Supreme Court Decisions Concerning the 16th Amendment, Sovereignty, and Corporations

by lstuler

United States Supreme Court’s decisions, the United States Code (the statutes of law enacted by Congress), the Code of Federal Regulations (the implementing regulations for the statutes in the United States Code and which government agency is responsible), and actual Acts of Congress have been relied upon for the information within this Blog.

The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the land.  This was so stated in the first volume of the United States Code years ago.  Open the first volume of the United States Code (USC) and it lists the organic laws of the land in chronological order as follows:  The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Northwest Ordinance, The Constitution, The Amendments to the Constitution, and finally the actual statutes of the USC starting with Title 1 USC.  The latest version of the USC has modified the language to state that the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Ordinance are documents that are “antecedent” to the Constitution.  Regardless of the description, all of these documents have to be included in the first volume of the USC as they are the basis of law in America.  You will need to go to the nearest law library to see the first several volumes of the USC as the official government printing office (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/) starts with Title 1 USC.

The Declaration of Independence established a new country free from Great Britain’s jurisdiction.  The main tenet of the Declaration of Independence is that “all men are created equal”.  This main tenet means that sovereignty lies with the individual, not with the government – the government is simply made up of other sovereign Americans. (It did require many, many years to abolish slavery and grant suffrage to women, but at the time of 1776 only men of property were considered.)  This tenet cannot ever be overridden by any subsequent document, including the Constitution and its Amendments.  Such a scenario of individual sovereignty had never before existed as citizens of all other countries are subservient to the government, be it a monarchy, dictatorship, or some type of Socialist or totalitarian structure (Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Democracy, or other name).  Yes, Democracy is such a structure – it is simply a system of government based upon majority rule and that has no applicability to sovereign Americans.  America has a democratic voting process, but America was established as a Republic based upon the Declaration of Independence’s tenet that “all men are created equal”.  This has been stated as such by the Supreme Court:

“When our forefathers threw off their allegiance to Great Britain and established a republican government, assuredly they deemed that the nation which they called into being was endowed with those general powers to acquire territory which all independent governments in virtue of their sovereignty enjoyed. This is demonstrated by the concluding paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which reads as follows:

‘As free and independent states, they [the United States of America] have full 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.’…”  Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (1901).

The above Supreme Court decision (Downes v. Bidwell) will be cited further along as a very important decision, but as you see the Declaration of Independence is relied upon as the basis of law in America by the Supreme Court.

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY

Since “all men are created equal”, sovereignty lies with the individual – we Americans are individual sovereigns.  Sovereignty means that the individual is free from all external control.

The Supreme Court has upheld the sovereignty of the individual in several decisions as follows:

“Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property, there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right.”  United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decision (United States v. Lee):  the court was referring to Great Britain where it states “who are there called subjects”.

“But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld.”  Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decision (Juliard v. Greenman):  the federal government is supreme within its prescribed spheres of commerce – foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution).

“Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.  Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”  Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).

So the Declaration of Independence established America, a country wherein the individual is the source of power – the individual is not subject to regulation by the federal government as held in the above noted Supreme Court decisions due to the sovereignty of the individual.

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE 16^TH AMENDMENT

All of the above Supreme Court decisions concerning sovereignty were adjudicated before the ratification of the 16^th Amendment (February 3, 1913).  The following Supreme Court decisions all concern the 16^th Amendment:

“Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decision (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.):  the court was pontificating on the difference between indirect taxation and direct taxation and that the Constitution limited the federal government to these types of taxes – but the court finally stated that the object was to maintain the limitations of the Constitution and that the income tax was an indirect tax.

“But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…”  Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decision (Stanton v. Baltic Mining):  where the court referenced “the previous ruling” it was pointing to the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. which was adjudicated immediately before the Stanton v. Baltic Mining decision.  The important thing to grasp here is that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16^th Amendment.

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another.  Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1; Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.”  William E. Peck and Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decision (William E. Peck and Co., Inc. v. Lowe):  the court states directly that the 16^th Amendment did not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects.

