This is a graphic and text rich site. Be patient downloading. It's worth it.
No daily sensationalism here, just the stuff to keep you informed, alert, thinking, active.
This is a not for profit site created and funded by unpaid volunteers.

Jan. 2007Edition 89

This is where we hope to keep you thinking.  The site does not focus on diversionary minutia.  You get enough of that  incessant spin coming from mainstream media.

Income Tax! Do you Volunteer?

By LB Bork of the People’s Awareness Coalition / PAC

Introduction.

First, let me state there is truth in the saying: “If you want something done right you have to do it yourself.” I have been listening for several years what other people had to say in regards to the Income Tax. After I stopped listening to everyone else it took me about three months of research (and common sense) to figure-out what the truth really is.

Although Income Tax was a query of mine, it was really a collateral issue; the main issue was the apparent loss of my natural rights. What I have established is based on what you may have heard in pieces; however, most of you probably have not been told the whole story. What I will evidence in this article will hopefully bring light to what you have been told or what you believe. Herein I will give you solid evidence from the United States Code that will end any questions in your mind that Income Tax is voluntary. However, it is not voluntary in the way you may believe it is- By filing a Tax Return. It is much, much more complex than that.

Forward.

In December of 1999 I had received a video tape (to review) of a meeting held by the National Press Club, which also happened to air on C-Span. The meeting involved a panel presentation on the legality of the Income Tax. The panel consisted of Income Tax gurus- Bill Conklin, Devvy Kidd and Larry Beacraft; and also Bill Bensen and Joe Banister.

As you may be aware, Mr. Bensen worked for the Revenue Department of Illinois (my native country) and Mr. Banister was an agent (CID) for the Internal Revenue Service. Both Mr. Bensen and Mr. Banister did their own research on the legality of the Federal Income Tax. Mr. Bensen had done extensive research and has determined that the 16th amendment of the Constitution was never ratified. Mr. Banister has verified that and much more; he personally has said he presented an extensive report to his [ex]superiors (IRS) based on his research verifying that everything that patriots (so-called) or illegal tax protesters (so-called) have brought forth is true- That is- The Income Tax is voluntary and that that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified.

All the above people have done an excellent job of bringing forth the truth to the American people (and still are); however, all have missed the most important fact of law that truly applies. In reference thereof, to properly access the problem one has to look to International Law.

The Legal Game.

In reference to the research on the sixteenth amendment- It is really irrelevant. The amendment is without a doubt a device of Smoke and Mirrors (see a plethora of court cases). As far as taking a position and arguing the Internal Revenue Code- Why? It is hit-and-miss, which depends on the particular circumstance. One should quickly assess the Internal Revenue Code is an absolute dead end trap; and if you get caught in that trap you are a prisoner. To not be taken prisoner, you must take the necessary precautions not to become a prisoner.

To decode what has been executed, one should carefully consider the term “Internal Revenue Service”. Of course the keyword being “Internal”. Such keyword is a major part of the puzzle, as such word imports the meaning of venue; in other words “within” a particular “sphere”.

Accordingly the Internal Revenue Code is considered private law; such law being attached to the federal government. Hence, the sixteenth amendment has little to do with nothing. The most evident phrase from the sixteenth amendment being that of “without regard to any census or enumeration.” Why? Because everyone is already “within” the venue/jurisdiction of the federal government, their “State Residence” notwithstanding. Everyone is being taxed “internally”.

To get out of the “dead-end” quagmire known as the Internal Revenue Code- One) You have to know who you are; and, Two) You have to know the Constitution as it exists. If you do not know who you are and how the United States Constitution is constructed, you might as well volunteer and pay the tax because it is positive law (for “U.S. citizens”) and it does apply to you; whereas- It is not really voluntary- It is mandatory i.e. you volunteer by group ignorance.

Consequently the primary question is elementary- People should ask themselves “How and why am I liable for income tax?” To find out the answer, reference section 1 of Title 26 (which imposes the tax), under the regulations (Code of Federal Regulations), and one would find the following: “26 CFR § 1.1-1(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a ‘citizen’ or ‘resident’ of the United States.” Who or what is a citizen? Section (c) of 26 CFR § 1.1-1 answers this- “Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.” That is fourteenth amendment language! (see U.S. Constitution). This is the key legal term for the journey out of Title 26.

Your Status.

