In two US Supreme Court cases from the early 1900’s the Court stated that Congress was free to legislate for the “its” places, in ways that would be unconstitutional if applied to the states of the Union. [See the section, Federal Jurisdiction, within this document for more information.] FDR’s backers saw these regrettable decisions by the Court as a huge loophole in the Constitution. The vast majority of federal laws passed ever since the New Deal Era have been territorial in nature. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, are by far the most frequent Constitutional authorities used by Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 – This section grants Congress authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states of the Union, and with Indian Tribes. Despite the prevalence of legislation under the above listed authorities, law school professors teaching in the 1950’s used to call the interstate commerce portion of this provision, “The Everything Clause”. The reason for this was the prevailing opinion of the US Supreme Court during the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, which allowed Congress to lay its hands on many issues as long as it used the touchstone of its interstate commerce authority. In the eyes of many, the interstate commerce clause was the holy grail of federal authority within the states. Today the pendulum has begun to start it swing back in the proper direction (although it has quite a way to go to get back the intention of the framers of the Constitution). The US Supreme Court has signaled over the last decade that will not be so willing to accede to the federal government’s claims of authority that rely upon the interstate commerce clause. All these facts notwithstanding, a very large percentage of federal legislation is based on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. The US Constitution grants the United States 19 “enumerated powers” (authorities). We have discussed two. The other 16 powers combined do not account for anywhere near the amount of legislation passed under the authority of the two powers specifically discussed. Many Americans erroneously believe that the United States Code is “just like the State code, but only addresses other things”. The USC is distinctly different in that it is strictly limited to containing laws that deal exclusively with “federal matters”. If you steer clear of federal matters, there is nothing in the USC that can reach or affect you. For those who find exploring and discovering unknown facts to be rewarding, a trip through various parts of the United States Code can be interesting. Most of the USC will never impact upon your life, but Titles that may be of interest are: Title 15, Commerce and Trade. Examine the scope topics that fall within this title. Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Title 19, Customs Duties. Many revenue laws are tied to this title.

70

3115

3120

3125

3130

3135

3140

3145

3150

3155

Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. Our personal favorite! Title 42, Public Health and Welfare. We find chapters 7 (social security) and 21 (civil rights) to be of interest. Title 47, Territories and Insular Possessions Although the USC is “the law” in federal matters, there is another set of codes that is pivotal in understanding how most federal statutes operate. That set of codes is called the Code of Federal Regulations. The Code of Federal Regulations is used by the departments and agencies of the Executive branch to expand upon and clarify the manner in which the US government will enforce statutes contained within the USC. One should be cautious not to assume one understands federal law by viewing the statutes alone. The regulations are of critical importance and federal case law is also of some benefit in seeking clarity (although the federal courts have made, and continue to make, some terribly inaccurate case law). To understand why federal case law can be misleading, read the sub-section “Does The Law Work”, contained within The Law section of this document.

Code of Federal Regulations Regulations are created and used by executive agencies to “clarify” the intent and scope of federal statutes, which an agency is charged with administrating or enforcing. Statutes are the actual laws passed by Congress; regulations are the “who, what, when, where, and how” involved in administrating and/or enforcing the statute.

Modern History As the New Deal unfolded in the early 1930’s and Congress began to increase both the number of agencies and the scope of the authority of those agencies, the agencies began promulgating voluminous regulations. There was no mechanism for publishing, codifying, accessing or updating these regulations. There was considerable confusion about which regulations were in effect at any given time. In several 1934 Supreme Court cases involving administrative law violations, difficulty in keeping abreast of the current body of administrative law became obvious. Neither the defendants nor the government correctly understood which regulations were currently in effect. In response, Congress passed the Federal Register Act (ch. 417, 49 Stat. 500 (1935)). The Act mandates the daily publication of the Federal Register, whose purpose is to serve as a central repository of the publication of all newly adopted rules and regulations. Furthermore, publication in this periodical is constructive notice to all who may be affected by a regulation. Although the Federal Register was helpful in notifying the government and people of changes and additions to federal regulations, the regulations were still not codified. Congress amended the Federal Register Act in 1937 to require codification and subject access to the regulations through publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The first CFR was published in 1939. The purpose of the CFR was/is to provide a system of categorization whereby all the regulations promulgated [created] by a federal department or agency on a given subject can be located and tied to the corresponding statute. The CFR does an admirable job of providing that service.

71

3160

3165

3170

3175

3180

3185

3190

3195

3200

As stated in the opening paragraph, regulations are intended to elaborate on the working details of a statute. It is beyond Congress’ ability to be experts in every field concerning which it may be called upon to legislate. The US Supreme Court has referred to the text of Congressional legislation as “the broad language of the statute”, which often times requires more detail to be properly placed into effect. These “details” are found in the “implementing regulations” promulgated by the agencies that must administrate and/or enforce a statute. Federal agencies are charged with faithful implementation and enforcement of the laws [statutes] through the regulations they promulgate. Although properly speaking, regulations are not law, rules and regulations have the full force and effect of the law. [Editor’s Note - It should be noted that federal statutes, as well as their associated regulations, only have force and effect upon those persons who are properly within federal jurisdiction, and has no force or effect upon anyone else. See the section, Federal Jurisdiction, within this document for more information on federal jurisdictional limitations.] In 1946 the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was passed clarifying the process of making regulation, allowing for greater accessibility and participation by all citizens. The APA required the publication in the Federal Register of all proposed rule changes and a period for public comment. Proposed and final regulations that have general applicability and legal effect are required to be published in the Federal Register. The administrative regulation-making process requires that proposed regulations be published and that a comment period be provided. When the comment period closes, the agency may finalize the regulation. Once the regulation becomes final, it is published again in the Federal Register and then codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. In 1990 the regulatory landscape was changed yet again by passage of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA) [currently codified to 5 U.S.C §§ 561-570]. The NRA allows for greater involvement by affected parties in the drafting of regulations. Changes under NRA are more procedural than substantive and need not be addressed further in this document.

Regulations Control the Law The power of regulations is that they control the application of the statute.

“… we think it's important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act would impose no penalties on anyone”. California Banking Association v. Schultz, 416 US 21 (1974)

While not all statues require regulations, for practical purposes it can be generally considered that a statute for which an implementing regulation has never been created has no administrative or judicially cognizable consequence for failing to follow the statute.

“Although the relevant statute authorized the Secretary to impose such a duty, his implementing regulation did not do so. Therefore we held that there was no duty to disclose…” United States V. Murphy, 809 F.2d 142, 1431

“The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no duties until implementing

72

3205

3210

3215

3220

3225

3230

3235

3240

3245

3250

regulations have been promulgated.” California Bankers Ass’n v. Schultz, 416 US 21

“For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern.” Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 US 188, 59 S. Ct 155

“…failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to a denial of due process if the regulations are required by constitution or statute.” Arzanipour v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 866 F. 2d 743 746 (5th Cir. 1989)

Although regulations are controlling in most circumstances, and they have the full force and effect of law, it is important to note that regulations can never expand upon the powers vested in the agency by a statute. Here is how the California Supreme Court phrased it:

Administrative agency may not, under guise of its rulemaking power, abridge or enlarge its authority or act beyond powers given it by statute which is source of its power; administrative regulations that alter or amend statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. V. City of Moreno Valley, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d. 897 (1996, Cal.App. 4th Dist)

On this issue the federal courts have stated:

“…power to issue regulations is not power to change the law…” US v. New England Coal and Coke Company 318 F.2d 138 (1963)

Making Sense of the Code of Federal Regulations As one can clearly see, the regulations are preeminent in their significance. When attempting to understand the specifics of a law, one should always research not only the applicable statutes, but also the associated regulations. To overlook the regulations would be a critical mistake. Statutes are generally (but not always) codified into the United States Code (USC). [See the section, United States Code, within this document for more details on the United States Code.] The CFR is a much larger compendium than is the USC. This is because the CFR provides all the intricate and/or technical details that are required to properly administrate or enforce a statute. As an example, a statute may be only three paragraphs in length, but the implementing regulation(s) may be eight pages long! Additionally, there may be numerous regulations associated with just one statute! This reality makes the CFR many times larger than the USC. In the average law library the USC (annotated lawyer’s edition) takes up a modest size bookcase. The CFR usually takes up the better part of a wall. The CFR, like the USC, is separated into 50 distinct “titles”. Each “title” addresses a distinct subject matter. Examples are; Title 26 – Internal Revenue; Title 27 – Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Title 28 – The Judiciary; Title 8 – Immigration and Naturalization; Title 19 – Customs. These titles are then broken down into Parts and Subparts. As we stated earlier, the regulations are voluminous – Title 26 of the CFR has 799 Parts (although some are reserved for future use). There is a numerical relationship between the subject matter in the Titles of both the USC and CFR.

73

3255

3260

3265

3270

3275

3280

3285

3290

3295

For instance, in the USC, Title 8 deals with Immigration matters – so does Title 8 of the CFR. Title 26 of the USC addresses taxes; so does Title 26 of the CFR. This type of number-to-subject relationship between the USC and CFR exists in all but a few of the titles. The format that is generally used to designate a section within the CFR is exemplified by this citation: 26 CFR 301.6012. That citation is broken down as follows: 26 CFR means the 26th Title of the CFR. “301” is a reference to Part 301 within Title 26. “6012” is the section of the USC that this section of the CFR is expanding upon. Don’t let that last sentence confuse you – the numbers that appear after the decimal point in a CFR citation are always the same as the section number of the USC to which the regulation pertains. However, since the regulations are more detailed than the statute, the section number for the regulation may be broken down into numerous “sub-sections” that do not appear in the USC. As an example, within Title 26 of the USC there is §641. For the CFR to expand on that section properly, Part 1 of the CFR offers the following sections:

1.641(a)-0 1.641(a)-1 1.641(a)-2 1.641(b)-1 1.641(b)-2

You can easily see why the CFR is a larger compendium than the USC when there are five sub-sections in the regulations to clarify just one statute. Each “Part” within a Title of the CFR addresses a specific aspect of the subject matter of the Title. We wish we could tell you that there is a standardized system in place for determining which aspects of the subject matter get codified to which Parts of a Title, but such is not the case. Each title deals with such diverse issues that no hard-and-fast rule can be constructed for how areas are broken down and assigned into the various Parts of each Title. In order to find the precise location of a regulation within the CFR one might find the “Contents” section at the front of each CFR Title to be useful. Additionally, the publisher of the CFR [the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)] has been kind enough to publish an appendix to the CFR, called the “CFR Index and Finding Aids”. Inside that volume one will find (amongst other things) the “Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules”. This “table” lists all of the sections of the USC and then provides you with the CFR location of the regulations that have been promulgated for any specific USC section. [The “table” also provides this same cross-reference system for Statutes-at-Large and Executive Orders.] In order to clarify the formatting we’ve just discussed, we’ll examine some CFR Parts. Here is a small sample of the Parts from Title 26 [CFR]:

Taxes upon individuals Part 1 Estate tax Part 20 Gift tax Part 25 Employment tax Part 31

74

3300

3305

3310

3315

3320

3325

3330

3335

3340

Taxes on wagering Part 44

It should be noted that there is also a numerical relationship between the individual section of the USC and the corresponding section of the CFR. Let’s look at an example. Section 6001 of the USC is the section that requires the keeping of books and records. The purpose of the regulation is to specify who needs to keep such books and records, and under what circumstances. Keeping in mind from the list above that different Parts address different taxable activities and types of taxes, one must ask if §6001 applies to all taxes, or just some taxes and/or taxable activities. The way we can make that determination is to examine the CFR to see which types of taxes (or taxable activities) require the keeping of books and records, and which do not. After examining the CFR and its Parts, we find that the Secretary of the Treasury [who creates tax regulations] has promulgated only the following regulations concerning §6001:

Title 26 [CFR] – Parts 1, 31, 55, 156 Title 27 [CFR] – Parts 19, 53, 194, 250, 296

So…§6001 (the requirement to keep books and records) has been made enforceable by the Secretary of the Treasury upon only 4 types of taxes in Title 26, and 5 specific taxable activities in Title 27 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). In Title 26, those taxes (Parts) are:

Part 1 Taxes Upon Individuals Part 31 Employment Taxes. Part 55 Excise Taxes on Real Estate Investment Trusts and Regulated

Investment Companies. Part 156 Excise Taxes on Greenmail.

In Title 27, those taxable activities (Parts) are:

Part 19 Distilled Spirit Plants. Part 53 Manufacturers Excise Taxes—Firearms and Ammunition. Part 194 Liquor Dealers. Part 250 Liquors and Articles from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Part 296 Misc. Regs Relating to Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers

and Tubes. Therefore, according to the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, if you are not involved in one of the activities listed above (Parts 19, 53, 194, 250, & 296), or liable for one of the taxes listed above (Part 1, 31, 55, & 156), there is no legal requirement for you to keep books and records.

75

3345

3350

3355

3360

3365

3370

3375

3380

3385

When There Are No Regulations It should be kept in mind that the government routinely attempts to use a regulation for matters concerning which a regulation has no applicability. Our editor was once called by friends who own a tanning salon. Not long after they opened, an FDA official visited their business and demanded to inspect the tanning beds. The owners (a husband and wife who are not Patriots) were taken aback and refused to allow the inspection. The official left saying that he would return at a later date. Our editor researched the FDA regulations for the owners and found that the only regulations promulgated on the subject of “tanning devices” dealt with tanning devices used for medical purposes. In other words, tanning devices used by a doctor’s prescription, or administered directly by the doctor’s staff. Obviously there was no regulatory authority for the FDA to inspect “recreational” tanning beds. The owners wrote a succinct letter to the FDA official informing him of his complete lack of jurisdiction to inspect the beds in their business. Two weeks later the official returned to their business and stated that if they did not allow the inspection right then, he would return later in the day with a team of armed US marshals and close their business down and take their 12 month-old infant (who was present at the business with them) into “protective custody”. While the owners capitulated and allowed their beds to be inspected, the FDA official never presented any evidence of FDA jurisdiction. He simply used crude threats of violence to create fear and gain compliance. Of course the underlying reality is that the FDA official was initially relying on the “medical” regulations until the owners called him to accountability on the issue. Once the official’s misrepresentation was exposed, he chose the path so common to petty tyrants – he chose to toss the law out the window and use threats and coercion to accomplish what the law would not support. The regulations can be a powerful tool, but one must recognize that courage is an essential element when facing a dishonest government.

What If There Are Regulations? Many times there are regulations concerning a matter that the government has contacted you about. Does this mean you must comply with the regulations? Maybe “yes” and maybe “no”. One must remember that regulations only clarify the implementation of a statute. Therefore the question becomes, “Under what authority did Congress pass the statute?” In other words, if a statute was passed under the federal government’s interstate commerce authority, the regulations still apply only to matters over which the US has interstate commerce authority. Accordingly, if a government official shows up at the local shoe repair shop and attempts to impose their authority by presenting regulations that were written for a statute that relies on US interstate commerce authority, it is extremely unlikely that the regulation has any lawful applicability to the local shoe repairman. Although today most Americans prefer to let the government “tell them” what is right or wrong, the US Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of each Citizen to determine for himself if the government actually has the authority it claims in any given situation. This dovetails perfectly with one of the founding principles of our form of government, which is that all government power is derived from the consent of the governed [that’s you]. Since the government’s authority to act is derived from the Citizens, there is no better person to determine the truth about the government’s authority than you!

76

3390

3395

3400

3405

3410

3415

3420

3425

3430

Federal Income Tax Federal income tax is a complex, and at times confusing, subject. Its history is convoluted. Many court decisions in the last 50 years concerning income tax have been mistaken at best, and plainly dishonest at worst. Although the Internal Revenue Code is 100% Constitutional, its [mis]application by the Executive Branch [The US Department of the Treasury and its minion, the Internal Revenue Service] has been blatantly unconstitutional – and as such, plainly illegal. The US Department of Justice has been criminal in its prosecutions of people its attorneys know have never had any US income tax liability. Congress and state legislatures have turned their heads from this horrid and unlawful behavior because tax assessment and collection, no matter how unlawfully or immorally pursued, fill the troughs from which Representatives and Senators buy American voters and from which the states are subsidized with “free money”. The fact that the government routinely perverts the law in these matters, does not mean that we are barred from a proper understanding of the law, or that we must join with government officials and act in complicity with their criminal conduct. Quite the opposite is true. It is the duty of each American Citizen to ferret out the truth and stand upon it – and demand that our government officials act only within the law. Original Intent is dedicated to assisting you to that end. So then, what is the legal truth concerning “income tax”?

A Rose by any other name… The term “ income tax” is a broad umbrella term that embraces all manner of taxes that bring revenue into the US Treasury. Within that broad category are:

Income tax Import duties Taxes upon certain commodities Taxes upon certain regulated matters Taxes upon employers Taxes upon employees

You will note that within the broad category of Income Tax is a specific tax called “income tax”. Each time the government brings a charge against a person for “tax evasion”, the first question the person should ask is, “What tax do you allege I’m evading?” When they say, “Income tax”, the prudent person will ask, “Which specific form of income tax?” The government should be asked to open the tax code and turn directly to the specific tax to which they are referring.

What Taxes are in the Internal Revenue Code? The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), also known as “Title 26”, is broken down into 11 “subtitles”, with one appendix at the end. The subtitles are designated “A” through “K”. Subtitles “A” through “E” levy various taxes, and “F” is the subtitle concerning Procedures and Administration. Subtitles “G”

77

3435

3440

3445

3450

3455

3460

3465

3470

3475

through “K”, and the appendix, are irrelevant to any discussion of taxes for the general public. Subtitles “A” through “E” are as follows: Subtitle A – Income tax

Subtitle B – Estate and Gift tax Subtitle C – Employment tax Subtitle D – Miscellaneous Excise taxes Subtitle E – Alcohol, Tobacco, & Certain Other Excise taxes

Of interest to most Americans are subtitles A and C. These are the two taxes with which most Americans must contend with when they look at their paychecks and when April 15th roles around. The astute observer will note that each subtitle addresses a specific type of tax. In other words, the subtitle A tax is separate and distinct from the subtitle B tax, which is a separate and distinct tax from the tax imposed under subtitle C, and so on. Given this “plain as the nose on your face” reality, we ask you why employers withhold a tax imposed under subtitle C all year long, but come April 15th the worker files a Form 1040 which addresses a completely different tax – the one imposed under subtitle A? If you haven’t figured out the answer, it’s because the tax “experts”, such as CPA’s and payroll managers, don’t have a clue about tax law and they (wanting to look “professional”) simply parrot what the IRS has told them is correct. [See Debunking IRS Tax Lies in this document.] The fact that one glance at the list of IRC subtitles renders the proposition absurd is of no concern to these “experts”. Needless to say, such people are not “experts” if they do not know that “income tax” and “employment tax” are two separate and distinct taxes, and they are not “professionals” if, after being informed, they screw their eyes tightly shut and continue to support the plunder of Americans for a tax that workers do not owe.

Income Tax In this section we do not address the broad category of all taxes that bring in revenue, but only subtitle A “income tax”. Despite all the controversy concerning income tax, subtitle “A” is really rather simple once it is placed in its proper context. Subtitle “A” contains the various sections that impose an income tax on individuals, corporations, partnerships, etc., as well as the formulas for the rate of the taxes imposed. Most Americans today feel that the IRC applies to everyone. No matter how many Americans believe it to be true it is still factually and legally inaccurate. The IRC only applies to “taxpayers”. This is a pivotal point. Let’s see what the federal courts have said on this issue:

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws”. [emphasis added] Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

As you can see, the IRC does not apply to everyone. Of course we really haven’t resolved anything

78

3480

3485

3490

3495

3500

3505

3510

3515

3520

3525

because most Americans also believe themselves to be “taxpayers”. Why do they believe that? Because they’ve been told that they are. And not just told by this person or that, but told by everyone! Geez…everyone can’t be wrong – can they? To the chagrin of Americans who have taken the time to actually read the law, they find out that, “yes”, everyone who said he or she is a taxpayer was wrong. What is the general definition of “taxpayer” provided in the IRC?

