home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Software Vault: The Gold Collection
/
Software Vault - The Gold Collection (American Databankers) (1993).ISO
/
cdr20
/
fedzone.zip
/
CONCLUSN.TXT
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-01-21
|
18KB
|
485 lines
Chapter 14:
Conclusions
The areas of land over which the federal government
exercises exclusive authority are the District of Columbia, the
federal territories and possessions, and the enclaves within the
50 States which have been ceded to the federal government by the
consent of State Legislatures. This book has referred to these
areas collectively as "the federal zone" -- the zone over which
Congress exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction, the zone
over which the federal government is sovereign. Author Ralph
Whittington itemizes the federal "states" and possessions as
follows:
(1) District of Columbia ......................... Federal State
(2) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .................. Federal State
(3) Virgin Islands ............................... Federal State
(4) Guam ......................................... Federal State
(5) American Samoa ............................... Federal State
(6) Northern Mariana Islands ................ Federal Possession
(7) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands .. Federal Possession
Inclusive of the aforementioned Federal State(s) and Federal
Possessions, the "exclusive Federal Jurisdiction" also
extends over all Places purchased by the Consent of the
Legislature of one of the Fifty State(s), in which the same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
[The Omnibus, page 87]
[emphasis added]
In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone,
Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations
that exist inside the 50 States. For this reason, the areas that
are inside and outside the federal zone are heterogeneous with
respect to each other. This difference results in a principle of
territorial heterogeneity: the areas within the federal zone are
subject to one set of rules; the areas without (or outside) the
federal zone are subject to a different set of rules. The
Constitution rules outside the zone and inside the 50 States.
The Congress rules inside the zone and outside the 50 States.
The 50 States are, therefore, in one general class, because all
constitutional restraints upon Congress are in force throughout
the 50 States, without prejudice to any one State. The areas
within the federal zone are in a different general class, because
these same constitutional restraints simply do not limit Congress
inside that zone.
Page 14 - 1 of 8
The Federal Zone:
Without referring to it as such, Lori Jacques has concisely
defined the taxing effects of territorial heterogeneity as
follows:
The "graduated income tax" is not a constitutionally
authorized tax within the several states; however, Congress
is apparently not prohibited from levying that type of tax
upon the "subjects of the sovereign" in the Possessions and
Territories. The definitions of "United States" and "State"
are stated "geographically to include" only those areas
constitutionally within congress' exclusive legislative
jurisdiction upon whom a graduated tax can be imposed.
[A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 54]
[emphasis added]
It is in the area of taxation where the restraints of the
Constitution are most salient. Congress cannot levy indirect
taxes inside the borders of the 50 States unless the tax rates
are uniform across those 50 States. The mountain of material
evidence which impugns the ratification of the so-called 16th
Amendment should leave no doubt in anybody's mind that Congress
must still apportion all direct taxes levied inside the borders
of the 50 States and outside the federal zone. For example, if
California has 10 percent of the nation's population, then the
State of California would pay 10 percent of any apportioned
direct tax levied by Congress. Unfortunately, the IRS currently
enforces federal income taxes as direct taxes on the gross
receipts of individual persons without apportionment. This
results in great tension between the law and its administration.
Similarly, Congress is not empowered to delegate unilateral
authority to the President to divide or join any of the 50 States
of the Union. Dividing or joining States of the Union can only
occur with the consent of Congress and of the Legislatures of the
States affected. For many reasons like this, Title 26 would be
demonstrably unconstitutional if it applied to areas over which
the 50 States exercise sovereign jurisdiction. It is conclusive,
therefore, that Title 26 is a municipal law for the federal zone
only. As the municipal authority with exclusive legislative
jurisdiction, Congress is "City Hall" for the federal zone.
The Bill of Rights also constrains Congress from violating
the fundamental rights of Citizens of the 50 States. These
rights include, but are not limited to, the right to work for a
living, and the right to enjoy the fruits of individual labor.
These activities are free from tax under the fundamental law.