Before going into great detail- simply put- You are in the wrong nation! This whole legal issue is based on International Law (a.k.a. Law of Nations). Americans must grasp that they are in the “Federal Nation” (de facto). Pursuant to International Law, as you are in the “Federal Nation”, you have unknowingly volunteered to pay the tax due to the consent (custom and usage) of such nation. Accordingly, because the Internal Revenue Code is positive law (based on the federal nation) arguing the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) will get you absolutely no where; because you are considered a “Federal Person” (see defined in Title 26 USC § 7701(a)(30)(A); see also Title 22 USC § 456(f)). This is the key legal premise that most fail to comprehend.

Pursuant to the perverted nationality/citizenship, personally I cannot find any advantageous reason whatsoever in being a so-called “citizen of the United States” (which are also nationals of the United States; see Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(22)(A)). Through my research I have concluded that this particular status makes one fully subordinate to the government, federal and state (vassal). This opinion is evidenced, and also concurred with, in U.S. v Cruikshank; wherein the court stated: “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National. . . It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. . .”

What the court was talking about is the dual citizenship (so-called) caused by the fourteenth amendment. Note that the court was stealthily stating a plethora of inferred negative factors (to the cognizant) in its revealing statement. The major legal factors are: 1) Resident; 2) Subject; 3) Citizenship; 4) Allegiance; 5) Sovereignties; and last and most important 6) Voluntary.

The Constitutional System.

Before I go over each individual issue listed above I must somewhat digress so you have a better understanding. Primarily, you must understand that the fourteenth amendment created two systems of law; one system that is “de jure” (by right) and one that is “de facto” (insurgent). To fully understand the concept stated, you may acquire “The Red Amendment” from PAC. Also, some of the negative legal effects of the fourteenth amendment were brought to attention in the article “Treason by Design” (both are available from PAC).

What has been orchestrated is very complex as a matter of law. You may have heard rumors that the several republics of America have had their borders dissolved. This would be patently false- because there are sitting governments (representing each state) in each republic. The only way the borders could be dissolved is if the governments were not in existence. This is somewhat disclosed in Title 18 USCA § 11; such section defines that the several state governments are not de jure governments; and, that the federal government (Congress) has not given recognition of such governments being permanent (thus are deemed temporary, under a so-called emergency).

In the original form of the Union (pre-14th amendment) the people of the several American republics (nations) generally had nothing to do with the federal/national government. The general exception was the President of the United States of America being able to call forth the militias of each republic, which were the people of the several counties of each republic (e.g. see Posse Comitatus). Under the insurgent governmental system (caused by the 14th amendment) the so-called militia is made up of the National Guard of each State. Such de facto measures are said to keep peace- Yeah, whatever! (see Public Law; 15 U.S. Stat., Chapter 249, pps 223-224; and Title 18 USC § 11; however, for the real definition of “Peace” see The Red Amendment).

Cruikshank Statement Explained.

Now I will go over the legal issues listed above as set forth by the Cruikshank case--

Point One- Resident) If you study the issue of citizenship you will find that citizens are not residents. That is a legal fact under International Law, as set forth by Vattel. However, under the fourteenth amendment a citizen of the United States (U.S. citizens/nationals) are residents of the state in which they live. Under International Law a resident is also considered an alien (as such a person has not been naturalized to be a citizen). That is evidence that all so-called citizens, of any such state, are not nationals of the state in which they are residing; such persons are just resident aliens with a different nationality e.g. United States nationals (which can also be statutorily verified; see Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(3)&(22)(A) and Title 8 USC § 1401).

Point Two- Subject) The Cruikshank court infers that the dual citizenship created by the fourteenth amendment makes such persons subject to the laws of the state in which they live (are resident), and the federal government. That is a legal fact. Under International Law citizens are also considered subjects. Subjects have to obey all the laws of their nation no matter where they are (e.g. the duty of allegiance). Aliens (residents) have to obey laws of the state in which they live. Such persons do not have the same rights as citizens; for instance, residents do not have the same qualified property rights as a “true national” and are subject to property taxes and such.

Point Three- Citizenship) Personally I have not seen any case law (or, law period) that states that a “resident” has any political rights; such as a “citizen”. However, I have seen evidence to the fact that a citizen/national can take up a residence in another state (country) for commercial purposes. In the original form of the Constitution, the federal government could not touch the citizens “within” the several American republics in relation to their commercial activities. It is believed that you are intelligent enough to figure out the rest (viva 14th amendment!).

