Sunday, November 22, 2009

How Many United States are there


“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.  For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”
            Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Hello again world; welcome to my fifth blog; the fifth in my educational series to you!

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable".
James Garfield 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President

It is an established fact that the US Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719) declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent…the US Federal Government exists today in name only.”
Congressmen James Traficant, Jr (Quoting from the Congressional Record of March 17th 1993 (Vol. 33, pages H-1303))


So just how many United States are there?

At least Three [3].  The Constitutional one, the Federal Government, and a Corporation named the United States.

About seven billion people think there is only one United States.  Throughout all of my school years, every government and history teacher and professor I studied under stated that we lived in one unique country called the United States of America.  How could I believe anything different, as this is what I had been taught!  I believed this until just after commencing my research of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service.  There are some clues that tell us there is more than one, but then again if you don’t know what to look for, how to read between the lines, are not trained in the law, then you would not expect but one United States, and you wouldn’t have any reason to think otherwise!  However, there are a few constitutional and tax attorneys that know the difference, and is the reason why they win their legal cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, which you also never heard about in the national or local newspapers!

Let me state prior to commencing this blog that what I put up on my blog now, is a compilation of my own independent research as well as much research from other writings presented by a number of historians, legal experts, economic authors who are the REAL hero’s of this Republic, who have taken a chance by exposing much of this in various ‘underground’ writings. Some of these hero’s are in federal prison, albeit for the reason that they also did not fully understand the law, and acted upon their limited knowledge.  I am no hero, and I am compelled to present this information to you for your “understanding” of some of the laws imposed to this Republic by the Congress and the court system.  I love this Republic, and even if I am only a U.S. citizen with limited legislated rights under Title 8, and the 14th Amendment.  I, like many other writers, am doing this for ALL of us who live in this great united nation of 50 Republics, and who want to keep it a great united nation. 

In that we U.S. [federal] citizens have been mislead into believing that we have equal rights, it is a personal goal of mine to have all U.S. citizens declared to be given equal and inalienable rights just as a natural born sovereign American Citizen by the Congress. If U.S. citizens can give their life for this Republic during war, then they deserve equal status to that of the Sovereign American Citizen.  To do this however, would require massive disclosure on the part of the Congress and Federal Government and it really saddens in coming to a conclusion that we have been deliberately misled to by our own government officials, who choose not to correct the difference.  I will write more of the Sovereign Citizen in a future blog, distinguishing between the five distinct classes of citizenship [2 classes of citizens and 3 American Nationals].  Again, everything I write is verifiable through the legal Court decisions at the highest level, the federal Income Tax Act, and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and all throughout the 50 titles in the land.  You can Google “U.S. Titles and codes,” click on any number of website to view the federal laws of the land, however, not all of them pertain to the Constitutional united States of America [the 50 states] as they lack the appropriate enabling clause, and are thus not positive law, such as Title 26 Federal Income Tax [another BIG clue here, folks].

In a letter written in 1953 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall [then general council for the NAACP] to Dr. Alfred H. Kelly, a professor of history at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, he wrote; “It is self-evident that the Congress, in writing the equal protection clause into the Constitution [The 14th Amendment], had not intended to destroy legalized segregation.” Marshall went on to write “I was facing the deadly opposition between my professional integrity as a historian and a contemporary question of values, of ideals, of policy, of partisanship and of political objectives.  I suppose if a man is without scruples this matter would not bother him, but I am frank to say that this bothered me terribly.  The problem we faced was not the historian’s discovery of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; the problem instead was the formulation of an adequate gloss.  It is not that we were engaged in formulating lies; there was nothing as crude and na├»ve as that.  But we were using facts, emphasizing facts, and above all, interpreting facts in a way to…’get by.  I am convinced that this interpretation, which we hammered out with anything but historical truth as our objective, nonetheless contains an essential measure of historical truth.”  Did you grasp the staggering implications of this amazing confession?

