The United States of America, incorporated

[Unified Serenity]

Ok, I am trying to find the facts about the subject of the United States of America becoming THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC or a derivation thereof. I hate legal mumbo jumbo and have read lots of sites on this issue. This article below is one saying, "NO, it's not incorporated".

I know we have some lawyers present and other keen minds who can blow through this or substantiate it. If anyone has real documentation about the government incorporating, please post it.

Dear Friends,

For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,
there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.

There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating
either the "United States" or the "United States of America".

In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District
of Columbia, but D.C. and the "United States" are not
one and the same. In that Act of 1871, Congress also
expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilbert...filed.htm#1871

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),
the Supreme Court wrote:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/312/600.html

"We may say in passing that the argument that the
United States may be treated as a corporation
organized under its own laws, that is, under the
Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained
as not to merit serious consideration ."


Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have
originated in the definition of "UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA" in Bouvier's Law Dictionary here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union

See Paragraph 5 quoted here:

"5. The United States of America are a corporation
endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey
and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.
But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought
against the United States without authority of law."

Note that the plural verb "are" was used, providing further
evidence that the "United States of America" are plural,
as implied by the plural term "States". Also, the author
of that definition switches to "United States" in the second
sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the
term "United States" has three (3) different legal meanings:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hoove...#united.states

However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum,
and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again,
be very wary of courts attempting to "legislate" in the absence
of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the
statute defining the required enacting clause:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html

And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:
"no suit can be brought against the United States
without authority of law". That statement is not only
correct; it also provides another important clue:
Congress has conferred legal standing on the "United States"
to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html

Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing
upon the "United States of America" to sue, or be sued,
as such.

Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term
"United States of America" is the "stile" or phrase that was used
to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States
of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Georgia.

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America."

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,
which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

[end excerpt]


When they came together the first time to form
a Union of several (plural) States, they decided
to call themselves the "United States of America".

Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished
"United States of America" from "United States"
in Congress assembled. The States formally
delegated certain powers to the federal government,
which is clearly identified in those Articles as the
"United States".

Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to
the 50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"
refers to the federal government.

The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now
throughoutTitle 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled
in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the
term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used
in correct contradistinction to "United States":

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html

Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,
the consistent use of "United States" to refer to the federal
government carries enormous weight. Title 28 is the latest word
on this subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law
on June 25, 1948. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates
Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land.

To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion,
the entity "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
incorporated twice in the State of Delaware:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp


The main problem that arises from these questions is that
United States Attorneys are now filing lawsuits and
prosecuting criminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic]
but without any powers of attorney to do so. Compare
28 U.S.C. 547 (which confers powers of attorney to represent
the "United States" and its agencies in federal courts):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html

They are NOT "United States of America Attorneys", OK?

First of all, they do NOT have any powers of attorney
to represent Delaware corporations in federal courts;
Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so
and Congress never conferred any powers of attorney
on them to do so either.

Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented
by their respective State Attorneys General; therefore,
U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent
any of the 50 States of the Union, or any of their agencies,
either.

They are "U.S. Attorneys" NOT "U.S.A. Attorneys", OK?

Accordingly, it is willful misrepresentation for any U.S. Attorney
to attempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf
of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" [sic]. And,
such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act
at 28 U.S.C. 530B:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html


There are quite a few "activists" running around the Internet
claiming that the "United States" and the "United States of
America" are both corporations. These claims are not correct,
for the reasons already stated above.

A similar error occurs when these so-called “activists” cite
the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only “proof”
that the “United States” was incorporated by Congress.
Here’s the pertinent text of that statute:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html

As used in this chapter:
...
(15) "United States" means --
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or
other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

[end excerpt]


First of all, note well that the stated scope of this definition
is limited to “this chapter” i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28 –
Federal Debt Collection Procedures. Overlooking the
limited scope of such definitions is a very common error
among many, if not all self-styled experts. At best, this section
cannot be used as evidence that the federal government
should be treated as a valid corporation for all other intents
and purposes. It takes a LOT more text than this one limited
definition to create any federal corporation! Compare the
original Statutes at Large that created the Union Pacific
Railroad Company, for example.