Point Four- Allegiance) The Cruikshank court states that fourteenth amendment citizenship imports dual allegiance- Wrong! Here is what the court further states- “. . .He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties.” So to speak. In other words- the federal government wishes such citizens to give allegiance to the insurgent federal so-called sovereignty. This so-called dual allegiance is a pipe-dream. Congress backs up this legal fact in the definitions found in Title 8 USC §§ 1101(a)(3), (21) and (22). The Congress (de facto) also knew that this so-called dual allegiance violated International Law when they passed the fourteenth amendment (see Public Law; 15 U.S. Stat., Chapter 249, pps 223-224). In relation- The “Pledge of Allegiance to the United States” is a fraud (conditioning).

Point Five- Sovereignties) In the original form of the Constitution the people of the several American republics make-up the sovereignty of the United States of America. Without the Union intact, the federal government could not exist; wherefore, it could not be sovereign. The only way it can claim sovereignty is through the people (states/nations), which have given it the power to exist (i.e. the American republics). The only way it can truly claim its own sovereignty is to create its own nation, which it did with the fourteenth amendment under force (see Civil War).

Point Six- Voluntary) This brings us to the crux of this article. To basically sum it up- The governmental system is a perversion of what the original Constitution had set forth. It is de facto. It was not intended to house people of America at large. Persons, either born or naturalized, have to voluntarily accept this government as their government. If one does not accept it, one does not owe allegiance to it, and therefore, is not subject to its laws (outside the “Public Law” which is set forth by the real Constitution). Unfortunately no one knows about this so important legal fact (as planned); and accordingly, due to the fourteenth amendment, everyone in America is subject to the federal government (at birth) by incognizant acquiescence. One must just say NO!

The Evidence.

Now I will give you the documented evidence (as provided by the United States Congress) that Income Tax is voluntary. The statute is as follows- “Title 26 USC § 877. Expatriation to avoid tax. (a) Treatment of expatriates. (1) In general. Every nonresident alien individual who, within the 10-year period immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, lost United States citizenship, unless such loss did not have for one of its principal purposes the avoidance of taxes under this subtitle or subtitle B, shall be taxable for such taxable year. . .”

Now 877 explained- After one expatriates “U.S. nationality” and takes on the nationality of a state (see Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(21)) one is then a “nonresident alien”. The alien portion is in relation to the de facto federal jurisdictions (see the definition of alien below). The nonresident portion is two pronged: 1) One is not a U.S. resident; and, 2) One is not a resident of the state in which one lives as a rightful “national”. Below are the definitions that illustrate such - “alien. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign. alien residents. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country; also called noncitizen. (from the American Heritage Dictionary)”; and, “RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Residents are distinguished from citizens; residents are aliens who are permitted to take up permanent abode in a country.” (from Bouvier’s Law, 1856 (pre-14th amendment) and Vattel).

I have taken the definitions from sources other than the current legal profession’s reference, which is Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition (now seventh). It seems that someone is trying to even hide the truth from (dumb down) the legal profession. Now you know why most attorneys’ are incompetent- they are bred to be ignorant to manage the fourteenth amendment system.

Consequently, if you have noticed, most people refer to the United States of America as a country or nation. This is not legally correct; such misuse goes along with the indoctrinated U.S. nationality. The correct terminology is “The Union” or maybe “America”. To find out what such people are incognizantly referring to themselves as- see The Red Amendment or you may see Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(40). All that can be said is the indoctrination is deep- very deep.

The term “nonresident alien” is (in general) a perverted creature of the dual citizenship created by the fourteenth amendment. Under the Law of Nations anyone who is resident in a “state” is also considered an alien (see definitions of “resident” and “alien” above). The term “nonresident alien” means that one is not resident (i.e. U.S. resident) within the federal area as defined in Title 4 USC § 110(f). However (under International Law) a person is a “resident alien” if a person is in a state of which a person is not a citizen of. In other words- a person is a “nonresident alien” if a person is: 1) In the state of one’s citizenship; or, 2) In another state of the Union- both being in relation to the federal government. But, under International Law- One may be determined (or considered) to be a “nonresident alien” if one of a foreign country (country other than his state of domicile) were in another state visiting. In other words under the legal rule of International Law- Everywhere a citizen would go (i.e. another state) such citizen would be considered a nonresident alien unless such citizen had taken-up being a resident (inhabitant) without being naturalized a citizen. When one would take up being a resident in a state (being a citizen of another state) one would then be a resident alien (but not a citizen of that state).