I am 60 years old, having been born in Mexico, brought to the California Republic  [notice I didn’t say State] by my newly adoptive parents due to my birth defect complications, just two weeks after my birth, and at age 18 having lived in California all my life up until then, become a naturalized citizen of The United States [federal] under Title 8 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration, and NOT the united States of America.  I felt so privileged to be living in America, in the California Republic, the greatest land in the world where one could become anything they wanted to be. [Google California Republic for more information on California Republic]

For many years after I became a naturalized citizen, I believed I was an American Citizen and thought that the U.S. citizen and American Citizen were synonymous, just as anyone else would as well.  Why would a person expect it not to be such?  Well, the two terms are not equal! 

If you have a U.S. Passport, did you ever stop to read the wording inside the passport and come across the statement concerning “the citizen /national?”  Did you ever stop to think what was meant by the term national?  I bet not.  After you read this entire blog, you will come to the conclusion that citizen and national are not the same, even thought they [Federal Government] try and make it appear they are.  Take a look at your passport, open it and somewhere within the first or second page you will see the logo of the United States and just below it, a message from the Secretary of State, and just below this you will find the message.  If you Google “citizen/national on U.S. passport” you will arrive at a web page with many links.  Click on a few to see the confusing answers given, especially by the U.S. Department of State, quoting the Immigration and Naturalization Act.  As I noted above, I will write more about this in a later blog.

            As I wrote in my third and fourth blogs, the Congress serves two masters; the Federal Government, a foreign country to the American Constitution, and the American Constitution, which covers the 50 states.  Note the distinction that the Constitution does NOT cover the Federal Government, which is a separate and distinct country, each having it’s own citizenry.  And within the federal government, there is a corporate United States as created by the Congress.  Below are two Supreme Court decisions noting that there are two distinct and separate United States.

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23L. Ed 588:  We have in our political system [two governments] a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several [50 states].  Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own…”

In 1945, the United States Supreme Court rendered the following definitive decision concerning the definition of “United States,” once and for all!

(1945) Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt 324 U.S. 652:  The Supreme Court affirmed that there are two [2] distinctly different United States with two opposite forms of governments.  Both United States have the same Congress.  This Supreme Court case officially defined the two distinct and separate meanings of the term “United States.”  The Supreme Court ruled that the Hooven case would be the last time it would address “official definitions” of the term “United States.”  As a result, the entire American legal community, by this decision must take judicial notice of the Hooven case.  The Hooven decision is also the basis for the definitions of “United States” found in the Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.

The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses:

1)     It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations [i.e., Japan, England, France, Spain, etc.]
2)     It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends [i.e., Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.] or
3)     It may be the collective names of the states, which are united by and under the Constitution. [i.e., the 50 sovereign states of the Union]

Even though the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power as covered in my prior blog, the Government re-enacted virtually the same Income Tax the Supreme Court previously found to be constitutional, HOWEVER, limited to it’s federal jurisdiction.  How did the Congress succeed in passing an Act that was blatantly contrary to the apportionment clause of our Constitution?  How did they take away our “gold certificates” which are constitutionally the only lawful money for the 50 states?  How did the Congress pass the myriad of codes delegating themselves powers, and creating agencies, never delegated to them by the Sovereign People in the Constitution? They did it by enacting laws that pertained ONLY to the Federal United States of America, and not the several states covered under the Constitution…and never told the American public the difference.

In the biggest quasi-legal maneuver ever perpetrated against the American people, the Congress utilized a loophole in our Constitution, allowing them to legislate for a class of citizens born and living in “territories” over which the Constitutional United States is Sovereign, without Constitutional restrictions.  These are “territories” such as Washington D.C. (which is not one of the 50 states), Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, but NOT the 50 states.  They called these citizens subjects, “citizens of the United States subject to its jurisdiction thereof.”  They then mislead the Citizens of the 50 states into believing and then claiming to be such citizens.

