Misc RM 38 Misc reference material

Reference Material - For Information Only!

Over time we have collected a lot of reference material.

We figured it would be better to share with all rather than just delete it.

If you want it, keep it, otherwise just delete it.

Due to the volume it will take more than one mailing.

The truth about Congress!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/26b0d09397

Notice of Intent to Levy letter – Two letters

(date)

To: (name and address of third party who received the Notice of Intent to Levy letter)

From:(Your name) (Your address)

Re: LEVY - 668-A(c), Dated: (date of Notice of Intent to Levy)

This is a formal demand that you DO NOT send any of my money to the IRS until you receive a COURT ORDER from the Attorney General or his delegate.

Internal Revenue Code, Section 7401. AUTHORIZATION

No civil action for the collection of recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary [of the Treasury] authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate [court order] directs that the action be commenced.

A "levy" is nothing more than the special procedure or step in the suit by which the judgment may be made effective. Smith v. Johnson S. E. 1051, 13 Ga. App 837

A "Levy" for delinquent taxes requires that property be brought into legal custody through seizure, actual or constructive, and is an absolute appropriation of property levied on, and a mere NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY, does not constitute a levy. Freeman v Meyer, D.C.,N. J. 152 F Supp. 383.26 I. R. CODE, Section 7401.

THE FRAUDULENT USE OF THE NOTICE OF LEVY - FORM 668-A

I understand that most IRS agents have been mentally programmed to be aggressive in dealing with Citizens, and because we have allowed them to do anything short of murder, they often ignore legal procedures and responsibilities which are written up in their own Internal Revenue Codes. The use of Form 668-A, "Notice of Levy" is an example of the fraudulent use of instruments and the usurping of powers not available to them.

It is not comforting to know that the IRS is governed by Title 26 of the United States Code, a non-positive law known as "prima facie" law because many of the Code Titles have not been enacted into positive law. The underlying positive law the IRS Code relies upon is the United States Statutes at Large which have been codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations. Of course, I'm sure you know this.

I'm sure this levy must be a mistake because the Notice of Levy the Internal Revenue sent to you claims its authority from Section 6331 IRC. Section 6331 gets its "rule making authority" from The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Part 70.

In a letter written by Michael L. White, Attorney for the office of the Federal Register, dated May 16, 1994, he answers the question, "You have asked whether Internal Revenue Service provisions codified at 26 U.S.C. 6020, 6201, 6203, 6301, 6303, 6321, 6331, through 6343, 6601, 6602, 6651, 6701, and 7207 have been processed or included in 26 CFR part 1 (federal income tax]?" "The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, a finding aid compiled and published by the office of the Federal Register as a part of the CFR Index, indicates that implementing regulations for the sections cited above have been published in various parts of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. There are no corresponding entries for title 26."

I am sure you know that Title 27 has nothing to do with Title 26 Part 1 (Income Tax). Title 27 CFR Part 70 is involved only with Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms. The Code of Federal Regulations is a codification of the Federal Register (USC 44 1510) and "the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed and without prejudice to any other mode of citation ... " (USC 44, 1507).

Now, if we go to 27 CFR 70: Subpart A - Scope

70.1 General

This part set forth the procedural and administrative rules of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for: (a) the issuance and enforcement of summonses, examination of books of account and witnesses, administration of oaths, entry of premises for examination of taxable objects, granting of rewards for information, canvas of regions for taxable objects and persons, and authority of ATF officers.

I can find no where in 27 CFR 70 where it refers to IRS, IRS Agent, District Director, Form 668(A), or Chief, Collection Branch. In fact, I find the following definitions:

ATF officer, to mean an officer or employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) authorized to perform any function relating to the administration or enforcement of this part;

Bureau to mean The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C. 20226; Chief, Tax Processing Center, the ATF officer principally responsible for administrating regulations in this part concerning special occupation tax and also responsible for filing tax liens and issuing third party levies, and for disbursing money due to taxpayers under the provisions 26 U.S.C. enforced and administered by the Bureau.