Now, to explain the purpose of Title 26 USC § 877- It is a statute of limitations set forth by Congress of the United States (de facto) for the Secretary of Treasury to question an Ex-U.S. citizen for the reasons of his expatriation (10 years). Plus, one who expatriates (federal status) has to meet certain requirements for the statute to even apply (see the rest of the statute). If the liability stipulations set forth by the statute are found exclusionary by the Secretary, he cannot make the Ex-U.S. national pay the tax for the year of terminating his federal citizenship.

In other words- It is your right to change your nationality (under International Law and the Constitution) and nothing can be said or done about it- i.e. No more Income Tax- state or federal!

Moreover, dumping the de facto citizenship extinguishes the federal government’s venue and jurisdiction in most matters. Of course the main argument for expatriation is- Residents “within the state” (the de facto venue) do not have natural rights as citizens (aliens, as found generally defined in the U.S. Code). This is an established legal fact under International Law.

So, in an overall conclusion- Title 26 USC § 877 is prima facie evidence (actually 100% solid evidence) of being outside the venue and jurisdiction of the federal government and not having to pay income tax (i.e. Internal Revenue Service) after federal expatriation.

ERGO: That is when Income Tax becomes voluntary- but not in any other manner.

Now you know the whole story- Federal Expatriation is how you totally discharge the tax liability pursuant to International Law and the Constitution (i.e. de jure). Moreover, you live in your state as a “national” and are not a “resident” presumed to be operating de facto.

The Legal Conclusion.

This citizenship (nationality) game is all laid out in Title 8 of the United States Code. Americans have to believe that this is their government to be truly subject to it. The factor of which will sink a person is- voting as a United States citizen (see Treason by Design and The Red Amendment).

In legal essence, people of the United States are resident aliens “within the State” and not citizens (due to the 14th amendment); they have unwittingly given up the land (country) of their birth (see feudal system). This is just one of the legal techniques the federal government has used to take the land within the American republics that has not been ceded for government buildings. Moreover, this is how the state governments have gained their so-called “Police Power”. They are actually the sovereign, not the people; these de facto states govern residents- not citizens.

Again, the people have given their political allegiance to the government of the United States over their state. They have breached their natural allegiance (if natural born Americans) to their native states. Of course the government representatives (so-called) will try to tell you everyone has dual nationality; but this does not legally work. Why? Because you cannot go back “into” a nation from which you came “from”. This is a fact that is based on common sense. If they try to tell you there is dual nationality, it can proven wrong with their own statutes; such proof is exemplified in Title 8 of the United States Code section 1481(a)(7).

Syllabus.

In my legal opinion, based on what I have legally researched pursuant to International Law (and by subtle statements made in court decisions), the Congress of the United States does -without question- follow the law; however, the whole thing exposed herein (the fourteenth amendment governmental system) is a scam fueled by planned (orchestrated) ignorance; and in essence, the fourteenth amendment has stealthily stolen Americans’ natural sovereignty (nationality) and their rights to a true citizenship/nationality (and land) under the law of nations (see communism).

You must take the appropriate legal measures to Emancipate yourself of this “Feudal Situation” or you will remain a subject of/to Washington DC under private (and positive) law.

And finally, back in reference to the panel consisting of the Income Tax Gurus- Bill Conklin, Devvy Kidd and Larry Beacraft; and also Bill Bensen and Joe Banister- I hope they realize that the real legal story is much deeper than maybe they comprehend. The whole “Income Tax Scheme” was orchestrated through the guise of The RED Amendment- The 14th !

Oh, one more thing- Of course you have been told the main purpose of the 14th amendment was to give the slaves their civil rights- If you believe that— I have a bridge to sell you.

· “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”

Plank 2- Communist Manifesto, 1848

· “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.”

Communist Manifesto, 1848

· in·cog·ni·zant. Lacking knowledge or awareness; unaware: incognizant of the new political situation.