The 3rd Hooven “United States” definition as noted above is, “these united States of America,” which consists of the 50 sovereign states in America, united under one Constitution.  Remember, the original “united States” was and is not a Title but a description phrase.  The Constitution did not create another classification of citizenship.  A “Citizen of the United States” was merely another way of saying “Citizen of the several states.”  There were not two separate classes of citizenship; they were one and the same.  The Citizens of the several States were and are separate contiguous nations under 50 separate sovereign governments foreign to the other.  At the same time were and freely associated compact States sharing the very same sovereign privileges and immunities.  The compact binding and uniting the 50 states is our Constitution.  Article 4, Sec. 2, Cl. 1 states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States.”

With this, lets then get into some clever definitions of the United States as found in federal law, the United States Code [USC], Title 26 Federal Income Tax, section 7701.  Again, there are 50 titles [federal laws] of which title 26 is the Federal Income Tax.  Mind you, these terms as well as a number of others are in the tax code, there for our reading and reference so one cannot state that these terms have been hidden.  But really now, they have been hidden from you, for who really reads these codes, except tax lawyers!  Besides, have you ever seen the Internal Revenue Code [IRC] manual and the enforcing U.S. Code of Federal Regulations to the IRC manual?  I have a complete set, and combined, you are looking at thousands upon thousands of pages!  The IRC manual alone has 9,514 pages!  The five manuals of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, when combined have a total of 150,523 pages for your leisurely reading.

In 26 USC § 7701(a) (9) United States.  The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes [limited to] only the [federal] States [of the “United States”] and the District of Columbia.

            Remember again that the word “includes” is not inclusive and actually means “limited to.”  Therefore, when this term is used within the context of the sentence, it is literally excluding all others and limiting it to what is noted in the text.  To prove this, we will refer again to Title 26 of the United States Code, Section 7701 below:

26 USC §7701 (29) (c): Includes and Including.  The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title [title 26] shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

For example, if there was an IRS Regulation that stated, “There is hereby imposed a tax on all types of fruits including apples, oranges and peaches,” that definition might be expanded to also include plums and pears but it certainly could not be expanded to include radishes and corn which are not within the meaning of the term defined, fruit.  To avoid vagueness in statutory construction, if the meaning of the term is “expansive” rather than “inclusive,” the words, “including, but not limited to” are generally used.

Treasury Definition 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words “includes” and “including” as: “(1) to comprise, comprehend, embrace…  (2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.  It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”

Can you see why really good lawyers earn their money from their clients, but as well, know the truth and don’t say anything?

Then in the next subsection of 7701 in Title 26, we have the following concerning the definition of State.

26 USC § 7701(a) (10) State.  The term “State” shall be construed to include [limited to] the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.  Also see: 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c)(9), 6103(b)(5), and 7462 for code sections that include the union states.

Notice how the federal government has cleverly defined the term “State” to mean the District of Columbia and other federal territories, and then use it within their definition of the “United States.”  The “States” of the “United States” are NOT the 50 States of the United States of America.  Legal definitions of otherwise generic terms rarely have anything in common with conversational understanding.  In federal law, the term “United States” does NOT mean the 50 States.  Places like Sacramento and Portland are not inside the “United States,” and not inside a federal “State,” but inside the Sovereign 50 States.

When Alaska became a Union State in January 1959 the federal code definitions of “State” had to be changed to:
Sec. 22(a)…and sections 3121(e)(1), 3306(j), 4221(d)(4), and 4233(b) of such code (all relating to definitions of a “State”) are amended by striking out ‘Alaska.’

The same definitions of “State” had to be amended yet again when Hawaii joined the Union in August.  Obviously, if the federal term “State” really meant the Union States, then it would never have been amended to exclude Alaska and Hawaii when they became Union States.

Consider this; The President may, under Title 26 USC §7621(b):…subdivide any [federal] State or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one district two or more [federal] States.  If the Internal Revenue Code [IRC] actually meant that the President could subdivide any of the 50 Union States, then it would be in violation of the Constitution (IV:3:1), which says:

…no new [Union] State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other [Union] State; nor any [Union] State by formed by the Junction of two or more [Union] States, or Parts of [Union] States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the [Union] States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Internal Revenue Code is not unconstitutional on this point, as it refers merely to federal “States.”