“The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.”  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decision (Eisner v. Macomber):  here the court states directly that the effect attributed to the taxing clauses are the same as before the ratification of the 16^th Amendment.

So, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 16^th Amendment conferred no new taxing power to the federal government, nor did it extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects – Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1; Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103; William E. Peck and Co., Inc. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165.  The Supreme Court ruled that the 16^th Amendment must be construed with the original taxing clauses of the Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted – Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.

An income tax is, by simple definition, a tax on a commercial activity.  The only commercial jurisdiction that the federal government has been granted by the Constitution is foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians – Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 states:  “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”.  A sovereign American is not subject to the federal government’s commercial jurisdiction.

Note:  the federal government can tax all Americans under a direct tax, but such a tax is based upon each State’s population.  The census is used to determine the population of each State and then the federal government must determine its exact taxing revenue requirements (the population is also used to determine the number of representatives that each State may have in Congress, so a State is discouraged from inflating its population to get more delegates because a direct tax would then be based upon the inflated number).  A direct tax is then sent to each State – an individual’s income has nothing to do with it.   But as ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. the income tax is an indirect tax.

By considering all of the above Supreme Court rulings, something doesn’t add up:

According to the Supreme Court, an individual American is sovereign and according to the Supreme Court, the 16^th Amendment did not grant the federal government any new taxing power.  Since the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”, a sovereign American cannot possibly be subject to a tax on income, as such a tax is on a commercial activity.

So, the only way to solve this conundrum is to think through carefully what the Supreme Court has stated in its decisions.  Of course, the federal government likes to cite Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. in order to say that the 16^th Amendment and the income tax are constitutional (and the media has parroted this over and over again without questioning the government’s pronouncements).  Well, that may be, but just because the Supreme Court decided that the 16^th Amendment and the income tax are constitutional, that doesn’t mean that it applies to sovereign Americans.  And that leads to the only logical conclusion – that the income tax is within one of the commercial jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution.  This would keep all of the above Supreme Court decisions in harmony – that the 16^th Amendment didn’t confer any new taxing power to the federal government and that the individual American is sovereign, not under the federal government’s limited jurisdiction.

Well, by digging into the specifics of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. it is discovered that Mr. Frank Brushaber was a withholding agent for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad Company.  There are two considerations here that are important – (1) that Mr. Brushaber was involved in federal revenue as a withholding agent and (2) that foreign investors were involved.  Both of such issues would be within the federal government’s jurisdiction – obviously, the Supreme Court was aware of all of this.

It is necessary to read more Supreme Court decisions in order to decipher just how the federal government is now proceeding to tax all Americans’ income.  After all, the second plank of the Communist Manifesto is the income tax – a Communist government has total control and jurisdiction over its subjects.

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING CORPORATIONS

There has been a lot of wailing and moaning concerning the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens’ United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310 (2010) that a corporation is a “person” under the law.  Actually, this decision held that corporations are entitled to make political contributions under the First Amendment.  This decision relied upon earlier Supreme Court decisions.

The following is from the headnote to the Supreme Court decision that follows:

“One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that “Corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Before argument MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”  Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,  118 U.S. 394 (1886).

“Under the designation of ‘person’ there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment].  Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose, and permitted to do business under a particular name, and have a succession of members without dissolution.”  Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 (1888).

Note concerning the above Supreme Court decisions (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania):   these decisions state that corporations are persons for the purposes of the 14^th Amendment.

The following is the next paragraph from the U.S. Supreme Court decision that was cited above in the section “U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Sovereignty” (Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43):

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state.  It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public.  It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with  special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an  abuse of such privileges.”  Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).

As stated above the corporation is a creature of the state (government) and subject to the government under its sovereignty.  But, as evidenced above, the government’s sovereignty is limited by the Constitution.  To have the Supreme Court rule that a corporation is a “person” and allowed to make political contributions on par with a real person makes no logical sense since the government itself was created by “We the People” through the adoption of the Constitution by the States.  In other words, the people created the federal government and the federal government created the corporations.  How can a creature of the government, the corporation, be on an equal basis under the law with the people who created the government in the first place?

