Table of Contents

Patriot's Field Guide Public Disclaimer..........................................1

What is the Patriot Movement?.......................................................2
Groups within the Patriot Movement..............................................3
The Law...........................................................................................5
Constitutions..................................................................................16
Citizenship.....................................................................................26
The 14th Amendment Clarified.....................................................35
Constitutional Issues of Taxation...................................................45
Debunking IRS Lies......................................................................59
The United States Code.................................................................68
Code of Federal Regulations.........................................................71
Federal Income Tax.......................................................................76
The “Willful Failure to File” Scam!..............................................88
Employment Taxes........................................................................91
Inside the Tax Honesty Movement: ............................................108
Hard Lessons Learned.................................................................116
Common Mistakes To Watch For................................................119
State Sales Tax.............................................................................121
INS Form I-9...............................................................................127
Trusts...........................................................................................135
The Federal Firearms Act............................................................143
THE MAGNA CARTA...............................................................149
Mayflower Compact : 1620 ........................................................156
Declaration of Independence.......................................................157
The Constitution of the United States..........................................160
Bill of Rights and amendments to the U.S. Constitution............168
Additional Resources found online at the following links:.........178
Watch this FIRST!!!
America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
1
 Patriot's Field Guide Public Disclaimer
5
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
10 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
15 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
20 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
25 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
30 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
35 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
40 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.
45

2
 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
50 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
55 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),
60 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
65 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.

70 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
75 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
80 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.

85

3
 Groups within the Patriot Movement
90
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.
95 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
100 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
105 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
110 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,
115 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/ ]
120
*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
125 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
130 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
135 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
140 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/ ]

145 *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
150 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
155 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”.

160 *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
165 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.

170

175

5
 The Law
[Editor’s Note – This section is not intended to give the reader the tools to fully understand the scope
180 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.]
185
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!
190
“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.

195 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 Law

Equity Law Treaty Law Contract Law
Admiralty/Maritime Federal Law Tax Law
Administrative Law State Law Civil Law
Private Law Municipal Law Criminal Law
Public Law Probate Law Labor Law
International Law Family Law Bankruptcy Law
200
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
205 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.

210

6
 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
215 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
220 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
225 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.

230 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]:

235 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:

240 “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
245 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”,
250 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
255 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
 And here’s the real kicker concerning statutory law:

260 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.
265
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.)

270 Other Important Distinctions

Classifications

Every law that defines an offense falls into one of two categories. The first category is mala in se, and
275 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.

280 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.

285 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
290 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.

295 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.

300

8
 Nature
305
All legal actions fall only within one of two broad categories; civil or criminal.

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 24:

310 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:

315 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:
320
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.
325
An “injury” is defined thusly:

Section 27 - An injury is of two kinds:

1. To the person; and,
330 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.

335 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
340 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.]

345 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
350 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
355 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
360 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
365 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.

370 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.

375 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.
380
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
385 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.

390 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.

395 It is widely theorized by tax law researchers that IRS seizures are all made under Admiralty jurisdiction
10
 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.

400 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).
405
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
410 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.”

415 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
420 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
425 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.
430
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
435 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
440 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
445 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.
450
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.

455 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.
460
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
465 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
470 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?!

475 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.

480 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:
485
12
 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
490 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
495 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
500 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,
505 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.

510 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
515 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

520 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
525 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
530 clear contrary intent by the legislature, the meaning found in these dictionaries is the sole meaning that
must be given to the word.
13
 “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
535 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
540 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
545 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;
550 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
555 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
560 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
565 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))

570 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.

575 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
 Words of Art
580
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”
585 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.
590

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
595 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:
600 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.

605 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
610 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.

615 “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
620 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
 Lawyers
625
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.
630
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
635 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.

640 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
645 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
650 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.

655

660

16
 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
665 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.)

670 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
675
Constitution Defined - § 3 . . .

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

particulars:
680
(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
685 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
690 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 ]
695
(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.
700 757.] 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
705 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
 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
710 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.

715 "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
720 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
725 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
730 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
735 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
740 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
745 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
750 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
 deprive us of our liberty. If the Constitution in question is a Constitution that is operative in America,
755 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
760 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
765 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
770 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.
775
“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
780 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.]
785
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.
790
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
795 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:

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

19
 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
805 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
810 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
815 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.”
820
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
825 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.
830
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
835 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
840 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.
845 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
 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
850 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
855 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.
860

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
865 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
870 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.