The Bureau they are talking about is The Bureau or Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Section 6331 of CFR says nothing of IRS.

Please turn to the back s-de of the Notice of Levy and read the first paragraph. You will notice that it begins with:

EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Sec. 6331. Levy and Distraint(b) Seizure and Sale of Property....

Why does this legal document begin with paragraph (b)? Where is paragraph (a), the most important paragraph? obviously we don't have the entire contract. Is it possible they are trying to hide something?

Section 6331 (a) in the Internal Revenue Code has nothing to do with us.

All these years the IRS has been using the wrong instrument on us. What's worse. I fell for it! But then, so did you!.

Section 6331 (a) reads as follows:

(a) Authority of Secretary. [of the Treasury] If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401 (d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

Please notice that the only time a "levy" may be made by using a "notice of levy" is when the individual being levied upon is an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, etc.

Secondly, the application of the authority to collect a tax by levy is strictly limited by the very important words in the beginning of section 6331(a). The words, "If any person liable to pay... "describe those "persons" (individuals, trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies, or corporations to whom the section applies. If a "person" is not liable for a tax, that "person" cannot be liable to pay it, so it is easy to see that the application of the power of levy under section 6331 is limited to those "persons" that are liable for a tax.

Court decisions, for example Botta v. Scanlon, 288F.2d 504, (1961), and authoritative books on law, such as Sutherland's Rules of Statutory Construction (sec.66.01 and 66.03), clearly state that the only way that an individual can become liable for a tax is by legislative action (a statute of IR Code section.) Therefore, the only "persons" against whom a levy under IR Code section 6331 can be legally be made are those upon whom liability for a tax is imposed by some section of the IR Code.

There is no section making any citizen liable for payment of income tax on his own behalf. In fact, we have tried to find the law that requires a citizen to file a 1040 Form. We have asked California's Mel Levine, Member of United States Congress, and Senator Daniel Inouye (D, Hawaii) who in turn asked the Congressional Research Service. They report that they have abandoned the search for such law. In a letter from Michael L. White, Attorney for the office of the Federal Register, Dated May 16, 1994, he states, "... Our records indicate that the Internal Revenue Service has not incorporated by reference in the Federal Register a requirement to make an income tax return." Others have come to the same conclusion. Even the Supreme Court has not been able to find it.

So, the power of levy in section 6331 could not legally be applied against us.

Note that Section 6331 states that it is lawful for the Secretary (IRS by delegation) to collect tax by means of a levy after notice [of assessment] and demand [for payment) has been sent to the person liable. The date and circumstances when a levy occurs are defined very clearly in Section 6502 (b) and 6335 (a).

Section 6502 (b) Date When Levy in Considered Made. The date on which a levy on property or rights to property is made shall be the date on which the notice of seizure provided in section 6335 (a) is given.

Section 6335 Sale of Seized Property.

(a) As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property...

The significance of the underlined parts of the Code is confirmed by Section 333.1 of the IRS Legal Reference Guide for Revenue Officers (10-29-79) which explains that A LEVY CANNOT OCCUR WITHOUT A SEIZURE.

"Whether a levy, or notice of levy, is the administrative method employed to collect delinquent taxes, it should be borne in mind that a levy requires that the property levied upon be brought into legal custody of the United States government through seizure. There must be actual or constructive physical appropriation of the Property levied upon. Mere intent to reduce to possession and control is insufficient."

Under 7608(b), only criminal investigators (special agents), are authorized to conduct seizures. There is no statutory provision authorizing criminal investigators to delegate their authority to others.

Therefore, there can be no levy until there has been a seizure of targeted property, putting it in the possession of the government. What is the property? Why Alcohol, tobacco or firearms, of course, If there has been no seizure, there can be no legitimate notice of seizure. Since a levy cannot occur until the date on which a legitimate notice of seizure is sent, the IRS has no authority to levy on any property that is not in the possession of the U.S. Government.