26 USC §7701(a)(14) - The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax. [emphasis added]

So…how do you know if you’re “subject to” an internal revenue tax? Ordinarily the first step would be to ask an expert, but as we’ve already covered, today’s “experts” are little more than mouthpieces for the IRS. Asking them would not be terribly useful if you’re looking for factual and objective answers. The second way would be to read the law for yourself; but where to start? Unfortunately, the best place to start is with a basic concept that you’ll not find stated in any tax law book anywhere. The first concept that you need to learn about tax law (and law in general) is “context, context, context”. This is not the only legal principle you may need to know, but is certainly the preeminent one. All laws, and the specific words within the laws, must be seen in the context of the subject being addressed and considered within the context of jurisdictional limitations of the government. The context of the subject should always be considered; e.g. a law dealing with medical care requirements should not be presumed to apply to a human being if the statute you’re reading is contained within the Agriculture Code. Concerning jurisdictional limits; the government may write a law that applies properly to one party, but exceeds its authority when applied to you. A prime example of this is the annual tax that many counties levy upon the personal property of businesses. Such laws are written for corporations and certain other “legal fictions”, but do not apply to real live Citizens. Real live Citizens have a Constitutional right to own property and cannot be taxed on the exercise of a Constitutionally secured right except through certain very narrow methods that are not currently being used in this country. How do we then apply these newly acquired principles (i.e. “contextual setting” and “jurisdictional limits”) to income tax? First we must take stock of the following jurisdictional fact:

The IRC only applies to money or other forms of property that are within the lawful reach of federal and state taxing authority.

Read that again. Read it as many times as it takes for that reality to embed itself in your mind. Now, let’s turn it over and look at it from the opposite view.

The federal and state governments cannot tax anything that lies beyond their lawful taxing authority.

O.K., we’ve got that; so how do we now determine what is within the government’s authority, and what is not? Fortunately, the question is not too hard to answer.

79

3530

3535

3540

3545

3550

3555

3560

3565

3570

The federal Constitution only recognizes two categories of taxation. One is a direct tax and the other is an indirect tax. [See the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 2; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.] As far as American law is concerned, these are the only two classes of taxation. For us, they are the equivalent of the northern and southern hemisphere – together they are the whole ball of wax. Here’s a solid definition of “direct tax” from the US Supreme Court:

“Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights” Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41

Virtually all taxes in this country are indirect taxes and not direct taxes. While many people will tell you that the test for determining if a tax is indirect is that it can be passed along to another person (such as sales tax), we feel that the more useful and accurate test is if you can choose to avoid the “taxable activity”, and thus avoid the tax altogether. If one cannot avoid a tax without sacrificing the ordinary affairs of life, the tax is not indirect, but is direct. [See the section on Sales Tax within this document for common misconception concerning that tax.] Without going into the complete legal history of taxation and its Constitutional limits (which can be viewed within this document at Constitutional Issues of Taxation), suffice it to say that the only direct tax that may currently exist in this country is the tax allegedly authorized by the 16th Amendment. We say, “may currently exist”, because the federal courts are in conflict as to whether the 16th Amendment authorized a special direct tax, or simply reinforced a pre-existing government power concerning an indirect tax. However, we need not get sidetracked with that issue because the 16th Amendment has no bearing on the ordinary compensation of the average American. Taxes under the 16th Amendment only deal with corporate dividends and other forms of distribution of corporate profit derived from capitol investment. The earnings of private Citizens in the course of their private affairs was not taxable before the 16th Amendment, and the same was true after:

“It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended that this [16th] amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before.” Evans v. Gore, 253 US 245 (1920)

So…if the 16th Amendment does not provide the government with the authority to tax the ordinary compensation of the average American, then whatever power the government may or may not have in that matter must be specified in the original body of the US Constitution (which inherently includes the concepts embodied in the Declaration of Independence). This brings us right back to the “direct” versus “indirect” issue. If we acknowledge that a tax under the 16th Amendment is the only possible direct tax in effect upon income (i.e. a specific species of income - corporate distributions), then all other taxes upon any other species of income would be an indirect tax. This means that we need to explore indirect taxes to determine exactly what they are and if they affect our earnings. The US Constitution specifies three forms of indirect taxes – imposts, duties, and excises (US

80

3575

3580

3585

3590

3595

3600

3605

3610

3615

Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). In general, the terms “impost” and “duties” apply to articles moving in commerce. Since your earnings likely do not fall into that category, we must then turn to the final form of indirect tax – the excise tax.

The question of what is an excise tax has been well settled by the federal courts. The term “excise tax” has been consistently held to be synonymous with “privilege tax”.

“The term ‘excise tax’ and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.” American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880

In other words, if you are to be “liable for”, or “subject to”, an excise tax, you must first avail yourself of some privileged status or activity. Although there are various definitions provided in law dictionaries and in court decisions concerning what a “privilege” is, we prefer this plain English approach for tax matters:

Privilege - Any activity, or eligibility for an activity, which requires submitting an application to a government entity, or for which the providing of a SSN and/or TIN is mandatory (i.e. penalties and/or other consequences can legally be instituted for failing to provide the identifying/account number).

Another simple (but more expansive) definition of a “privilege” is any activity that is outside of or beyond one’s unalienable rights. Of course that requires us to know what our rights are! We are sure that some of you are now feeling a bit uncertain because you really don’t know what your rights are. While we can’t list every activity that would fall within the sphere of a Citizen’s rights, we can list some unalienable rights that relate to taxation generally and this discussion specifically:

Taxation Key, West 53 – The legislature cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.

Taxation Key, West 933 – The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipts of income is therefore not a “privilege that can be taxed”.

“The property that every man has is his personal labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…to hinder his employing [it]…in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property”. Butcher’s Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746

“Included in the right of personal liberty…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property”. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1

Hopefully these definitions and citations illustrate the distinction for you between a privilege and an “unalienable right”, at least as far as taxation is concerned.

81

3620

3625

3630

3635

3640

3645

3650

3655

3660

3665

Accordingly, if you steer clear of situations that fall into the definition of privilege, then you will not be involved in a privileged [excise taxable] activity. [Your first response to this might be that you cannot work without providing a SSN. For more information on that specific subject, see the section, Employment Taxes, within this document.] Since taxes upon any (non-16th Amendment) income are excise taxes, we would ask you this question: “What privileged activity have you been involved in?” If your answer is “none”, and you’re getting irritated, you’re seeing things clearly.

How You Keep Making Yourself Liable Although the average American doesn’t know it, they repeatedly declare themselves liable for state and federal income tax. This is a classic example of “what you don’t know will hurt you!” Whenever a person who is in control of paying you money asks for an “identifying number” (e.g. SSN, TIN, EIN, ITIN; see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a) for definitions) what that person is really doing is asking you to declare that the money he is about to pay you is subject to federal and state taxing jurisdiction. Because there is no law that allows a third party to determine your tax status, the person who will be paying you is asking a reasonable question (especially if they are a taxpayer). Of course the problem is that the practical application of the process has been perverted into a “demand” as opposed to a “request”. This is particularly odd in light of the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his own tax regulations, states that the requester may only request the number.

26 CFR 301.6109-1(c) - If the person making the return does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, such person must request the other person’s number. A request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating.

Let’s make a few observations about this section. First, the word “request” is used three times; “demand” is never used. Second, the requestor must request a number from you in writing. Although the request must say that the number is required under law, one must remember that the tax code presumes that all transactions are taxable. A non-taxable transaction is never addressed by the code. The reason for the “request” (and not a demand) is that the IRC must give a nontaxpayer the opportunity to refuse to give an identifying number. If it were otherwise, the IRC would be found unconstitutional by the courts. If a Citizen asserts his nontaxpayer status, and refuses to give a number, the Secretary’s own regulations limit the requestor’s response to one thing, and one thing only – the submission of an affidavit. One should take special note that the regulation does not permit the requestor to fire a person for refusing to provide a number, or to withhold payment on goods received or services rendered until a number is provided. Such actions are not lawfully permitted under the regulations. People who engage in such conduct are acting outside of and beyond the regulations of the Secretary (which they purport to be the motivation for their actions). Is it not disingenuous (as well as illegal) for the requestor to claim that you must provide a number because he claims to have a fervent desire to obey the regulations of the Secretary, but then turn around and fire you, or withhold a payment owed, even

82

3670

3675

3680

3685

3690

3695

3700

3705

3710

though such an action is not the remedy specified by the Secretary in his regulations? What such people are really saying by their actions is that they want to obey the regulations only when it suits them, but are willing to completely disregard the regulations when it does not. In our minds such people are not only criminals, but they are the very worst kind of petty tyrant – they would hold a person’s earnings or livelihood over that person’s head until the person submits and changes his lawful status to that which the petty tyrant thinks it should be. For the sake of good manners we will refrain from commenting on what we think should be done to a person who blackmails an American Citizen out of his lawful and legal status and coerces him into the unlawful confiscation of his property. Having said that, let’s continue. There is no provision in law for the person making the payment to demand a number and more importantly, unless the payments are in the form of interest, dividends, or patronage dividends, or unless you are an alien, there is no law that permits backup withholding. However, since so many Americans give out their SSN (or other identifying number) at the drop of a hat, we need to understand what it means to give out the number. First, we need to distinguish between giving the number out for identification purposes (such as for a credit report) and giving it out for tax purposes. Giving the number out for identification purposes may not be advisable, but since this discussion is about taxation, we will address only that aspect. How can you tell when an identifying number is being requested for tax purposes? The common thread is that if you asked the requestor why he wants the number, he would tell you that he needs it because IRC requires him to get it. If his motivation is from the IRC, he’s asking for tax reasons. So…how do you respond? The basic legal theory is this: If you have a good faith belief that the money being paid to you is not subject to state or federal taxing authority, you should not provide a number because providing the number is something that one only does if one has a good faith belief that the money being paid to them is subject to state or federal taxing authority! In other words, if you know that the payment is not subject to the tax, why would you provide a tax identification number? Feeling stupid? That’s O.K.; we’ve all been there!

The Consequences of Information Returns Whenever you provide an identifying number to a requestor,you provide him with the necessary information to submit a valid information return. A return (including an information return) is not valid if it does not possess an identifying number. Information returns are reports (sent to the IRS) of payments that are subject to the taxing authority of the federal and state government. These reports are typically submitted on Treasury Department Forms 1099 and W-2 (although there are other less commonly used forms). Form 1099 typically reflects payments made to an “independent contractor” and the Form W-2 is used to report “wages”. However, no matter which information return form is filed, or what type of payment it is reporting, the mere submission to the IRS of a valid information return constitutes presumptive evidence that the amounts shown on the form are subject to federal and state taxing authority. We just discussed the fact that if payments made to you are not taxable, there is no legal reason for you

83

3715

3720

3725

3730

3735

3740

3745

3750

3755

to provide an identifying number, and you should not do so; to do so is tantamount to declaring that the payment is subject to taxation. In the same vane, if payments made to you are not taxable, then no report of the payment [i.e. an information return] is required to be made to the IRS. This can readily be seen in the IRC, as follows: Section 3406 of the IRC is the section that authorizes backup withholding. Backup withholding may only be instituted concerning “reportable payments ”. Please take careful note that this section does not say that backup withholding may be instituted concerning any payment, or all payments, but only when the payment is specifically defined as a “reportable payment”. This is a perfect example of the word games the Treasury department loves to play in the tax code. Section 3406 goes on to list the other sections of the IRC that address “reportable payments”. These sections are typically thought to be stand-alone provisions authorizing information reporting (as opposed to backup withholding). These sections are:

6041, 6041(a), 6041A, 6041A(a), 6045, 6050A, and 6050N However, as you can see, these sections are not “stand-alone” in their authority to file information returns. They are tied into the definitions provided in §3406. It is interesting to note that none of the sections listed above use the language “reportable payments” – only “payments”. If one did not know that “reportable payments” are defined in §3406 as the payments made under the sections shown above, one would never know that the word “payments” (used in the sections listed above) actually means “reportable payments”! [Don’t you just love how the Secretary of the Treasury attempts to obscure simple facts that would help the average Citizen make sense of the tax code?] Before any reporting may lawfully be performed, it must first be determined whether the payment is actually reportable. A payment can only be subject to the reporting requirements of the IRC if the payment is first determined to be within the taxing authority of the government. And who do you suppose determines that? If you are a Citizen, and the payment relates to something other than interest, dividends, or patronage dividends from corporate activity, then it is you, and only you, who has the legal authority to determine if the transaction is taxable to you! There is no law anywhere in existence that designates anyone other than you to determine your tax status. If you decide the payment is not taxable to you, then you are under no legal duty to provide anyone with an identifying number, nor are they required to file an information return. If you do not provide an identifying number, the requestor cannot provide the IRS with a valid information return. If they cannot provide the IRS with a valid information return (and you don’t file any other federal or state returns), then the IRS has no presumptive evidence that you have received any money (or other property) that is subject to federal or state taxing authority and they have no legal authority to take any action in reference to you. And guess what? The IRS agrees with that. In the case of US v. Lloyd, IRS Criminal Investigator Gary Makovski testified under oath:

"If no information [return] or [tax] return is filed, [the] Internal Revenue Service cannot assess you."

As you can see, information returns are powerful documents that are misused and misapplied

84

3760

3765

3770

3775

3780

3785

3790

3795

3800

3805

consistently to create the false legal justification for concluding that a Citizen owes a tax he likely never really owed. Information returns are made possible by you giving out your identifying number whenever you are asked, without being aware of the consequences of your action. The misuse and misapplication of information returns i s also buttressed by petty functionaries and petty tyrants blackmailing law-abiding Americans into surrendering their numbers.

Why Do Companies Demand a Number? The truly sad part of the entire “information return” issue is that most companies have no intention of putting you in a compromised position when they file an information return!

· Do you think your employer really cares whether the money they pay you is taxable to you? · Do you think a business really cares whether you have a SSN or not? · Do you think the guy writing a check to you really cares whether your business has a TIN?

Let us assure you that the answer to these questions is “no”. They unlawfully demand a number from you because they are ignorant, or cowards, or both. Most people (including so-called “experts”) don’t know one tenth of what you now know having read this far. CPAs are led to believe that everyone who earns a living is a taxpayer, so that’s the position they take when a company asks them what must be done to comply with the law. Of course the company is foolish to ask a CPA what must be done to “comply with the law” because CPAs are not qualified to give legal answers; CPAs can only tell the company what actions comply with the regulations – but then again the CPA is not qualified to tell anyone if the payments made to you are within the taxing authority of the government. Tax attorneys are little better. They will dodge a direct question about whether or not you’re a taxpayer because they know that such a determination is not theirs (or the company’s) to make, but they will quietly suggest to the company that it get rid of you or stop doing business with you if you raise the issue that you are not a taxpayer. Most companies file information returns for two reasons. First, to provide documentary support for the deductions they are taking on their tax returns. Secondly, for the purpose of maintaining uniform accounting procedures. We recognize that these firms have been socialized to believe that information returns are as necessary as breathing. Unfortunately, ignorance is no excuse for blackmailing their workers and vendors out of their unalienable rights and the practice must stop. It should be noted that an information return is not required in order to substantiate a deduction on the company’s tax returns. Only one person is legally allowed to determine your tax status, and that’s you. But if you exercise your legitimate legal right, then finding work gets very challenging. So who’s to blame? First and foremost, the government; it has the attorneys, the judges, the jails, and ultimately, the guns – and it routinely uses them all to harass and attack anyone who threatens the public perception of taxation. Secondly, the government sets the criteria for what is taught to CPA’s. Thirdly, the government consistently puts out pamphlets, brochures, bulletins, publications, etc., that are

85

3810

3815

3820

3825

3830

3835

3840

3845

3850

intentionally designed to mislead CPA’s and the public about the true meaning of the law. IRS attorneys work very hard to find language to use in those documents that does not misquote the law, but misrepresents the actual meaning and application of the law. [For more information on this, see Debunking IRS Tax Lies within this document.] I suppose we could also blame CPA’s and tax attorneys generally, but they are part of a very self-interested group that is particularly vulnerable to the truth. In other words, if the truth took hold across this great land tonight, CPA’s and tax attorneys would be out on the street tomorrow looking for honest work. Needless to say, it is a rare member of their profession who has the integrity to even look at the facts, no less admit the truth publicly.

The next group is the “dominant media”. We defined the dominant media as those information outlets that are well established and collectively provide news and other information to a vast majority of the public. Examples of entities that would fall within our definition of “dominant media” are CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, etc. These information outlets have erected a “wall of separation” between the public and the truth about federal income tax. They cooperate in a conspiracy of silence on this issue. Further, they portray anyone who knows these truths as some sort of anti-government crackpot, thus insuring that the truth of the issue is obscured behind the false and malicious smear-job done on the reputation of the messenger. Because of the intentional “lock-out” of tax researchers and their data from dominant media outlets, what should have taken only a few years to rectify, has taken decades and is still not complete. And now we get to who is ultimately responsible. Go outside and look at your neighbor. It is him (or her), and millions like him, that are truly responsible for this egregious situation. These are your fellow Citizens; yet each and every day they act as if they are the enforcement arm of the government. Each and every day many of these seemingly “ordinary people” engage in blackmailing their fellow Citizens out of their rights. This situation must stop. Our “neighbors” must be made to see that such abusive and illegal actions are not acceptable to their fellow Americans. Having said this, we must remember that most of the people who are engaged in such unconscionable conduct are either ignorant of the true nature of their actions, or they are afraid for their own jobs. We must find a constructive way to inform our neighbors of the issues (such as tell them about this document) and to help them overcome their fears so that they can stand beside us in the fight for liberty. We must find a way to demonstrate to them the truth that every time they diminish the rights of others, they diminish their own freedom as well. And remember, these problems will not be solved by browbeating a few people into seeing things our way. These problems will be permanently resolved only when enough Americans are made aware of the issues, and see them clearly, that identifying numbers are no longer “demanded” and every Citizen is respected in their legal right to determine their own tax status.

To Whom Does US Individual Income Tax Apply?

Needless to say, this is a pretty good question. However the question is not half as important as the answer. So how do we g et the answer? One of the best ways might be to turn to the legal professionals who publish the tax code (and the rest of the United States Code).

The United States Code Annotated is a multi-volume publication that includes the complete text of

86

3855

3860

3865

3870

3875

3880

3885

3890

3895

the United States Code, together with case notes of state and federal decisions that demonstrate the application of specific sections of United States law and provides cross references to related sections, historical notes and library references. It is the inclusion of this “additional information” that distinguishes the “Annotated” version from the regular United States Code. The United States Code Annotated is the publication most widely used by attorneys, legal scholars and others researching United States law and it has been in use at least as long as the income tax laws have been on the books.

In the index to the Annotated Code, under the heading “Citizens”, you will find the subheading “Citizenship”. Under “Citizenship”, if you scan carefully for all the cites that contain a "26" in bold type (That would be Title 26 United States Code; also known as the Internal Revenue Code), you will only find two cites, both referencing “gift tax”. If there is a reference to the "gift tax" under "Citizenship", then why is there no reference to the “income tax” under that same heading? Keep reading!

Now then, if we go to the index heading “Income Tax”, and then find the subheading of “Citizens”, we note that there are only two cites: (a) citizens about to depart the United States and (b) citizens living abroad. Why do the only references to "income tax" for "Citizens" have to do with citizens about to leave the country and citizens living abroad?

Next, under the heading “Income Tax”, we move to the subheading “Aliens”, and find a cross-reference to the major heading of “Aliens”. When we locate the heading “Aliens”, and then the subheading “Income tax”, we find nine pages of Title 26 laws that apply to aliens. Among the Internal Revenue laws [Title 26] affecting aliens are such familiar sections as “deductions”, “exemptions”, “gross income”, “joint returns”, “withholding of tax”, and much more.

In our research, we have found that indexes, parallel tables, and tables of content can often times be more revealing than the actual text of the law. Why? Because of the “unwritten rule” we stated earlier about reading and understanding law – context, context, context! Indexes, such as that found in the United States Code Annotated, have to take into account broad issues of context in order to determine proper applicability and remain accurate for the legal professional. For 80 years the United States Code Annotated has been telling us the contextual truth. Most Americans just haven’t been listening. Since the tax code is a compilation of excise [privilege] taxes, one might properly observe that while a Citizen is exercising a right when working in this country, it is a privilege for a non-citizen to do so. We should also point out that this reality dovetails perfectly with a Citizen’s right to declare his own status for domestic income tax purposes. By permitting a Citizen to declare his own status, the tax code allows the nontaxpayer/Citizen to avoid a tax that does not apply to him. [It should be noted that without such an “escape hatch” for Citizens, the IRC would be unconstitutional.] Conversely, if an alien refuses to provide a number, the “payor” can simply include an affidavit with their information return, and if the IRS later determines that the person is liable for the tax, then the IRS can institute the proper proceedings against that person for the collection of the tax.