The key is found above by the Supreme Court’s reference to the 14^th Amendment in its decisions of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania.  In both of those decisions the Supreme Court stated that corporations are “persons” for the purposes Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment.

THE 14^TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED TO DESTROY SOVEREIGNTY

It is, therefore, incumbent to read Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment since the Supreme Court has cited it:

“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 an person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Now as the Supreme Court held in several decisions above (United States v. Lee, Julliard v. Greenman, and Hale v. Henkle) an American is sovereign, not subject to the federal government.  Yet the 14^th Amendment speaks of a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.  Over the many years since the adoption of the 14^th Amendment there have been many, many court cases concerning such a situation, but the government has remained silent and no court decision has been rendered to explain it.

Since the government’s Internal Revenue Service presumes jurisdiction over everyone simply for the act of earning income, it is now necessary to inquire into its law.

The very first income tax regulation states the following (CFR = Code of Federal Regulations and the symbol “§” means “section”):

26 CFR §1.1-1 Income Tax on Individuals.

“(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.  For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459)…”.

There within the very first regulation is the same description of a “citizen” as defined within Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment – a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.  It further states that one should see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1401- 1459).  Title 8 USC is “Aliens and Nationality” and has nothing at all to do with an American born in one of the States.

Further investigation into exactly what this 14^th Amendment citizen is leads to the definitions at 26 USC section 2208, which concerns estate taxes, and 26 USC section 2501(b), which concerns gift taxes.  Both of these sections define the term “United States citizen” wherever used in this title (title 26, “Internal Revenue Code”).  Finally, under the regulations that implement 26 USC section 2501(b) is an example of such a citizen at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c):

“Example. A, a citizen of the United States by reason of his birth in the United States at San Francisco, established residence in Puerto Rico and acquired Puerto Rican citizenship.  A makes a gift of stock of a Spanish corporation on September 4, 1958, while a citizen and domiciliary of Puerto Rico. A’s gift is, by reason of the provisions of section 2501(b) subject to the tax imposed by section 2501 inasmuch as his United States citizenship is based on birth in the United States and is not based solely on being a citizen of a possession or solely on birth or residence in a possession.”.

The question is why would anyone born in the one of the States want to give up his or her sovereignty by acquiring Puerto Rican citizenship?  The U.S. possessions and territories are under the federal government’s jurisdiction.  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution grants the federal government complete jurisdiction over the territory and property of the United States.  The possessions and territories are also considered foreign as they have not adopted the Constitution to become a State.

The Supreme Court has held the following concerning Puerto Rico:

“Puerto Rico, an island possession, like a territory, is an agency of the federal government, having no independent sovereignty comparable to that of a state in virtue of which taxes may be levied.”  Domenech v National City Bank of New York, 294 US 199 (1935).

The seemingly innocuous birth certificate is the federal government’s big secret.  The 14^th Amendment is speaking of the person in the example cited above at 26 CFR 25.2501-1(c).  Since the individual American is sovereign, there is no reason to have a birth certificate issued by the government.  By entering a newborn’s name and address on the birth certificate, that newborn is an unsuspecting victim that has created a residence in Puerto Rico and, further, acquired Puerto Rican citizenship.  Such a person born in the United States who then established a residence in Puerto Rico and, further, acquired Puerto Rican citizenship would indeed be, as stated in the 14^th Amendment, born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.  This acquisition of Puerto Rican citizenship would also be in harmony with the internal revenue regulation cited above (26 CFR 1.1-1(c)) where it referenced the Immigration and Nationality Act within title 8 USC, “Aliens and Nationality”.  The 14^th Amendment citizen is legally known as the “U.S. citizen”.

Now who would have created such a scheme?  There is no reason for Congress on its own to create such a duplicitous amendment – all members of Congress are, again, simply other sovereign Americans.