Remember, unless actually specified to the contrary, the Internal Revenue Code terms “State” and “United States” mean federal territory only.

When referring back to the Income Tax Act of 1913:

Income Tax Act of 1913:  [This Act expressly directs that]…the word ‘State’ or ‘United States’ when used in this section shall be construed to include [limited to] any [federal] Territory, Alaska (not a Union State in 1913), the District of Colombia, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands…

Then we have in the following case:

Cooper v. Galbraith, 6 Fed. Cas. 472, 473 (1819):  “If a citizen of one state thinks proper to change his domicile and to remove with his family, if he have one, to another state, with bona fide intention to reside there, he becomes instantly a citizen of that state.”
The second, very different “United States” definition referred to in the Hooven decision does not include the 50 states but is a “term” for a “Territorial” United States.  In the Constitution, the federal government was given the power to set up a “seat of government” over which it exercised “exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever.”  This exclusive Territory was created and limited by Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 of our Constitution.  Notice below where the exclusive jurisdiction of this United States ends.

Constitution for the United States, Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 17:  “The Congress shall have the power…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, [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places [federal enclaves] 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…”
Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl.2:  “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory of 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.”

The jurisdictional area of this United States is limited to only the District of Columbia (not exceeding ten miles square) and the Possessions and Territories (i.e., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.) belonging to and under the exclusive Sovereignty of the United States.  This United States does NOT include the 50 states, except for lands which were specifically ceded to the United States for purposes such as setting up military bases, federal buildings, etc.  The 50 sovereign states DO NOT belong to the United States; they belong to the Sovereign People [I will cover Sovereign people in another blog].  In the territorial States (but not in the 50 states) the United States is Sovereign and exercises exclusive and absolute legislative authority. 

This “other” United States is a corporate entity with the deceptive “trade names” of “The United States,” “The United States of America” and the “U.S.”  The following are areas which are under territorial United States jurisdiction: 1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico, 3) U.S. Virgin Islands, 4) Guam, 5) Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 6) American Samoa, and 7) Northern Mariana Islands.  Also belonging to the United States are enclaves, which are portions of land which the 50 states have ceded to the federal government for the “erection of forts, magazines arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings” (i.e. military bases within the 50 states) and instrumentality’s (agencies and organizations) of the United States Government.

The National United States Government legislates for these Territories and Possessions without Constitutional restrictions.  The Federal government legislates for the 50 states BUT ONLY in those matters “We the People” have specifically delegated to it by our Constitution.  It is imperative to distinguish between the National Government and the federal government; otherwise the Citizen of the 50 sovereign states may unwittingly acquiesce to legislation that is not applicable to them.  There is some confusion, however, because the National United States, misleadingly, uses the word “Federal” in the title of many of its “national” agencies.

Ok, so you noticed above that I wrote that the “other” United States is a corporate entity?  Well, in the following U.S. Supreme Court decision;

Affirmed in U.S. v. Perkins 163 U.S. 625:  19 CJS §884:  The United States Government is a foreign corporation with respect to a STATE” In Re: Merriams’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479.

What this means is that each of the 50 states is foreign to the other, and the United States Government is a foreign country with respect to the 50 states.  This is why gambling is legal in Nevada, but not in Utah.  It is also why if a criminal commits a felony in one state and flees to another, he or she must be extradited back to the state where the crime was committed.  That is the only state that has jurisdiction over that person.  Just as a state has a particular territory over which it may exercise its exclusive jurisdictional authority, the [District] United States also has a particular territory over which it exercises its exclusive jurisdiction.  This territory was previously defined in Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the Constitution.  This territory does not include the 50 states.  When referring to this [District] United States, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term “WITHIN” the United States.   When referring to the 50 sovereign states, the Internal Revenue Code uses the term “WITHOUT” the United States. (Title 26 §861 Subchapter N—Tax based on Income from Sources Within or Without the United States).