Note that the items subject to seizure under the IR Code are very limited and are related to the excise taxes imposed by Subtitles D and E. of the IR Code. They are defined in Sections 7321 and 7608 (b) (2) (c) as "property subject to forfeiture." They are defined as "Any property on which ... any tax is imposed by this title..." (e.g., distilled spirits, tobacco products, etc. listed in Code Subtitles D and E).

Property such as wages, bank accounts, automobiles, homes, businesses, buildings and other assets belonging to individuals are not subject to seizure under the IR Codes unless they are involved in activities related to taxable commodities on which taxes are not paid. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN SUCH PROPERTY BE LAWFULLY SEIZED FOR INCOME TAX WITHOUT AN ATTACHMENT ORDER FROM A COURT OF LAW.

Notice that Section 6331 (a) does not create the power to levy except; "upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency of instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia." They have that power because those moneys are already in the possession of the Government, so no court order in needed to force the surrender of the money. But a court order is needed to compel surrender of money controlled by third parties such as banks or private employers.

A notice of Levy form has no force of law to compel anyone to surrender property to the IRS.

The IRS's power of levy differs from the power of levy of a sheriff acting under the authority of a court order. Using this, the sheriff can levy (take possession of it for the purpose of sale) on any property. But the IRS, being only an administrative agency in the executive branch of government, has no judicial powers to authorize the seizing of what ever property it chooses. As evidenced by the provisions of 6331(a) and 6502(b), levy may be made upon property which is already in the possession of the government. Their limitation is pointed out in IRC Section 7401. Section 7403 of the IR Code requires the government to file suit in federal district court against the person from whom they are trying to collect. It also requires that all persons claiming any interest in the property that IRS wants to attach, must be served with papers notifying them of the law suit. Only after a hearing (due process of law) on the suit where a judgment is rendered in favor of the government by a court of law, can a lawful attachment order be issued. If there has been no hearing by a court of law (tax court is not a court of law), there can be no lawful attachment, and there can be no compulsion whatsoever for any one to surrender any property to the IRS as a result of a fraudulently delivered "Notice of Levy."

If you rely upon the illegal use of Form 668-A to send money to the IRS, without an accompanying court order, you will be named as a party to fraud.

Fraud is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as follows:

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by word or by conduct, by false or misleading allegation, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

You have been placed in a difficult position. What the IRS is not telling you is that you are the responsible party. If an error is being made you are the one who is to pay for it. You are not relived from your liability to me in the way you handle my property, and income is defined as property. This is per the Code of Federal Regulations section 301.6332-2 (c)

"Any person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or rights to property not properly subject to levy is not relieved from liability to a third party who owns the property."

I have written a certified letter to the IRS asking them to show me where they claim to have Jurisdiction over me. I am writing the IRS and demanding that they Abate collection until they answer my letters.

I am not asking much. Simply that you do not turn over any money to the IRS until you receive a court order from them. If I am right in our investigation, the court order will not come, if not, then I will at least have my day in court.

Sincerely, (Your signature) (Your name) (Your address)

Date

(Your name) (Your address)

To: (Bank) (Address)

(Attention)

Re: LEVY - 668-A

NOTICE OF UNAUTHORIZED LEVY UNDER 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE CHAPTER 64

This is a formal demand that you DO NOT send any of our money deposited in your bank to the IRS until you receive a court order from the Attorney General or his delegate.

26 I.R. CODE, Section 7401. AUTHORIZATION

THE FRAUDULENT USE OF THE NOTICE OF LEVY - FORM 668-A

We understand that most IRS agents have been mentally programmed to be aggressive in dealing with sovereign citizens, and because we have allowed them to do anything short of murder, they often ignore legal procedures and responsibilities which are written up in their own Internal Revenue Codes. The use of Form 668-A, Notice of Levy is an example of the fraudulent use of instruments and the usurping of powers not available to them.

Please turn to the back side of the Notice of Levy and read the first paragraph. You will notice that it begins with: EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Sec. 633 1. Levy and Distraint

(b) Seizure and Sale of Property

Why does this legal document begin with paragraph (b)? Where is paragraph (a), the most important paragraph? Obviously we don't have the entire contract. Is it possible they are trying to hide something?