Word for Word from the American Heritage Dictionary, 1998

Hey, have a nice red “E Pluribus Unum” day! (E Pluribus Unum = many under one)

For a more extensive probe into the foregoing matters, you may acquire a copy of “The Red Amendment”. The Red Amendment, 2001 is an in law exposé on the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. It also goes over other collateral issues and legal remedies. The Red Amendment cost-- $25; Deluxe Version, which also includes No Treason by Lysander Spooner-- $30. For your personal copy please send cash or blank money order to: PAC - POB # 313 - Kieler, Wisconsin [53812]

PAC People’s Awareness Coalition

POB # 313 - Kieler, Wisconsin [53812]
¥ Freedom!

Using the Tax code as a Cure. (supplement to- Income Tax! Do you volunteer?)

By LB Bork of the People’s Awareness Coalition / PAC
If you read the article “Income Tax! Do You Volunteer?” you would know that it was brought to attention that Income Tax is voluntary. I am known to criticize people for spending their time in the Internal Revenue Code; in somewhat of a contradiction— I used it for the cure.

To do this you must know the language; accordingly, you must know who you are (status), which includes knowing that your state is your country; not the United States. I like to say, as a matter of legal fact, that the people who refer to the “United States” as their country are bona fide Communists. Of course, such is due to conditioning in government public schools (or other).

I have been personally criticized by many people for utilizing communism to state my position. However, there is a rule that applies here: If it looks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck- It must be a Duck. In reference to Americans being Communists that state that the United States is their country, the following dicta from the Communist Manifesto can be applied— “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.” In my research, and understanding, I know that Americans’ nationalities (nationality = nation) have been combined into one federal nationality (nation); this was initiated by the 14th amendment (see Title 8 of the United States Code, sections 1101(a)(22)(A) and 1401(a) for the codified evidence). To prove a point, ask anyone what their nation or country is- the answer will be- The “United States.”[1] I rest my case on this point. I believe the correct terminology is- Brainwashed (or been lied to).

Back in reference to Income Tax, this is where another element of the program of so-called communism[2] is found (being Plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto, 1848). As most are aware, Income Tax is found throughout Title 26 of the United States Code.

These two communistic (political) factors are in the United States Code and are in full effect. Once again- If it looks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck- It must be a Duck. If they so choose, people can be in denial, and tell me that I am insane; however, I chose reality; and the reality is- I do not want anything to do with communism; I choose to call Illinois my country, and the people thereof my nation. This is adhering to the principles of natural law, which has been around for thousands of years; hence, is in accordance with the law of nations.[3] All other Americans in neighboring countries (nations) are confederates, of which I respect. That is being an American in the original premise of the American union, as set forth by the ideals of the founding fathers.

Now to apply such political factors- As communism is a political agenda, which is actually in violation of natural law, and Congress does pass law that in harmony with international law, we can find the tools that implemented the unlawful agenda in the U.S. Code. Understand that Congress has separated these two “jurisdictions” in the Code; one being political (and voluntary); the other under law. Accordingly, one must know the correct legal terminology. This political agenda was accomplished by a rule of international law- You volunteered to be a U.S. citizen.

As most people like to spend their time in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), this is where I discovered the evidence to cure the problem. The IRC sets forth in detail the two different jurisdictions under the fourteenth amendment; using it as evidence enables you to establish your proper status; also it gives you the legal tool to assist you in removing yourself from the de facto system. Again I must state that one must use common sense. Dissect the term “Internal Revenue Code”- key word in this phrase is- “Internal”, which means “within” a jurisdictional sphere. Hopefully, most understand that the American states, prior to the fourteenth amendment, were considered separate entities (state/nations), and still are;[4] they really have nothing to do with the federal government. Every American is being controlled as a federal citizen- Internally.

Consequently, the primary question is elementary- People should ask themselves “How and why am I liable for income tax?” To find out the answer, reference section 1 of Title 26 (which imposes the tax), under the regulations (Code of Federal Regulations), and one would find the following: “26 CFR § 1.1-1(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a ‘citizen’ or ‘resident’ of the United States.” Who or what is a citizen? Section (c) of 26 CFR § 1.1-1 answers this- “Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.” That is fourteenth amendment language! This is the key legal term for the journey out of Title 26.