87

3900

3905

3910

3915

3920

3925

3930

3935

3940

Summary

Although federal taxation is a topic of considerable complexity, Original Intent has condensed the essential and significant elements to what you see in this treatise. It is our hope that this information will assist you and others in the proper administration of your own tax issues. The issues we have addressed are the following:

1) The term “income tax” can be used by the US government and its courts to describe revenue laws generally, or it can be used to describe a specific type of tax.

2) 16th Amendment “income” and the ordinary “compensation for labor” of the average American are not the same thing.

3) Each subtitle (A through E) of the IRC imposes a completely different type of tax and subtitle C taxes are not the same tax as subtitle A taxes.

4) No tax law can apply to you if in doing so it would violate one or more of your “unalienable rights” (unless it is a direct tax).

5) One of your unalienable rights is to exchange your labor for other forms of property (including money) without having to give a percentage to the government. The only way the government can tax such compensation is with a direct tax, and Congress has not imposed a direct tax upon compensation for labor.

6) You need not provide an identifying number if you’ve determined the transaction is not taxable.

7) No reporting is required if you’ve determined that the transaction is not taxable to you.

8) If the person making a payment to you wants to report the payment even after you’ve made the determination that it not a taxable transaction, that person may do so without a number and must affix the appropriate affidavit to the information return.

9) Under the regulations created by the Secretary of the Treasury for tax matters, a person making a payment to you has no other remedy than the steps specified in item 8 if you refuse to provide a number. Actions such as firing you, or withholding payments owed, are not lawful options because no law specifies such conduct as a remedy.

10) It is our responsibility to inform our friends and neighbors of these truths. Most are ignorant or afraid or both. We should endeavor to cure their ignorance and give them sufficient information and support so that they need no longer fear the IRS.

11) Despite the illegal and immoral conduct of the government [most notably the Treasury Department, the IRS, and the US Department of Justice, Tax Division] the truth is that US Individual Income Tax applies primarily to aliens and only to working American Citizens in very narrow circumstances that are not generally applicable to the public at large.

88

3945

3950

3955

3960

3965

3970

3975

3980

3985

3990

The “Willful Failure to File” Scam! How many times have you read articles [usually around the first quarter of the year!] concerning people being convicted of Willful Failure to File charges? Over the years, we’d guess you’ve read quite a few such articles. If you’re a member of the Patriot community, you’ve probably read a lot more of these articles than the average American. These articles are part of an annual publicity ritual of the IRS and the media intended to intimidate Citizens into filing income tax returns. The fact that most Citizens don’t actually owe any income tax is a matter of complete indifference to both the government and the media. How many Americans do you suppose file their income tax returns each year out of nothing more than the fear of being incarcerated if they don’t? Out of roughly 100 million potential taxpayers, we suspect that quite a few fall into that category. If only 5% of the public falls into that category, that’s 5,000,000 people filing returns out of fear of going to jail. Many Americans believe that the government will only prosecute them if they’ve broken a law. The belief is completely false. The US government will prosecute you for any number of reasons; you having actually committed a crime is only one possible reason, and is not an essential reason in the eyes of government prosecutors. Attaining the goals handed down by their political masters, and maintaining the power base of those in control are far more essential elements to a US Attorney than whether or not you’ve actually committed a crime.

"Americans are no longer secure in law - the justice system no longer seeks truth and prosecutors are untroubled by wrongful convictions.” Paul Craig Roberts (former Asst. Secretary of the Treasury)

Willful Failure to File is a perfect example of a charge that the government brings against a private Citizens even though the US Attorney knows that in most cases the Citizen is not guilty of the charge.

26 USC §7203 [Willful Failure to File]:

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, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both

A fine of $25,000 or a jail sentence of not more than a year! Scary stuff! Of course the question is, can the US Attorney prosecute you for such a thing? Let’s find out! You will note that the section begins with the words, “Any person required under this title…”. We’ve highlighted “person”, and underlined “required”, because they are the key elements of the charge. As we’ve discussed in other parts of this document, the term “person” can be defined in various ways;

89

3995

4000

4005

4010

4015

4020

4025

4030

4035

each definition suitable for the specific purpose of the statute in which it is employed. Before we can determine if you are subject to prosecution for Willful Failure to File, we need to know if you fall within the definition of “person” as defined for use in §7203. Additionally, because it is the “person required” to file, the definition will need to include the exact nature of who is “required” to file returns under the internal revenue laws of the United States. §7203 is a part of Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). While most IRC chapters contain between 3 and 10 sections, Chapter 75 [entitled, “Crimes, Other Offenses, & Forfeiture”] has 59 sections! §7203 is the third section of the chapter – right up at the front. So where might we find the definition of “person” as used within the third section of the chapter? Where else - in the 58th section of the chapter – 55 sections after the offense statute! Isn’t it grand how the government does everything it possibly can to keep you from knowing the truth and being able to defend yourself from an unlawful attack? And to be perfectly clear, there are many statutes wherein pivotal definitions are provided right in the body of the statute so that people will not be confused. But those are places where it serves the interest of the government that you not be confused. When it comes to Willful Failure to File, the government will go to great lengths to make sure you are as confused and ill-informed as possible. It’s much easier for the government to unlawfully prosecute you when you don’t really understand what’s going on. So why would the government bury the definition of “person” (as used within §7203) 55 sections after the offense statute? Let’s look and see what they’re hiding!

26 USC §7343 [Definition of the term “Person”]:

The term ''person'' as used in this chapter [chapter 75] includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

Whoa! Did you get that?! The term “person” is defined as “an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership”. How many people have gone to jail for Willful Failure to File when they were just regular old folks working for an ordinary living and were not officers or employees of a corporation or partnership? The answer is, thousands. But wait…there’s more! Even if one is an officer or employee of a corporation or partnership, such person must still be “under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs”. In other words, that officer or employee must hold a position within the company in which he is tasked with overseeing and completing the company’s obligations under the internal revenue laws of the United States. This can be seen in the plain language of the definition wherein it states, “…who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act”. Further, such a person must be aware that he has been tasked with such a responsibility (either by operation of law or by appointment) and he must have a belief [Cheeks doctrine] that he is “required”, on behalf of the company, to perform certain acts under the law. If he has such a belief, and fails to carry out his lawful responsibilities, only then is he liable for prosecution under §7203. Let’s take a moment and discuss the use of the word, “includes” in the definition of “person” a t §7343.

90

4040

4045

4050

4055

4060

4065

4070

4075

4080

The federal courts have consistently held that “includes” (as used within the IRC) is a term of “limited expansion”. [See 26 USC §7701(c) for the specific definition of “includes”.] As such, the definition of “person” can “include” people who are within the same legal parameters, even though they are not specifically named in the definition. An example of this might be the trustee of a statutory trust that has incurred income tax liability. [See the Trusts section within this document to understand the meaning of a “statutory trust”.] In that circumstance, the trustee would be the equivalent of a corporate officer because he would be the person “under a duty to act” on behalf of the statutory fiction, and thus would be included in the meaning of “person”, as defined at §7343. The definition of “includes” (as defined within the IRC) allows the government to use “definitions” not so much to define what a thing is, but rather to establish a “category” of things that can be embraced by the term. As an example, let’s look at a fictitious definition:

51 USC §1:

Food – The term “food” as used within this section includes peaches, pears, and apples. Under the IRC definition of “includes”, the term “food” could also embrace nectarines, persimmons, guavas, etc. However, the term “food” (as defined) could not be construed to embrace a steak, or asparagus, because the category clearly established by language of the definition is “fruit”. Meat and vegetables cannot be a part of the term “food”, because they fall outside the “category” established by the definition. To bring this discussion back to “person” (as defined at §7343), we find the “category” established is:

An individual who holds a position within a statutory fiction of law (e.g. corporations, LLPs, etc.), and that position imposes a duty upon him to conduct certain acts, on behalf of the fiction , in accordance with the internal revenue laws of the United States.

Based on this definition, an ordinary American Citizen, who is under no duty to perform any act on behalf of another, under the internal revenue laws of the United States, is not a “person” for the purposes of Willful Failure to File [§7203].

91

4085

4090

4095

4100

4105

4110

4115

4120

4125

4130

Employment Taxes

Employment taxes are likely the single most significant issue in the discussion of federal and state taxation. Hundreds of millions of Americans have taxes withheld from their paychecks. The sad truth is that most of these hard working Americans are under no legal obligation to participate in payroll withholding, and have no legal liability for the taxes concerning which withholding has been imposed upon them. One might reasonably ask why millions of Americans participate in payroll withholding if there is no legal requirements for them to do so. The answer is as ugly as it is simple – the federal government lies, deceives, and intimidates most private employers into acting as the government’s private extortionists. In this manner, the Treasury Department is able to intimidate millions of individual workers into surrendering a portion of their pay without a single Treasury official ever going to prison (as justice demands). The way the system operates today, it is the employer who bears the legal risk for operating an extortion racket. But how much of a risk is it? The employer is the one who erroneously (and immorally) tells a worker that he cannot work unless he signs a Form W-4, thus declaring his pay subject to federal and state taxing authority. The worker cannot bring criminal charges against the employer because the charge of extortion requires the element of “intent” and most employers really do believe that they must withhold or they will be the party that gets punished by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The worker can bring a civil action against the employer for “conversion”1, but how many workers want to go to trial against their employer? And even if a worker had the inclination, how many could afford the tremendous cost of such a battle? So where’s the up side here? The up side is two-fold. The first is that the truth about what the law says is getting out to employers and many employers are seeing the substantial benefits to themselves in not being witlessly manipulated by the government into stealing from their employees and being under one more needless administrative burden! The second up side is even traditional employers, who want nothing to do with the Patriot Movement or the Tax Honesty Movement, are beginning to take the position that income tax liability is something between the government and the worker, and that the company should not be stuck in the middle. With this new spirit, such firms are willing to waive payroll withholding if the worker can provide reasonable documentation to support his claim of not being subject to withholding. 1 An unauthorized assumption of rights and exercise of ownership over goods or personal chattel. Black’s Law

dictionary, 6th Ed.

92

4135

4140

4145

4150

4155

4160

4165

Now that we’ve examined the prevailing circumstances, let’s look at the law.

Subtitle 'C' taxes (generally)

The most frequent legal attack made by Patriots upon the withholding law is that it is unconstitutional. Wrong! It is 100% constitutional. The problem (as is so often the case with tax law) is that the Executive Branch (intentionally and maliciously) applies the law to persons and circumstances Congress never intended. So often we hear a court hold that, “The statute under review is prima facia constitutional”. What the courts are saying when they hold that the law is “prima facia” constitutional is that there is no constitutional problem with Congress exercising such authority exactly as the statute is written and intended. The unspoken part of the holding is that the party challenging the law didn’t show how it is unconstitutional when applied to his circumstances. In other words; yes, Congress has the Constitutional authority to exercise such powers in the circumstances for which the law was enacted, but this circumstance is not the one in which Congress may exercise such authority! Federal employment tax laws are contained in Subtitle ‘C’ of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The following chapters appear in Subtitle ‘C’: Chapter 21 – Federal Insurance Contribution Act [FICA] (aka: Social Security Tax) Chapter 22 – Railroad Retirement Tax Act Chapter 23 – Federal Unemployment Tax Act Chapter 23A – Railroad Unemployment Repayment Tax Chapter 24 – Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages Chapter 25 – General Provisions Relating to Employment Taxes The first thing that may strike the eye of a person seeing those chapter titles for the first time is the inclusion of Railroad Employment Taxes. One might reasonably ask why the railroads are included in this section? If you wondered about that, you’re an astute observer and you are asking the right questions. One might also ask, “If railroads, why not grocery stores, or computer companies, or shoe repair stores, or all of the above, and more?” The reason railroads are there, and other enterprises aren’t, is because it is a well-settled point of law (for many reasons we will not go into here) that the federal government has complete regulatory control over the railroad industry. O.K…so an industry that is little more than a federal instrumentality1 is included in Subtitle ‘C’, but other private enterprises aren’t. Hmmm. What’s the common thread here? 1 A means or agency used by the federal government to implement or carry out a federal law or function. Black’s

Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

93

4170

4175

4180

4185

4190

4195

4200

4205

The Citizens of the states of the Union have various inalienable rights granted by the Creator. Not only is this stated plainly in the Declaration of Independence, but it has been repeatedly recognized by the state and federal courts of this country for almost

200 years. It is only in the latter half of the 20th century that our courts started to retreat from plainly declaring the rights of American Citizens. Among these numerous inalienable rights is the right to contract out your own labor as you see fit. Another of these inalienable rights is your right to contract for the labor of others – also as you see fit. Let’s look at a few examples where the courts have recognized these pre-existing inalienable rights:

“Included in the right of personal liberty…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other service are exchanged for money and other forms of property”. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1 (1915)

“The property that every man has is his personal labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…to hinder his employing…in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property.” Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884)

“In our opinion that section, in the particular mentioned, is an invasion of the personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by that Amendment (5th Amendment). Such liberty and right embraces the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor.” Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908)

"It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. [O]f all the powers conferred upon government, that of taxation is most liable to abuse.” Loan Association v Topeka, 87 US 655, 663 (1874)

While we’re focusing on “contracts”, let’s not forget that neither the states, nor the United States, have the power to interfere in a private contract, unless such contract is created to commit a criminal act (such as contracting to have another person killed). We have now established that a Citizen’s labor is his own property; property that he may contract out as he sees fit – without government interference. We’ve also established

94

4210

4215

4220

4225

4230

4235

4240

4245

that it is a Citizen’s right to contract for the labor of others – also without government interference. We are now aware that the government cannot interfere with private contracts. So, if all these things are true, what is contained in Subtitle ‘C’ of the Internal Revenue Code? Editor’s Note: If you have not already done so, this would be an excellent time to read the piece on the Constitutional Issues of Taxation, as well as Federal Income Tax. Each has a substantial amount of information that will help you understand the proper application of Subtitle ‘C’ Employment Taxes. Parts of this article not be as readily understood absent the information provided in those pieces.

Since a Citizen’s rights can only be taxed with a direct tax, and Congress has never enacted a direct tax upon labor, the employment taxes in Subtitle ‘C’ must be in the nature of an excise [privilege] tax. Since Social Security taxes [FICA] are within Subtitle ‘C’ (employment taxes), let’s start there to see what type of taxes are contained within Subtitle ‘C’. In Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 (1937), and then again in Charles C. Steward Mach Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-82 (1937), the US Supreme Court referred to the Social Security Act as laying,

“…a special income tax upon employees to be deducted from their wages and paid by the employers”.

If you have read the Constitutional Issues of Taxation, you already know that after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, all “income tax acts” passed by Congress (under the authority of the 16th Amendment) must be an excise tax. Furthermore, despite the Helvering Court using of the word “special” to delineate this new income tax, it is not particularly special at all. Later in the Helvering decision the Court stated:

“The proceeds of [SS] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not ear-marked in any way.”

That Supreme Court observation can be seen today in statute at 26 USC 3501(a):

The taxes imposed by this subtitle shall be collected by the Secretary and shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States as internal-revenue collections

So despite the common public perception that a person’s SS tax (which is an employment tax) goes into “their own account”, the truth of the matter is that SS taxes

95

4250

4255

4260

4265

4270

4275

4280

4285

just get dumped into the Treasury’s general fund with all other federal revenues. In other words, it’s not a “special” income tax; it’s merely “another” income tax!

Withholding And Other Sordid Stories What other Subtitle ‘C’ taxes might be of interest to us? Aside from Social Security, the only other chapter within Subtitle ‘C’ that would seem to be of interest to us would be in Chapter 24, entitled, “Collection Of Income Tax At Source On Wages”. Chapter 24 distinguishes itself in several ways. First, it specifies that an “income tax” is to be collected from the people who are cutting payroll checks, not from the actual owners of the property [remember, accrued pay is your property, not the employer’s]. Second, it lays out the mechanism that is to be used for collecting the tax. Third, and most importantly, Chapter 24 does not impose a tax upon anyone! As we noted earlier, Subtitle ‘C’ contains six chapters. However, only the first four impose a tax:

Chapter 21, §3101(a) – In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual…

Chapter 22, §3201(a) – In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of each employee…

Chapter 23, §3301 – There is hereby imposed on every employer…

Chapter 23A, §3321(a) – There is hereby imposed on every rail employer…

Now somehow when we come to the infamous “withholding” chapter [chapter 24], Congress mysteriously forgets how to properly and lawfully impose a tax:

Chapter 24, §3402(a)1 – Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages…

“…shall deduct and withhold…”? Does that sound like the imposition of a tax to you? Isn’t it odd how Congress can quite clearly “impose” a tax in the first four chapters, but (as a good friend of mine used to say) “get struck with a case of the dumb-ass” when they got to the fifth chapter? Of course, the keen observer would notice that in the first

96

4290

4295

4300

4305

4310

4315

4320

4325

four chapters, the tax is imposed in the very first section of the chapter, but not so in Chapter 24. In chapter 24 the command to withhold (which is not the same as imposing a tax) is given in the second section. So what’s in the first section? The “definitions” that control the second section (and the entire chapter). Since chapter 24 doesn’t impose a tax (no matter what a few liars in black robes have ruled), the definitions in the first section might shed some light on this odd situation. As can clearly be seen on the section shown above [§3402(a)1], the withholding is upon “wages”. Certain terms are pivotal to a proper understanding of chapter 24; “wages” is one such term.

26 USC §3401(a) – Wages – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''wages'' means all remuneration for services performed by an employee…

Please note that we have emphasized the statutory “term” being used to designate the wage-earner (employee). We should take a moment at this point to remind you that these are not “words” we’re dealing with, but legal “terms”. So what’s the difference? “Words” are defined by a standard dictionary such as Webster’s, even if the word is used in a law. One resorts to the standard dictionary when one finds that the legislature has not provided its own definition for the word. However, if the legislature has provided its own definition, then we are no longer dealing with a word, but with a legal “term”. In other words, “words” have their common dictionary definitions, while “terms” have the exclusive meaning given to them by the legislature, and that meaning may have little or no similarity to the dictionary definition. So…is “employee” a word or a term? We find it defined by Congress (for use on chapter 24) at 26 USC §3401(c), so it’s a term:

Employee – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a [federally owned or controlled] corporation.

Do you see any private sector folks described there? We don’t either. Before we go further, we should probably address the definition of “includes” since it has reared its tricky head in the above definition. “Includes and including” are defined for the entire IRC (unless otherwise indicated)

97

4330

4335

4340

4345

4350

4355

4360

4365

at 26 USC 7701(c):

“The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

How’s that for some double-speak? Fortunately we don’t need to trouble ourselves with that brain twister because the federal courts have already held that these words are (when used in the IRC) terms of “limited expansion”. What that means is that the “expansion” applies to things that are already generally described in the definition of whatever is being defined, even if a thing is not specifically named in the definition. If we examine the definition of employee (above), we note that every governmental entity listed is an entity which is within the “exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States”, therefore if there is another type of “governmental entity” that is within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States, it can be considered a part of the definition, even though it is not specifically listed in the definition. Got it? Good! O.K., now that we understand “includes”, let’s move on. We can summarize the pertinent definitions in the following manner. “Wages” are earned only by statutorily defined persons called “employees”. “Employees” arestatutorily defined as people who work for any number of various governmental entities. In other words, for the purposes of chapter 24 there is no definition of “wages” as being earned by anyone in the private sector, nor is there any definition of “employee” that is anyone working in the private sector. Isn’t it odd that with no mention of private persons or private employers, so many people, workers and companies alike, are under the illusion that everyone must participate in withholding? In a way, the lunacy of it boggles the mind. But how does the rest of Subtitle ‘C’ define pivotal definitions?

CHAPTER 22 - RAILROAD RETIREMENT TAX ACT Sec. 3231. Definitions (a) Employer – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means any carrier (as defined in subsection (g)), and any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by one or more such carriers… (b) Employee – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' means any individual in the service of one or more employers for compensation…

Sec. 3202. Deduction of tax from compensation (a) Requirement – The taxes imposed by section 3201 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the taxes from the

98

4370

4375

4380

4385

4390

4395

4400

4405

compensation of the employee as and when paid. Notice how clearly the collection provision [§3202] is worded. No shenanigans here!

CHAPTER 23A - RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT REPAYMENT TAX Sec. 3322. Definitions

(a) Rail employer – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''rail employer'' means any person who is an employer as defined in section 1 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. (b) Rail wages – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''rail wages'' means…remuneration paid…which is subject to contributions under section 8(a) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. (c) Employee representative – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee representative'' has the meaning given such term by section 1 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.