Secondly, from the evidence above it should already
be clear that the “United States” (federal government)
is not now, and never has been, a federal corporation.
The statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 merely defines the
term “United States” to embrace all existing federal
corporations. Because the United States was not
an existing corporation when Congress enacted
section 3002, that statute did not create and could
not have created the United States as a federal
corporation in the first instance.

Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court
told Congress that it was barred from re-defining
anyterms that are used in the federal Constitution.
“United States” occurs in several places, because it is central
to the entire purpose of that Constitution. Therefore,
the legislative attempt to re-define “United States” at
section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because
it violates the Eisner Prohibition.

Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies,
which render it null and void for vagueness. Here they are,
in case you missed them:

“United States” means … an agency, department, commission,
board, or other entity of the United States;
or
“United States” means … an instrumentality of the United States.

It is a fundamental violation of proper English grammar to use
the term being defined in any definition of that term, and such a
violation has clearly happened here. If you don’t yet recognize
the tautologies, then change one part of this definition to read:

The term “United States” here also embraces any instrumentality
of the federal government.

At the very least, this minor change eliminates the tautology and
removes the vagueness. Nevertheless, such an attempt to re-define
the term “United States” still violates the Eisner Prohibition.

For a newspaper-level Press Release which further explores some
of the many legal ramifications of these widespread errors, please
see this Internet URL:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels...g.title.28.htm


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agenc...ey.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

[Unified Serenity]

Ok, here is another issue I have. There is a difference in a U.S. citizen and being an American Citizen. One is someone who has placed themselves subject to the rules and laws of the 10 mile square area and territories of Washington D.C., and that was done by conning the American People into getting a Social Security Number. That takes them out of being an American Citizen with full rights thereof, and makes them U.S. citizens. That is why you are not asked on government paperwork or IRS tax forms if you are an American Citizen, but are you a U.S. citizen. Most people think they are the same, but they are not. You can opt out of U.S. citizenship and file a W8 as a foreigner even though you are an American. W4 and W2's are for U.S. citizens.

[cloud9]

I was listening to this lecture today and it was the first time that I heard that all rights are available to the People of the Us but only some privileges are granted to the US citizens. I was in shock.... the day I received my citizenship the person conducting the ceremony said: from now on, you have the same rights as any person born in the United States. In this lecture, Mr. Thorton (spell?) says that citizens have no rights whatsoever.

Now I'm considering that the people born in the US have lost their rights as People, perhaps when their parents registered the child and a certificate of birth was given? It's said that when you register something you are really giving it to the government and so the new citizens are their property.

He also says that the Constitution is a trust, meaning all the wording in it is similar to how a corporation is created, he didn't say it was the creation of the US though.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdGdSdKViI

PEOPLE or CITIZEN WHICH ONE ARE YOU?

PEOPLE
The Preamble does not specifically define the word "People." Nevertheless, the definition becomes apparent in the context of the other words and prior history.

HISTORY

Before the United States existed, there was no legal government. A group of representatives, acting "in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies," declared the independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain.

From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the Declaration of Independence.

Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn't work as well as expected.

In 1787 the people themselves came forth "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787, the states held a convention and all those present unanimously joined in. [see last paragraph of U.S. Constitution]

So, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born, later to be ratified.

PREAMBLE

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

STRUCTURE OF PREAMBLE

TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]

VENUE: of the United States

PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,

ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [declare the law]

ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]

WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]

TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]

ANALYSIS OF PREAMBLE

The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. Here's an explanation that points to popular sovereignty:

After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen--and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).

"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S."

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own power and authority.

What was before, continues to be so today.

From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country are sovereigns of the country, may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United States.

Because of Amendment X ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.

DEFINITION OF CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

HISTORY

Before ratification of the Amendment XIV , there was no legal definition of the term "citizen of the United States." The term was used, but only generally. After the Civil War the slaves were freed but there was no legal basis to recognize them as having any rights. Amendment XIV partially solved that problem.

