It is important to realize that there really are two United
States: the Constitutional United States, composed of
the States of the Union. Its Citizens, spelled with a
capital C, are Citizens of their respective State.

The other "United States" is the one formed by Congress
via Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. This was a loophole
in the Constitution, discovered and exploited by the
international bankers, that allowed Congress to form its
own "government," over which they had absolute power
and jurisdiction.

This is the federal "United States," with the District of
Columbia being either THE state, or the corporate "United
States" cited throughout the IRC. The other parts of
the federal "United States" are Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and Samoa.

When Alaska and Hawaii were still Territories, they were referred to as States. However, as they were admitted as respective States of the Union,
Congress changed the code to drop any reference to them
as being a "State" of the "United States."

The inhabitants of the "United States" are "residents,"
"citizens," with a small c.

As an aside, whenever you are in court, and the judge
asks if you are a "United States citizen," never say yes.
If you do, you have submitted yourself to the federal
jurisdiction, and you are screwed.

A better response is to acknowledge yourself as a Citizen
of the State of ____________. In this instance, the
court does not obtain jurisdiction. It also makes sense to
add reservation of one's rights without prejudice, per UCC 1-308.

With this knowledge in hand, it becomes easier to understand,
when reading the IRC, (Internal Revenue Code), that a
"resident citizen" is one who lives within the federal
"United States." Bear in mind, these are statutory
definitions as they apply in the federal corporate "United
States."

Who is a resident alien?

One who lives within the federal "United States"
but has not become a "United States" "citizen."

Now, when you read the Publication number 519, United
States Tax Guide For Aliens, it takes on a totally
different interpretation/meaning:

"Introduction

For tax purposes, an alien is an individual who is not
a "United States" citizen. Aliens are classified as
nonresident aliens and resident aliens..."



Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code is the word "individual" defined

Why?

Becuase the entire code is purposefully written to confuse
and deceive. When you read in the code about something
that applies to every "individual" who is a "United States"
citizen, to whom do you assume that applies?

We all think of ourselves as citizens. We all think we
live in the United States. We just didn't know there was
another Congressionally sponsored "United States" whose
"citizens" are not what we think them to be.

This may be an assult on one's senses, but keep track of
of the line of reasoning, and it all fits and makes sense.

Once you comprehend that you can be a Citizen of the
United States of the Union, or unknowingly become a
"United States" "citizen" of a federal municipality via a
pressumed UCC contract:

THEN you will begin to see the power of the IRS
and its tax code begin to unravel and melt away.

THEN you will begin to understand why so many people
lose in court cases against the IRS, why they never
stood a chance from the beginning.

Pay close attention to every word and that it may not
mean what you assume it means. The IRS counts on
your assumptions.

Can you guess who is a nonresident alien individual?

"The term nonresident alien individual means an
individual whose residence is not within the "United States,"
and who is not a citizen of the "United States."
26 CFR 1.871-2 (Emphasis added)

Aka a Sovereign State Citizen who was born in one of the
50 States of the Union.

What the IRS is going to learn is that they can fool most
of the people most of the time, but they cannot fool all of
the people all of the time.

Keep the burden of proof on the IRS to prove that you
are a taxpayer and lawfully obligated to pay
an "income" tax. Make them show you a verified
assessment, signed under penalties of perjury.

Tell them you are willing to pay any amount
you are lawfully obligated to pay. In so doing,
you are acknowledging a willingness to pay (once they
meet their burden of proof), so you are not creating a
dispute, which gets resolved in court.

Make the IRS bear their burden of proof from the onset.
Then sit back, waiting for them to meet it.

Congress, IRS, DOJ & Deception

The Fourteenth Amendment:

'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....' www.usconstitution.net


'Some individuals argue that they have rejected citizenship in the United States in favor of state citizenship; therefore, they are relieved of their federal income tax obligations. A variation of this argument is that a person is a free born citizen of a particular state and thus was never a citizen of the United States. The underlying theme of these arguments is the same: the person is not a United States citizen and is not subject to federal tax laws because only United States citizens are subject to these laws.

The Truth:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that "[a]ll 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." The Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts.' www.quatloos.com

quote:

'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....

So, then only those who are "subject" to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Now, how does one become subject to another's jurisdiction without some type of agreement between them?

Just out of curiosity; Are you a real Canadian?

Quatloos: word used in an episode of Star Trek (original series).It was a form of currency, much like Federal Reserve Notes and used in a very dishonest society.


"The Truth as I see it."

But citizens don't become subject to "another's" jurisdiction; they become subject to their government's, or country's jurisdiction. Unless they're immigrants, or emmigrants, they don't get to agree or disagree, and there are precedents to that idea going back to pre-history (although - see the next post - slaves may not have been considered 'under the government's jurisdiction'). In the case of the US, falling under the US government's jurisdiction happens by being born there, doesn't it? (Children of foreign embassy staff are the only exception, I think.)