Note the specificity being employed by Congress in providing very clear definitions. The reader is left without doubt as to whom these definitions embrace, and whom they do not! The sections we’ve just explored are perfectly clear as to whom they apply and how they are to be collected. However, such is hardly the case with FICA (chapter 21) or FUTA (chapter 23) – more on those chapters later. We wish to draw your attention to the fact that chapter 22, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act:

Clearly “imposes” a tax [§3201(a)]

Clearly defines the “employer” [§3231(a)]

Defines the “employee” [3231(b)]

Clearly lays out the instructions for the tax’s collection mechanism [§3202(a)]. In a like manner, chapter 23A, The Railroad Unemployment Repayment Tax Act clearly imposes a tax, and just as clearly defines terms such as “employer”, “wages”, and “employee representative” that are the basis of the legislation. These railroad tax acts are completely unambiguous. The terms employed are understood to mean exactly what they say and not even the government contends that they mean anything other than, or in addition to, that which you and I clearly understand

99

4410

4415

4420

4425

4430

4435

4440

4445

them to mean. However, when we get to chapter 24 (withholding) and “employee” is defined as, “…an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing”, suddenly we are asked to believe that this crystal clear definition does not mean what it says, but must mean something that it does not say – that it means everyone working in the private sector – a meaning that no one in the world could possibly construe it to mean from the words Congress employed in the statute. Further, §3402, which contains the command to withhold, does not impose a tax. Section 3401 [definitions] cannot, and does not, impose a tax because that’s not what “definition sections” do. The rest of the chapter’s sections, 3403 through 3406, also do not impose a tax. No language can be found in chapter 24 that even hints at the imposition of a tax. Is it not odd, if not highly suspect, that all the chapters that come before chapter 24 clearly “impose” taxes in plain and unambiguous language, but chapter 24 does not impose any tax at all? So now chapter 24 presents us with two significant problems:

?? It does not impose a tax. ?? It says that withholding is only upon certain government workers.

So what does chapter 24 really do? Let’s look a bit further.

As previously mentioned, §3402 commands that the employer “deduct and withhold…a tax” from the wage earning employees. All of the emphasized words are pivotal in untangling what the government is really doing in chapter 24. Also, please note that the employer is to deduct and withhold a tax – not the tax, but merely a tax that is not specified anywhere in chapter 24. But which tax is the tax that is being referred to? We shall see! As we’ve covered, the employee defined in chapter 24 is various government workers. However, the withholding is supposed to be upon the employee’s wages.

§3401(a) – Wages – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''wages'' means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee…

Well…golly gosh…will you look at that! “Wages” are statutorily defined as being earned only by employees. Hmmm. So…wages are only earned by certain

100

4450

4455

4460

4465

4470

4475

4480

4485

government workers? We can see no other way to construe the statute – can you? Now let’s take a moment and look at the odd way employer is defined:

§3401(d) – Employer – For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employer'' means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee…

There’s that darn pivotal word again! Everything in chapter 24 revolves around the term employee. You remember that definition don’t you? That’s the one that speaks of nothing but government workers, but the government wants you to believe it means you and me in the private sector! Now let’s think about this for a moment. If the employee (as defined at §3401(c)) is certain government workers, then who must the employer be? Obviously the employer is any one of the various governments, government agencies, or government instrumentalities (listed in the definition of “employee”) that have hired the employee. Now if you’re one of those folks who thinks that this is just the lame way the government writes its laws and there’s really no bad faith involved, let’s look at another definition of “employer” from another area of law:

20 USC §6103 (subsection 8) – As used in this chapter: Employer – The term ''employer'' includes both public and private employers.

WOW! Congress really does know how to define “employer” to embrace both government employment and private sector employment when it wants to. Since Congress clearly knows how to do this when it wants to, what reasonable conclusion can we draw when Congress limits the definition to “…the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing”? We leave that conclusion to you. So let’s flesh out chapter 24 a bit more:

?? It does not impose any tax. ?? It applies only to wages. ?? Wages are only earned by an employee. ?? An employee is a person who works for any one of numerous government entities.

101

4490

4495

4500

4505

4510

4515

4520

4525

?? An employer is one who hires any of various government workers. ?? An employer is required to deduct and withhold.

Since chapter 24 is so simple and straightforward, why all the confusion? Truthfully, there isn’t any real confusion, except in the minds of the public. The government knows exactly what chapter 24 says and exactly what it means, and long ago they embarked on a program to deceive the public and thereby steal the property of American Citizens through subterfuge. This subterfuge has taken the form of lies [see IRS Lies in this document], threats, and deprivation of liberty. By the way, if anyone but the government did this it would be prosecutable under state and federal RICO statutes as an act of organized crime – most specifically extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion. This subterfuge is clearly displayed when a company or a Citizen writes a letter to the IRS asking about the proper and lawful application of chapter 24. A person might write and ask if chapter 24 is applicable to a private Citizen, working for a private firm, in the private sector. If there was no subterfuge on the part of the government, the IRS would respond with something like; “Chapter 24 of the Internal Revenue Code is only applicable to certain wage-earning government workers (employees) and their employers. Chapter 24 has no applicability to private Citizens working in a state of the Union, not employed in a government job. Chapter 24 also does not apply to private firms operating exclusively in the private sector. However, private sector workers and companies may volunteer to be considered statutory ‘employees’ and ‘employers’ by completing and submitting certain forms, such as Form W-4 for workers or Forms 941 and 940 for companies.”

Instead the IRS responds with: “It is the policy of the Internal Revenue Service not to respond to letters of the

type you’ve written on a point-by-point basis.” [Actual text of a common IRS response letter]

Fraud – As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional. It comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments... It includes anything calculated to deceive by speech or by silence… Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Constructive Fraud – Constructive fraud consists in any act of commission or omission contrary to legal or equitable duty, trust, or conscience and operates to injure another. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. The government contends that there is no fraud because the United States Code is made public; the Code of Federal Regulations is made public; the Federal Register is made

102

4530

4535

4540

4545

4550

4555

4560

4565

public, and the decisions of the US Supreme Court and other federal courts are made public. Of course they’re all made public; that’s where a lot of the information in this article has come from. However, how much value can we put on the government’s claim of innocence and fair play when the Executive Branch says, “Oh, so you read the law and you know it doesn’t apply to you. Too bad; now we’ll have to start taking your property administratively, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll come get you with men with guns and put you in jail”. And of course the Judicial Branch simply goes along with the Executive Branch and railroads these folks into prison. If you ask us, that sort of takes the wind out of the government’s claims of “openness” and “honesty”. The government’s action basically boils down to this statement: “Dear American Citizen, the law is all there for you to read and understand. It may take you several thousand hours to get through it, but if you’re so audacious as to actually read it, understand it, and stand upon it, and if you inadvertently make the tiniest of legal errors along the way, we will grind you into dust under the immense weight of federal power.” Yup; sure smacks of openness and fair play to us!

Where’s The Tax That’s Being Withheld Under Chapter 24? As we mentioned earlier, §3402 commands that “a tax” be collected, but it never says which tax. As usual, the Code has an answer buried somewhere. Of course the Code is excess of 7,000 pages, so finding one or two relevant sentences can be a lifelong endeavor. Nevertheless, here it is!

26 USC §31(a) – Wage withholding for income tax purposes (1) In general The amount withheld as tax under chapter 24 shall be allowed to the recipient of the income as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle [which is Subtitle ‘A’].

Ah ha! So much for the asinine federal judges who’ve held that Chapter 24 imposes its own tax. Obviously one must have tax liability under Subtitle ‘A’ in order for the employer [don’t forget that definition!] to have valid withholding authority. So what creates Subtitle ‘A’ liability? A while back, the IRS responded to a Privacy Act Request that was demanding proof of an individual’s Subtitle ‘A’ liability. The requester received a very unusual but informative response:

"The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law. It is special law, applicable to those who have chosen to make themselves liable for the income tax by entering into contracts with the U.S. Government. Those who are not involved in a ‘trade

103

4570

4575

4580

4585

4590

4595

4600

4605

or business’ with the U.S. Government are not required to file a return under Subtitle A."

Need we say more? If you’ve read Original Intent’s articles on The Constitutional Issues of Taxation and Federal Income Tax, the legal concepts should be starting to dovetail for you now – you should be able to start seeing the big picture taking shape! Anyone who contracts with the federal government to perform work will end up with Subtitle ‘A’ tax liability. If a person performs work as an independent contractor, he must provide a TIN, or be subject to back-up withholding [see §3406]. All information returns will be in the form of a 1099 (or a similar form). Anyone who contracts with the federal government, or any government entity that is ultimately under the “exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States” [see Federal Jurisdiction in this document] as an employee will be subject to the withholding provision of chapter 24, §3402, because he has created Subtitle ‘A’ liability for himself. Section 3402 authorizes the withholding, and §31(a) tells us which tax is being withheld. A Form W-4 is required of such an employee and their wages will be reported on a Form W-2. Regulations for determining if a person is a contractor or an employee [see 26 CFR 31.3401(c)-1] are for the use of the government employer defined at 26 USC §3401(d), and not for private employers. We’ve been saying for years that all federal tax forms are only applicable to the following circumstances:

Direct financial involvement with the United States government. Payments made/received from certain federally regulated financial markets. Foreign business activities in the United States. Conducting domestic business in certain federally regulated businesses(Subtitle D & E matters).

Form 1099 is for reporting payments made by a governmental entity to a person acting as an independent contractor to that governmental entity. It is not for reporting the money paid by John’s Shoe Repair to Vinnie The Plumber! Form W-4 is to be completed and signed by certain government employees, not by the workers at Fred’s TV Repair. Form W-2 is for governmental entities to report the wages they have paid to their employees, but it is not to be used to report the compensation paid to the workers at Joe’s Computer Repair. In fact, all “reportable payments” [see §3406 and Federal

104

4610

4615

4620

4625

4630

4635

4640

4645

Income Tax] relate solely to the four categories shown above. If what you’re doing is not within one of those four categories, it’s not a “reportable payment”.

FICA and FUTA As we close this article, let’s briefly explore the remaining two chapters of Subtitle ‘C’ – chapters 21 and 23, FICA and FUTA respectively. Chapter 24 (withholding) derives its authority from the fact that one is receiving money from the public treasury and is thus subject to the regulatory controls that accompany such a financial “nexus” with the federal government. By contrast, the FICA and FUTA statutes find their authority in the government’s territorial powers. Both of these taxes are based not upon what you do, but where you do it. Both FICA and FUTA are based on wages, but in these statutes the definition of “wages” is different than in chapter 24. Let’s look at the differences:

26 USC 3121(a) – Wages: For purposes of this chapter, the term ''wages'' means all remuneration for employment…

We know it’s looking familiar, but trust us, there is a difference coming into view!

26 USC 3121(b) – Employment: For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employment'' means any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either (i) within the United States…(goes on to talk about service on “American vessels”, “American aircraft”, or for “American employers” overseas).

Unless you’re working on a US flagged ship, or a US registered aircraft, or working overseas for a business owned by a non-American Citizen, the only thing that constitutes “employment” is working for someone “within the United States”. Accordingly, all we have to do is find out how Congress has defined the legal term “United States” for use within chapter 21 [FICA]. Let’s shift to the regulations for that definition because the one that appears in the regulations is far more specific than the one that appears in the Code. In the regulations, the definition of State appears first and is helpful in understanding the definition of United States, so we’ve included both.

26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1: State, United States, Citizen (a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ‘‘State’’ includes the

105

4650

4655

4660

4665

4670

4675

4680

4685

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term ‘‘United States’’ also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term ‘‘citizen of the United States’’ includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

You will notice that Alaska and Hawaii were included as “States” until the time they became “states of the Union”. At that time, they ceased to be “federal States”, which is what is being defined above.

One can easily see that the “United States” being defined above is not the “states of the Union” that you and I live in. The “United States” that is being defined above are those “federal areas” that are under the “exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States”. [See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, of the US Constitution.] Remember, when legislating as the national government for the states of the Union, Congress can only exercise specific delegated authority, but when legislating only for federal areas, Congress is free to act in any way it sees fit unless it is specifically barred from such actions by the Constitution. In other words, FICA and FUTA taxes cannot be imposed upon the Citizens of the states of the Union (while working in a state) because such legislation would not be constitutional. After all, as we covered in the first several pages of this article, the Citizens of the states of the Union possess a common law right to work and the federal government cannot defeat or alter that right. However, citizens and residents of places that “belong” to the United States government have no such common law rights and the government may impose a tax upon such people to work, or to hire others to work for them. Accordingly, the imposition of FICA and FUTA taxes is geographically based, and does not affect Citizens of a state of the Union working in the states or firms domiciled within a state of the Union.

Of course, when it comes to federal law – which is applicable only when the U.S. has jurisdiction – Citizens keep “volunteering” into federal jurisdiction, even when the

106

4690

4695

4700

4705

4710

4715

4720

4725

government has none to begin with. This can be done in a myriad of ways, but when it comes to tax law, most Americans “volunteer” into the system by giving out their SSN, which is an identifying number for tax purposes (see 26 CFR 301.6109-1(a)). Most people give out their SSN without a thought as to the legal consequences of doing so. For more information on this zombie-like condition that afflicts millions of Americans, see our article on Federal Income Tax.

Employer Identification Number (EIN) Many firms that have no obligations under Subtitle ‘C’ create their own legal duties by applying for an EIN. Applying for and receiving an EIN means that you’ve requested to be considered as an “employer” (as defined at (§3401(d)) and that you wish to be bound by the regulations which govern employers, employees, and payroll tax matters. In short, you cease to be a “private employer”. Most private firms are under no obligation to be considered “employers” and are free to return the EIN to the Secretary of the Treasury and cancel their obligations under their former EIN. However, like most transactions with the IRS, it must be done properly in order to be effective. If Original Intent can be of service to you in this area, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Summary

*Subtitle ‘C’, Employment Taxes, covers several different taxes.

*Only 4 out of the 6 chapters “impose” taxes.

*2 out of those 4 deal with railroad taxes and do not affect most Americans.

*FICA and FUTA are the only two general taxes in Subtitle ‘C’.

*FICA and FUTA are geographically based in federal areas, and are not required of Citizens of the states of the Union while working in a state of the Union.

*The chapter that commands withholding (chapter 24) does not impose any tax upon anyone.

*26 USC 31(a) reveals that chapter 24 is authorized to withhold only Subtitle ‘A’ taxes.

107

4730

4735

4740

4745

4750

4755

4760

4765

*If a person has no Subtitle ‘A’ liability, chapter 24 has no authority. *Persons who contract to perform work for the federal government will have

Subtitle ‘A’ liability.

*A person who accepts an offer of employment with various government entities becomes the “employee” defined in chapter 24 (§3401(c)).

*An “employee” (as defined at §3401(c)) earns “wages” (defined at §3401(a)).

*It is upon an employee’s wages that withholding is to be accomplished.

*Forms such as the W-4 and W-2, are intended exclusively for the use of the “employer” (as defined at §3401(d)), not for private sector firms.

*EINs are exclusively for identifying “employers” (as defined at (§3401(d)). They have no proper role in the private sector.

*By acquiring an EIN, a private firm is requesting t o be considered as an “employer” (as defined at (§3401(d)) and is then bound by the applicable regulations.

*A private firm may “cancel” their EIN and free themselves from the burdens of being considered an “employer” (as defined at (§3401(d)).

*The act that starts the ball rolling on the legal presumption of personal income tax liability, where no such liability actually exists, is giving one’s SSN to a requester who then uses the number to file an information return. The information return creates the legal presumption of income subject to federal or state taxing authority.

*Such presumptions are rebuttable. Non-Taxpayer.org can assist in properly rebutting these presumptions.

108

4770

4775

4780

4785

4790

4795

4800

4805

Inside the Tax Honesty Movement: An Interview with Dave Champion

[Words: 3,836] BR: Business Reform chose to interview you because of your leadership in the Tax Honesty Movement. Can you describe your involvement to our readers? DC: I wear several different hats concerning my involvement with the Tax Honesty Movement. I am the Executive Director of Original Intent (www.originalintent.org), which is an organization dedicated to the restoration and preservation of our God-given inalienable rights in our discourse with government. Original Intent's primary tool is education. Despite the fact that under our form of government God is our Sovereign and He has given us our inalienable rights, today's government officials too often find those God-given rights to be inconvenient and act as though our rights are subject to modification, alteration, or total abolition if they impede the goals of politicians or the courts. We need to correct the government's conduct and Original Intent is a part of that effort. At Original Intent, Tax Honesty issues are only part of a larger picture. I'm also the founder of Nontaxpayer.org, an organization that assists nontaxpayers in living happy and successful lives in a world that believes everyone must be a taxpayer. Sadly, most Americans are not even aware that the federal courts have drawn a crisp distinction between "taxpayers" and "nontaxpayers." The only reason the average American is a "taxpayer" instead of "nontaxpayer" is that he has no idea what tax law really says and so he simply does what he's told. Considering the cost and devastation to American families and the American way of life, this lack of knowledge is almost criminal in its consequences. BR: Tell me what the Tax Honesty Movement is all about. DC: The Tax Honesty Movement is a name that sprung up about five years ago to describe those people who collectively want to see U.S. tax law applied and administrated honestly and in accordance with the written law. Despite the fact that the name "Tax Honesty Movement" was coined in the late 1990s, the movement has been around since the early 1950s. Computers, CD-ROMs, and the Internet have simply allowed people within the Movement to consolidate their information and communicate as never before. BR: Is the Tax Honesty Movement is growing? DC: Not only is the Movement growing in sheer numbers, but the profile of the people coming to the Movement has changed dramatically in the last several years. When I first became involved with the Movement about ten years ago, most of its proponents were hourly employees or low-level salaried employees. One of the first things I noticed was the distinct lack of businessmen and professionals. Today the picture is completely different. At Nontaxpayer.org we are seeing a huge increase in the number of doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and other professionals who are seeking information and guidance on living successfully as nontaxpayers. BR: What is your view regarding how the U.S. tax law is being administrated?

109

4810

4815

4820

4825

4830

4835

4840

4845

4850

DC: The U.S. tax law is not being applied and administrated honestly and in accordance with the written law. That reality is not a matter of opinion or wishful thinking; it is as real as our salvation through Christ. The evidence is irrefutable and the government has consistently refused to send representatives to debate legal researchers about what the law really says, versus how the laws are being enforced. Of course I understand the government's position completely; if I was defrauding millions of American citizens to the tune of hundreds of billion dollars a year, I'd be wary of attending a debate too. "Tax professionals" will offer all sorts of rhetoric in opposition, but there's no legal substance behind their statements. A friend and fellow radio talk show host in Missouri paid a couple of tax attorneys to answer questions about income tax liability. One attorney contradicted himself from paragraph to paragraph, and the other blatantly refused to answer the questions. The IRS offers the same thing; rhetoric but no law. There are quite a few organizations that have standing offers to pay tens of thousands of dollars to anyone who can bring forth the law that makes the average Americans liable for income tax. I'd guess that cumulatively there must be $500,000 ready to go to the person who can provide the statute that makes people liable, yet no one even has made a credible attempt at it. Therefore, approximately half a million is still on the table. BR: Those are some pretty heavy facts. Why don't more Americans know about this issue? DC: Most Americans have already heard that they don't really need to pay income tax, but for one reason or another they didn't pursue the matter. Fear of the IRS is usually the biggest factor motivating people to ignore the information when it comes their way, but that's changed quite a bit in the last ten years. More people are seeking out the truth of the issue today than ever before. It's exciting to watch the truth spread far and wide despite the best efforts of the opposition to scare people away from it. BR: Where's the media been on this story? We don't hear much from them about it. DC: How right you are. The media in this country is a whole lot less free than Americans believe it to be. That's why publications such as Business Reform are so important. There are certain issues that the dominant media considers taboo, and this is one of them. As a matter of fact, the reason I started my own radio show was that the dominant media has a virtual blackout on this story. I can't tell you how many times I've been denied an opportunity to appear on various media outlets during tax season (January 1 through April 15), only to then see some poor unprepared inarticulate person being interviewed instead. Unprepared inarticulate people are used so that the host can easily make the guest look foolish and non-credible. In other words, it's a premeditated hatchet job. BR: Why is the media not reporting such a critical issue? DC: The IRS conduct over the years has simply made it clear to the media that to allow stories such as this to see the light of day in a positive manner will be punished. All corporations exist to make profit. Anything that jeopardizes that goal is considered not in the best interest of the corporations—that includes news corporations. These news corporations simply know that the IRS will "take a special interest" in the company if it permits such stories to be run. They are only allowed to run such stories if they make the Tax Honesty Movement look weak and foolish. To do otherwise is to invite IRS

110

4855

4860

4865

4870

4875

4880

4885

4890

4895

retribution. BR: You said that most Americans are taxpayers simply because they do not know what the laws really say. In your view, what does tax law really say? DC: At more than 7,000 pages, the Internal Revenue Code is too lengthy to dissect during this interview, but I'll give you a few poignant and shocking realities of the tax code and its regulations. If your readers want to verify the information, they can go to Original Intent's website or they can contact Dave Champion at Nontaxpayer.org. 1. The exchange of labor for compensation in the private sector, in a state of the Union, in an occupation of common right, is not now, nor has it ever been, subject to any form of income or employment tax.