875 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:

880 * 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.
885
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.
890
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
 2) To protect a right already understood to exist.
895 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.
900
"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
905 [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.
910
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.

915 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]].
920
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.
925
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.
930
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
935 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
940 place subject to their jurisdiction”. Please note the word that we have emphasized – “their”. This is

22
 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
945 “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
950 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
955 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
960 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)
965
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
970 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
975 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.
980 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
985 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
 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
990 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.
995
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:
1000 “…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”.
1005
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
1010 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?
1015
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
1020 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

1025
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.

1030 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
 Since the Founding Fathers were so thorough as to include the government’s power to suspend habeas
1035 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
1040 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
1045 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
1050 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.
1055
"...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
1060 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

1065 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
1070 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:
1075

HANDBOOK of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. Fourth Edition; West Publishing Company. 1927
1080 THE CONSTITUTION IN TIME OF WAR.

25
 § 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.
1085
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
1090 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
1095 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
1100 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

1105 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
1110 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
1115 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
1120 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
1125 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,
1130 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
1135 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
1140 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
1145 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
1150 “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.

1155 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
1160 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,
1165 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.
1170

27
 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
1175 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
1180 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
1185 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
1190 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
1195 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

1200 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
1205 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
1210 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
1215 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
 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
1220 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.
1225
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.
1230 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
1235 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
1240 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:

1245 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.
1250
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
1255 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.
1260
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
1265 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
1270 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
1275 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.”

1280 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.

1285 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:

1290 “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.”

1295 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
1300 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”.

1305
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.”
1310 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
 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…
1315 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
1320 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
1325 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?
1330
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
1335 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
1340 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,
1345
“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’
1350 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,

1355 “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
 Freedman’s Bureau Act into the Constitutional structure of the nation. Accordingly, the 14th
1360 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
1365 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:
1370
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
1375 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.

1380 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
1385 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:

1390 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
1395 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.

1400

32
 Rights of Citizens of the states of the Union

1405 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
1410 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
1415 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
1420 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”.

1425 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
1430 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."
1435 -- 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!
1440
With these powerful rights in our hands, one might wonder what sort of “rights” are possessed by
“citizens of the United States”.

1445

33
 The Poor Stepchild “citizen”

If the Citizens of the states of the Union have their “unalienable rights”, what then do “citizens of the
1450 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.
1455
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
1460 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:

1465 “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
1470 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
1475 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
1480 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

1485 “…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
1490 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
 made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment,
1495 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
1500 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
1505 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)

1510 "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
1515 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
1520 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
1525 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
1530 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.
1535 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
1540 to care for his servants.

35
 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
1545 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
1550 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
1555 the flowery prose of legal refinement.

History

Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent’s
1560 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
1565 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
1570 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.
1575
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
1580 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.
1585
We will not quote from the Dred Scott decision in this piece, instead preferring that you

36
 read the decision for yourself and then apply the facts, logic, and reason contained below in the
sections labeled, “Truth”.

1590 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.

1595 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
1600 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),
1605 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
1610 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
1615 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
1620 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
1625 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.

1630 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
1635 • 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):

1640 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
1645 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.
1650
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
1655 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:

1660 “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
1665 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.
1670
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.
1675
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….
1680

38
 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
1685 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
1690 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,
1695 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
1700 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.
1705 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:

1710 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
1715 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
1720 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
1725 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
 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,
1730 §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.
1735
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
1740 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
1745 “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
1750 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.

1755 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
1760 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.

1765 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
1770 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
1775 “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
1780 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.
1785
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:
1790
"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
1795 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
1800 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
1805 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
1810 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
1815 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
1820 race”; “the unhappy black race”.

41
 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”.

1825 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).

1830 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
1835 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
1840 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
1845 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
1850 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
1855 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:
1860
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.
1865
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
 The rights granted by the 14th Amendment are still codified to this very day in Title 42 of the United
1870 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
1875 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
1880 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

1885 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
1890 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
1895 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,
1900 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
1905 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.
1910
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
1915 previously been held in slavery, and did not apply to white state Citizens. Field did not like the Court’s

43
 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.
1920 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
1925 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.