"Free the slaves," was the rallying cry combined with the Civil War that resulted in Amendment XIV. Amendment XIV created a new class of person called "citizen of the United States." Any ex-slave could now claim citizenship, and, by the way, so could any of the People if they so chose to do. Amendment XIV made possible the voluntary relinquishment of personal sovereignty.

It was also during the mid 1800's that the various governments took control of the school systems. The curriculum shifted from civics (the study of natural rights and common law) to American government (the study of civil privileges and statutory law). Emphasis was also refocused on "good citizenship". To blunt the people's perception, the civil privileges were called civil rights. The transition from teaching "natural rights" to teaching "civil rights" took about 100 years (from the 1850's to the 1950's). During the 1950's the school systems changed the courses named from "Civics" to "American Government." Hardly anyone now is aware of the subject of civics as a school course.

The phrase, "citizens of the United States," is defined in the Constitution for the United States of America, Amendment XIV:

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Section 5. "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT XIV

WHO: All persons

QUALIFICATION:
(A) born or naturalized in the United States, and
(B) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

PURPOSE: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ENFORCED BY: The Congress

ENFORCEMENT METHOD: Legislation

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT XIV

As discussed above, the People are sovereign. The People are not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, even though they are born in the United States.

Amendment XIV inverts the relationship. One of the qualifications to be a citizen of the United States is that one must be born or naturalized in the United States. Another qualification is that one must be, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is not possible to be a citizen of the United States without being born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But, if you are born or naturalized, and if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify as a citizen of the United States.

From the point of view of the federal enforcers, the qualifications are worked in reverse. They reverse-interpret Amendment XIV as saying that if you say you are a citizen of the United States, then that automatically means you are totally subject to its jurisdiction [and have been born or naturalized]. This opinion is not shared by the judicial branch. See 14 C.J.S. 426, 430:

The particular meaning of the word "citizen" is frequently dependent on the context in which it is found[25], and the word must always be taken in the sense which best harmonizes with the subject matter in which it is used[26].

"One may be considered a citizen for some purposes and not a citizen for other purposes, as, for instance, for commercial purposes, and not for political purposes[27]. So, a person may be a citizen in the sense that as such he is entitled to the protection of his life, liberty, and property, even though he is not vested with the suffrage or other political rights[28].

"[25] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore, 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
[26] Cal.--Prowd v. Gore. 2 Dist. 207 P. 490. 57 C.A. 458.
La.--Lepenser v Griffin, 83 So. 839, 146 La. 584
N.Y.--Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 N.Y. 454
[27] U.S.--The Friendschaft, N.C., 16 U.S. 14, 3 Wheat. 14, 4 L.Ed. 322
--Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 2 Cranch 64, 2 L.Ed. 208
Md.--Risewick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82
Mass.--Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush 531
R.I.--Greeough v. Tiverton Police Com'rs, 74 A 785, 30 R.I. 212
[28] Mass.--Dillaway v. Burton, 153 N.E. 13, 256 Mass. 568"

In any case, if you fail to object to the government's view of citizenship, then you will most certainly be subjected to the laws of the government. That means no rights, only privileges. To see a list of privileges granted or denied to the citizens (there is no list for the People's natural rights because the People automatically have all rights), see People's rights vs citizen's rights

ONE OF THE PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE CITIZENS?

The first issue to be resolved in any court proceeding is that of jurisdiction. Does the one entity have jurisdiction over the other entity? One should never go into court without a clear understanding as to whether he is there as a citizen, or there as one of the people.

If you claim you are a citizen of the United States, then it is strongly implied (though not necessarily true) that you are subject to the laws of the United States. On the other hand, if you are one of the People, then it is legally implied that you are a legal king, with a sovereignty superior to that of the United States, and subject only to the common law of the other kings (your peers). In short: the People are superior to the government, the government is superior to the citizens. That is the hierarchy.

PEOPLE ---> GOVERNMENT ---> CITIZENS

As a king you "are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." You can do what you want to do when you want to do it. You have your own property and your own courts. There is no limit as to what you may do other than the natural limits of the universe, and the sovereignty of a fellow sovereign. You should treat the other sovereign in accordance with the Golden Rule, and at the very least must never harm him. Your sovereignty stops where the other sovereignty begins. You are one of the owners of the American government, and it is their promise that they will support your sovereignty (i.e. they have promised to support the Constitution and protect it from all enemies). You have no allegiance to anyone. The government, your only [public] servant, has an allegiance to you.