2. There is no provision within the Internal Revenue Code that requires payroll withholding from workers in the private sector. The Form W-4, which most companies force their workers to sign, is not intended to be executed by private-sector workers, but only by government workers.

3. There is no requirement in law for a private sector firm to acquire an Employer Identification Number (EIN).

4. Private companies that don't engage in payroll withholding are not required to file Forms 940 or 941.

5. An SSN/EIN/TIN is not required to open a bank account if the party opening the account is a nontaxpayer.

6. Form 1099 is not required for every payment over $600.00, but only for those payments made in connection with transactions for which the payer has received a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

7. There is no provision in law that requires an American citizen to provide a SSN/EIN/TIN for a private-sector domestic financial transaction. BR: As you can imagine, those claims are contrary to everything that we have heard.

DC: That's exactly what I thought when I first heard them. But of course at that time I hadn't read the applicable statutes and regulations and I was doing what most Americans do; I was simply doing as I was told by tax "professionals." Since that time I've invested about 15,000 hours of research into tax law and I've had occasion to publicly debate tax attorneys and CPAs. In fact, there's even a televised debate that you can watch on Original Intent in which John Turner (ex -IRS officer) and I debate a tax attorney and a CPA. They never knew what hit them. The whole situation would be downright funny if the consequences weren't so grave. There's nothing more I would enjoy than to have a televised coast-to-coast debate between a panel of Tax Honesty advocates and a panel of IRS attorneys. Unfortunately the IRS refuses to discuss "the

111

4900

4905

4910

4915

4920

4925

4930

4935

4940

4945

law" publicly, instead choosing to characterize Tax Honesty advocates as scofflaws on the fringe of society. Unfortunately for the IRS, its mis-characterizations and dismissive attitude only fuels the growth of the Tax Honesty Movement. BR: Wasn't there a Congressional hearing scheduled a few years ago to get troubling tax law questions answer? Whatever came of that? DC: You're right. In 2001 the IRS and the Department of Justice had signed a document agreeing to appear on Capital Hill and answer 299 questions put forth by the Tax Honesty Movement. This was brought about by the efforts of We The People Foundation and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). I can only assume that the IRS and DOJ attorneys believed their own propaganda and figured that everyone in the Movement was inbred and illiterate. Their only requirement was that they received copies of the questions at least two weeks before the hearing. Their request was honored and 299 questions were presented to them two weeks before the scheduled hearing. Shortly thereafter the DOJ and IRS pulled out of the hearing and have never been willing to answer the 299 questions. We The People Foundation had arranged to have the hearing aired over the internet, via Webcast, which would allow anyone with Internet access to view the hearings for a nominal fee—sort of like "pay per view." This would have allowed millions of Americans to see the hearings live while the government attorneys made mincemeat out of the Tax Honesty advocates. But alas, apparently not, because after the government attorneys reviewed the 299 questions, they decided that they would not attend the hearing. What would cause the government to forego such a wonderful opportunity to publicly humiliate and destroy a growing opposition? I think the answer is obvious—once the government reviewed the questions, they realized that their goose was cooked. It would not be the Tax Honesty Movement who would suffer a crushing defeat, but the government itself. BR: Where do the courts fall on these issues? DC: The rulings usually support our side. I know a lot of CPAs and attorneys will be screaming that that isn't so, but it is true when you dig a little deeper. First, if anyone reads the income tax information in Original Intent or other similar sites, the first thing they will note is that many of the key legal doctrine discussed are confirmed by court decisions, usually from the U.S. Supreme Court. Secondly, it has been my observation that the IRS only takes people to trial who are somehow vulnerable. This may mean that the person holds a demonstrably incorrect legal view or that the person has compromised his own stated positions by his actions. Tax law can be complicated and some good-hearted people simply make mistakes while trying to do the right thing. It is these people that the government goes after. It's been my experience that the government leaves nontaxpayers alone who are handling their affairs properly. That's because bringing such people to trial would result in acquittals and case law adverse to the government's goals. And believe me, the goal of most tax prosecutions is purely propaganda. We have over 274,000,000 people living in this country, but in 2003 there were only about 350 criminal tax prosecutions. Most trials that involve Tax Honesty proponents take place during the tax season, and if found guilty, sentencing is scheduled for just before April 15. It's a publicity campaign, not a desire to see justice done.

112

4950

4955

4960

4965

4970

4975

4980

4985

4990

BR: You mention that the U.S. Supreme Court supports your position, can you give us any proof for that? DC: There are a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that easily prove the fraud of the income tax system as applied to most Americans. Here are a few that sum things up quickly: 1. In this country Americans have "inalienable rights…granted by the Creator." According to the U.S. Supreme Court, such God-given rights are beyond the government's authority to alter, modify, or abolish because they are not granted by the government and these rights existed prior to the creation of the states or federal governments. Inalienable rights are also referred to as "fundamental rights."

2. The Court has ruled that one such fundamental right is the right to contract with another for your labor.

3. The Court has ruled that you have a fundamental right to contract for the labor of others.

4. The Court has ruled that property ownership is a fundamental right.

5. The Court has ruled that money you earn from your labors is your property.

6. The Court has ruled that once something is within the legislature's taxing authority, the amount of the tax is left completely to the discretion of the legislature. In other words, the legislature can set the tax at 1 percent or 100 percent, at its discretion.

7. The Court has ruled that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Based on these and more U.S. Supreme Court holdings, the constitution, and other important legal factors, it becomes self-evident that income tax laws cannot constitutionally apply to the average American. If the state or federal governments had the authority to tax you on the compensation you earn in exchange for your labor, that would mean the government would have the power to destroy your inalienable rights. What if the government taxed your compensation at the rate of 100 percent? That would effectively negate the exercise of every right stated above. BR: Are you saying that the Internal Revenue Code is unconstitutional? DC: Not at all. That's a common fallacy. The Code is 100 percent constitutional. Many of the taxes contained within the Code have nothing to do with the income tax and therefore have nothing to do with this discussion. Additionally, American citizens can create legitimate income tax liability for themselves by availing themselves of certain foreign income opportunities or by participating in certain Congressionally created income opportunities. However, domestically, in the private sector, there is no law making any American liable for income tax. We can easily verify this by looking at who the US Secretary of the Treasury requires to use Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN). Since the Secretary has almost unlimited authority over taxpayers, he’d certain require all legitimate taxpayers to use a TIN. So who has he required by law to use TINs? By regulation the Secretary only requires the following private-sector persons to provide a Taxpayer

113

4995

5000

5005

5010

5015

5020

5025

5030

5035

5040

Identification Number (which includes your SSN) to anyone concerning a domestic financial transaction: 1. A foreign person that has income effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business…

2. A foreign person that has a U.S. office or place of business…

3. A nonresident alien treated as a resident…

4. A foreign person that furnishes a withholding certificate described in Sec. 1.1441-1(e)(2)… According to the Secretary of the Treasury’s own regulations, no American is required to provide a tax number for any domestic private-sector financial transaction. Therefore, as you can see, it is not The Constitution, the Internal Revenue Code, or the U.S. Supreme court that are wrong about who is liable to pay income tax, it’s the Executive Branch that intentionally misapply and unlawfully enforcement the tax laws. That’s what most people don’t get – the law, as written, acknowledges and supports your fundamental rights because it does not make the average American liable for income tax. If the IRS and the courts would apply and enforce the law as written, we’d be in great shape! As Christian Americans it’s our job to hold our governments accountable and not to participate in intentionally fraudulent conduct just because there might be a cost to oppose it.

Now don’t get me wrong, being a nontaxpayer is not all that hard. The Tax Honesty Movement has learned a lot in the last decade and the risks for nontaxpayers today are only a fraction of what they were just a few years ago. However, whether the risks are small or large, Christians need to take a stand in this fight. To do nothing, to go along as you always have in the face of a recognizable evil, is to turn your face away from the truth—and to turn your face away from the truth is to turn your face away from God. BR: There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of CPAs and tax attorneys practicing in America. Where are they on this issue? DC: CPAs are taught how to keep books and compute taxes. That's what they do. Most people never ask an accountant if they owe income tax. They simply ask the accountant to prepare their return. The accountant simply complies with the request, which is how they generate their income in most cases. As you can imagine, the accounting and tax law industry has a vested interest in keeping this information from getting to the public because they would be unemployed if the truth came out that American citizens are not liable to pay income tax. On a more positive note, however, more and more accountants are accepting the truth about tax law every year. There are some very high-profile CPAs who have come out publicly in support of the proper and honest understanding of tax law. BR: Where do you see Christian business in this struggle? DC: Although the Movement is heavily populated by Christians, the Christian community-at-large, which includes Christian business owners, has been a dismal disappointment; offering nothing but

114

5045

5050

5055

5060

5065

5070

5075

5080

5085

platitudes such as "render under Caesar" and other off-point quotes from scripture taken woefully out of context. Christians need to join this fight because it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. I don't advocate that people jump in precipitously, but I believe that it is the duty of every Christian in America to learn the truth about this issue and stand against lies and abuse—by action, not just words. This fraud continues because Christians—the core of American virtue don't do anything about it. If you are stealing the property of your neighbor simply because you fear Caesar (government), you are committing a terrible injustice for which you will be accountable before the Lord. The Eight Commandment is "Thou shalt not steal." BR: I know our readers are curious to know what's involved in becoming a nontaxpayer? DC: Actually it's simpler than they probably imagine. It only appears confusing because the smoke screen of deceit is so thick. The first step is to get some education under your belt. You can't make a proper determination as to whether you're a taxpayer or a nontaxpayer until you know enough about the subject to make an informed decision. One good place to get information is on the Education section of Original Intent's website, and there are many other sources as well. Once you get some education, and make a "status determination," then you simply pursue your affairs as either a taxpayer or a nontaxpayer, based on your determination. BR: What advise would you give to someone who wants to proceed with becoming a nontaxpayer through the legal means? DC: Remember the movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"? In the beginning, Harrison Ford's character, Indiana Jones, enters an ancient temple to locate a solid gold icon placed in the temple centuries before. As he moves into the temple there are all types of booby-traps designed to do terrible nasty things to anyone entering the temple. When he finally arrives in the room that holds the artifact, he can only approach the artifact by stepping on certain stone tiles on the floor. To step on the wrong tile will bring instant death! While far less dramatic, becoming a nontaxpayer is something akin to Jones' experience. You have to know what booby-traps have been set out for you, and which tiles to steer clear of. Government misapplication of the tax laws, and the private sector's ridiculous and unfounded belief that they must act as the IRS's enforcers, creates an environment in which the unsuspecting citizen will be ensnared into the tax system by the many snares that have been intentionally laid out to trap you. Like Indiana Jones, nontaxpayers simply need to know where the snares are and how to avoid them or disarm them. It may seem intimidating on first blush, but its really rather simple once you learn a few simple rules of the game. BR: What role, if any, does asset protection play in the Tax Honesty Movement? DC: Asset protection can be a valuable tool for both taxpayers and nontaxpayers. In today's litigious environment, one cannot be too careful about securing one's assets.

115

5090

5095

5100

5105

5110

5115

5120

5125

5130

Asset protection is a growing business, both in the Tax Honesty Movement and in America generally. There is a growing sense that property is no longer really sacred or secure in America. Today's business owner is well advised to protect his assets. With the ever-increasing price of insurance, asset protection can also provide relief from your ballooning insurance premiums. Fortunately the cost of asset protection is relatively modest and the process rather straightforward. Asset protection can serve a number of different goals very effectively, but it has to be done properly. Because it's an emerging field (at least for the middle class) it's a good idea to make sure that the person assisting you has a firm understanding of the legal principled involves with asset protection. More than a few people have thought their assets were secure, only to find out later that the structure or process was flawed and there was little or no protection when it was really needed. Some people automatically turn to attorneys for asset protection, but it's been my experience that attorneys aren't particularly well educated in this area. It's best to find someone who specializes in asset protection. BR: What's are your goals for the future? Where do you see the Tax Honesty Movement going from here? DC: Despite our many successes and the growth of the Movement, there is still much to be done. Of course our number one ally is the Lord because he despises deceit. Despite our incredibly powerful adversary, God has continued to strengthen us in the fight. Because He stands against deceit, the only question is when will the end of the misapplication of tax law come. I suspect the current fraudulently imposed tax system will die an ignominious death within the next five years. Once the number of informed people, especially business owners, hits critical mass, it's all over. If you would like to further study this topic, you can go to the following sites: http://www.originalintent.org http://www.nontaxpayer.org http://larkenrose.com/http://www.givemeliberty.org You can also listen to Dave Champion’s American Radio show at http://americanradioshow.us. It’s a weekly talk radio show that focuses on biblically based morality in governance and challenges the "common wisdom" of today's government. Dave Champion's American Radio show has now been renamed the Dave Champion Show and plays daily for one hour and can be heard at 3pm CST on http://republicbroadcasting.org/ or you can access the archives at http://www.davechampionshow.com/

116

5135

5140

5145

5150

5155

5160

5165

5170

5175

Hard Lessons LearnedBy Dave Champion

January 8, 2004

As most of you know by now, my friend Dick Simkanin was convicted on 29 of the 31 counts brought against him by the federal government.

When good people like Dick Simkanin are prosecuted and jailed by a corrupt court system, that is protecting a corrupt tax system, the natural reaction is to become angry and want to find a way to express that anger. I know; I've seen many of these cases over the years.

There may be many ways to respond to such events, but one of them is to learn from what the person has experienced. That is the purpose of this message.

Not long ago, a dentist by the name of Pensyl was convicted for 7203 and there was a ground swell of anger and resentment within the Tax Honesty Movement. Prior to the trial I had been retained by the defense to review the government's evidence. Unfortunately, Pensyl was the perfect profile of a guy the government wants to prosecute. He'd done just about everything wrong that a person could do wrong. He was a conviction waiting to happen.

For a person with his eyes open, there was much to learn from the Pensyl case. Although the circumstances are very different in the Simkanin case, there is still much to be learned from Dick's tribulation. Let's review what we know of the Simkanin matter.

Dick Simkanin is an icon of the Tax Honesty Movement. Dick is liked and respected by everyone who's ever met him; unless their paycheck came from Uncle Sam. I even suspect quite a few government people who came in contact with Dick couldn't help feeling a grudging respect for Dick's courage and style.

Dick put himself "on the map" (and in the IRS' sights) in 2001 when he and twelve other men put their names, photos, and company names in a USA Today ad (run by We The People Foundation) which was intended to educate American businesses to the fact that there is no legal requirement to withhold taxes from private-sector workers in the states of the Union. Dick's involvement in the Movement only grew from there.

As some of you may know, Dick retained my services for a short period in 1999. During our conversations, I encouraged Dick to unerringly follow the narrow path of the law. (And remember, the law, as written, supports the Tax Honesty Movement). I shared with Dick my view of what is necessary to travel that narrow path. While Dick listened attentively to everything I said to him, he eventually took the advice of people whose views were more "adventurous".

It is always important in these situations to see where the government's victim [in this case, Dick] ran into trouble. In other words, "What went wrong?" Usually in these cases something went awry long before the authorities ever thought of a criminal prosecution.

Before I go further, let me say quite plainly that no matter what "tactical errors" Dick may have committed on his honorable journey, the ultimate problem is the government's incessant protection of the improper and illegal application of the tax code. It is the government that is the evildoer in this matter, and Dick (along with countless others) is its victim.

As I've said over and over again, education of The People is the answer. Conversely, lack of education

117

5180

5185

5190

5195

5200

5205

5210

5215

is the problem. We can see that simply by looking at the Simkanin case. Judge McBryde tilted the playing field so far in the government's favor that the second trial became a joke; a travesty of justice pretending to be a court of law. Even so, it took a plainly unlawful command to the jury by Judge McBryde (during deliberations) to finally move the case in the government's favor.

However, in the final analysis it was the ignorance and complacency of the jury that won the day for the government. Had the jury said "NO! We are aware of the fraud that the government is perpetrating, and we will not do your bidding", Dick would be at home right now enjoying a hot supper with his wife. Those twelve jurors failed to realize that by "obeying" the judge, and convicting Dick, they failed in their duty as citizens and they injured the rights of citizens generally, including their own.

Certainly the educating this nation is, and must remain, an ongoing effort, but how can you protect yourselves from ending up in Dick's shoes? In other words, "What can we learn from Dick's history that will help us succeed?" If we fail to examine these types of situations thoroughly and objectively, we fail to avail ourselves of the tools to improve our own position, as well as advance our cause.

Many people in America today lock their doors and windows when they go to bed. They do so because they fear that a criminal may invade their home as they sleep. The same principle must be applied by people who choose the nontaxpayer lifestyle; our legal doors and windows must be firmly shut or the criminals (US government) may invade our world while we are going about our lives.

So what can we learn from Dick's tragedy? Here are some suggestions:

If you've done business as a corporation, always dissolve the corporation when becoming a nontaxpayer; do not merely let it lapse by failing to pay the annual renewal fee. A corporation that does not pay its annual fees to the state doesn't cease to exist (as some would contend) but instead it has its corporate privileges suspended. If a corporation does not pay its renewal fees, nor file papers to be dissolved, the state does not consider the corporation "ended"; it merely considers the entity to be an "irresponsible corporation" conducting its corporate activities illegally while suspended. It's the corporate version of "driving on a suspended license".

Always cancel your existing Employer Identification Number (EIN). Although in theory the mere possession of an EIN by your business should not require you to withhold from workers who are plainly not the subjects of chapter 24 of the IRC, the government's perspective is that if you have an active EIN, they have jurisdiction and you should be withholding from your workers. In other words, if you have an active EIN, the government's view is that you don't have any common law workers, but only statutory employees.

Be very careful from who you receive counsel. Regrettably, there are many people out there who will lead you down the primrose path - right into the jaws of the lion - and take quite a bit of your money in the process. Although it can be difficult to know who to trust, I'd recommend staying away from:

People who seem fueled by anger. People who seem to be on a reckless crusade People who appear to be "too smooth". Listen to your instincts. People with solutions that don't sound very logical. People with solutions that sound legally questionable. People who exhibit extremely high ego. People who seem to be looking for conflict, as opposed to resolution. People who have only one solution, no matter what the problem. People who claim to have the "silver bullet" solution.

118

5220

5225

5230

5235

5240

5245

5250

5255

5260

You may want to consider how public you wish to be with your nontaxpayer activities. While I admire Dick for appearing in the USA Today ad, and I am certainly "high profile", going high profile is not for everyone. The more public exposure you receive, the tighter your game has to be. While I believe that all of us should be spreading the word as far and wide as our abilities and circumstances permit, one should carefully consider whether one wants to expose one's activities in the media. While people like Bob Schulz, Devvy Kidd, Larken Rose, John Turner, Sherry Jackson, Joe Banister, and myself are comfortable in the public eye, it is not for everyone.

As I've said a million times - never, never, never, never, never, file for refund of taxes that you've already paid. Let it go. Move on. Accept that they got their pound of flesh, while taking steps to make sure they get no more. While the government will allow a nontaxpayer to leave the tax system (if done correctly), it will go after a refund-filing nontaxpayer like a rabid dog.

The Tax Honesty Movement has progressed a great deal in the last decade. We are many times more powerful than we were just a few years ago. Our numbers are growing every year. Our efforts to educate the public are having an affect. The profile of people who are joining our ranks now include mainstream businessmen, professionals, and people of wealth. Even in the face of Soviet-like tactics such as were employed in the Simkanin case, the Tax Honesty Movement continues to grow. The question is not if we will prevail, only when! However, as our battles against lawlessness and corruption continue, let us not throw ourselves upon our swords.

As I said at the outset of this message, the proper legal path of the nontaxpayer is narrow and well defined. There is no room to be "adventurous" in our legal conduct and we should immediately spurn those who would take us off the proper path and encourage us to be adventurous with tax law.

There may come a day when duty and honor will require painful sacrifices from each of us if we are to reclaim and preserve the liberties given to us by God and established by our forefathers. Until that day, stay on the narrow path and do not become a victim.