However, there is no doubt that the Constitution grants the federal government total jurisdiction over foreign commerce and, as well, over its possessions and territories.  So the 14^th Amendment citizen is doubly under the federal government’s jurisdiction – once as a U.S. possession citizen and once as a foreigner as the possessions are “foreign” to the Constitution as they have not adopted the Constitution to become a State.

This allows the federal government to proceed under its foreign commerce sovereignty over the 14^th Amendment citizen.

Further examination of the 14^th Amendment reveals this:

“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…”.

There’s the clue to who is behind this duplicitous scheme – the bankers who loan money to the federal government.  By making it a constitutional amendment that the validity of the public debt cannot be questioned, the bankers were laying the groundwork to bankrupt the federal government and then, through the use of the 14^th Amendment’s birth certificate, devise a taxing scheme on all Americans to pay the interest on their loans to the government.

THE ACT OF CONGRESS THAT ENACTED THE INCOME TAX

On the I.R.S. website is the following:

“Brief History of I.R.S.

Origin
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses.”

Going back to the original Act of Congress referenced within the “Brief History of I.R.S.” evidences that on July 1, 1862, Congress approved “An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt” which created the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue within the United States Treasury Department.  However, the “Brief History of I.R.S.” is intentionally misleading as this Act of Congress did not enact the income tax.  This Act of Congress references a previously enacted law wherein the income tax was created.

This is confirmed by the Supreme Court:

“Each of the fifteen income tax acts adopted from time to time during that last 67 years has been retroactive, in that it applied to income earned, prior to the passage of the act, during the calendar year.”

The above cite then references a footnote which follows, in part:

“The Act of August 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 Stat. 292, 309, applied to all incomes for the calendar year next preceding January 1, 1862.  The Act of July 1, 1862, c. 119, 12 Stat. 432, 473, enacted higher rates, applicable to incomes for the year ending December 31, 1862.”  Untermyer v. Anderson (1928) 276 US 440.

The income tax was created by the Act of Congress on August 5, 1861, “An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay Interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes”.  So, the income tax is within an act concerning importing and will be used to pay interest to the bankers.  The “Brief History of I.R.S.” didn’t want to show the actual Act of Congress that enacted the income tax as it would evidence that it is within foreign commerce – importing.  However, both of the above Acts of Congress state that the intent of the Acts is to provide revenue to pay the interest on the public debt – the interest payments go to the bankers.  The I.R.S. was established simply for the bankers to collect their unwarranted interest.

The regulations in the CFR are broken down into “parts”.  Part 2 of the Internal Revenue regulations is titled “Maritime Construction Reserve Fund” and Part 3 is titled “Capital Construction Fund”.  Both of these sets of regulations are listed as “statutory provisions”.  A “statutory provision” is where the statutes of another title of the USC are used directly as the implementing regulations in the CFR for another title.  In this case, title 46 USC, “Shipping”, statutes are used directly as the implementing regulations for title 26 CFR, “Internal Revenue”.  Title 46 USC, “Shipping”, obviously concerns commerce, and as granted by the Constitution, the federal government only has jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians.  This is in harmony with the discovery that the income tax was enacted by an Act of Congress concerning importing (Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861).

§ 2.1 within Part 2 of the Internal Revenue regulations is titled “Statutory provisions; section 511 and 905, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and related statutes”.  Within section 905 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 is the following:

“(c) The words citizen of the United States include a corporation, partnership, or association only if it is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended (U.S.C., title 46, sec. 802), and with respect to a corporation under title VI of this Act, all directors of the corporation are citizens of the United States, and, in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association operating a vessel on the Great Lakes, or on bays, sounds, rivers, harbors, or inland lakes of the United States the amount of interest required to be owned by a citizen of the United States shall be not less than 75 per centum.”