As a citizen, you are only entitled to whatever your sovereign grants to you. You have no rights. If you wish to do something that would be otherwise illegal, you must apply for a license giving you special permission. If there is no license available, and if there is no specific permission granted in the statutes, then you must apply for special permission or a waiver in order to do it. Your only allegiance is to your sovereign (the government), and that allegiance is mandated by your sovereign's law (the government, though not absolutely sovereign, is sovereign relative to you if you claim to be a citizen of the sovereign).

Here is a typical example:

As one of the People you have a right to travel, unrestricted, upon the public highways. You have right to carry guests with you in your automobile. You have a right to own a gun and that right shall not be impaired by your servant, the government. You have a right to a grand jury indictment and a trial by jury, that is a trial directly by the people, not the government.

As one of the citizens, you may not travel by automobile unless you are either a licensed motor vehicle driver, or you are a passenger with permission to be on board. Gun ownership is a privilege subject to definition and regulation. You do not have a right to a jury trial in all cases, and no right to grand jury indictment--a trial is a trial by the government, not the people.

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm

[crested-duck]

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm----- THE UNITED STATES

IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY



EXTORTING



TAXES FOR THE CROWN!



A DOCUMENTARY REVIEW



OF CHARTERS AND TREATIES



August 17, 1996



An introduction by the "Informer"



This is the latest from a man who visits me quite often. He

and another man researched my theory that we have never been free

from the British Crown. This disc shows the results. I have

states that we will never win in their courts. This shows

conclusively why. We have the hard copy of the treaties that are

the footnotes. This predates Schroder's material, my research of

the 1861 stats by Lincoln that put us under the War Powers

confiscation acts, and John Nelson's material. All our material

supports that the real Principal, the King of England, still rules

this country through the bankers and why we own no property in

allodium. This is why it is so important to start OUR courts of

God's natural (common) Law and break away from all the crap they

have handed us. This is one reason Virginia had a law to hang all

lawyers but was somehow, by someone, (the King) set aside to let

them operate again. Some good people put in the original 13th

amendment so that without the lawyers the King could not continue

his strangle hold on us. James shows how that was quashed by the

King. I am happy that James' research of six months bears out my

theory, that most people would not listen to me, that we are still

citizen/subjects under the kings of England. My article called

"Reality" published in the American Bulletin and the article of

mine on the "Atocha case," wherein Florida in 1981 used it's

sovereignty under the British crown to try to take away the gold

from the wreck found in Florida waters supports this premise.

James makes mention of the Law dictionaries being England's Law

Dict. you will not is lists the reign of all the Kings of England.

It never mentions the reign of the Presidents of this country.

Ever wonder Why? Get this out to as many people as you can.

The Informer.

*****full articles and info found in link above****Rob

[Unified Serenity]

Great replies you two. I think it can be as you say duck, but does that negate it being a corporation? I am trying to get the actual incorporation as compared to the incorporated area of Washington D.C. in the act of 1871. Any idea on that?

[crested-duck]

Try this link and scroll down you will find answer in here:http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

[Unified Serenity]

Thanks Duck, I see lots of states incorporated and other incorporated issues, but maybe I did not search hard enough, I did not see the aspect of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED or a variation thereof. Still this is an excellent document and I appreciate you sharing it.

[humanalien]

All people in america are considered a corporation. Every legal
document that you sign will have your name in all caps. Using
all caps means that you are JOHN DOE the corporation.

I'll assume that you already knew that though.

Sorry. I'm not much help here....

[Unified Serenity]

Yeh, I know that much HA. I am looking for the actual legal creation of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.

Thanks

[turiya]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
Ok, here is another issue I have. There is a difference in a U.S. citizen and being an American Citizen. One is someone who has placed themselves subject to the rules and laws of the 10 mile square area and territories of Washington D.C., and that was done by conning the American People into getting a Social Security Number. That takes them out of being an American Citizen with full rights thereof, and makes them U.S. citizens. That is why you are not asked on government paperwork or IRS tax forms if you are an American Citizen, but are you a U.S. citizen. Most people think they are the same, but they are not. You can opt out of U.S. citizenship and file a W8 as a foreigner even though you are an American. W4 and W2's are for U.S. citizens.