1930 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,
1935 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
1940 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
1945 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.

1950 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.

1955 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
1960 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
 “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.
1965
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?

1970 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
1975 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.

1980 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
1985 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.
1990 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
1995 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
2000 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.

2005

45
 Constitutional Issues of Taxation
2010 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
2015 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.
2020
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.
2025
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
2030 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

2035 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
2040 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
2045 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
2050 taxes.

46
 What Does The US Constitution Permit?

The Federal Constitution only permits the government to lay two forms of taxation. One is a “direct
2055 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,
2060 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
2065 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”?

2070 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

2075 [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.

2080 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
2085 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.
2090
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
2095 interchangeably.” American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880

Here is a more detailed definition:

47
 “The obligation to pay an excise is based upon the voluntary action of the person taxed in
2100 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

2105 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)
2110 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
2115 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
2120 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
2125 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.

2130 [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”.]
2135
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.
2140
?? 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
2145
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.

2150 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
2155 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
2160 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
2165 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.

2170 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).

2175 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
2180 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
2185
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
2190 possible only because the 16th Amendment exists.
49
 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
2195 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:

2200 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.
2205
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
2210 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
2215 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
2220 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
2225 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
2230 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
2235 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
 Let’s look at what the various courts have said about “income” and the 16th Amendment:
2240
“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.”
2245 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.
2250
“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.”
2255 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
2260 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
2265 “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!
2270
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
2275 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
2280 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
2285
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.
2290
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
2295 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
2300 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
2305 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?
2310
“[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
2315 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
2320 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
2325 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:
2330
“…I therefore recommend an amendment…imposing on all corporations…an excise tax

52
 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
2335
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
2340 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.
2345
*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.
2350
*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
2355 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
2360 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
2365 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?

2370 “[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
2375 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
 Immediately at the end of that passage from Merchant, the very first citation provided by the Court is,
2380 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
2385 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
2390 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
2395 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.

2400 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.
2405
*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
2410 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.

2415 *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.

2420 *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
2425 *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
2430 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
2435 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
2440 “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!
2445
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
2450 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

2455 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
2460 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
2465 “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
 under subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, acquiring a Taxpayer Identification Number, giving out
2470 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.
2475
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
2480 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
2485 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
2490 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
2495 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.

2500 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

2505
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-
2510 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
2515 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
2520 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
2525 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
2530 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
2535 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
2540 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?

2545
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:

2550 “[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
2555 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
2560 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.

2565 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
2570
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
2575 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
2580 taxation – direct and indirect.

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

2585 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
2590 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
2595 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.
2600
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
2605 must be used when interpreting the 16th Amendment.

58
 10) The 16th Amendment only pertains to “income” in the form of dividends, patronage
dividends, and interest from corporate investment.

2610 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.
2615
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
2620 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.

2625 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.

2630 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
2635 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.

2640 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.

2645 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
2650 the former excise tax to be a direct tax absent apportionment, and thus unconstitutional.

59
 Debunking IRS Lies
The United States government is pretty much in the full-time business of lying. Most of the state
2655 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
2660 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.
2665
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
2670 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
2675 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
2680 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,
2685 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
2690 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
2695 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
 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
2700 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.
2705
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
2710 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
2715 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.

2720 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.

2725 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
2730 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!

2735 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.

2740

61
 Dissecting IRS Sophistry
2745
The following are various written statements made by the IRS, followed by our “debunking” of their
skillfully crafted lies.

IRS Lie #1
2750
“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
2755 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
2760 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
2765 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
2770
“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.”

2775 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
2780 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)
2785
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
2790 Tax to assist you in determining if you are a taxpayer.]
62
 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:

2795 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
2800 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
2805 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

2810 (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.”

2815 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
2820 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.

2825 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.
2830 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
2835 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
 IRS Lie #4

2840 (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
2845 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
2850 Employment Taxes for more on these issues.]

IRS Lie #5

(Under “non-filer frivolous arguments”) – Internal Revenue Code Arguments – “The IRS can only
2855 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:

2860 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.
2865 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
2870 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!
2875
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.”
2880
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
2885 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
2890 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…
2895 what the sneaky little bastards are really saying is, “A domestic trust, that is a taxpayer, must file a
Form 1041…”.