Dave ChampionNontaxpayer.org

119

5265

5270

5275

5280

5285

5290

5295

5300

Common Mistakes To Watch ForBy Dave Champion

March 2, 2004

Friends, Supporters, and Clients,

I'd like to make some observations and comments on the Pensyl case.

Whenever the government brings a tax related charge against a person who believes himself to be a nontaxpayer, the first step (that is almost never taken by attorneys) is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court based on the government's presumption that the accused is a taxpayer.

Congress has given the Department of Justice the authority to bring tax related civil and criminal actions against "taxpayers". However, Congress has not given DOJ the authority to bring any tax related action against a "nontaxpayer". Most everyone has heard the old adage, "The burden of proof is upon the taxpayer". That statement is generally true, but the burden to prove a person is a taxpayer sits squarely upon the government.

Of course, to be fair to the lawyers - why bring a "question of law" before the court if the defendant, by his actions, has repeatedly declared himself to be a taxpayer. There's little sense in bringing an argument before the court that your client has already destroyed.

Prior to the Pensyl case going to trial, I had an opportunity to look over a 13-inch high stack of government evidence (documents) against Mr. Pensyl. As far as his chances of prevailing in a "question of law" concerning his status as a "taxpayer" or "nontaxpayer", the evidence reads like a death sentence.

Mr. Pensyl created a Pure Trust under the common law right to contract - but then he went out and got it a federal tax "identifying number" [see 26 CFR 301.6109-1 et seq]. Of course, keeping in line with Patriot insanity, he was the trustee of the trust that was supposed to shield him from the IRS.

When conducting the sale of real property, he filled out federal tax forms and placed his SSN on the forms - and signed them under penalty of perjury. It should be noted that he was using the SSN that he had allegedly rescinded a few years prior to using it on federal tax forms.

Two years after "rescinding" his SSN, he applied for SSN retirement benefits. More signatures under penalty of perjury.

Mr. Pensyl bought real estate in the name of a trust using that trust's handy-dandy federal "identifying number". Mr. Pensyl also involved one of his trusts (for which he sat as trustee) in government regulated investment opportunities - also with the help of that trust's handy-dandy federal "identifying number".

Ever year we see folks like Mr. Pensyl go to jail. Each time the Patriot internet drums beat out the message, "Another fellow warrior has fallen in battle against the evil government. Let us mourn this loss and redouble our efforts against the Great Satan (IRS)". Oh puhleeeez.

Frankly, I'm tired of this crap. Yes, the government is filled with a bunch of power hungry bastards who don't give a fig about liberty. The worst of them can certainly be found in the tax arena. We're in agreement on that. Nevertheless, Mr. Pensyl is going to jail not because of the evil government, but

120

5305

5310

5315

5320

5325

5330

5335

5340

because he OBTAINED and USED government TAX NUMBERS to conduct lots of different business transactions and repeatedly SIGNED federal TAX FORMS and requested FEDERAL BENEFITS.

Here's a news flash: Nontaxpayers don't use federal tax "identifying numbers"!

Here's another one: Nontaxpayers don't sign tax forms!

There seems to be a self-imposed black-out within the Tax Honesty Movement on talking about the screw ups people commit that end up sending them to jail. It is as if once someone has been convicted of a federal tax crime they automatically become an icon of the Movement and nothing "critical" may be said about their actions. Sorry, I can't operate by rules that will result in more people needlessly going to jail. It's time (actually its long overdue) to start evaluating these cases objectively AND PUBLICLY on their legal merits so that everyone can recognize the landmines and steer clear of them.

Many people in the Patriot Movement would claim that Mr. Pensyl went to court due to the corruption of the federal courts. I've already read an email which stated that the conviction was a "directed verdict". What does this prove about the court? Nothing. It only proves the guy who wrote the email doesn't have a clue what a directed verdict is.

Many people claim the federal courts are corrupt. I'll go so far as to say that I believe many federal judges practice "outcome based law" and often times ignore the law in order to preserve the status quo and please their superiors. But in the Pensyl case, the court didn't need to do anything shady or illicit because Mr. Pensyl had long ago cooked his own goose.

If you want to take a little vacation on Uncle Sam, spout off about the evil corrupt government while doing all sorts of foolish stuff to legally bury yourself. If you'd like to continue breathing free air, leave the rhetoric at the door and stop declaring yourself to be a taxpayer by your actions. If you know you're a nontaxpayer, but aren't sure where the boundary markers are, or how to get things done, contact Nontaxpayer.org [http://www.nontaxpayer.org].

Dave ChampionNontaxpayer.org

121

5345

5350

5355

5360

5365

5370

5375

5380

5385

State Sales Tax

There are few forms of taxation that are more misunderstood than sales tax! We hope this article will help clear matters up. The first thing that should be considered about sales tax, is the specific nature of the tax. Sales tax is an “excise” tax. An excise tax is a “privilege” tax. How do we know that it is an excise? Because (depending on the state) it says so right in the sales tax statute:

California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6051:

“For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers…”

As can clearly be seen by the use of the “privilege”, the tax is based upon the exercise of a privilege. So why do we say that sales tax is an “excise” tax? Because the federal courts tell us that the two words (“privilege” and “excise”) represent the same form of tax.

“The term ‘excise tax’ and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.” American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880

Now that we know the tax is an excise, we must determine who is exercising the privilege. Only in this way can we determine who is actually and lawfully liable for the tax. But wait…reread the California statute shown above. The State has done our work for us by telling us plainly who the tax is imposed upon [which is the person “made liable” for the tax]. The statute says the tax is “…imposed upon all retailers…” Did you get that? The tax is upon “retailers”. The tax is not, and never has been, imposed on you. O.K., now we know that the tax is imposed upon the retailer. So what is the privilege being exercised by the retailer? That question is the key to who is a “retailer” and who is not. Even if you sell products “at retail”, you are still not the “retailer” spoken of in the statute unless you are also exercising a privilege in the course of selling your goods at retail. Let’s explore this issue a bit. California writes some of the most vague laws in the nation. The intention of the California legislature is not usually made clear in the text of the law, nor is there usually any sort of preface that explains its intended purpose. Other states generally don’t do much better because they often attempt to copy California’s lead. However, some do a tad better. The Minnesota sales tax statute is an example of legislative language that at least tips us off to a few things! Here’s how the State of Minnesota imposes their sales tax:

297A.62 Sales tax imposed; rates.

“…a sales tax…is imposed on the gross receipts from retail sales…in this state by a person who is required to have or voluntarily obtains a permit under section 297A.83, subdivision 1”.

122

5390

5395

5400

5405

5410

5415

5420

5425

5430

The Minnesota statute tells us that there are “persons” who are required to have a resale permit, and others who may acquire the permit on a purely voluntary basis. Minnesota law never reveals which “person” is required to have the permit, nor does California law. So…how do we distinguish between the person who has to have a permit and those who don’t? That distinction will also tell us who is the “retailer” and who is not. It would be nice if the legislative draftsmen who write these statutes would just come right out and tell us who is required, but that would cost a state such as California billions of dollars in lost revenue in just a single year, so the legislative draftsmen are not allowed to be that straightforward. If the legislative draftsmen were allowed to tell us plainly who is “required”, then we would also know just as plainly who is not required because they wouldn’t be on the “required” list. Let’s be frank – to withhold a clear definition of who the tax is imposed upon in order to create an environment in which people will collect and pay a tax, out of ignorance, for which they are not liable, is criminal conduct – if not legally, certainly morally. Unless or until the culprits (your elected state legislators) vote to amend the law to clarify matters [fat chance!], we are left with what is written, and that is what we must examine for answers. Since the State will not allow any plain language to be used, the legislative draftsmen are left to write the law in such a way as to rely solely on contextual framework to determine who is required and who is not. Let’s explore the contextual framework of the “person” upon whom the tax is imposed. Although the tax is actually imposed based upon the occurrence of certain events (i.e. “selling at retail”), the responsibility for collecting and paying over the tax rests upon a “person”. A typical definition of “person” in a statute usually looks something like this:

Person – The term person includes an individual, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, association, cooperative, corporation whether or not organized for profit, estate, or trust.

The first thing that is important to note about that definition is that other than the word “individual” (which we will discuss in a moment), every one of the entities listed is clearly a “statutory legal fiction”. A statutory legal fiction is a legal entity (called a “person”) that exists because the legislature has allowed it to come into existence by passing a law that authorizes its creation. The most commonly recognized “statutory fiction” is a corporation. We would suggest that you re-read the bolded sentence as many times as is necessary, and let it sink in. [A quick and easy test to determine if something is a legal fiction is this: If it can sue you in court, but it has no flesh and blood, it’s a legal fiction.] Because statutory fictions are created by the State, they are subject to absolute regulation by the State solely on the basis of “public policy” considerations. [In this article we will only be addressing statutory fictions. There are non-statutory fictions, such as Common Law Trusts, which are not generally subject to State regulation as are statutory fictions.] Once again, we would suggest that you re-read the bolded sentence above as many times as necessary to lock it in your mind.

Some corporations are referred to as “private corporations”. This phrase is misleading. A “private

123

5435

5440

5445

5450

5455

5460

5465

5470

5475

corporation” is not “private” in the way most people use that word. In law, the phrase “private corporation” is merely a way of distinguishing a corporation as not being listed with the Security and Exchange Commission for “public trading” of its shares on a stock exchange. Because corporations (and all other statutory fictions) are created by the State, they are never “private” in the way most people understand and use the word “private”.

Since all of the words used within the definition of “person” appear to be “legal fictions”, how then should we view the word “individual”? And remember, we are ascertaining the proper meaning and application of a tax statute through context. The first question that we would ask is whether or not an “individual” is a Citizen. [See the Citizenship page within this document for details on “Citizen”.] Since a Citizen of a state of the Union is definitely not exercising a privilege when buying or selling his own property in a private transaction, then a Citizen cannot be the “individual” in a definition dealing with an excise [privilege] tax – at least not in his private capacity. But what if the “individual” is a man (Citizen or not) who holds a position of authority and responsibility within one of those legal fictions (such as a corporate officer)? Let’s see if that theory holds water!

Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code specifies various criminal tax offenses. The term “person” is used in virtually every section of the chapter. After all, since a “legal fiction” can’t be put in jail, there has to be someone that the government can ultimately hold accountable for wrongdoing. So what is the definition of “person” for IRS tax crimes?

26 USC §7343:

Person - The term ''person'' as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

Ah…so when a real-live-flesh-and-blood person (known in law as a “natural person”) is held accountable for criminal non-compliance with the law, he is held accountable only in his capacity as the officer or employee, under a duty to perform, on behalf of the “legal fiction”.

Does it not then seem reasonable that the “individual” listed in the sales tax statute is simply a natural person who is under a duty to perform, or not perform, an act regarding the tax being imposed upon the legal fiction?

Of course under the Minnesota sales tax statute it is entirely likely that “individual”, as used within the definition of “person”, is also anyone who voluntarily acquired a resale permit, thus entering into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, thereby making himself an “individual” (as such word is used within the definition of “person”). Although the California statute does not specifically mention the person who would obtain a resale permit voluntarily, the same principle applies in that state. Got a headache yet? Too bad – we’re not done!

Who else might the word “individual” include? Could it include an alien residing in this country? Of course. This can easily be seen by the fact that aliens legally entering this country must receive written

124

5480

5485

5490

5495

5500

5505

5510

5515

5520

5525

permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to work in this country. [Still not done!]

Who else might the word “individual” include? Let’s see what Black’s Law Dictionary has to say. After pointing out that the word “individual” can mean a “natural person as distinguished from partnership, [or] corporation…” [See a theme here?], it goes on to say;

“…but it is said this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

In case you’re wondering, an “artificial person” is simply another way of saying, “a legal fiction”! Boy, these lawyers are a tricky bunch aren’t they? So now we have three probable meanings for the word “individual” as it is used within the definition of “person” (concerning the imposition of an excise tax):

* A natural person under a duty as an official of a corporation or other fiction. * A natural person who created liability through an agreement with the State. * A non-specified form of legal fiction, not otherwise appearing in the definition.

Given varying circumstances, “individual” may mean one or more of those definitions, but one thing is for sure – in a statute involving an excise tax, the word “individual” never means a private Citizen buying or selling his own private property in the course of a private transaction. Why? Because a private Citizen has an “inalienable right” to acquire, possess, and dispose of his private property without interference from the government. So…if we know what “individual” does and does not mean, we now have a better understanding of what “person” means! Since we know that every other entity (except “individual”) is a legal fiction, and we know what “individual” does and does not mean, we now know that “person” (when applied to an excise tax) does not mean a private Citizen buying or selling his own private property in the course of a private transaction. So let’s tie this back into the issue of context, which is where we started three pages ago when we first found that the statute does not specify who is exercising the taxable privilege! Because a private Citizen who is buying or selling his own private property must be excluded from the word “individual” on Constitutional grounds, the contextual framework has been staked out; after having excluded a Citizen, the law may properly be applied to those who do not have inalienable rights to violate. So we find that “person” means: 1) Any statutory fiction of law (not exempt by statute). 2) An “individual”. We have found that “individual” means:

a) A natural person under a duty as an official of a corporation or other fiction. b) A natural person who created liability through an agreement with the State. c) A non-specified form of legal fiction, not otherwise appearing in the definition of “person”.

125

5530

5535

5540

5545

5550

5555

5560

5565

5570

It should be remembered that this discourse pertains exclusively to excise taxes and may not be applicable in other unrelated matters. We hope that this has not only educated you as to the contextual framework of excise taxes, but may also have demonstrated a general approach to making sense of convoluted and/or vague statutes. Context is always a fundamental element. In closing, we should bring one additional issue to your attention. The State of California and many other states assert that for proper administration of sales tax the State may operate under the presumption that everyone is a retailer and owes sales tax.

California Revenue and Taxation Code, §6091:

For the purpose of the proper administration of this part and to prevent evasion of the sales tax it shall be presumed that all gross receipts are subject to the tax until the contrary is established.

It should be noted that only “persons” have “gross receipts”, not Citizens in the pursuit of their private affairs – even if such private affairs include the buying and selling of goods or services. It should also be noted that all presumptions are rebuttable by affidavit, sworn testimony, or other evidence. The State’s presumption can never operate lawfully upon a Citizen (unless he has a resale permit) because such a presumption would conflict with our nation’s fundamental principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, and would reverse the standard that the government has the “burden of proof”. The State’s presumption can only operate against “persons”, who have no inalienable rights to offend. [For assistance with proper rebuttal, click on Original Intent Services or Contact Us] And finally, many Citizens make some serious mistakes in reference to sales tax, which winds up causing them significant legal and financial heartburn later. These mistakes are:

· Not collecting or paying over the sales tax while in possession of a valid resale permit.

· Allowing the resale permit to merely “expire” as opposed to properly canceling it. [For assistance in properly canceling a resale permit, click on Original Intent Services or Contact Us.]

· Filing other State tax returns that require you to declare “gross receipts” or “gross income” under penalty of perjury. [The “class of person” who owes State income tax is the same “class of person” who is required to get a resale permit!]

· Filing federal income tax returns. [The “class of person” who owes federal income tax is the same “class of person” who is required to get a resale permit!]

· Collecting sales tax (with or without a resale permit) and not paying it over to the State – or – returning it to the person from whom it was collected.

126

5575

5580

5585

5590

5595

5600

5605

5610

5615

5620

Summary 1) Sales tax (in every state) is an excise tax.

2) Excise taxes are taxes that are levied upon the exercise of a privilege.

3) A privilege is an activity that you do not have a right to engage in as a Citizen.

4) Private Citizens have an inalienable right to buy and sell their own private property without interference from state.

5) Sales tax is imposed upon a “person” who is exercising the privilege of selling at retail; i.e. “the retailer”.

6) The term “person” generally means entities that are fictions of law.

7) The term “person” can include an “individual”.

8) An “individual” can be a natural person who holds a position within a legal fiction, which requires him to act in relation to the tax imposed upon the fiction.

9) An “individual” can be an alien.

10) An “individual” can be a Citizen who has created liability that would not otherwise exist by entering into an agreement with the state; i.e. voluntarily obtaining a resale permit.

11) Many states assert the presumption of liability, but this presumption cannot operate upon a Citizen who is not a “person” for sales tax purposes.

127

5625

5630

5635

5640

5645

5650

5655

5660

INS Form I-9

While the United States government may lie to us or twist the facts on a myriad of issues, the purported “requirement” of the INS Form I-9 for general private sector employment is a particularly abrasive and loathsome case. The INS Form I-9 (if it were enforceable here in the states of the Union) would create a de facto system of mandatory federal ID in order to get a job. That is not to be tolerated. As you likely know, Original Intent exists to promote, educate, and revitalize the concept of individual liberty in America. The goal is to make each and every American vividly aware of his/her inalienable rights so that the government can no longer use tricks, subtle deception, and outright lies to control and dominate Citizens. The phrase “inalienable rights” comes directly from the Declaration of Independence, which is the first organic law of the United States of America. This is not merely Original Intent’s position, it is also the position adopted by Congress, and expressed through the U.S. Government Printing Office when it states that the Declaration of Independence is the first organic law of the United States of America in its printing of the United States Code. According to the Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights [also referred to at times as “fundamental rights”] are endowed in us by “the Creator” [God]. It is a well-settled point of Constitutional law that the government has no legal authority to alter, modify, or abolish inalienable rights.

What has the US Supreme Court said about inalienable rights in general?

“These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, the evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident’ – words so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – ‘that all men are endowed’ – not by the edicts of Emperors or the decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but by their Creator with certain inalienable rights – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away…and to secure these – not grant them but secure them – ‘governments are instituted among men’…” Butchers’ Union Co. V. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756 (1884)

Is working an inalienable right for a citizen of the Union? Let’s find out what the US Supreme Court has said on this specific subject.

“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property – partaking of the nature of each – is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property.” Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

“…The term [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life… The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public

128

5665

5670

5675

5680

5685

5690

5695

5700

5705

interest by legislative action…” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) “Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right to pursue any lawful business of vocation, any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others…The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable…” Butcher’s Union Co., v. Cresent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756 (1884)

Inviolability – The attribute of being secured against violation. Safe from trespass or assault. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

As can be clearly seen, there is no question that working in an occupation which does not infringe on the rights of others is one of the inalienable rights memorialized in the Declaration of Independence and therefore is a right with which the government may never interfere. Given these facts, how is it that the government claims to have created a law that requires an American to fill out federal paperwork, and sign it under penalty of perjury, in order to work? Please note that we said the government claims to have created such a law. This is because the government frequently misrepresents its authorities and powers to the American public. As we get further into the issue, you will decide for yourself whether the law that deals with the Form I-9 has anything to do with you.

By What Authority? The law concerning “work eligibility” (which is what the I-9 is used for) is contained in Title 8 of the United States Code. Title 8 is named “Aliens and Nationality”. The regulations that address the I -9 issue are found in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is also named “Aliens and Nationality”.

The interesting thing about Title 8 of the Code, and its associated regulations, is that they deal exclusively with aliens, border controls, and issues of naturalization. The only authority that Title 8 possesses in reference to a native-born American Citizen would be if a Citizen were to violate a federal immigration law. In other words, in big broad terms, if a Citizen does not assist an alien in illegally entering this country, or does not unlawfully interfere with an INS officer or employee in the commission of his official duties, then nothing in Title 8 has any affect upon such a Citizen. So where does the authority for “work eligibility” forms come from? When the United States grants an alien entrance to this country, the alien is either permitted to work, or not. [What goes into that decision does not concern us here.] In other words, conditions are placed on an alien’s entry; conditions to which he agrees in writing, or he is not allowed to enter the country. However, let’s be frank, the government c an pass no law that makes you legally accountable for enforcing immigration law, which includes checking the status of people who apply to you for a job. The enforcement of immigration laws is the sole responsibility of the government. It is not your responsibility, nor can they make it yours by passing a statute. The government can no more compel you to enforce immigration law than it can pass a law requiring you to come to the local federal building and sweep their floors! So what gives?

129

5710

5715

5720

5725

5730

5735

5740

5745

5750

5755

There are several factors that come into play when unwinding the sophistry of 8 USC 1324a, and its regulations at 8 CFR 274a.

To Whom It Properly Applies The first and most notable fact that leaps off the page is the odd phraseology that is used to express who is doing an unlawful act by hiring aliens unauthorized for employment.

8 USC 1324a(a)(1) – It is unlawful for a person or other entity … Note that it says, “…a person or other entity”. Why does it not simply say, “…a person or entity”? Why include the word “other”? Lest you think we’re just being silly nitpickers, here’s one of the fundamental canons [rules] of statutory construction:

Effect must be given to every word of a statute and that no part of a provision will be read as superfluous.