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania  above stated that corporations are “persons” for the purposes Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment.  The Shipping Act of 1916 and the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 have put into the law under title 46 USC, “Shipping”, that a corporation is included as a citizen of the United States.  This is within the commerce jurisdiction of the federal government.  We now understand that the purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to turn a sovereign American into a subject of the federal government under its limited commercial jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court has been ruling on corporations as “persons” under the federal government’s foreign commerce clause.

Since we now know that the internal revenue statutes are implemented by title 46 USC, “Shipping”, and as found above in 26 CFR Part 2.1 a corporation is considered a citizen of the United States, the same must be true in title 26 USC, “Internal Revenue Code”.  Here is the section of definitions:

                        “§ 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

                                    (1) Person

The term ‘‘person’’ shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.”

It is within Part 2 and Part 3 of the Internal Revenue regulations (which are actually the statutes of title 46 USC, “Shipping”) where the income tax scheme is laid out.  Within title 46 USC, “Shipping”, are the definitions of legal “terms” that the federal government always uses concerning the income tax.  Most important is that of “taxpayer” as found at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5):  “Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish, a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the [Merchant Marine] Act and the regulations in this part, and may include a partnership.”.  And the regulations at 46 CFR part 287 are identical with those under title 26 CFR 2.1-1 wherein the definition of “taxpayer” is found.  This again ties back to the original Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861, that enacted the income tax.  It is reasonable that the term “taxpayer” is from title 46 USC, “Shipping”, since the income tax was enacted within an Act of Congress concerning importing.

26 CFR 2.1-1(b) then states:  (b) Insofar as the computation and collection of taxes are concerned, other terms used in the regulations in this part, except as otherwise provided, have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.

§ 3.0 within Part 3 of the Internal Revenue regulations is titled “Statutory provisions; section 607, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended”.  Within section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 is the following:

“(e) Establishment of Accounts.

For purposes of this section—

(1) Within the fund established pursuant to this section three accounts shall be maintained:

(A) The capital account,

(B) The capital gain account, and

(C) The ordinary income account.”

You have probably heard of these “terms” used by the I.R.S.  These “terms” are further defined within Part 3 of the Internal Revenue regulations (which are statutes from title 46 USC, “Shipping”) at 26 CFR 3.4, “Establishment of Accounts”.  Don’t expect your accountant or the employees of the I.R.S. to know this.  These accounts are also defined in the statutes at 26 USC section 7518, “Tax incentives relating to merchant marine capital construction funds.”

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION CONCERNING PUERTO RICO

The acquisition of Puerto Rico (originally spelled Porto Rico) from Spain led to the following Supreme Court decision (Downes v. Bidwell – this is the same decision first cited above concerning the Declaration of Independence):

“The result of what has been said is that while in an international sense Porto Rico was not a foreign country, since it was subject to the sovereignty of and was owned by the United States, it was foreign to the United States in a domestic sense, because the island had not been incorporated into the United States, but was merely appurtenant thereto as a possession. As a necessary consequence, the impost in question assessed on coming from Porto Rico into the United States after the cession was within the power of Congress, and that body was not, moreover, as to such impost, controlled by the clause requiring that imposts should be uniform throughout the United States; in other words, the provision of the Constitution just referred to was not applicable to Congress in legislating for Porto Rico…”

“This must be the result, since, as already said, it seems to me it is not open to serious dispute that the military arm of the government of the United States may hold and occupy conquered territory without incorporation for such length of time as may seem appropriate to Congress in the exercise of its discretion. The denial of the right of the civil power to do so would not, therefore, prevent the holding of territory by the United States if it was deemed best by the political department of the government, but would simply necessitate that it should be exercised by the military instead of by the civil power.”  Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (1901).

So the Supreme Court has ruled, based upon the treaty with Spain that ceded Puerto Rico to the United States, that Puerto Rico is to be considered under the military arm of the United States.  The last paragraph of Article IX of the treaty follows:

“The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress.”

Without an Act of Congress to incorporate Puerto Rico into the United States, the revenue laws within Puerto Rico are to be administered by the military arm of the United States.  This explains the gold-fringed flag – it represents the military arm of the United States (my previous research had concluded that the gold-fringed flag represented foreign commerce).  So the birth certificate not only destroys an American’s sovereignty, it makes that person subject to the military arm of the federal government!