IRS Lie #8

2900 (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
2905 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

2910 (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.
2915
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.
2920
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
2925 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
2930 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
 “deduct” from. Once their con-job is easily recognized it gets old, doesn’t it?

IRS Lie #11

2935
(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.

2940 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”.
2945
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.]
2950
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
2955 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.

2960 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.

2965 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.

2970 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.

2975 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
 Let us pose these questions to you:
2980
* 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,
2985 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
2990 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
2995 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
3000 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
3005 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
3010 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.

3015 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.
3020
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.
3025

67
 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
3030 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.

3035 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.
3040
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
3045 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.

3050 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”.
3055

3060

3065

68
 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.
3070
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.
3075
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.
3080
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”.
3085
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
3090 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/.

3095 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.
3100
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
3105 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
3110 from one or more of the following Constitutional provisions. The jurisdictions sections are listed in
order of frequency of application.

69
 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,
3115 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
3120 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
3125 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
3130 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
3135 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
3140 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
3145 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
3150 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:
3155
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
 Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. Our personal favorite!
3160 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
3165 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
3170 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

3175
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.
3180
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
3185 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
3190 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.

3195 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.

3200 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
 As stated in the opening paragraph, regulations are intended to elaborate on the working details of a
3205 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
3210 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
3215 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
3220 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
3225 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
3230 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.
3235
“… 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)
3240
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.
3245
“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

3250 “The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no duties until implementing

72
 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
3255
“…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)

3260 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
3265 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)

3270 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)

3275 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.
3280
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
3285 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.

3290 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).
3295
There is a numerical relationship between the subject matter in the Titles of both the USC and CFR.
73
 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.
3300 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
3305 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.

3310 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
3315 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
3320 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
3325 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
3330 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-
3335 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]:

3340 Taxes upon individuals Part 1

Estate tax Part 20
Gift tax Part 25
Employment tax Part 31

74
 Taxes on wagering Part 44
3345
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.
3350
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
3355 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
3360
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).

3365 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
3370 Investment Companies.
Part 156 Excise Taxes on Greenmail.

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

3375 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
3380 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
3385 records.

75
3390 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.

3395 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
3400 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
3405 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.
3410
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.
3415 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.
3420 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
3425 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
3430 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
3435 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.
3440
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.
3445 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”.

3450 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
3455 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
3460 into the US Treasury. Within that broad category are:

Income tax
Import duties
Taxes upon certain commodities
3465 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
3470 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.

3475 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
3480 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
3485 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.
3490
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
3495 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
3500 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.

3505 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”.

3510 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
3515 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
3520 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)

3525 As you can see, the IRC does not apply to everyone. Of course we really haven’t resolved anything
78
 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.
3530 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]

3535 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.
3540
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.

3545 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.
3550
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
3555 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:
3560
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,
3565 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.

3570 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
 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;
3575 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:

3580
“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
3585 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.]
3590
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
3595 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.
3600
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
3605 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
3610 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
3615 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
3620 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”
3625 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
3630
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:
3635
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).
3640
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
3645 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.

3650 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
3655 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
3660 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
3665 “unalienable right”, at least as far as taxation is concerned.

81
 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,
3670 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

3675
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,
3680 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
3685 “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
3690 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.
3695
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
3700 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.
3705
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
3710 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
 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
3715 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
3720 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
3725 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.

3730 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
3735 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
3740 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

3745 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
3750 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
3755 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
 to provide an identifying number, and you should not do so; to do so is tantamount to declaring that the
3760 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
3765 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
3770 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

3775 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
3780 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?]

3785 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
3790 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.

3795 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
3800 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."

3805 As you can see, information returns are powerful documents that are misused and misapplied

84
 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
3810 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?

3815 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?
3820 · 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.
3825
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
3830 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
3835 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
3840 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.

3845 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
3850 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
 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
3855 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
3860 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,
3865 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
3870 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
3875 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.

3880 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
3885 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
3890 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
3895 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
 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,
3900 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.

3905 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?
3910 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
3915 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
3920 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
3925 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.

3930 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
3935 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.
3940

87
3945 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
3950 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.

3955 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.
3960
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
3965 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.
3970
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
3975 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
3980 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.
3985
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.
3990

88
 The “Willful Failure to File” Scam!
How many times have you read articles [usually around the first quarter of the year!] concerning people
3995 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
4000 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
4005 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
4010 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
4015 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.
4020
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
4025 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
4030
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
4035 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
 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
4040 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
4045 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!