            Recall in my prior blog how sources of income “within” and “without” had been so confusing to many people, and some who tried to avoid paying their income taxes, ran afoul of this section by not understanding it properly.  This requires more explanation but I think you get the scope of the message.

C.J.S. §2, United States, Nature, paragraph 2.  The [District] United States, according to CJS §2, is not a place but a “body politic” and “body corporate.”  When the United States enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.” 

According to C.J.S. §1785, federal corporations that are created under Constitutional Authority, under the Laws of the United States of America, are not foreign corporations within the states of the Union.  However, “…where congress creates a corporation merely by virtue of its authority to legislate for a particular territory, and not by a general act, that corporation is a foreign one in any state or territory other than that [in which] it was created.”  C.J.S. §1786 states, “A corporation created by or under an act of a territorial legislature is not a federal corporation but a corporation of the territory and it has the status of a foreign corporation in every other state and territory.”

The most significant Foreign Corporation created under the United States’ powers of territorial legislation is a Corporation, foreign to the 50 states, is named the “United States Government.”  The words are capitalized because as a corporation, it is a “proper noun.”  This Government is foreign to the 50 states and operates under legislative absolutism.  Here, the [National] United States Government is Sovereign and its citizens are “subjectto its jurisdiction.  The government for the 50 states is a small “g” government where the People are Sovereign and our government may only assume such powers as we specifically delegate to it, for the purpose of securing our general well being, our happiness, liberty, property and other Rights.  The Citizens of the 50 states have no more duty to obey the National “United States Government” and legislation created for citizens subject to its jurisdiction, than they have for obeying the laws of the Polish Government.

In a “loophole” big enough that it would be used to try and hang America, the Supreme Court ruled that, “Congress may disregard the Constitution when legislating for the ‘other’ United States.”  The Hooven Court ruled that when Congress legislates for the possession and territories “belonging to” the United States, because of “exclusivity clause” in the Constitution, it could ignore and disregard the protections and Rights afforded the Citizens of the 50 sovereign states by the Constitution.  See the abbreviated wording in the Hooven Supreme Court decision below.

Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 674:  “In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting territory belong to the United States, Congress {under Art. I, §8, Cl. 17 and Art. IV §3, Cl. 2. of the Constitution} is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for the United States {the 50 states}.”
The Hooven decision [Hooven v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 674] was actually upholding an earlier Supreme Court decision.  In 1901 the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, was brought before the Supreme Court.  The question put before the court was whether Puerto Rico, the recently acquired insular territory of the United States, and other territories and possessions under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, were subject to the same Constitutional protections of the States of the Union.  In a 5-4 decision that would negatively change the course of American history, the court ruled it did not.

The sovereign [50] states are NOT territories, belonging to the United States and have full constitutional rights!

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.  Territory:  “A part of the country separated from the rest and subject to a particular jurisdiction.  A portion of the country subject to and belonging to the United States which is not within the boundary of any state or the District of Columbia.  262 U.S. 122; 3 Wheat 336, 390…The United States has supreme sovereignty over a territory, [i.e., Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands] and congress has full and complete legislative authority over its people and government 136 U.S. 1…In Relation to the United States:  “It is held as a well-established doctrine that the territories of the United States are entirely subject to the legislative authority of congress.  They are not organized under the constitution, nor subject to its complex distribution of powers of government as the organic law, but are a creation, exclusively of the legislative department, and subject to its [Congress] supervision and control…”  96 Fed. Rep. 456, citing16 How. 1 Kent, 243, 359, 1 Pet. 511164; 101 U.S. 129; 114 U.S. 15; 136 U.S. 1; 143 U.S. 135; 141 U.S. 174; 152 U.S. 1.