Section 6331 (a) in the Internal Revenue Code has nothing to do with us.

All these years the IRS has been using the wrong instrument on us. What's worse? We fell for it. But then, so did you, our my bank.

Section 6331 (a) reads as follows:

(a) Authority of Secretary. [of the Treasury] If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency of instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401 (d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

The application of the authority to collect a tax by levy is strictly limited by the very important words in the beginning of section 633 l(a). The words, "If any person liable to pay..."describe those "persons" (individuals, trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies, or corporations) to whom the section applies. If a "person" is not liable for a tax, that "person" cannot be liable to pay it, so it is easy to see that the application of the power of levy under section 6331 is limited to those "persons" that are liable for a tax.

Court decisions, for example Botta v. Scanlon, 288F.2d504,(1961), and authoritative books on law, such as Sutherland's Rules of Statutory Construction (sec.66.01 and 66.03), clearly state that the only way that an individual can become liable for a tax is by legislative action (a statue of I R Code section.) Therefore, the only "persons" against whom a levy under IR Code section 6331 can be legally be made are those upon whom liability for a tax is imposed by some section of the I R Code.

So, the power of levy in section 6331 could not legally be applied against us.

Note that Section 6331 states that it is lawful for the Secretary (IRS by delegation) to collect tax by means of a levy after notice [of assessment] and demand [for payment] has been sent to the person liable. The date and circumstances when a levy occurs are defined very clearly in Section 6502 (b) and 6335 (a).

Section 6335 Sale of Seized Property.

(a) As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property...

The significance of the underlined parts of the Code is confirmed by Section 333.1 of the IRS Legal Reference Guide for Revenue Officers (I 0-29-79) which explains that a levy cannot occur without a seizure.

"Whether a levy, or notice of levy, is the administrative method employed to collect delinquent taxes, it should be borne in mind that a levy requires that the property levied upon be brought into legal custody of the United States government through seizure. There must be actual or constructive physical appropriation of the property levied upon. Mere intent to reduce to possession and control is insufficient."

Therefore, there can be no levy until there has been a seizure of targeted property, putting it in the possession of the government. If there has been no seizure, there can be no legitimate notice of seizure. Since a levy cannot occur until the date on which a legitimate notice of seizure is sent, the IRS has no authority to levy on any property that is not in the possession of the U.S. Government.

Property such as bank accounts, automobiles, homes, businesses, buildings and other assets belonging to individuals are not subject to seizure under the IR Codes unless they are involved in activities related to taxable commodities on which taxes are not paid. Under no circumstances can such property be lawfully seized for income tax without an attachment order from a court of law.

Notice that Section 6331 (a) does create the power to levy; "upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency of instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia." because those monies are already in the possession of the Government, so no court order in needed to force the surrender of the money. But a court order is needed to compel surrender of money third parties such as banks.

A notice of Levy form has no force of law to compel anyone to surrender property to the IRS.

Section 7401. AUTHORIZATION

Section 7403 of the IR Code requires the government to file suit in federal district court against the person from whom they are trying to collect. It also requires that all persons claiming any interest in the property that IRS wants to attach, must be served with papers notifying them of the law suit. Only after a hearing (due process of law) on the suit where a judgment is rendered in favor of the government by a court of law, can a lawful attachment order be issued. If there has been no hearing by a court of law (tax court is not a court of law), there can be no lawful attachment, and there can be no compulsion whatsoever for any one to surrender any property to the IRS as a result of a fraudulently delivered "Notice of Levy."

If you rely upon the illegal use of Form 668-A to send money to the IRS, without an accompanying court order, you will be named as a party to fraud.

Fraud is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as follows:

The consequences of fraud, according to the United States Supreme Court, are as follows:

Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters.

Nudd v. Burrows

Fraud vitiates everything.

Boyce v. Grundy

Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.

U. S. v. Throckmorton

We are not asking much. Simply that you do not turn over any money to the IRS until you receive a court order from them. If we are right in our investigation, the court order will not come. If not, then we will at least have our day in court.