4050 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
4055 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!
4060
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
4065 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
4070 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
4075 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
4080 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
4085 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
4090 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
4095 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:

4100 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,
4105 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.

4110 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.
4115
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].

4120

4125

4130

91
 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
4135 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
4140 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
4145 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
4150 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
4155 “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
4160 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
4165 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
 Now that we’ve examined the prevailing circumstances, let’s look at the law.
4170
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
4175 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
4180 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,
4185 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’:

4190 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
4195 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
4200 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
4205 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
 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
4210 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
4215 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
4220 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
4225 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)

4230 “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.”
4235 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.”
4240 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).
4245
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
 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
4250 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
4255 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
4260 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’.

4265 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
4270 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,
4275 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
4280 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
4285 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
 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!
4290
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
4295 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
4300 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
4305 impose a tax:

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

4310 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…

4315 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:

4320 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?
4325 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
 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
4330 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.

4335 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''
4340 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).

4345 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,
4350 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.

4355 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
4360 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
4365 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
 at 26 USC 7701(c):

4370 “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
4375 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.

4380 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!
4385 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” are
statutorily defined as people who work for any number of various governmental entities.
4390 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
4395 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
4400 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…

4405 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
 compensation of the employee as and when paid.

4410 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''
4415 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.
4420 (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.
4425 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.

4430 We wish to draw your attention to the fact that chapter 22, the Railroad Retirement Tax
Act:

Clearly “imposes” a tax [§3201(a)]

4435 Clearly defines the “employer” [§3231(a)]

Defines the “employee” [3231(b)]

Clearly lays out the instructions for the tax’s collection mechanism [§3202(a)].
4440
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.

4445 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
 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
4450 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
4455 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
4460 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?

4465 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.

4470 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
4475 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

4480 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…
4485
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
 government workers? We can see no other way to construe the statute – can you?

4490 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…
4495
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!
4500
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
4505 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:
4510
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
4515 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.
4520
So let’s flesh out chapter 24 a bit more:

?? It does not impose any tax.

?? It applies only to wages.
4525 ?? Wages are only earned by an employee.
?? An employee is a person who works for any one of numerous government
entities.

101
 ?? An employer is one who hires any of various government workers.
?? An employer is required to deduct and withhold.
4530
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
4535 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.

4540 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
4545 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
4550 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
4555 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
4560 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.
4565
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
 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
4570 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
4575 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
4580 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?

4585
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!
4590
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
4595 ‘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.
4600
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:

4605 "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
 or business’ with the U.S. Government are not required to file a return under
Subtitle A."
4610
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!

4615 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).

4620 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.
4625 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),
4630 and not for private employers.

We’ve been saying for years that all federal tax forms are only applicable to the
following circumstances:

4635 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).
4640
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
4645 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
 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”.
4650
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.
4655
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
4660 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:

4665 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!

4670 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).
4675
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
4680 “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.

4685
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
 District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as
4690 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
4695 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
4700 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”,
4705 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
4710 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
4715 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
4720 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.
4725
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
 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,
4730 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.

4735 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
4740 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
4745 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
4750
*Subtitle ‘C’, Employment Taxes, covers several different taxes.

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

4755 *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
4760 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.

4765 *26 USC 31(a) reveals that chapter 24 is authorized to withhold only Subtitle ‘A’
taxes.

107
 *If a person has no Subtitle ‘A’ liability, chapter 24 has no authority.

4770 *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)).
4775
*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.

4780 *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.
4785
*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.

4790 *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
4795 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

4800 rebutting these presumptions.

4805

108
 Inside the Tax Honesty Movement:
An Interview with Dave Champion
[Words: 3,836]
4810
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
4815 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
4820 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
4825 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
4830 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
4835 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.
4840
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
4845 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.
4850
BR: What is your view regarding how the U.S. tax law is being administrated?

109
 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
4855 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.
4860
"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;
4865 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
4870 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?

4875 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.
4880
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
4885 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
4890 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
4895 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
4900 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?

4905 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.

4910 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
4915 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).
4920
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
4925 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).

4930 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.

4935 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
4940 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.

4945 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
 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.
4950
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
4955 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
4960 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
4965 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
4970 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.