According to the canons of statutory construction, we would be in error not to investigate the significance of the word “other”, as used in the statute. As a first step in this process, let us determine what “entity” means.

8 USC 1324a(a)(7) – For purposes of this section, the term ''entity'' includes an entity in any branch of the Federal Government.

Of course only the government uses the same word to describe the term being defined! Nevertheless, what the government is referring to in the definition above is every element of the federal government, down to an individual federal officer or employee. We will remind you that “includes”, when used in federal statutes is generally a term of “limited expansion”. “Limited expansion” means that things that are reasonably within the boundaries of the definition that Congress is attempting to establish (by the words of the definition) can be added, even if not specifically enumerated. In other words, in the definition above, a corporation created by Congress can be “included” because it fits within the theme of the definition, but a private business cannot because there is no similarity whatsoever between a “branch of the Federal Government” and a private firm. So now we know that the definition should read something like this:

It is unlawful for a person or other element of the federal government… In this grammatical application, “other” is analogous to “further”, “additional”, or “similar”. In a legal sense it means “other such like”, which refers back to “person”. Phrased another way, it means the elements that come after the word “other” are in the same or similar class as what is being generally described by the word(s) that comes before “other”. Stated another way, the terms “person” and “entities”, as used here, have a similar or synonymous meaning.

130

5760

5765

5770

5775

5780

5785

5790

5795

5800

Having established this much, it is still our duty to determine the statutory meaning of “person” applicable to the provision we’re addressing (if such statutory definition exists). At 8 USC 1101 we find: (b) As used in subchapters I and II of this chapter… (3) The term ''person'' means an individual

or an organization. So we now know that §1324a must use the definition of “person” shown above. The definition pivots on 2 words – “individual” and “organization”.

It is important to understand that in mala prohibita1 [regulatory] law, legal terms such as “person”, “natural person” and “individual” all have an underlying connotation of “the man (or class of man) under a duty…” In other words, “person”, “natural person” and “individual” do not mean “everyone”, but specific people who are under a duty to perform, or not perform a particular act concerning a specific area of law. Accordingly, in this instance, the “individual” who is a component of “person” must be someone who is inherently subject to the authority of Congress in immigration matters. Guess what? That’s not you! [Ed. Note – The term “person or other entity” in §1324a does embrace an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of Title 29 of the United States Code) due to a nexus with the federal government. Original Intent has chosen not to present that information because that provision does not address the vast majority of the American work force.] Let’s take a look at “organization” (another component of “person” in 1324a).

Organization – As a term used in commercial law, includes a corporation, government, or government subdivision or agency…” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed

Now, given the phrase, “…or other entity” [remembering that “entity” means the U.S. government], which part of the above definition do you think the legislative draftsmen meant when they chose the word “organization”? So let’s review for a moment. The opening phrase of §1324a states:

It is unlawful for a person or other entity… If we take all that we have learned about “person” and the “other entity”, how might we expand the phrase so that the average man wouldn’t have to jump through all the hoops you’ve just jumped through to understand what is really being said? We think it would look something like this:

It is unlawful for any government corporation, government officer or employee, or any other governmental entity in any branch of government, to…

Knowing what you now know about definitions, as well as the fact that Congress cannot legislate you

1 Acts or omissions which are made criminal by statute but which, of themselves, are not criminal. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

131

5805

5810

5815

5820

5825

5830

5835

5840

5845

or me into the immigration law enforcement business, doesn’t this suddenly make the whole scheme of §1324a fall into place? We think so.

“Hire” Means “Knowingly” As we’ve established, 8 USC 1324a does not apply to private firms in the states of the Union. However, it doesn’t hurt to understand that there are additional layers of protection from having to be involved in the I-9 nonsense. One fact of which most American firms are unaware is that it is not illegal to hire a person who may turn out to be an alien unauthorized to work. Even if one were to believe that §1324a applies to his firm, the prohibition is only against hiring someone whom you know is an alien unauthorized to work!

8 USC 1324a - (1) In general – It is unlawful for a person or other entity – (A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien…

At this juncture one might reasonably ask why one would ever ask a worker to fill out an I-9. It would certainly appear to result in more trouble than it’s worth. The answer to why large corporations use the I-9 is this:

8 USC 1324a(a)(3) Defense – A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section [by which they mean completing an I-9] with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral.

So what is an “affirmative defense” you ask?

Affirmative defense – In pleading, matter asserted by defendant which, assuming the complaint to be true, constitutes a defense to it. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Did you get that? If a “person or other entity” demands that its employees complete a Form I-9, but an unauthorized alien is discovered working there, the statute says that the employer can use the I -9 as a legal defense against the allegation, while essentially admitting that they did knowingly hire an unauthorized alien! Only the government could concoct this type of smarmy legal trickery – and only lawyers would suggest their clients buy into it. It should be noted that with or without an I-9, the government still has the burden of proof to show that the accused knowingly hired an alien unauthorized for employment. That’s a pretty tough burden to meet in the vast majority of cases.

The Double Edged Sword So far we’ve been talking about §1324a and the hiring of aliens unauthorized for employment. It is appropriate at this time to take a look at some of the language in the regulations which really frosts the cake:

132

5850

5855

5860

5865

5870

5875

5880

5885

5890

5895

8 CFR 274a.1(k)(2) – Knowledge that an employee is unauthorized may not be inferred from an employee’s foreign appearance or accent. [italic emphasis on original]

Let’s see if we understand the lay of the land here. The government doesn’t want folks to hire aliens who aren’t authorized by the INS to work in this country. However, (leaving aside upon whom the law properly operates) the alleged illegal act isn’t hiring an alien who’s unauthorized to work, but only hiring an alien who you know at the time you hire him (or continue to employ him) is unauthorized to work. BUT, the regulations specifically say that an employer may not infer that the potential worker is an alien unauthorized to work because of his foreign appearance or accent. Lovely! Do you see why this type of legislation could only be binding upon the government’s hiring and employment practices?

Hearings For Violations If there was any question that this law operates exclusively upon officers and employees of the government, this next item should end all doubt.

8 USC 1324a(e)(3) Hearing –

(A) Before imposing an order described in paragraph (4), (5), or (6) against a person or entity under this subsection for a violation of subsection (a) or (g)(1) of this section, the Attorney General shall provide the person or entity with notice and, upon request made within a reasonable time (of not less than 30 days, as established by the Attorney General) of the date of the notice, a hearing respecting the violation. (B) Conduct of hearing any hearing so requested shall be conducted before an administrative law judge. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of section 554 of title 5.

What this section tells us is that the US Attorney General, without any authority other than Congress creating this statute, can impose an “order” upon an employer who violates this statute. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 tell us that such orders can restrict our future behavior and may even include monetary punishment. Can the US Attorney (all by his lonesome) impose a fine upon an American citizen who’s running his own business in a state of the Union without taking that citizen to court and having a jury find him guilty of a crime? Not a chance in hell! One might reasonably ask, “To whom can the Attorney General do that”? The Attorney General can unilaterally impose fines on the following persons:

*Government officers and employees *Government departments or agencies *Government owned corporations *Corporations contracting with the United States government *All businesses in U.S. possessions or territories

Evidence that this is merely an “internal administrative” procedure can be seen on subsection (B), which states, “ Conduct of hearing any hearing…shall be conducted before an administrative law judge.”

133

5900

5905

5910

5915

5920

5925

5930

5935

5940

An interesting facet of being heard by an administrative law judge is that such a hearing presumes you are subject to federal regulatory control! Is the average private firm, operating within a state of the Union, subject to the regulatory control of the INS? Absolutely not – but the “persons and other entities” shown above are!

Penalties If a “ person or other entity” is properly within the regulatory reach of the INS, certain actions can give rise to criminal prosecutions. It should be noted that criminal prosecutions under an Act of Congress can only be sustained in limited circumstances:

*The business is located on federal land *The business is located within a U.S. possession or territory *The violator is an officer or employee of the U.S. government *The violator is a corporation wholly or partially owned by the U.S. government. *The violator is a corporation created by Congress. *The violator was using the Form I-9 in a fraudulent manner.

Please note that a private sector firm in a state of the Union is not within the government’s reach in this matter if they steer clear of using the Form I-9. Some people may make the observation t hat private firms within a state of the Union have been prosecuted for an offense under §1324a. That is true, but it is the responsibility of the private firm to assert their Constitutional exclusion and to challenge the Department of Justice’s jurisdiction. Acquiescence to an authority not actually possessed by a government agent creates the presumption of legitimate authority.

Even if a person was affected by the statute, the criminal element is very narrow and specific.

1324a(f)(1) – Criminal penalty – Any person or entity which engages in a pattern or practice of violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) of this section shall be fined…

And I bet you thought “pattern or practice” was just a couple of plain old words! To the contrary, “pattern or practice” is a “legal term” that means exactly what the definition provided for us in the regulations says it means!

8 CFR 274a.1(k) – The term pattern or practice means regular, repeated, and intentional activities, but does not include isolated, sporadic, or accidental acts.

Can a person be prosecuted criminally for failing to use I -9 forms? Nope; the criminal provision has nothing to do with the use or non-use of a Form I-9. The criminal elements are engaging in actions that are regular (as in “common place”), repeated, and intentional.

134

5945

5950

5955

5960

5965

5970

5975

5980

5985

Summary

1) The DOJ and the INS only have Title 8 authority over; a) entry into the country by aliens b) status of the alien once in this country c) the naturalization process d) the actions of the U.S. government in carrying out each of the aforementioned duties.

2) Congress has no authority to make any person in the private sector, within a state of the Union, responsible for the enforcement of U.S. immigration law.

3) Congress is free to create laws that govern how the U.S. government will handle the employment of aliens in the federal work force.

4) Congress is free to create laws that govern how the governments of federal possessions or territories will handle the employment of aliens in their government work force.

5) Congressional Acts that address how the U.S. and its possessions and territories handle government employment may include requirements for the production of documents by anyone applying for governmental employment, whether aliens or citizens.

6) The Form I-9 is the form that the Department of Justice has designated for use by the U.S. government and the governments of the possessions and territories to verify that applicants for government jobs are eligible for governmental employment.

7) Even when §1324a is operative, the standard for wrongdoing is knowingly hiring an alien unauthorized for employment.

8) If accused of wrongdoing, the Form I-9 can be used to “get off the hook” while essentially admitting that the accused did knowingly hire an alien unauthorized for employment. This is called an “affirmative defense”.

9) All accusations of wrongdoing must be made against those persons who are subject to the regulatory control of the Department of Justice in reference to immigration matters. By 8 USC §1324a (and its regulations) Congress has brought all three branches of the U.S. government under DOJ regulatory control in reference to hiring alien employees.

10) Criminal actions for violation of §1324a apply to the same persons as the I-9 requirement, but the government must prove that the accused engaged in hiring unauthorized alien on a regular, repeated, and intentional basis.

11) No presumption of an applicant or employee being an alien unauthorized for employment can be inferred by a foreign appearance or accent.

12) No private firm, in a state of the Union, which is not obligated to follow §1324a by the terms of a contract with the state of federal government, is required to use any federal forms when hiring workers.

135

5990

5995

6000

6005

6010

6015

6020

6025

6030

6035

Trusts

The purpose of this article is to inform you of the various factors and issues concerning trusts so that you may make an informed decision as to whether a trust may be of any benefit in your life.

Statutory v. Non-Statutory The first and most fundamental issue that one needs to understand is the distinction between a statutory trust and a non-statutory trust. A non-statutory trust is generally referred to as a common law trust. [See The Law within this document for information on the common law.] Statutory trusts are those, which like corporations, are established by and through a law created by the legislature of your state. Such trusts are imbued by the legislature with certain “financial advantages” (e.g. exempting certain property from State taxation of one form or another). However, such trusts are 100% within the regulatory control of the State. If the legislature were to change its mind tomorrow and withdraw the trust’s financial advantage, they would be doing nothing wrong and you would have no recourse. When you place property in a statutory trust, you are in effect saying to the legislature, ”I agree that this property is within the State’s jurisdiction and it would be really great if you’d treat me fairly in the future”. Placing one’s property within a statutory trust also makes that property ripe for administrative levy and/or seizure in the event that a tax agency makes a claim against the person who established the trust, or against the trust directly. Conversely, common law trusts are not created by legislative fiat, but are created in the realm of Equity and under a Citizen’s unalienable right to contract. [See The Law in this document.]

“A pure Trust is non-statutory. The Court holds that the Trust is created under the realm of equity under common law and is not…created by legislative authority.” Croker v. MacCloy, 649 US Supp 39

[A contractual organization is] “created under the common law of contracts and does not depend upon any statute for its existence.” 156 American Law Review 28

It is important to know and understand that an organization (such as a common law trust), which has not been created under State authority, generally cannot be regulated, and most State laws (written to effect corporations) have no legal force upon such an organization. [See the Sales Tax page within this document for a revealing discussion on the term “person”, and corporations.] We say that such a trust cannot “generally” be regulated, because we wish the reader to understand that there are certain activities that are inherently subject to State regulatory control [e.g. hauling toxic waste on the highway] and if a common law trust were to engage in such an activity, then it would be subject to State regulatory control. Another advantage of a common law trust is that the trust possesses the same rights, privileges and immunities (speaking in Constitutional terms) as the trustee.

“The fact that a business trust is not regarded as a legal entity distinct from its trustees, if a true

136

6040

6045

6050

6055

6060

6065

6070

6075

6080

trust…may result in this advantage to the trust, which a corporation does not possess: The trust consists of individuals…who are Citizens, and who, therefore, are entitled to certain rights and immunities such as those guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clauses of the Federal Constitution, which do not apply to Corporations.” Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 296 US 344 (1935)

This is an important concept that translates into important real-life benefits. Most “organizations” are statutory fictions and are subject to virtually every law on the books. They are also obligated to open their “books and records”, upon demand, to allow the government to explore whether or not some violation (of a virtually endless list of laws) has occurred. Statutory entities may also be prohibited from activities from which a Citizen with unalienable rights cannot be prohibited. Common law trusts are not bound by laws controlling the actions of corporations. Common law trusts are not bound by “public policy” decisions of the legislature that are masquerading as “law”. Common law trusts need not open their books to anyone unless ordered to do so by a true judicial warrant issued by an appropriate court. Common law trusts may freely engage in any activity that any American Citizen may engage in (provided that the trustee is a Citizen of a state of the Union). [See our Citizenship page for distinctions in the nature of citizenship.]

“These trusts – whether pure trusts or partnership – are unincorporated. They are not organized under any statute; and they derive no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute.” Hecht v. Malley, 68 L ed 949

“A Pure Trust is not subject to legislative control. The Court holds that the Trust is…not subject to legislative restriction as are corporation and other statutory entities created by legislative authority.” Croker v. MacCloy, 649 US Supp 39

“A Pure Trust derives no power, benefit, or privilege from any statute.” Crocker v. Malley 264 US 144

So What Does One Use a Trust For? Trusts are used primarily for four purposes:

* Protection of assets * Generational preservation of assets * The conduct of business * Privacy

[Editor’s Note: For the balance of this article, the word “trust” shall mean a common law trust, unless otherwise indicated.] Privacy – Common law trusts can provide privacy in a manner that no statutory entity can. Whenever the State is a party to a business arrangement, such as establishing a corporation or other statutory

137

6085

6090

6095

6100

6105

6110

6115

6120

6125

entity, the State requires the particulars from a ll the associated parties and that information becomes a part of the public record and is generally accessible. By contrast, a common law trust is traditionally held in the strictest privacy, with no one but the settlor and the trustee knowing all the details of the trust and the identities of those involved. Generational Preservation of Assets – Many people would prefer to avoid a situation in which inheritance taxes would be owed on property after their death. By placing property (real or personal) in a Family Preservation Trust, the “owner” of the property (the trust) never dies, and therefore no “inheritance” takes place. Despite the fact that the property belongs to a trust, current and future generations of family may make unfettered use of the property under the terms of the trust. This form of trust arrangement should always be an irrevocable trust (which will be addressed shortly). Protection of Assets – We live in a society that is increasingly complex. Legislatures are pumping out laws faster than the average Citizen can keep track of them, while at the same time recourse to the courts to solve every little grievance is on the increase. We know that there are laws firms in existence today that conduct research to see what companies are in the best financial position to be sued. Add to that a government that is hungry for any excuse (lawful or otherwise) to seize one’s property and this is likely the most precarious time in American history for a Citizen to own property of any significant value. For these reasons and others, Americans are now protecting their assets through trusts on an ever-increasing basis. Done correctly, a settlor may retain the use and benefit of the property while no longer being the actual owner. This form of trust arrangement should always be an irrevocable trust (which will be addressed shortly).

Business Trusts – This trust activity may be the least used, and is certainly the one with the most untapped potential. A common law Pure Trust Business Organization is a phenomenal corpus from which to conduct the private business operations of the average enterprise.

“One of the objectives of a business Trust is to obtain for the trust associates, most of the advantages of corporations, without the authority of any legislative act and with the freedom from restrictions and regulations generally imposed by law upon corporations.” 13 Am Jur 2d, page 379, Paragraph 51

When a trust conducts business, it enjoys privacy, freedom from most State regulation, separation of personal assets from business assets, and the officers of the trust are shielded from the liability of business (unless fraud or wrongful death are involved). That last benefit is similar in concept and operation to what corporate officers call, “the corporate veil”. Here is what the federal courts say about the protections afforded to the trustee(s), managing agents, and the trust.

“The fact that the trustees hold property, does not mean the trustees own personal property. Trust property cannot be held under attachment nor sold upon execution of trustees’ personal debt…Trustees and beneficiaries cannot be held liable for debts incurred by the trust. If, in fact, a true trust had been created, the certificate holders [the true owners of the Trust property] are not liable on obligations incurred by the trustees or managing agents appointed by the trustees.”

138

6130

6135

6140

6145

6150

6155

6160

6165

6170

6175

Hussey v. Arnold, 70n N.E. 87; Mayo v. Moritz, 24 N.E. 1083

“Trust property cannot be held under attachment nor sold upon execution, for the trustee’s personal debts.” Clew v. Jamison, 182 US 461, 21 S Ct 645

As you can see, a trust affords the very same type of protection for, and from, the trustee(s) and managing agents as a corporation does for its officers. Pure Trust Business Organizations also have the added advantage of incurring no federal or State tax liability. The IRS has confirmed this in writing. Original Intent possesses a determination letter from the IRS, which states:

“According to our National Office a Pure Trust Organization (an unincorporated business trust) is an organization that has no return filing requirements and is a nontaxable organization.

Therefore, your Pure Trust Organization doesn’t need an EIN.” [EINs are used in place of TINs for trusts]

It should be noted that when the IRS makes a written determination from its National Office, the determination is a product of their legal staff, issued after significant review and consideration. The IRS has not reversed their position since it was confirmed on 1960. The IRS cannot reverse this position because it is controlled by Constitutional principles.

Revocable v. Irrevocable All trusts, common law or statutory, come in two flavors – “revocable” and “irrevocable”. Revocable means that the trust can be readily dissolved and the property within the trust reverts to the sole ownership of the “grantor” (the former owner). These trusts are often referred to as a “Grantor’s Trust”. Such trusts do not afford much asset protection. In most cases, the law considers such trusts to be little more than an “alter-ego” of the grantor. Many courts have declared revocable trusts to be nothing more than a “dba” of the grantor. Irrevocable trusts offer the strongest asset protection possible. Like a corporation, irrevocable trusts are considered a separate legal “person” from the settlor and/or the grantor(s). Irrevocable trusts generally exist for eternity – or until some specified event occurs, requiring the termination of the trust. However, unlike a corporation, a common law pure t rust may exercise all the rights, privileges and immunities of the trustee. If the trustee is a Citizen of a state of the Union, that’s a significant advantage over other business forms. It should be understood that property conveyed into an irrevocable trust becomes the sole property of the trust and will generally not be returned to the previous owner. Once property is conveyed into trust, it is “held in trust” by the trustee and administrated in the best interest of the trust, in accordance with the t rust indenture. This is one of the essential reasons that property within such a trust is so secure – there can be claim made that the property still belongs to the former owner (grantor).