Sincerely, (Your name and signature)

CITIZEN AS A LEGAL FICTION INTRODUCTION

Herein is material that may be hard for many to comprehend and accept. With that stated, after studying law for ten plus years this author notes that people believe what they want to believe,¹ even if it is to their detriment .² This is most unfortunate...

"Billions of people just living out their lives... oblivious." –Agent Smith, the Matrix

SYLLABUS

Herein a brief explanation is laid on how the 14th Amendment operates in reference to a citizen in regard to legal fictions (or presumptions).³ While studying this information, keep in mind a master can give all the rights to his slaves that he deems appropriate.

FORWARD

Recently, a Florida national who is a student of PAC sent the below information to us. It is a definition from the U. S. Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) website:

• Citizenship. Overview

A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U. S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood.

Note what the above sets forth in its short, simple statement: 1) A citizen of the United States owes allegiance to the United States and is entitled to ITS protection; 2) The United States recognizes the citizenship rule of birthplace, i.e., jus soli.⁴ Moreover, it should be noted that the INS does not list the nationalities of the several states of the American union on the website; although they may be found enumerated in the United States Style Manual (1984), chapter 5.23. In the ORIGINAL form of the constitutional system, a man owes his fidelity to his state government; the United States is deemed a

FOREIGN STATE and had (has) no direct dealings with the common American.

1 BRAINWASHING, n. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation. American Heritage Dictionary, 1998

2 In addition: Most people are comfortable being Socialists; generally people that protest taxes want the socialism but just do not want to pay for it through excessive taxation.

3 NOTE: A "Legal Fiction" is also referred to as a "presumption". See this authority: "A presumption is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts." (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1959 [Note: now Evidence Code, § 600.].) And "a presumption (unless declared by law to be conclusive) may be controverted by other evidence, direct or indirect: but unless controverted, the jury is bound to find according to the presumption." (Code Civ. Poc., sec. 1961 [Note: now Evid. Cd, § 602 et seq.].)(bracketed information added.) In re Bauer (1889), 79 Cal. 304, 307.

4 JUS SOLI. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (Deluxe)

Note that "nationality" is relative to nation. Each state in the American union is a nation. There is absolutely NOTHING in the "Federal Constitution" that negates that fact. The 14th Amendment is the only "device" that negates that fact, under the color of law, i.e., fraud, if you will. As a further reference, if you look at all statehood acts which "admit new states to the Union", you will find that all such states are on equal ground with the original 13 states at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In essence, this is setting forth that the several states are independent nations and maintain all rights under international law. The United States Constitution is where PART of their sovereignty is contracted away to the United States government.

Although the several states are national governments, and the United States is a federal government, the several states operate as national governments which maintain a clipped sovereignty, but are still NATIONAL governments; and depending on what issue of international law that is in question—as specified in the United States Constitution—will determine if the United States is to act as a national government. In example of the United States acting as such a government is the right of treaty; it has been contracted away by the several States to the United States. In this sense, the United States is a [quasi]national government in regard to treaties.

By and large, you will not find any case law on nationality that is internal to the Union, as there is none. Why you ask? It is ventured that everyone has been flimflammed by the political propaganda of the Elite and the Black Robes the past 200 plus years. Actually, the first time the state nationalities of the Union were statutorily recognized by the United States is by the "rump congress" in the Nationality Act of 1940; however, by this time in the game there were enough other facts to deem all Americans "citizens and nationals of the United States",⁵ i.e., all "Americans" are deemed U.S. citizens.

Now this author injects this plain and simple fact that is easy to understand: Rights are from God; Privileges are from government. When so-called "rights" are "enumerated" by the government, one should understand that his God-given rights are in the balance. In other words—as a fundamental rule—if I were you I would not go around claiming that you have so-called "constitutional rights" to the governments; this creates the legal fiction that IT is your god (or ruler), and not your Creator.

With those matters set forth, I will go into back into the INS authority:

First, in American law—and international law—there is a legal principle or legal fiction termed a citizen.⁶ The antithesis of a citizen is a freeman. Also, note that the term jus soli is of feudal origin. In America, the sequence is as follows: man = fidelity to his nation, and: republic = nation, then: citizen = allegiance to his de jure government. A man born in a country⁷ establishes a legal fiction that he owes allegiance to the state as a citizen.