4975 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
4980 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
4985 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
4990 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
4995 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:
5000
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."
5005
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.
5010
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.

5015 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.
5020
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
5025 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?

5030 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
5035 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
5040 regulation the Secretary only requires the following private-sector persons to provide a Taxpayer

113
 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
5045 business…

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

3. A nonresident alien treated as a resident…

5050
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
5055 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
5060 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
5065 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.

5070 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
5075 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.

5080 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?

5085
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
 platitudes such as "render under Caesar" and other off-point quotes from scripture taken woefully out
of context.
5090
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.
5095
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."

5100 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.

5105 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
5110 your determination.

BR: What advise would you give to someone who wants to proceed with becoming a nontaxpayer
through the legal means?

5115 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
5120 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.
5125
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.

5130 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
5135 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.

5140 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
5145 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
5150 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
5155 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.
5160
If you would like to further study this topic, you can go to the following sites:

http://www.originalintent.org
http://www.nontaxpayer.org
5165 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
5170 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/
5175

116
 Hard Lessons Learned
By Dave Champion
5180 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
5185 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
5190 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
5195 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
5200 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
5205 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
5210 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
5215 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
 is the problem. We can see that simply by looking at the Simkanin case. Judge McBryde tilted the
5220 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,
5225 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
5230 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
5235 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
5240 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
5245 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.
5250 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
5255 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.
5260 People who have only one solution, no matter what the problem.
People who claim to have the "silver bullet" solution.

118
 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
5265 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
5270 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
5275 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.
5280 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,
5285 stay on the narrow path and do not become a victim.
Dave Champion
Nontaxpayer.org

5290

5295

5300

119
 Common Mistakes To Watch For
5305 By Dave Champion
March 2, 2004

Friends, Supporters, and Clients,

5310 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
5315 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
5320 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
5325 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
5330 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
5335 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
5340 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
 because he OBTAINED and USED government TAX NUMBERS to conduct lots of different business
5345 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
5350 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
5355 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
5360 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
5365 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 Champion
Nontaxpayer.org

5370

5375

5380

5385

121
 State Sales Tax
There are few forms of taxation that are more misunderstood than sales tax! We hope this article will
5390 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:
5395
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…”
5400
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.

5405 “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
5410 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.
5415
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.
5420
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
5425 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.

5430
“…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
 The Minnesota statute tells us that there are “persons” who are required to have a resale permit, and
5435 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.

5440 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.
5445
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
5450 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.
5455
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:

5460 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”
5465 (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
5470 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
5475 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
5480 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”.
5485
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.

5490 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
5495 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
5500 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:
5505
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.

5510 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
5515 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
5520 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!

5525 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
 permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to work in this country. [Still not
done!]

5530 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.
5535
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
5540 “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.
5545
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
5550 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
5555 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!
5560
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:
5565
1) Any statutory fiction of law (not exempt by statute).
2) An “individual”.

We have found that “individual” means:

5570
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
5575 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.
5580 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.
5585
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.
5590
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
5595 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]
5600
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.
5605
· 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.]

5610 · 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
5615 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.

5620

126
 Summary

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

5625 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
5630 interference from state.

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

5635 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
5640 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
5645 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.

5650

5655

5660

127
 INS Form I-9
5665
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.
5670
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.
5675
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
5680 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
5685 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
5690 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 –
5695 ‘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.
5700
“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.”
5705 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
5710 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
5715 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.
5720 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.
5725
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
5730 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
5735 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
5740 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.
5745
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.
5750
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
5755 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
 There are several factors that come into play when unwinding the sophistry of 8 USC 1324a, and its
regulations at 8 CFR 274a.
5760
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.
5765
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”?
5770
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
5775 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.

5780 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.

5785 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
5790 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.

5795 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

5800 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
5805 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.
5810 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)
5815 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!
5820
[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
5825 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

5830 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
5835 word “organization”?

So let’s review for a moment. The opening phrase of §1324a states:

It is unlawful for a person or other entity…

5840
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:

5845 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
 or me into the immigration law enforcement business, doesn’t this suddenly make the whole scheme of
5850 §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.
5855 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!
5860
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…

5865 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
5870 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.

5875 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.

5880 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.
5885
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.