THE REAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

Great Britain may have lost the American Revolution on the battlefield, but the monarchy had no intention of losing its ability to tax its American colonists.  As soon as the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence the monarchy set into motion its bankers’ (the world’s banking headquarters is in London) plan to bankrupt America.  This had to be done very slowly so that one generation after the next would slowly be misled and brainwashed into believing that the federal government was somehow in control of Americans where “all men are created equal”.

The Articles of Confederation were drafted on July 9, 1778, and ratified on March 1, 1781.  The Articles of Confederation created a very weak central government that was incapable of supporting itself due to its lack of power to enforce the raising of revenue.  The Constitution was drafted on September 17, 1787, in an effort to create a more powerful central government capable of raising its necessary revenue.  The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers were written to voice the reasons both for and against the ratification of the Constitution.  Article VII of the Constitution stated that ratification of the conventions of nine States would be necessary for the establishment of the federal government under the Constitution.  The First Congress was convened on March 4, 1789, in New York City and began lawmaking under the Constitution.  As the federal government under the Constitution was created by the individual States, the Constitution  only grants the federal government jurisdiction over foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and trade with the Indians as so stated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:  “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”.  The individual States are left with jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.  Due to the overriding tenet that “all men are created equal”, neither the States’ governments nor the federal government has any commercial jurisdiction over the sovereign individual – that’s the definition of sovereignty.  Such a scenario was intolerable to the monarchy of Great Britain.

Just 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution by the requisite nine States, Alexander Hamilton, obviously one of the bankers, wrote the Act of Congress that enacted a tax on stills and the stills’ distillate, alcohol.  This is an unconstitutional tax as it taxes an intrastate activity.  Knowing that full well, Hamilton stated that the tax would be collected by the existing revenue agents – the only revenue agents were those in the Customs.  There is no such thing as a revenue agent with any jurisdiction over intrastate commerce within the federal government – the Constitution has no such support.  This law caused what was known as “The Whiskey Rebellion”.  It was called a rebellion in order to cover up the fact that the tax was unconstitutional.  George Washington only led the federal militia as far as Bedford, Pennsylvania.  Alexander Hamilton, himself, led the federal militia into southwestern Pennsylvania and rode roughshod over anyone who had a still.  Where is the legal foundation for Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, to lead the federal militia?  This was the first overt sign that the bankers had no intent to allow individual sovereignty to survive in the long run.  As well, where is the authority for the Secretary of Treasury to write an Act of Congress?  This was only 2 years into government under the Constitution and “The Whiskey Rebellion” in southwestern Pennsylvania was a frontier.  The majority of Americans lived in the big eastern United States cities where no one was really affected by the happenings in the frontier.

In essence, this was Great Britain’s way of implementing the Stamp Act that caused the Boston Tea Party and eventually the American Revolution.  All internal revenue taxes were originally stamp taxes – liquor and tobacco both used stamps.

By going back to the original law that enacted the income tax above (Act of Congress approved on August 5, 1861), it is stated that the tax is imposed upon the collectors of the (unconstitutional) tax on stills.  This was done to prepare to implement the 14^th and 16^th Amendments in order to punish Americans for protesting against the Stamp Act.

The Federal Reserve System was established in 1913 contemporarily with the 16^th Amendment.  The Federal Reserve System is not a government agency, but is a private corporation (of counterfeiters).

The next step was the Prohibition (based upon the unconstitutional tax on stills and the distillate, alcohol) which was begun one year after the ratification of the 18^th Amendment (January 16, 1919), as stated in Section 1 of the Amendment.  This was to remain in place while the federal government was bankrupted by the Federal Reserve System’s loaning of counterfeit money until the interest could no longer be paid.  Since the income tax only applied to the collectors of the tax on stills and the distillate, alcohol, this was the basis to make the income tax evasion charge against Al Capone – a nationwide audience now thought that the income tax applied to everyone simply for the “crime” of earning a living.