The citizenship is factor 1, as pre-discussed, in the application of the Manifesto’s Destruction of Nationalities; however, factor 2, Income Tax, could not be implemented unless all Americans were brought into the District of Columbia. The Civil War was used to install the legal device to do this- the fourteenth amendment. The next step was to fine-tune its purpose; this was done with the following: 1) A slow implementation of Socialism; 2) World Wars were implemented in 20th century. This accomplished two things: 1) It created foreign foes that bought American nations together in the guise of so-called patriotism; 2) It created massive public debt so the Income Tax could operate the Federal Reserve and its funny money (i.e. you are the gold). The two factors being complete in their planned operation; thus, tacitly enslaving Americans with perpetual debt. Understand that this process had to been done slowly- It is truly a finely tuned machine.

Now you know the crux of the problem- the unnatural political federal citizenship. That is the first element of using the Internal Revenue Code for evidence. Now let us further look to the Code to fix the problem. Not only does the evidence you are about to see give credence to fixing the problem, it shows you that your state is your true country. This should convince you that what has been stated about the “communist conspiracy” as just not being paranoia.

In the article “Income Tax! Do You Volunteer?” I exposed the voluntary nature of Income Tax. People do not understand how it is voluntary- it is volunteering to be a U.S. citizen.

Congress has given the proof in the IRC to terminate the political federal citizenship. As to my knowledge, no one looks at this. I must again emphasize that to understand what you are about to see you must:

1) Realize that you are brainwashed; 2) Know legal language.

Until these two factors are understood, as they say- You just don’t get it!. . . Do ya?

Essentially, what I am going to go over is section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code in more detail. In “Income Tax! Do You Volunteer?” I just covered the basic premise of 877; here I will evidence (to you subscribers) the sections that state you are not liable for Income Tax once you terminate federal citizenship. Also, the language used will prove that your state is your country. Hopefully you will understand this- You will if you believe that you have been defrauded.

Section 877 is found in Title 26 of the United States Code, and is entitled- “Expatriation to avoid tax.” The language “expatriation” has been taking out of the “Expatriation” statute (Title 8 section 1481) in past years. It has been replaced with the language of “relinquishment of United States nationality”. This is a word game that is played to keep everyone confused. As everyone in America has been conditioned to be ‘Patriotic’, the first thing that one would see when they pull up 877 is “Expatriation To Avoid Tax” and think- That doesn’t pertain to me! Hey-they got you! Your legal ignorance and conditioning made you lose. Do not leave any stone unturned, or any single word be left undefined or scrutinized- I mean every word! I heard many years ago, before I was even involved in this, that communists are very sneaky- accordingly, know your enemy.

Now, below is subsection (a)(1) of section 877 of the IRC (Title 26 USC), in part:

(a) Treatment of expatriates.

(1) In general. Every nonresident alien[5] individual who, within 10-year period immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, lost United States citizenship, unless such loss did not have for one of its principal purposes the avoidance of taxes under this subtitle or subtitle B’

Now look at subsection (2)(A) of section 877(a), in part:

(2) Certain individuals treated as having tax avoidance purpose.

For purposes of paragraph (1), an individual shall be treated as having a principal purpose to avoid such taxes if-

(A) the average annual net income tax (as defined in section 38(c)(1))[6] of such individual for the period of 5 taxable years ending before the date of the loss of United States citizenship is greater than $100,000’

What this is saying at this point is, if one terminates his federal citizenship and becomes a nonresident alien individual (which is a foreign alien; or, a domestic alien- national de jure i.e. out of political jurisdiction), he is going to be treated as terminating the federal citizenship only to avoid income tax; but only if he made over $100,000 every year for a period of 5 years prior to terminating the federal citizenship. Now, it will not be presumed if the following applies:

(c) Tax avoidance not presumed in certain cases.

(1) In general. Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to an individual if -

(A) such individual is described in a subparagraph of paragraph (2) of this subsection, &

(B) within the 1-year period beginning on the date of the loss of U.S. citizenship, such individual submits a ruling request for the Secretary’s determination as to whether such loss has for one of its principal purposes the avoidance of taxes under subtitle A or B.

(2) Individuals described.

(A) Dual citizenship, etc.

An individual is described in this subparagraph if-

(i) the individual became at birth a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country and continues to be a citizen of such other country, or

(ii) the individual becomes a citizen of the country in which-

(I) such individual was born,

(II) if such individual is married, such individual’s spouse was born, or

(III) either of such individual’s parents were born.