Black’s 6th Law Dictionary.  Territory:  “A portion of the United States, not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial officers appointed by the President.  See trust territory.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary.  Territory:  1. “A geographical region over which a nation exercises sovereignty, but whose inhabitants do not enjoy political, social, or legal parity with the inhabitants of other regions which are constitutional components of the nation.  With respect for the United States, for example, Guam or the Virgin Islands as opposed to New York, California or Texas.”

In discussing the U.S. Supreme Court case of Downes v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244. May 27, 1901, Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan, in the most eloquently expressed dissenting opinion, supported equal Constitutional protections for all territories and possessions of the United States, in the same manner that the 50 states are protected.  Following are excerpts from that opinion, along with Harlan’s accurate predictions of the consequences of that decision:

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244:  The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to…I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result.  We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism…IT WILL BE AN EVIL DAY FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY IF THE THEORY OF A GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAW FINDS LODGMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE.  No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.

Justice Harlan’s extremely prudent advice was ignored and his prediction of a “radical and mischievous change in our system” because of this ruling was right on target! 

This dual United States ruling is the root of the Internal Revenue Service; the Federal Reserve System, with its subsequent ‘taking’ of our gold and silver, and the many other unjust federal agencies that have abused American Rights confiscated their property, and strangled them with red-tape.  A government established to protect the happiness of American people has become the root of their misery and the worst abusers of Rights it was established to protect.

Because of this ruling, Congress has been able to circumvent the Constitution for the united States of America as follows:

1)     The United States Government legally creates legislation, which may be unconstitutional for the 50 states, under the authority and guise of legislating for the citizens and residents of the territories and possessions “belonging to” the United States, over which the United States has exclusive authority.
2)     Such federal legislation is made applicable only to the citizens born and residing in Territories, possessions, instrumentality’s and enclaves under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.  These “individuals” are called “U.S. citizens, or “citizens of the United States, subject to its jurisdiction” in such legislation.  The average American, of course, believes he or she is such a citizen (because it was never disclosed to them that our Congress legislates for two different types of citizens).  Because that American has respect for the law, he or she voluntarily consents to obey this legislation that is contrary to the Constitution.

With what I have included above, can you see that THE Congress has always been “AWARE” of their legislation for both masters without regard for informing the public where the jurisdiction lies and ends!

Again, this particular topic on citizenship[s] is extremely complicated and quite convoluted [by intent] for easy understanding.  To write more about this one particular topic would take a book by itself.  And as written in prior blogs, all that is written is verifiable in the law as I have noted above.

DISCLAIMER            DISCLAIMER            DISCLAIMER            DISCLAIMER

            Again, all this information provided is for your education and only to be considered as such.  I am not recommending or suggesting to any person to NOT file and pay their federal and state income taxes every year!  You will file your federal and state income tax, and be satisfied in knowing the truth.

            In future blogs, I will write about the Sovereign state, the Sovereign Citizen, the 14th Amendment citizen and Title 8, the U.S. Federal Reserve [Nothing federal about it], Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty Law, and many more topics.

            Keep reading, do your own independent research and be a Patriot!  I love this Republic.  This united States of America has its faults, but it is the best we have on this planet, and it can sure be much better, with our help.  There is still time…



Monday, November 2, 2009

The Lawful Meaning of the word "Income"


“Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.  For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.”
            Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas

Hello again world; welcome to my fourth blog; the fourth in my educational series to you!

"The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable".
James Garfield 1831-1881, 20th U.S. President

"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election... It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!" 
George W. Malone (1890-1961) U.S. Senator (Nevada) 1957 - Source: speaking before Congress

The Lawful Meaning of The Word “Income”

Ok, so in my last blog I wrote about what Compensation really is, according to the law.  I am now going to write about the lawful meaning of the word “Income.”   That’s right, it’s not my opinion, what I think, what my neighbor thinks, what my boss thinks, what you think.  It’s about what the law states what income is; something that somehow, just never got conveyed to you, “John Q. Public,” by our legal system.