5890 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:
5895

132
 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
5900 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
5905 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
5910 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
5915 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
5920 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,
5925 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
5930 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
5935 *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),
5940 which states, “ Conduct of hearing any hearing…shall be conducted before an administrative law
judge.”

133
 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
5945 Union, subject to the regulatory control of the INS? Absolutely not – but the “persons and other
entities” shown above are!

Penalties

5950 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

5955 *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.
5960
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
5965 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.

5970 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…

5975 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
5980 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.
5985

134
5990 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
5995 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.
6000
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
6005 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.
6010
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.

6015 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
6020 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
6025 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.
6030
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
6035 terms of a contract with the state of federal government, is required to use any federal forms
when hiring workers.

135
 Trusts
The purpose of this article is to inform you of the various factors and issues concerning trusts so
6040 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
6045 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”
6050 (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
6055 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
6060 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
6065
[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

6070 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
6075 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
6080 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
 trust…may result in this advantage to the trust, which a corporation does not possess: The trust
consists of individuals…who are Citizens,
6085 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)

6090 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.
6095
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
6100 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.”
6105 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.”
6110 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

6115 So What Does One Use a Trust For?

Trusts are used primarily for four purposes:

* Protection of assets
6120 * 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
6125 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
 entity, the State requires the particulars from a ll the associated parties and that information becomes a
6130 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.

6135 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
6140 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
6145 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.

6150 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).

6155 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
6160 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
6165 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.

6170 “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
6175 by the trustees.”

138
 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.”
6180 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.

6185 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
6190 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
6195 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
6200
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
6205 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
6210 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.
6215
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 –
6220 there can be claim made that the property still belongs to the former owner (grantor).

139
 Proper Trust Administration

6225 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
6230 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
6235 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
6240 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.
6245
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.

6250 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.
6255
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
6260 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
6265 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
6270 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
6275 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:

6280 · 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.
6285 · 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
6290 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.

6295 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
6300 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.
6305 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
6310 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
6315 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
 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
6320 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”
6325 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
6330
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.
6335
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.
6340
2) A contract of a particular form (a “trust indenture”) creates a trust.

3) Trusts may be used for various purposes.

6345 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.

6350 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.

6355 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.

6360 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
6365 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.
6370
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

6375 American Radio Show July 15, 2006 Hour 2 is on this subject.
http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive/AR20060715-2-32K.mp3

6380

6385

6390

6395

6400

6405

143
 The Federal Firearms Act
6410
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
6415 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
6420 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
6425 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
6430 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.
6435
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
6440 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
6445 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
6450 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
6455 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.

6460 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:
6465 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.

6470 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:
6475
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
6480 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]

6485 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
6490 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
6495 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?
6500 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
 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
6505 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:

6510 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.
6515
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.

6520 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
6525 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

6530 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.]

6535 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…
6540
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
6545 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
 §921(2)). Our “clarified” version reads like this:
6550
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…
6555 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!
6560
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
6565 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
6570 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
6575 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.
6580
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
6585 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.

6590 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.

6595

147
 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
6600 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!
6605

[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.]

6610 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
6615 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!

6620 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!

6625 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
6630 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:

6635
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,
6640 “Commerce and Trade”.

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

148
 4) Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed
6645 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!
6650
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
6655 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
6660 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
6665 of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still
adhere to the Constitution.

6670

6675

6680

6685

149
 THE MAGNA CARTA
(The Great Charter):
6690
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,
6695 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,
6700 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,
6705 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
6710 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
6715 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
6720 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
6725 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
6730 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
 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
6735 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.
6740 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.
6745 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
6750 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.
6755 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
6760 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
6765 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
6770 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
6775 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
6780 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
6785 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
6790 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
6795 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
6800 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
6805 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
6810 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
6815 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
6820 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.
6825 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
 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
6830 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
6835 "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
6840 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",
6845 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)
6850 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
6855 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
6860 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
6865 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
6870 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
 47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforsted; and a similar
6875 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
6880 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
6885 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
6890 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,
6895 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.
6900 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
6905 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
6910 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
6915 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
6920 judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a

154
 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.
6925 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
6930 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,
6935 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
6940 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
6945 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
6950 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
6955 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
6960 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
6965 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
 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
6970 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,
6975 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
6980 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
6985 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
6990 Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our
reign.