The Federal Reserve System managed to bankrupt the federal government in 1933, just 20 years after its creation.

This is when all of the machinations of the bankers since the founding of this country came to fruition.  In the mid-1930’s a slew of laws were approved by Congress.  This is when Social Security and the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 were created.  This is also when the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was created.  The CFR cites the implementing regulations that support the statutes in the United States Code (USC).  It is here that the bankruptcy of the United States is evidenced:  Title 11 USC, “Bankruptcy”, is implemented by title 11 CFR, “Federal Elections”.  We Americans are now simply electing a bankruptcy “administration” during the federal elections.  This is why a corporation was held to be allowed to make political contributions in the Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Federal Election Commission) Supreme Court decision.  Corporations have not been elevated to the same status as a sovereign American.  The sovereign American was destroyed by the application of the 14^th Amendment’s birth certificate and, thus, lowered to the status of the government’s creature – the corporation.  Also in 1933 the internal revenue laws (based upon the unconstitutional the tax on stills and the distillate, alcohol) were moved to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico (see title 48, “Territories and Insular Possessions”, section 734a for Puerto Rico and section 1402 for the Virgin Islands).

Now the bankers (international counterfeiters) needed to complete the subjugation of all Americans and make them pay the interest on their counterfeit money loans to the federal government.

To establish the income tax, Social Security was created.  When one applies for a Social Security number on the “Form SS-5”, the applicant is actually signing a federal employment form.  The applicant becomes a “taxpayer” which was evidenced above to be defined at 26 CFR 2.1-1(a)(5):  “Taxpayer means a citizen who has established or seeks to establish, a construction reserve fund under the provisions of section 511 of the [Merchant Marine] Act and the regulations in this part, and may include a partnership.”.

The “Form SS-5”, on line 5, asks the applicant to select a box to designate his status:  “U.S. Citizen”, “Legal Alien Allowed To Work”, “Legal Alien Not Allowed To Work”, and “Other”.  This is another indication that the government is relying on foreign commerce since we now know that the “U.S. citizen” is an American born in one of the States who then acquires Puerto Rican citizenship through the birth certificate.  Then there are two categories of aliens.  The interesting thing to note is that after the two boxes “Legal Alien Not Allowed To Work” and “Other” it states “See instructions on page 3”.  Those instructions on page 3 then state at item number 5 that you must state why you need a Social Security number and, further, that:  “NOTE:  Most agencies do not require that you have a Social Security number.”.  This is certainly true as a sovereign American does not need a Social Security number.  But we all have been misled to believe that we are “U.S. citizens”, “taxpayers”, and “U.S. residents”.  The legal term “U.S. resident” is the combination of the legal terms “U.S. citizen” and “taxpayer” – a total slave to the federal government (title 26 USC, section 865(g)).  The taxes that the I.R.S. is empowered to collect are F.I.C.A. and the self-employment tax – both of these taxes are U.S. possession taxes since, as noted above, the federal government has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (see title 26 USC, section 7655).  That’s why it was important for the international counterfeiters to establish the birth certificate.  The I.R.S. is only empowered to collect the income tax known as F.I.C.A. – a gross income tax not subject to deductions.  The income tax with deductions itself is voluntary (which the government has always stated, but not explained) – that’s why the exemplification of a “U.S. citizen” (26 CFR 25.2501-1(c)) is found under the gift tax regulations.  The Form 1040 is actually a gift tax form with foreign tax credits.  As long as you pay your F.I.C.A. tax, you have honored your contract with the I.R.S. and then the I.R.S. cannot enforce collection over the voluntary income tax, but, of course, no one is supposed to know this.  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is simply an update of the F.I.C.A. laws – that’s why the I.R.S. is empowered to collect the new tax.