You should now be starting to draw a picture of just how much you, the public, have been left out in the cold regarding important issues pertaining to you.  Kind of tells you what the legal profession, Judiciary, Congress, White House are all about, along with the media not doing their job of reporting these critical issues to you, wouldn’t you say?

Let’s get started.  In the U.S. Supreme Court case below, this case distinguished what was and was not income.

Eisner vs. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189:  “…it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not “income,” according to truth and substance, without regard to form.  Congress cannot, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation, alter the Constitution, from which it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations, along, that power can be lawfully exercised…”’…[Income is] Derived—from—capital—the—gain—derived—from—capital, etc.

Summary:

This was the most significant Supreme Court case to define the word “income.”  Here we have the essential matter—not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investments, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value…severed from the 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…”

It is relevant to note that, nowhere in the entire Internal Revenue Code or the implementing Code of Federal Regulations [CFR-5 massive volumes], is the word “income” defined.  The tax liability is based upon “taxable income.”  Taxable income is “Gross income” minus allowable deductions. You must have “gross income” to have “taxable income.”  Compensation for labor [see prior blog] earned in private occupations of common right, may be excluded from “gross income.”  Only compensation for services as a public [government] servant is calculated in “gross income.” [Again, only government workers]

The word “income” by itself is restricted to its true meaning.  In well settled decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled that the ACTUAL meaning of the word “income” is only “gains and profits severed from capital.”  The capital, if taxable, is still subject to the constitution rules of apportionment.  Any profit earned through the investment or sale of capital assets or property would result in a gain that could be defined as “income” after it was severed or separated from the capital.

Moving along to the next U.S. Supreme Court case where the government tries to sneak in ALL RECEIPTS as income, which was rejected by the Supreme Court.

Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 330:  “…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of income, it imports something entirely distinct from principal 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 activitiesWe must reject in this case…the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts, everything that comes in – are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income’…”

And now we come to the next U.S. Supreme Court case where income is a profit, gained through a sale or conversion of a capital asset. Note in the last sentence where the Justices gave the benefit of the doubt to the writers of the 16th Amendment, that it MUST have been in their minds about gains and profits being income!  They didn’t want to state that it was the intent of the writers of the amendment to bypass the Constitution in taxing the American Citizenry.

Merchants Loan & Trust Co. vs. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518, 519 (1923):  “…it [income] should include ‘profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.’ 
There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the
same meaning, in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress, that it was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by 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 is believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the terms [“gains and profits”] which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution…”

            So, Income, as defined by the Supreme Court means, “gains and profits as a result of corporate activity and profit, gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets.”  It’s a business profit; and not wages or compensation!

To add insult to injury to the Internal Revenue Service, here is another U.S. Supreme Court decision, which addresses the word “gain.”  Income is in every day sense a GAIN!

Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg 1191:  “[1]…The meaning of income in its everyday sense is a gain…the amount of such gain recovered by an individual is a given period of time.”  Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 425 “Income is nothing more or less than realized gain.”  Shuster V. Helvering, 121 F.2d 643 (2nd Cir. 1941).  It[income] is not synonymous with receipts.”  “47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue §98, p. 226.”
“[2] Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient.  This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. McComber (supra), it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is true under section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.  If there is no gain, there is no income.”

            Oh my gosh!  If there is no gain then there is no income?  How come I didn’t read about this in the newspapers?  And what; here is another case that goes to the Supreme Court that further elucidates on the words income and gain.

Taft v. Bowers, N.Y. 1929, 49 S. Ct. 199, 278
Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470, 73 L. Ed. 460: “The meaning of “income” in this amendment is the gain derived from or through the sale or conversion of capital assets: from labor or from both combined; not a gain accruing to capital, or growth or increment of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however employed and coming in or being “derived,” that is, received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and disposal.  U.S.C.A. Amend 16, Note 64.

Southern Pacific v. Lowe. Federal Register Vol. 238, pg. 850
“…The true function of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits’ is to limit the meaning of the word ‘income’ and to show its use only in the sense of receipts which constituted an accretion to capital.  So the function of the word ‘income’ should be to limit the meaning of the words ‘gains’ and ‘profits.’