This is not entirely true, Unified S.

The so-called "income" tax only applies to "taxpayers" (as that term is defined within the IRC), whether U.S. citizens or not.
No one, not any individual, not even an IRS agent, has the authority to determine who is subject to (liable for) a revenue tax.
The only authority there is that determines who is subject to (liable for) a revenue tax is the Internal Revenue Code.
The so-called "income" tax is an Excise tax. This means that it is a tax with regards to an 'activity', event and/or privilege.

The Internal Revenue Code is clear in showing which persons are liable for a tax. For example, 26 USC 5701(a)(1) states:

The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall be liable for the taxes imposed theron by section 5701.

Another example,

Sec. 5005. Person liable for tax.
(a) General. The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).
26 U.S.C. 5005. (Emphasis added.)

There has to be a numbered statute within the IRC that describes the activity or event that makes one liable for the taxes imposed. If there is no
numbered statute that describes such an activity that you are involved in, then there is no liability. For instance, try to find a code section number that describes taxi cab driving. I can tell you that there is none. But don't take my word for it. Look and try to find one... do this for whatever activity you may be involved in.

The 1943 House Congressional Record reiterates the basic fact that the so-called "income" tax is an excise tax.

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such.
It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and
privileges which is measured by reference to the income
which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax:
it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
House Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580. (emphasis added)

The United States Supreme Court explains an excise tax.

Excises are "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or
consumption of commodities within a country, upon
licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate
privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th rf., 680.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, at 152 (1911). (Emphasis added.)

W4/W9 & W2's are IRS documents. The same with a W8 Form, it is an IRS document.
If you fill out & sign any of these IRS Forms, then that is providing the IRS with prima facie evidence that shows you are a "taxpayer".
By doing so, you are falling under the purview of the IRS.
Never sign any IRS document if you don't want to fall under their purview. This I cannot stress enough.

Much of what has gone on since the mid 50s is that people have been misled to believe things that are not true. Most all employers are led to believe that they will be held liable for anything that is not reported. Because of this fear generated by the IRS, it causes employers to act as their agents by coercing prospective employees to sign IRS W4/W9 Forms.

Please note there are certain court cases that can clear up misunderstandings one may have.
The courts have clearly stated the revenue laws relate only to those who are subject to and liable for a tax.

For example:

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax
assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and
not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt
is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course
of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they
are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.

Note 3: The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the
strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code
and means any person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay
his own personal income tax. (Se section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not
possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F2.d 585,
589-590 (U.S. Court of Claims, 1972). (Emphasis added.)

Please be careful to not confuse people any more than they are.
The best way to "get off the plantation" (as Sherry Peele Jackson says) is to stop working for employers that are acting as arms of the IRS, and start working for yourself. Do not accept credit card payments, or payroll checks. Keep your customers close & personal. Do not offer your services to larger companies or corporations, as they will want to report what they pay you.

Cheers -*-

[we-R-one]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
Ok, here is another issue I have. There is a difference in a U.S. citizen and being an American Citizen. One is someone who has placed themselves subject to the rules and laws of the 10 mile square area and territories of Washington D.C., and that was done by conning the American People into getting a Social Security Number. That takes them out of being an American Citizen with full rights thereof, and makes them U.S. citizens. That is why you are not asked on government paperwork or IRS tax forms if you are an American Citizen, but are you a U.S. citizen. Most people think they are the same, but they are not. You can opt out of U.S. citizenship and file a W8 as a foreigner even though you are an American. W4 and W2's are for U.S. citizens.