The fundamental law is the Constitution for the United States of
America, as lawfully amended. The first 10 amendments
institutionalize a number of explicit constraints on the acts of
Congress within the 50 States. The most salient of these
amendments are those that mandate due process and prohibit self-
incrimination.
Page 14 - 2 of 8
Conclusions
The Internal Revenue Code and its regulations impose taxes
on the worldwide income of United States** citizens and United
States** residents. Throughout this book, two stars "**" after
the term "United States**" are used to emphasize that the "United
States" in this context has the second of three separate and
distinct meanings. These meanings were defined by the Supreme
Court in the pivotal case of Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, which
is still the standing case law on this question. The high Court
indicated that the Hooven case would be the last time it would
address a definition of the term "United States". Therefore,
this ruling, and the preceding case law and law review articles
on which it was based, must be judicially noticed by the entire
American legal community.
The United States**, as that term is used in the IRC, is the
area over which Congress exercises exclusive legislative
authority; it is the federal zone. If you are not a United
States** citizen, then you are an alien with respect to the
United States**. If you are not a United States** resident, then
you are nonresident with respect to the United States**.
Therefore, if you were born outside the federal zone, if you live
and work outside the federal zone, and if you were never
naturalized or granted residency privileges by the federal zone,
then you are a nonresident alien under the Internal Revenue Code,
by definition. Be clear that an "alien" is not a creature from
outer space. The term "alien" is the creation of lawyers.
Nonresident aliens only pay taxes on income that is derived
from sources that are inside the federal zone. According to
explicit language in the Internal Revenue Code, gross income for
nonresident aliens includes only gross income which is
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the United States**, and gross income which is derived
from sources within the United States**, even if it is not
connected with a U.S.** trade or business. Thus, employment with
the federal government produces earnings which have their source
inside the federal zone. Similarly, unearned dividends paid to
nonresident aliens from stocks or bonds issued by U.S.** domestic
corporations also have their source inside the federal zone, and
are therefore taxable. Frank Brushaber was such a nonresident
alien.
For any federal tax liability that does exist, a nonresident
alien can utilize Form 1040NR to report and remit that tax
liability to the IRS. As a general rule, a nonresident alien
need not report or pay taxes on gross income which is derived
from sources that are outside the federal zone, or on gross
income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade
or business that is outside the federal zone. The regulations
specify a key exception to this general rule: a return must be
filed, however, by nonresident aliens who are engaged in any
U.S.** trade or business, whether or not they have derived income
from any U.S.** sources.
Page 14 - 3 of 8
The Federal Zone:
The law of presumption has made it possible for the federal
government to impose income taxes on individuals who had no tax
liability in the first place. The regulations which promulgate
the Internal Revenue Code make it very clear that all aliens are
presumed to be nonresident aliens because of their "alienage",
that is, because of their status as aliens from birth. However,
through their own ignorance, in combination with a systematic and
constructive fraud perpetrated upon them by the federal
government, nonresident aliens may have filed 1040 forms in the
past, in the mistaken belief they were required to do so, when
they were not required to do so.
The receipt of these forms, signed under U.S.** penalties of
perjury, entitles the federal government to presume that
nonresident aliens have "elected" to be treated as residents
and/or they have volunteered to be treated as taxpayers. A
completed, signed and submitted 1040 or 1040A form is a
voluntarily executed commercial agreement which can be used as
prima facie evidence, in criminal trials and civil proceedings,
to show that nonresident aliens have voluntarily subjected
themselves to the federal income tax. This presumption was
described in a decision of the United States** Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit, in the 1974 ruling of Morse vs U.S. which
stated:
Accordingly, when returns were filed in Mrs. Morse's name
declaring income to her for 1944 to 1945, and making her
potentially liable for the tax due on that income, she
became a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue
Code.