Eisner v. Macomber, N.Y. 1929, 40 S.Ct. 189
Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521
Walsh v. Brewster, Conn. 1921 41 S.Ct. 392
Walsh v. Brewster 255 U.S. 536, 65 L.Ed. 762
“The word ‘income’ as used in this [16th] amendment does not include a stock dividend, since such a dividend is capital and not income and cannot be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states in accordance with Article 1 Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.”

And now we have the Congressional Record.  Just what is the Congressional Record?  Well, if you Google and search the term, you will get a number of hits, which you can click any one to get a description of what it is, but basically, it is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress.  Please note that even when this was debated in Congress, they already knew what income was, and wasn’t, but again this somehow was just never conveyed to you, the public.

1913 Congressional Record, pg. 3843, 3844: Senator Albert B. Cummins:
“I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we [Congress] can not legislatively interpret the meaning of the word ‘income.’  That is a purely judicial matter…the word ‘income’ has a well-defined meaning before the amendment of the Constitution was adopted.  It has been defined in all of the courts of this country [as gains and profits]…If we could call anything that we pleased, income, we could obliterate all the distinction between income and principal.  The Congress can not affect the meaning of the word ‘income’ by any legislation whatsoever…Obviously the people of this country did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment.”

            Apportionment?  Just what does that mean?  I will cover this in another blog, but quickly, it means that the people of this land can only be taxed after a census has been taken of the population, and that the tax levied EQUALLY to every person in the land.  Notice that the U.S. Constitution never said anything about a graduated tax scale!  You will find this in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

            Here are just a few more tidbits for your reading, and of course the last item here refers to the United State Code, Title 26 going back to 1954 wherein the code states that if there is no gain, then there is no income!  They don’t hide it from you, folks because it’ in plain sight; they just don’t tell you about it!  So guess what, it’s up to you to read and find out about it.

Congressional Globe, 37th Congress 2nd Session, pg. 1531:  “The words ‘gains’ and ‘income’ mean the same thing.  They are equivalent terms…”

26 U.S.C.A. ’54 §61(a):  “Under Internal Revenue Code of 1954, [and all other codes] if there is no gain, there is no “income.”

            In my next blog I will write about the United States and just how many of them there are.  Yes, there is more than one!  Down the road, I will write about the Titles of the land, what Positive and Non-Positive law is about, the Sovereignty of the state, Sovereignty of the American Citizen [not to be confused with U.S. citizen], Uniform Commercial Code, Admiralty Law, California Income Tax Law, The Republic versus Democracy, legal definition of money [not currency] and more.  Just more confusion for you to consider, and why you just can’t figure why things are the way they are, but it’s all in the law!

One last thing: I get tired of listening to people talking about America being a Democracy.  It is NOT.  Did you forget what you learned in school?  These several states were founded as a Republic.  Recall the pledge of allegiance [or has that now been outlawed] “I pledge allegiance to the Flag…and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands...”  Democracy is rule by a mob, and is the first step towards Socialism.  Check it out for yourself!

Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer            Disclaimer

            Again folks, the information provided to you above is for educational purposes, and is not an endorsement for you NOT to pay your federal and state income taxes!  You WILL file your income tax returns gladly, and know how much you have learned about your Constitution, the law, and the Congress.  From here on end, it’s up to you, but do you get the feeling that you are being screwed from every angle, from professions and institutions you came to trust?  It’s all about the money, honey; taking more and more money out of your pocket, making your poorer and poorer and ultimately subservient to the government in totality.  In other words: a slave, and after all, the best-kept slave is the one who doesn’t know he/she is a slave.  Those whom we elected to run the government have now become the Kings, Lords, Prince and Princess’s, Dukes and so forth.  It’s all in their strategically planned goal for us common folk.

Keep reading, do your independent research and continue to learn more about what has been kept from you!  The truth cannot hurt you; only your closed mind can.

Until my next blog…