5 e.g., Voting, Social Security, are just a few facts that make one a United States citizen.

6 The citizen principal was setup by Vattel in his Law of Nations (circa 1750). This material is believed to be some of the preemptory measures of the New World Order.

7 COUNTRY. By country is meant the state of which one is a member. Bouvier's Law, 1856

To expand, in the American system, the term "citizen" is a reference to political rights. In this sense calling oneself a citizen establishes a tacit contract between a man and his government, i.e., he is subject to laws executed by HIS State of which he is a citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment actually disfranchised all LAWFUL citizens of the states. ⁸ This in turn created a "political limbo" situation for such people.⁹ Of course, if one wants to participate in SEDITION¹⁰ against the rightful political law (de jure) of his state as a United States citizen (under 14th Amendment), it is noted that should be his prerogative. This author chooses not to do so, as I am not property or under guardianship of Congress. Moreover, you are cautioned that referring to yourself as a citizen or state citizen ¹¹ under this de facto legal system creates a legal fiction that you are a U.S. citizen. In other words, technically there are currently no state citizens (see previous comments).

To continue, the INS authority sets-up the standard for what the United States believes what you are; that is to say, the legal fiction or fact is that everyone is a U.S. citizen and national. ¹² This makes such people "subject to" ITS jurisdiction under private law. ¹³

8 REPUBLIC. It [this] signifies the state independent of its form of government. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (Deluxe) [This is stating that state is not the same as republic.]

9 Dyett v Turner, 266 Utah 439 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES

10 SEDITION, crimes. The raising commotions or disturbances in the state; it is a revolt against legitimate authority. The distinction between sedition and treason consists in this, that though its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace, or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the constitution. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 [IMPORTANT NOTE: The legitimate authority are state nationals, not U.S. nationals, e.g., see the case Breedlove v. Suttle, 302 U.S. 277 (1937). In this case the court stated that the states have supreme authority in who elects its officials, not the United States (see 14th Amendment).

11 CITIZEN OF A STATE. A citizen of United States, residing in any state of the Union; Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See citizens resident in the state. Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition

12 Title 8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. [note the 14th Amendment language]

13 CONTROL FACTOR: See the language of ITS nationals in the NEUTRALITY ACT OF 1939. PREAMBLE. "Whereas the United States, desiring to preserve its neutrality in wars between foreign states and desiring also to avoid involvement therein, voluntarily imposes upon ITS nationals by domestic legislation the restrictions set out in this joint; and Whereas by so doing the United States waives none of its own rights or privileges, or those of any of ITS nationals, under international law, and expressly reserves all the rights and privileges to which it and ITS nationals are entitled under the law of nations; and Whereas the United States hereby expressly reserves the right to repeal, change or modify this joint resolution or any other domestic legislation in the interests of the peace, security or welfare of the United States and ITS people." If the language were correct it would read THEIR nationals, see the Thirteenth Amendment for the proper language: 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.

Further, this author has noted that the authority of the United States Style Manual (1984) under chapter 5.23 sets forth that men and women born in one of the several states in the Union are referred to as natives. This is the same as being 'native' of a country. This should tell one that they grant the Declaration of Independence status—so to speak—but they are presuming that you ARE NOT a national of the state, but rather a citizen de facto of both the state and federal government, see dual citizenship. ¹⁴ Accordingly, this author has determined that the "United States" is using the rule of jus soli for a reason; such reason why this is done is two pronged: 1) The "State" (that is: a 14th Amendment State) in which one is born claims him as a vassal/subject¹⁵ under the Fourteenth Amendment; 2) To hide the fact that each state in the Union has a nationality status.