[Morse vs United States, 494 F.2d 876,880]
[emphasis added]
Within the borders of the 50 States, the "geographical"
extent of exclusive federal jurisdiction is confined to the
federal enclaves; this extent does not encompass the 50 States
themselves. We cannot blame the average American for failing to
appreciate this subtlety, particularly when officials in Congress
and elsewhere in the federal government have been guilty of
constructive as well as actual fraud ever since the year 1913.
Not only are the key definitions of "State" and "United States"
confusing and vague; the term "income" isn't even defined in the
statute or its regulations, and neither is its "intent".
Close examination of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code
(IRC), reveals that the meaning of "income" is simply not
defined, period! There is an important reason in law why this is
the case. At a time when the U.S. Supreme Court did not enjoy
the benefit of 17,000 State-certified documents which prove it
was never ratified, that Court assumed that the 16th Amendment
was the supreme law of the land. In what is arguably one of the
most important rulings on the definition of "income", the Supreme
Page 14 - 4 of 8
Conclusions
Court of the United States has clearly instructed Congress that
it is essential to distinguish between what is and what is not
"income", and to apply that distinction according to truth and
substance, without regard to form. In that instruction, the high
Court has told Congress it has absolutely no power to define
"income" by any definition it may adopt, because that term was
considered by the Court to be a part of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the
matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the
Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to
legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can
be lawfully exercised.
[Eisner vs Macomber, 252 US 189]
[emphasis added]
Clearly, the Internal Revenue Code has not distinguished
between what is, and what is not income. To do so would be an
exercise of power which Congress has been told, in clear and
certain terms, it simply does not have. This is a Catch-22 from
which the Congress cannot escape, without officially admitting
that the 16th Amendment is not law. Congress either defines
income by statute, and thereby exercises a power which it does
not have, or it fails to define income, thereby rendering whole
chunks of the Internal Revenue Code null and void for vagueness.
If it argues that the word "income" is not really in the
Constitution after all, because the 16th Amendment was never
ratified, Congress will admit the amendment is null and void.
The confusion that results from the vagueness we observe in
Title 26 is inherent in the statute and evidently intentional,
which raises some very serious questions concerning the real
intent of that statute in the first place. The hired lawyers who
wrote this stuff should have known better than to use terms that
have a long history of semantic confusion. For this reason, and
for this reason alone, I am now convinced that the confusion is
inherent in the language chosen by these hired "guns" and is
therefore deliberate. Could money have anything to do with it?
You bet it does.
It is clear that there is a huge difference between the area
enclosed by the federal zone, and the area enclosed by the 50
States of the Union. No one will deny that money is a powerful
motivation for all of us. Congress had literally trillions of
dollars to gain by convincing most Americans that they were
inside its revenue base when, in fact, most Americans were
outside its revenue base, and remain outside even today. This is
deception on a grand scale, and the proof of this deception is
found in the statute itself and its various amendments over time.
Page 14 - 5 of 8
The Federal Zone:
It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted definitions
of terms like "State" and "United States" do unlock a huge
statute, a mountain of regulations, and a pile of forms,
instructions and publications that are all horribly complex, and
deliberately so. As fate would have it, these carefully crafted
definitions also expose perhaps the greatest fiscal fraud that
has ever been perpetrated upon any people at any time in the
history of the world.
It is now time for a shift in the wind. Let justice
prevail. Let no man or woman be penalized from the oppression
that results from arbitrary enforcement of vague and ambiguous
statutes that benefit the few and injure the many. The
Constitution for the United States of America guarantees our
fundamental right to ignore vague and ambiguous laws because they
violate the 6th Amendment. This is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Unlike other governments elsewhere on the globe, and down through
the ages, the federal government of the United States of America
is not empowered to be arbitrary.
In the long history of the world, only a few generations
have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour
of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility
-- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would
exchange places with any other people or any other
generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we
bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who
serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the
world.
[President John Fitzgerald Kennedy]
[Inaugural Address, January 1961]
# # #
Page 14 - 6 of 8
Conclusions
Reader's Notes:
Page 14 - 7 of 8
The Federal Zone:
Reader's Notes:
Page 14 - 8 of 8