'Relevant Case Law:

O'Driscoll v. I.R.S., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 1991) - The court stated, "despite [taxpayer's] linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes."

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7 th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060, reh'g denied, 503 U.S. 953 (1992) - The court affirmed a tax evasion conviction and rejected Sloan's argument that the federal tax laws did not apply to him because he was a "freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a 'master' - not 'servant' - of his government."

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11 th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) - The court found Ward's contention that he was not an "individual" located within the jurisdiction of the United States to be "utterly without merit" and affirmed his conviction for tax evasion.

United States v. Sileven, 985 F.2d 962 (8 th Cir. 1993) - The court rejected the argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayer was not a federal citizen as "plainly frivolous."

United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8 th Cir. 1993) - The court rejected the Gerads' contention that they were "not citizens of the United States, but rather 'Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota' and, consequently, not subject to taxation" and imposed sanctions "for bringing this frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments."

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202-03 (1993) - The court rejected Solomon's argument that as an Illinois resident his income was from outside the United States, stating "[he] attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the State of Illinois is not part of the United States. His hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and residents. [His] arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions."' www.irs.gov

What happens to these supposed non-federal citizens when they want to travel abroad, use federal highways or plumbing, or enjoy the protection of the federal army?

Even if they weren't "citizens of the US" shouldn't they pay their US taxes just like any other foreign citizen living in the US?

Yes, I'm a real Canadian.

There's an interesting explanation of how the 14th amendment came about, and what it means and doesn't mean here.

It seems that tax-protestors often selectively quote, pulling things out of context. With more context, historical and textual, things become clearer:

'There are actually a number of problems with the concept of "citizens" of the states of the United States who are not "citizens" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. If this tax protester claim were true, then:


- The words "citizen of the United States" must have a meaning in the 14th Amendment which is different than the meaning given those same words in other parts of the Constitution.

- The words "United States" must have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which is different than the meaning given those words in other parts of the Constitution.

- The word "jurisdiction" must have a meaning in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment which is different than the meaning given that word in other parts of the Constitution.

- The 14th Amendment must extend the power of Congress to legislate for "federal citizens" without regard to the limits on Congressional power found in other parts of the Constitution.

- The 14th Amendment created a new kind of citizenship, and did not merely extend the existing definition of "citizen" to include former slaves as well as whites.

- The 14th Amendment does not mean what it says, and does not apply to "all persons."

- The power of Congress to tax is limited by citizenship, and Congress cannot tax immigrants or foreigners who are within the United States but not citizens of the United States.

All of the above statements are wrong, but for the purpose of this FAQ the last fallacy is the most important, because there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the power of Congress to tax only citizens, however defined. The power to tax which is given to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, and by the 16th Amendment, is not limited to the taxation of citizens, whether "sovereign state citizens," "14th Amendment citizens," or any other type of citizen. The power to tax applies to all residents of the United States whether or not they are citizens, as well as to all income earned within the United States whether or not the income is earned by residents or non-residents. (The income tax also applies to citizens of the United States living in other countries, but that is another issue.) Therefore, even if the claim of two types of citizenship were correct (which is a big "if"), the claim is still irrelevant to the federal income tax because Congress can tax noncitizens as well as citizens.

As explained above, tax protesters often have trouble with the concept of the concurrent sovereignty of the federal government with the states. For that reason, tax protesters often fail to understand that our Constitution recognizes state and federal citizenship as two different relationships, with the rights and obligations of state citizenship being separate from the rights and obligations of federal citizenship. However, the Supreme Court has clearly recognized the reality of concurrent citizenship.

"It is a natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

Before the 14th Amendment, it was not clear how citizenship was determined. This culminated in the infamous Dred Scott decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), in which it was held that a slave (or former slave) who was not a citizen (or even a person) under state law could not be a citizen (or even a person) under federal law. Following the Civil War, this was reversed by the adoption of the 14th Amendment. As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship--not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the 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 in which they reside.'
"The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular States, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States." The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873), (emphasis in original).

Following the plain words of the 14th Amendment, and the decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the federal courts have consistently ruled that all persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States, and state citizenship follows from federal citizenship. For example, the Supreme Court has held that a state cannot deny rights of state citizenship to a citizen of the United States who resides within that state. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972); Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).

This was more recently confirmed in Saenz v. Doe, ___ U.S. ___ (5/17/99), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-97.ZS.html, aff'g 134 F.3d 1400.

"Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens 'of the States wherein they reside.' U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, section 1. The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens." Id.

One Circuit Court of Appeals has put it this way:

"Relying on this Supreme Court authority, circuit and district courts have treated the question before us today as one long decided: '[I]n order to be a citizen of a state, it is elementary law that one must first be a citizen of the United States.'" Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090-1091 (9th Cir. 1983), (citations omitted).'

From the same page:

'The Supreme Court has plainly stated that "The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873).'