To further explain, if a person moves to a different state in the Union [e.g., and he votes] will further establish another legal fiction that one is a United States citizen, and not a state national. If the United States were recognizing each man and woman in the states as being state nationals they would have listed them as such in the United States Style Manual (1984) under chapter 5.23 instead of listing them as natives.¹⁶ This author would state that the national principle was not as easy to maintain prior to the implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment as the governments referred to citizens as subjects.¹⁷

One of the factors that are positive about the Fourteenth Amendment system is that state nationals of the republics in the Union can claim Legislation without Representation.

Maybe you have heard of the aforementioned concept before?

With that stated, there is the afforded remedy to this situation... What is it? Does anyone venture a guess?¹⁸

14 DUAL CITIZENSHIP. Citizenship in two different countries. Status of citizens of United States who reside "within a state"; i.e., persons who are born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the U.S. and the state wherein they reside. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed(Deluxe)

15 VASSAL, n. 1. A person who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and allegiance. 2. A bondman; a slave. 3. A subordinate or dependent. American Heritage Dictionary, 1998

16 Note the name of this section is referred to as: Nationalities, etc. More U.S. deceptive practice; however, note this serves as evidence that one has to terminate federal citizenship.

17 In example: See section 39 of the Vermont constitution. Every person, of good character, who comes to settle in this State, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold and transfer land, or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and

entitled to all rights of a natural born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Councillor or Representative in Assembly, until after two years residence.

18 See this information at: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Expatriation_Examined.pdf

THE NOOSE

In regard to Part 1 of the INS dissection above, in the past this author has expressed to readers that using Title 42 Suits is a bad thing. The advent of such law was grounded in providing a thing called "Civil Rights" to the ex-slaves. This author notes that most patriot types think that such ex-slaves are the only U.S. citizens or citizens of the United States; however this is totally wrong: all other Americans are brought down to the same level as the ex-slaves. Using Title 42 remedies is one way to look like a U.S. citizen. ¹⁹ Please note that there are many other "legal fictions" which will make Americans look like U. S. citizens. Another example, being a member of a National Organization rather than one that is state based can create a presumption that you are a U.S. citizen.

These principles deem the "average" American to be under the dependency ²⁰ —or being that of a subject of the United States (or Congress)—and the "Fourteenth Amendment State" in which he lives; such being in adversity from government intrusion.

Now you are asked: Can decoding your Individual Master File (IMF) from the Internal Revenue Service keep your children from the clutches of Child Protective Services? Can getting such Individual Master File decoded get the land back in your state—which is really your true country—that has been pledged to the United Nations by Congress?

The answer: NO!

This is why this author states: people who center on income tax issues are short-sighted.

THE CONCLUSION

Simply put: The United States of America is not internally a nation. Referring to oneself as a state citizen or citizen of the United States of America is a dangerous thing with the Fourteenth Amendment political system in place. Fundamentally you cannot be a de jure state citizen because there is no "state" in existence for you to be a citizen of.²¹

END NOTES

See this propaganda on federal citizenship from 1906:

". . . the spirit in the citizen that, originating in love of country, results in obedience to its laws, the support and defense. . . . such a citizen is called a patriot. . . it is the citizen who yields the legitimate share of his property, as well as the proper services of his person, to the lawful demands of his country for support, who is the real patriot."²²

19 The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the STATES in regard to due process. Claiming any other general rights under (and not protected by) the Federal Constitution will create the legal fiction that you are a U.S. citizen given rights under the 14th Amendment.

20 FEUDALISM, 1. A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture. 2. A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system. American Heritage Dictionary

[Any of these things sound familiar? Where you drafted? Do you really own your land when you have to pay tax on it? Does IT take your land for not paying your taxes? Do you get any benefits from the government? Well, see any similarities to the Feud?

Also see: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government; i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

–Senate Resolution No. 62 (April 24, 1933)

21 See this information at: http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Some_Questions.pdf

22 STUDIES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A Treatise On American Citizenship By John S. Wise, Edward Thompson Company Northport, Long Island, N.Y. (1906)

Disclaimer: We are just people that get together and exchange information.
We are not a group or organization.
We are not a company or corporation or association.
We sell nothing and we charge nothing.

To cancel your class e-mail click "reply" and type "stop messages".