Source for this Translation

This is but one of three different translations I found of the Magna Carta; it was originally done in
6995 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
7000 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)
Acknowledgments
Prepared by Nancy Troutman (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa345) Distributed by the Cybercasting
7005 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.

7010

156
7015 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
7020 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
7025 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,
7030 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,
7035 Thomas Williams, Gilbert Winslow, Edmund Margesson, Peter Brown, Richard Britteridge,
George Soule, Edward Tilly, John Tilly, Francis Cooke, Thomas Rogers, Thomas Tinker, John Ridgdale
Edward 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 America
Compiled and Edited Under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906 by Francis Newton Thorpe
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1909.

157
 Declaration of Independence
7040
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
7045 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
7050 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
7055 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
7060 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.
7065 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,
7070 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.
7075 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
7080 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
 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
7085 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.
7090 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:
7095 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:
7100 For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For 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:
7105 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
7110 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
7115 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.
7120 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
7125 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
 justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow
7130 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,
7135 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
7140 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 George Clymer New Jersey: Rhode Island:
Carrollton

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, Benjamin Harrison Delaware: Abraham Clark Samuel Huntington

Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr. Thomas Nelson, Jr. Caesar Rodney New Hampshire: William Williams

Arthur Middleton Francis Lightfoot George Read Josiah Bartlett Oliver Wolcott
Lee

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
7145 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
7150 United States of America.

Article I
Section 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
7155 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.
7160 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
7165 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,
7170 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.
7175 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
7180 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
7185 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
7190 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.
7195 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
7200 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
7205 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.
7210 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.
7215 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.
7220 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
7225 may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

162
 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
7230 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
7235 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
7240 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
7245 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;
7250 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
7255 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
7260 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;
7265 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and

163
 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
7270 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,
7275 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
7280 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.
7285 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
7290 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.
7295 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
7300 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
7305 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
 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.

7310 Article II
Section 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,
7315 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
7320 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;
7325 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
7330 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
7335 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.
7340 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.
7345 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
 solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
7350 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
7355 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
7360 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.
7365 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
7370 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 III
7375 Section 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.
7380 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
7385 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
7390 Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

166
 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
7395 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 IV
7400 Section 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.
7405 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
7410 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.
7415 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
7420 of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article V
The 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
7425 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
7430 Suffrage in the Senate.

167
 Article VI
All 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
7435 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
7440 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 VII
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this
Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
7445 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
7450 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
7455 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.
7460 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

7465
168
 Bill of Rights and amendments to the U.S. Constitution

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
7470 begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday 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
7475 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
7480 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
7485 original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the
"Bill of Rights."

Amendment I
Congress 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
7490 assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A 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 III
7495 No 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
 Amendment IV
The 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,
7500 supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No 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
7505 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 VI
7510 In 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.

7515 Amendment VII

In 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 VIII
7520 Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.

170
 Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.

7525 Amendment X
The 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.
7530 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
7535 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-
7540 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
7545 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
7550 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
7555 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.
7560 *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.
7565 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
7570 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
7575 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,
7580 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
7585 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,
7590 or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously
172
 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
7595 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
7600 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.

7605 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--
7610 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.
7615 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.
7620 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
 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
7625 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
7630 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.
7635 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
7640 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
7645 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,
7650 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
 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
7655 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.
7660 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,
7665 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
7670 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.
7675 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.
7680 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.
7685 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
 AMENDMENT XXII
7690 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
7695 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.
7700 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.
7705 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
7710 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.
7715 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
7720 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
7725 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
7730 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.
7735 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.
7740 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.
7745 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
7750 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
7755 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.
7760 Section 1.

177
 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.

7765 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.

7770

7775

7780

7785

7790

7795

7800

178
 Additional Resources found online at the following links:
7805
Watch this FIRST!!!
America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

7810 Dave Champion's Websites

http://taxrevolt.us/
http://www.nontaxpayer.org/
http://www.americanradioshow.us/
http://www.davechampionshow.com/
7815 http://www.originalintent.org/

other resources

Online Patriot Broadcasting http://republicbroadcasting.org/

7820
Larry Becraft's website http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/

7825 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 Rose
7830 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023

http://www.freedom-force.org/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html United States Code Online

7835 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html Code of Federal Regulations
Online

Online Law Dictionary http://dictionary.law.com/

7840

179