139

6180

6185

6190

6195

6200

6205

6210

6215

6220

Proper Trust Administration Over the years, folks within the Patriot movement have made some serious mistakes. Improper trust administration is certainly one of the most notable areas where Patriots have gotten into trouble and brought quite a bit of pain upon themselves. Patriots are always looking for the “fastest” way to solve a problem. We think that is only natural because often times a Patriot is already under attack from a government agency and is trying desperately to find a way to thwart the aggressive actions of the government. In most cases we have seen, the Patriot is morally and legally in the right, but does not have the expertise to prevail over a fleet of government lawyers, or the Patriot has taken the proper steps and the agency is simply steamrolling the Citizen – and the rights of every American in the process – because if you plow over the rights of one Citizen, you are plowing over the rights of all Americans. Nevertheless, if in haste we make poor choices, we will likely feel the consequences of those poor choices in the future.

Adding to the problem is the plethora of Patriot “gurus”, who learn just enough to be a danger to themselves, and then begin to tell others “how it is”. These “gurus” have done as much to injure the Patriot movement as anything the government has done over the past 30 years. There are few things more discouraging than finding out that your own side laid the foundation for your failure! We have spoken to many former Patriots who have left the movement because they felt that the movement didn’t know what it was doing. There’s certainly some truth to such observations. Trust administration is clearly one of those areas. A trust is administrated by a trustee, or a board of trustees. That’s the long and the short of it. There is no other proper and lawful way for a t rust to be administrated. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ignorant or lying to you. Many in the Patriot movement have been fond of conveying property into trust, becoming Managing Agents (or whatever term they use as an equivalent) of the trust, and then having the trustee delegate complete authority to them. They then wonder why several years later the IRS (or some other government agency) is able to take “the trust’s” property from them. The reason is simple, the trustee acted in manner which vitiated the credibility and legal protections of the trust. Another huge mistake made by Patriots is the unfounded belief that you can avoid an income tax (if legitimately owed) by conveying the income into trust prior to paying the taxes. The IRS nails Patriots on this stupid mistake all the time. Let’s be clear on this: A trust can do nothing to alleviate any legitimate tax liability that you may have. If you owe the tax, you must pay it! However, if you don’t owe a tax on the money (or other property) that you receive, then conveying it into trust may well protect it later from an attack by an unlawful and money-hungry government. [See Federal Income Tax and State Income Tax to help you determine if you owe income tax.] Patriots have probably made as many trust mistakes, as there are inexperienced and unqualified trustees in the Patriot movement. We cannot address all the errors that we have seen. What we can say with absolute certainty is this: If you establish a trust, make sure you acquire a qualified and professional trustee. To do otherwise is to place everything at risk. [For professional trustee services, contact Dave Champion @ nontaxpayer.org]

140

6225

6230

6235

6240

6245

6250

6255

6260

6265

The Business Trustee Having a professional trustee is even more essential if a trust is involved in business activities. Trusts that merely hold property have very few dealings with other people, but a business trust will generally be an active part of the business community and will interact with numerous people, entities, and government bureaucrats. For this reason it is essential that a business trust have a trustee (or trustees) who is knowledgeable in various areas. The trustee of a common law business trust should be knowledgeable in the following areas:

· Constitutional law – A common law trust relies on the rights of the trustee, which are secured by and through his state Constitution and the US Constitution. It should be manifestly obvious that a trustee cannot assert his rights, and thus those that are operational for the trust, if he has little knowledge of the his own rights, privileges, and immunities, as well as the remedies that are available to secure those rights from abridgement. · Trust law – It should be plainly obvious that one cannot administrate what one doesn’t know or understand. · Contract law – It will fall within the duties of the trustee to execute agreements in the name of the trust. · Tax law – Although a Pure Trust Business Organization has no tax payment or reporting requirements, the trustee must know how to preserve that position. · General Business Law – Although a trustee should not be involved in “running the business”, he cannot properly undertake his trustee duties if he does not have a firm grasp of fundamental business practices.

We feel compelled to make one disclaimer concerning business trusts. If you believe that you will need to acquire a significant amount of investment capitol from investors in order to achieve your business goals, a business trust is likely not the proper business form to establish. Although there is no practical reason that investors cannot invest in the business activities of a trust and receive the same returns and assurances, investors are inexperienced with business trusts and will virtually always insist that their capitol go into a corporation.

The Government Lies (Again)! As common law trusts have experienced a resurgence of popularity, the government and its cronies (i.e. financial institutions, tax attorneys, CPAs, the media, etc.) have embarked on a campaign of lies intended to undermine the growth and expansion of common law trusts – especially business trusts. Over the last 2 years we’ve seen articles published in periodicals for the financial industry, as well as in other more mainstream publications, which assert that common law trusts are not real – that they do not actually exist – and that promoters of such trusts are merely charlatans who are preying upon the ignorance and naiveté of an unwitting public. Many of these articles have been written by attorneys who know that they are lying. In one recent case, after reading an article in which the author (an attorney for the Trust department of bank) stated that there is no such thing as a “common law trust” we contacted the editor of the well-known financial publication that printed the article and provided him with numerous federal court decisions concerning

141

6270

6275

6280

6285

6290

6295

6300

6305

6310

6315

common law trusts. We asked him how he could run an article in which it was stated that common law trusts don’t exist, when the federal courts have been verifying their existence for 225 years. We pointed out that since it would have been a simple task to check the author’s allegation, the editor must have either been remiss in his duties, or intentionally chosen to publish the lie. We asked that a retraction be printed. What was his response? Silence. We never heard back from him and no retraction was printed. Accountants are routinely sent information from the IRS telling them to be on the lookout for “abusive” trusts. These publications frequently contain the words “common law trust” in the warning. For a full and detailed examination of the IRS’ “smear campaign” against common law trusts, see Debunking IRS Lies on this document.]

Summary We hope that this article has given you some useful information concerning common law trust. We also hope you will visit Debunking IRS Lies so that you won’t be intimidated by the carefully crafted statements from the snakes (oh…sorry…we meant “attorneys”) at the IRS. Once you understand the word games the government is playing, you will have a good laugh at their expense. Here is what we’ve covered in this article:

1) Common law trusts are established under the unalienable right of Citizens to contract with one another.

2) A contract of a particular form (a “trust indenture”) creates a trust.

3) Trusts may be used for various purposes.

4) No matter what purpose you have in mind for a trust, increased privacy will always be one of the benefits.

5) These purposes may be advantageous to you and/or your family.

6) Trust can be revocable or irrevocable. Irrevocable is generally a better choice.

7) If you owe income tax on your earnings or income, it must be paid before you convey money or property into trust.

8) If you have paid the tax, or don’t owe a tax, conveying property into trust can protect your assets from a future unlawful attack by the government.

9) A professional trustee is essential to the proper operation of a trust.

10) In the business arena, common law trusts offer many of the same advantages as statutory entities, but without the government “strings” attached.

11) A Pure Trust Business Organization has no tax payment or reporting requirements.

142

6320

6325

6330

6335

6340

6345

6350

6355

6360

12) Common law business trusts are not the best vehicle with which to seek investment capital.

13) Reading how the government attempts to misrepresent common law trusts will assist you in understanding how the IRS generally misrepresent a myriad of issues to the public.

Obviously, the area of trust law, and its proper administration, is far too large and detailed to fully address within this article. If you would like additional information, or would like to establish a trust, or are seeking a professional trustee, please contact Dave Champion @ nontaxpayer.org American Radio Show July 15, 2006 Hour 2 is on this subject. http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive/AR20060715-2-32K.mp3

143

6365

6370

6375

6380

6385

6390

6395

6400

6405

The Federal Firearms Act

Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government’s authority to regulate firearms come? One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We’ve never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist. Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of “public policy”, with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren’t more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so. We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to “flexible” interpretations by “cooperative” judges. Ironically, t his has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system.

The Federal Firearms Act (as amended) (18 USC, Chapter 44)

Try as you might to find the title, “Federal Firearms Act” associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled “Commerce and Trade”. Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That’s 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That’s right – the government’s jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the “Commerce and Trade” title. If it wasn’t moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn’t have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of “Commerce and Trade”, there are few clues left to the law’s original intent and its Constitutional limitations. Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun

144

6410

6415

6420

6425

6430

6435

6440

6445

6450

Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252]. Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about. There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

18 USC, §10: The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

This is a pretty clear definition – and it will get clearer as this article proceeds! Interestingly, “interstate commerce” and “foreign commerce” are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

18 USC §921(2) The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State , or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). [emphasis and underlining added]

You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase “interstate or foreign commerce” does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more! We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44? The only distinction we find is in the use of the words “…any place in a State…”. Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn’t seem to make sense – or does it? Maybe we should ask what “place within a State” might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let’s explore! Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled “Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction”. What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is “State jurisdiction” and there is “federal jurisdiction”, and the two are not the same.

145

6455

6460

6465

6470

6475

6480

6485

6490

6495

6500

Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we’ll get lost if we don’t understand exactly what is being referred to in §7. Section 7 defines the “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”. Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article:

18 USC §7(3): Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal “places” exist within the states of the Union. One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings

Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let’s go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a). [Editor’s Note: We’ve removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.] 18 USC, §13(a):

Whoever within…any places…provided in section 7 of this title…not within the jurisdiction of any State…is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State…in which such place is situated…

Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the “places” that are referred to in the definition of “interstate or foreign commerce” at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the “ places…provided in section 7 of this title”, which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State! Now let’s do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let’s add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of “interstate and foreign commerce” (at

146

6505

6510

6515

6520

6525

6530

6535

6540

6545

§921(2)). Our “clarified” version reads like this: The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia… Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn’t it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses “States” is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, “interstate or foreign commerce” means commerce [ solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my…Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean! Are you getting the picture? Every “place” being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the “interstate and foreign commerce” being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such “places”. For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined “State” as “the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States”. In short, it’s all territorial. The definition of “interstate or foreign commerce”, at 921(2), is only a “red herring” placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union. Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of “interstate commerce” provided at §10? Two little words – “any place” – needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny. If one reads the “Congressional Findings and Declarations” in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the “exclusive legislative control” clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union. Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its “intentions” or its “goals”, but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.

147

6550

6555

6560

6565

6570

6575

6580

6585

6590

6595

Laws No Longer Printed You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were “omitted” when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word “omit”; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster’s II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, “Left out”. When a section or portion of a statute is “omitted” it is exactly as Webster has stated – it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect – it simply isn’t printed in the United States Code any more!

[Editor Note – The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See “What is the United States Code” for more on Statutes-at-Large.] So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of “presumption from possession”. While we’ve not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory “presumptions” tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of “interstate or foreign commerce”. Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney’s Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that’s a bit difficult when the law isn’t printed in the Code any more! The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, “receipt with knowledge…that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively.” You’ve got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you!

Summary Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they’ve never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of “public policy” law that will eventually take the industry’s life, and with it the American Citizen’s access to at least one form of arms. Let’s review what we’ve covered:

1) Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act.

2) The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, “Commerce and Trade”.

3) In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18.

148

6600

6605

6610

6615

6620

6625

6630

6635

6640

4) Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they’re really up to.]

5) Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners!

6) The foundation of the federal government’s authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.

7) Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia.

8) The definition of “interstate and foreign commerce” at §921(2) does not refer to the government’s Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government’s police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress.

9) The “declarations” or “findings” that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.

149

6645

6650

6655

6660

6665

6670

6675

6680

6685

THE MAGNA CARTA(The Great Charter):

Preamble:

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen. 1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever. 2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe "relief", he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole baroncy of an earl by L100; the heir or heirs of a baron, L100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees. 3. If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age. 4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waster of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.

150

6690

6695

6700

6705

6710

6715

6720

6725

6730

5. The guardian, moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, fishponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and wainage, according as the season of husbandry shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonable bear. 6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest in blood to that heir shall have notice. 7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her. 8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another. 9. Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is able to satisfy the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against the said sureties. 10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond. 11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews. 12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London. 13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs. 14. And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters; and we will moveover cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, and others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come. 15. We will not for the future grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free tenants, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and on each of these occasions there shall be levied only a reasonable aid.

151

6735

6740

6745

6750

6755

6760

6765

6770

6775

16. No one shall be distrained for performance of greater service for a knight's fee, or for any other free tenement, than is due therefrom. 17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place. 18. Inquests of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; We, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court. 19. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less. 20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his "contentment"; and a merchant in the same way, saving his "merchandise"; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his "wainage" if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood. 21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense. 22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice. 23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so. 24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown. 25. All counties, hundred, wapentakes, and trithings (except our demesne manors) shall remain at the old rents, and without any additional payment. 26. If anyone holding of us a lay fief shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff shall exhibit our letters patent of summons for a debt which the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach and enroll the chattels of the deceased, found upon the lay fief, to the value of that debt, at the sight of law worthy men, provided always that nothing whatever be thence removed until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfill the will of the deceased; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the deceased, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares. 27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him. 28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller. 29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money in lieu of castle-guard, when he is willing to perform it in his own person, or (if he himself cannot do it from any reasonable cause) then by another responsible man. Further, if we have led or sent him upon military service, he shall be relieved from guard in proportion to the time during which he has been on service because of us. 30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman. 31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.

152

6780

6785

6790

6795

6800

6805

6810

6815

6820

6825

32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands those who have been convicted of felony, and the lands shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs. 33. All kydells for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore. 34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court. 35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to wit, "the London quarter"; and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or "halberget"), to wit, two ells within the selvedges; of weights also let it be as of measures. 36. Nothing in future shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs, but freely it shall be granted, and never denied. 37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight's service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight's service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight's service. 38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his "law", without credible witnesses brought for this purposes. 39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. 40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. (Basis for the 5th & 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution)41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land. 42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us. 43. If anyone holding of some escheat (such as the honor of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) shall die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had been in the baron's hand; and we shall hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it. 44. Men who dwell without the forest need not henceforth come before our justiciaries of the forest upon a general summons, unless they are in plea, or sureties of one or more, who are attached for the forest. 45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well. 46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

153

6830

6835

6840

6845

6850

6855

6860

6865

6870

47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforsted; and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river banks that have been placed "in defense" by us in our time. 48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England. 49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace of faithful service. 50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard of Athee (so that in future they shall have no bailiwick in England); namely, Engelard of Cigogne, Peter, Guy, and Andrew of Chanceaux, Guy of Cigogne, Geoffrey of Martigny with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same. 51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt. 52. If anyone has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as we return from the expedition, we will immediately grant full justice therein. 53. We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our brother afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight's service), and concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full justice to all who complain of such things. 54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband. 55. All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the pease, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn. 56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a

154

6875

6880

6885

6890

6895

6900

6905

6910

6915

6920

dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for the tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours. 57. Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions. 58. We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace. 59. We will do towards Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our owher barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William his father, formerly king of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in our court. 60. Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed b all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men. 61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moveover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are

155

6925

6930

6935

6940

6945

6950

6955

6960

6965

left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another. 62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid. 63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

Source for this TranslationThis is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in Latin, probably by the Archbishop, Stephen Langton. It was in force for only a few months, when it was violated by the king. Just over a year later, with no resolution to the war, the king died, being succeeded by his 9-year old son, Henry III. The Charter (Carta) was reissued again, with some revisions, in 1216, 1217 and 1225. As near as I can tell, the version presented here is the one that preceeded all of the others; nearly all of it's provisions were soon superceded by other laws, and none of it is effective today. The two other versions I found each professed to be the original, as well. The basic intent of each is the same. Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300) AcknowledgmentsPrepared by Nancy Troutman (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa345) Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN). Permission is hereby given to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National Public Telecomputing Network.

156

6970

6975

6980

6985

6990

6995

7000

7005

7010

Mayflower Compact : 1620

Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth : 1620

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

Mr. John Carver, Mr. William Bradford, Mr Edward Winslow, Mr. William Brewster, Isaac Allerton, Myles Standish, John Alden, John Turner, Francis Eaton, James Chilton, John Craxton, John Billington, Joses Fletcher, John Goodman, Mr. Samuel Fuller, Mr. Christopher Martin, Mr. William Mullins,

Mr. William White, Mr. Richard Warren, John Howland, Mr. Steven Hopkins, Digery Priest,

Thomas Williams, Gilbert Winslow, Edmund Margesson, Peter Brown, Richard Britteridge,

George Soule, Edward Tilly, John Tilly, Francis Cooke, Thomas Rogers, Thomas Tinker, John RidgdaleEdward Fuller, Richard Clark, Richard Gardiner, Mr. John Allerton, Thomas English, Edward Doten, Edward Liester.

Source:The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of AmericaCompiled and Edited Under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906 by Francis Newton ThorpeWashington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1909.

157

7015

7020

7025

7030

7035

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their

158

7040

7045

7050

7055

7060

7065

7070

7075

7080

migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offencesFor abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native

159

7085

7090

7095

7100

7105

7110

7115

7120

7125

justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia: Thomas Stone John Morton Lewis Morris Elbridge Gerry

Button Gwinnett Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Clymer New Jersey: Rhode Island:

Lyman Hall Virginia: James Smith Richard Stockton Stephen Hopkins

George Walton George Wythe George Taylor John Witherspoon William Ellery

South Carolina: Richard Henry Lee James Wilson Francis Hopkinson Connecticut:

Edward Rutledge Thomas Jefferson George Ross John Hart Roger Sherman

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Benjamin Harrison Delaware: Abraham Clark Samuel Huntington

Thomas Lynch, Jr. Thomas Nelson, Jr. Caesar Rodney New Hampshire: William Williams

Arthur Middleton Francis Lightfoot Lee

George Read Josiah Bartlett Oliver Wolcott

Massachusetts Carter Braxton Thomas McKean William Whipple New Hampshire:

John Hancock Pennsylvania: New York: Massachusetts: Matthew Thornton

Maryland: Robert Morris William Floyd Samuel Adams

Samuel Chase Benjamin Rush Philip Livingston John Adams

William Paca Benjamin Franklin Francis Lewis Robert Treat Paine

160

7130

7135

7140

The Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article ISection 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years

161

7145

7150

7155

7160

7165

7170

7175

7180

a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

162

7185

7190

7195

7200

7205

7210

7215

7220

7225

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and

163

7230

7235

7240

7245

7250

7255

7260

7265

repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of

164

7270

7275

7280

7285

7290

7295

7300

7305

War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IISection 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do

165

7310

7315

7320

7325

7330

7335

7340

7345

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article IIISection 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

166

7350

7355

7360

7365

7370

7375

7380

7385

7390

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article IVSection 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

167

7395

7400

7405

7410

7415

7420

7425

7430

Article VIAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article VIIThe Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, George Washington--President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut: William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York: Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey: William Livingston, David Brearly, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton

Pennsylvania: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris

Delaware: George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom

Maryland: James McHenry, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll

Virginia: John Blair, James Madison, Jr.

North Carolina: William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson

South Carolina: John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler Georgia: William Few, Abraham Baldwin

168

7435

7440

7445

7450

7455

7460

7465

Bill of Rights and amendments to the U.S. Constitution

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United Statesbegun and held at the City of New-York, onWednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IIA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IIINo Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

169

7470

7475

7480

7485

7490

7495

Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VIIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIIIn Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIIIExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

170

7500

7505

7510

7515

7520

Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

AMENDMENT XII Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if

171

7525

7530

7535

7540

7545

7550

such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously

172

7555

7560

7565

7570

7575

7580

7585

7590

taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XV Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

AMENDMENT XVII Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have

173

7595

7600

7605

7610

7615

7620

the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

AMENDMENT XVIII Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.Section 1.After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XIX Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XX Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the

174

7625

7630

7635

7640

7645

7650

terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

AMENDMENT XXI Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.Section 1.The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

175

7655

7660

7665

7670

7675

7680

7685

AMENDMENT XXII Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.Section 1.No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.Section 1.The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.Section 1.The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

176

7690

7695

7700

7705

7710

7715

7720

AMENDMENT XXV Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.

177

7725

7730

7735

7740

7745

7750

7755

7760

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVII Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

178

7765

7770

7775

7780

7785

7790

7795

7800

Additional Resources found online at the following links:

Watch this FIRST!!!America: Freedom to Fascismhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Dave Champion's Websiteshttp://taxrevolt.us/http://www.nontaxpayer.org/http://www.americanradioshow.us/http://www.davechampionshow.com/http://www.originalintent.org/

other resources

Online Patriot Broadcasting http://republicbroadcasting.org/

Larry Becraft's website http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/

Larken does a good job clarifying on whom the tax is imposed but only follow instruction from Dave Champion because Larken is errant in his position due to his use of “Taxpayer Identification numbers”http://larkenrose.com/Theft by Deception by Larken Rosehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023

http://www.freedom-force.org/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html United States Code Onlinehttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html Code of Federal Regulations Online

Online Law Dictionary http://dictionary.law.com/

179

7805

7810

7815

7820

7825

7830

7835

7840