Now, what this is saying is everything described in subsection (c)(2)(A) in relation to country is a state in America (a united state). It is all a word game. Back in reference to language and research, to give you some tutorial here the most important phrase above is dual citizenship. Let us look at the term “dual citizenship” from Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition:

· 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 United States and the state wherein they reside.

Go figure! Fourteenth amendment language! I have read many cases where some people have dual citizenship or dual allegiance. Sorry, this doesn’t work. What if one nation got in a war with the other nation and a person had allegiance (or- nationality of) to both? Which one does he hold allegiance to, to side with in the war? Sorry, in my mind this doesn’t work. Such is more utopian New World Order whoo-haa (case law) that is set forth by conspirators (Communists/Masons).[7]

Back in reference to (c)(2)(A)(i), this is stating that everyone is a U.S. citizen at birth and has dual citizenship. (2)(A)(i) is specifically defining a person that was a federal citizen at birth and is still a citizen of the state in which he was born, as he has not moved from his native state (country). (2)(A)(ii)(I) is defining a person that may have moved from his native state, during the course of his life, but returns there to live; (2)(A)(ii)(II) is defining a person that takes on the citizenship of his (or her) spouse’s native state; (2)(A)(ii)(III) is defining a person has the right to take on the citizenship of either one of his parents’ native states. These rules are set forth by the international rules on citizenship. If one is not in one of the aforesaid categories, he will not be precluded from being presumed in expatriating to avoid taxes. If a person does happen to make over $100,000 a year, and is in one of the categories listed above, he is still precluded from being suspected from trying to avoid taxation; that is, if he can prove that expatriating was not to avoid taxes for the year he terminated federal citizenship. If he can do this, the IRS cannot say squat; and bye-bye income taxes. Some might say- Well they are talking about a foreign country that is out of the United States of America. The rebuttal is- Why would a person, by expatriating, be precluded from avoiding tax by becoming a citizen of his “other” country- France ? ? ?

Simply put— The United States did not have the authority to pull you out of your native country under the 14th amendment scheme and tax you in the first place.

In summary: 877 is just a complex statute of limitation to govern taxation after termination of federal status. But, my main point here is- 877 proves that Income Tax is voluntary and also that your state is a country- Congress said so.

And in a final note: I find it interesting that most people in the movement like to argue the IRC when the answer is blatantly right in front of them. Think of how many people have gone to prison, etc. that could have used this position; because in essence Congress stated that if you are in your country of birth that Income Taxes are void ab initio (as are all de facto “private” laws).

Hey, but no one listens to me. They have everything figured out.

All I can say to them is-

Keep arguing the Tax Code, and have fun! All you “Patriots” have my Blessings. LBB

[1] E Pluribus Unum means- many under one. This was always the plan from the beginning (of the Federalists).

[2] Elitists program for unknowingly servitude.

[3] “Color of Law” is nothing more than the corporate (entity) law that is set forth by the fourteenth amendment.

[4] Not one thing has been formally repealed in the original Constitution. This is prima facie evidence that the current government is not the real government; moreover, the original 13th amendment disappeared rather than being repealed (the 18th was repealed). This is prima facie evidence that the now existing federal government tyrannically seated itself after the Civil War. The “original” Constitution is still in force and effect. The way the 14th amendment operates is, it compels Americans to rebel against their state constitution, which terminates their rights. There is plenty of case law that backs this up; that is, that the original Constitution still is in effect. The 14th amendment is looked at as a so-called emergency measure- To find out more about this read the Introductory Notes of the Emergency Legislation passed in 1917 that encompasses “Dealing with the Control and Taking of Private Property for the Public Use, Benefit, or Welfare.” Such Act is dicta of communism under the guise of the quiet war instituted by the 14th amendment. Emergency = Communism.

[5] The term ‘nonresident alien’ means that one is not a resident and one is an alien; see Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(3).

[6] Which is strictly based on business income, which is considered to be “within the United States”.

[7] Believe it, they’re herreeee- Title 8 USC § 1101(a)(40). The term “world communism” means a revolutionary movement, the purpose of which is to establish eventually a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in any or all the countries of the world through the medium of an internationally coordinated Communist political movement.
 

[ Home ]

         Click here to enter this with hundreds of postings
    
       [ admin@pushhamburger.com ]