Great Britain’s international counterfeiters have never been content with the amount of control that they have over Americans.  The birth certificate makes a newborn into a citizen of Puerto Rico, a U.S. possession, which is totally under the federal government’s jurisdiction as so granted by the Constitution in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.  And, as noted in the Supreme Court decision above (Downes v. Bidwell), Puerto Rico is under the military arm of the federal government.  Then the Social Security applicant becomes a federal employee, the “taxpayer”.  Think about it – only a federal employee is subject to federal employment taxes.  Then the legal term “U.S. resident” is the combination of both terms with the addition of being involved in importing.  That makes the “U.S. resident” subject to the foreign commerce clause of the Constitution.  There is no one more of a slave than the “U.S. resident”.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s overly inquisitive questionnaire was sent to “Resident”.  Property taxes are addressed to “Resident”.  A sovereign American’s property cannot be taxed and taken away by some local government, but a “Resident” has absolutely no rights at all.

INCOME TAX INDICTMENTS AND THE COURT’S JURISDICTION

As this Blog concerns Supreme Court decisions, there must be a trail to the underlying jurisdiction within the United States Code (USC) for income tax prosecutions – anything done by any part of the federal government, which includes the courts, must be within its limited jurisdiction.

The federal courts are granted jurisdiction to adjudicate over specific issues, again as delineated by the Constitution.  In title 28 USC, “Judiciary and Judicial Procedure”, chapter 85, “District courts; jurisdiction”, the three commercial jurisdictions granted to the federal government are listed separately:  section 1336, “Surface Board Transportation orders”, which was renamed from “Interstate Commerce Commission’s orders” in 1995, is the interstate commerce jurisdiction; section 1362, “Indian tribes”, is obviously the trade with the Indians commerce jurisdiction; and section 1340, “Internal revenue; customs duties”, is the foreign commerce jurisdiction.  “Customs duties” is obviously foreign commerce – the customs service collects revenue for the federal government from importing duties of foreign countries.  So here it is evidenced by the USC that internal revenue is within foreign commerce.  This goes back to the law that enacted the unconstitutional tax on stills and the distillate, alcohol, wherein it was stated that the collectors of the tax would be those already empowered to collect the existing taxes – the customs.

An indictment for a crime must specifically state all the elements of the crime.  Obviously, an I.R.S. indictment cannot state that their victim is a member of the Merchant Marine, a federal employee (“taxpayer”), and a person with Puerto Rican citizenship (“U.S. citizen”) who’s involved with importing (foreign commerce).  Anyone that was charged with such a background could easily defend himself.  That’s again where the legal term “resident” comes into play – all I.R.S. indictments make it appear that the government has complete control over the victim by simply stating that the victim is a “resident”.

Then during a federal prosecution for income taxes, an American’s birth certificate is entered into evidence by the U.S. Department of Justice (district attorney, assistant district attorney, federal tax attorney, etc.) even though only the top tax lawyers at the Department of Justice really know the underlying law.  This is the connection to the 14^th Amendment – the birth certificate makes one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

At this point the victim has surreptitiously been put in an indefensible position in front of the federal judge that is holding court under the gold-fringed flag of the military arm of the federal government.

The Federal Reserve System is simply a bunch of glorified counterfeiters – printing paper money backed by nothing but debt.  Remember the 14^th Amendment states that the public debt may never be questioned!  And the 14^th Amendment led to the birth certificate that makes you subject to the federal government which is completely at odds with the Declaration of Independence.  The bankers that own the U.S. federal government have absolutely no respect for the tenet that “all men are created equal”, while the media continues to talk about our freedom – we’re all slaves under the military arm of the federal government.

The very intent of The Declaration of Independence, the organic law of this country, has been obliterated by the duplicitous actions of the powers behind the federal government.

The Declaration of Independence states as follows:

“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 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 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 Guards for their future Security.”

The machinations of the powers behind the federal government certainly amount to “a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” – we Americans are now subject to the military arm of the federal government as absolute slaves.  It is not only our right, it is our duty to resurrect the original tenet of the Declaration of Independence – that being that “all men are created equal”.