I think you might have it backward here......If you are an "American" that designates the corporation where US citizen does not. You were pulled in not only by your ss#, but your birth certificate which is why they force that upon you in the hospitals. This is what pulls you into the jurisdiction of the corporation. You further solidify that relationship by acknowledging and responding to documents that address you by your all cap name such as credit cards, and contracts or any legal type of document. If you go to the DMV and try to get a drivers license in lower case, their machines are purposefully incapable of using lower case letters. It's all a play of words....I might have some documentation for you, let me dig around just to verify what I'm telling you..it's very easy to confuse.

+EDIT+
It's the all cap letters that designates the corporation so

Original
union of the several states
the states united
united states in Congress assembled
The united states of America
The United States of America
The United States
(defined as the original or organic)

CORPORATE
the UNITED STATES
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(all capital letters--a fiction--a corporation)
the United States of America
the United States
(defined as the corporate US),

[Unified Serenity]

Turiya, those who fill out W8 forms are not subject to the tax laws as those who find themselves in the control of Washington D.C. citizenship. Now, in Title 26 even those in that U.S. citizen status need to be aware that wages as per title 26 does not mean money you are paid for working, wages at directly tied to Federal Government pay. When I helped a friend set up a common law trust back in the early 90's it was believed that Ted Kennedy who did fall under the "wages" aspect actually had his common law trust sue him so it could garnish his "wages".

I do agree it's best not to fill out any forms as it's a "voluntary" filing, but people who try to play this game and keep their ssn or have title 26 wages are in for a world of hurt.

Disclaimer, anything I say is my ignorant opinion and not given as tax advice. For that seek a professionally trained government lacky called a CPA.

[Unified Serenity]

I think it's a double whammy. The BC is also part of the scheme. This may help a bit:

All of us are originally born a natural ‘sovereign free man.’ As soon as you sign the Social Security SS-5 form, you start your very own trust account in the Corporation of the UNITED STATES. This is where you officially separate yourself from your original status as sovereign born free man. Each time you sign for a license or permit, you are signing a contract to do whatever the state or federal government tells you is legal.

The government is now assigning the social security number in the hospitals at the time of birth of a natural free man, thereby getting them into the system as early as possible. You see even today babies are originally born with the status of sovereign freeman. They will remain free man until they accept benefits from the government. The government officials depend upon you remaining in the dark about your true nature.
One thing that you should to remember, there is no law forcing you to get a SS number or to give the SS number to anyone except the Social Security administration. The only laws that have been passed concerning Social Security numbers are intended to force companies to ‘ask’ you for the number. All of this is covered in the Privacy Act of 1974.
After that date no law could be passed to compel you to give your social security number for any reason other than Social Security. The government knows this, so they skirt the issue and go after your SS number in a roundabout way by forcing employers (and others) to basically force you to give it to then in order to work or otherwise be employed. Again all you have to do is stand up to the employer and tell him that you will not comply.
At that point, if he continues to force you to give a SS number, you can take him to court and force him under the threat of summary judgment to do whatever you were asking. What the employers do not understand is that the 1974 Privacy Act gives you the power to take any government organization or private company to court with a stipulated summary judgment attached if it is proved that they violated the Privacy Act.

Slavery by Contract:

The one drawback of this Constitution for the United States is the ability of federal government to contract with the people. In a perfect world this would work just fine. But, in our world, unscrupulous government officials have formulated contracts under statute law to take away your freedom since the 1860’s. Unfortunately, there have always been unscrupulous people that have worked against the sovereign people of the United States. Therefore, contracts were devised to actually take away our sovereign rights.
You need to understand, that we in this country, are the only people in the world that were originally given sovereign rights. That is why others in the United States and Europe have been working to undermine our status. Once our sovereign status is removed, we all become slaves to the government; so that a new world order or one world government can eventually be implemented.

A New World Order can never be implemented if a part of the world has a higher status than the other people around the world? The problem that the ‘One Worlders’ have, is that they must keep our sovereign status hidden until they actually implement the one world government. If you remember, President Bush Sr. (41) slipped and talked about this during his presidency.

What Does It Say?:

Another important fact to remember, when reading any government document, especially if it is a ‘legal document’; you have to know the meaning of the words being used. The accepted meaning is not always the same as what is being used in contracts and legal documents. I use a 4th edition Black’s Law Dictionary to define the terminology. This is especially important if the meanings of certain words have not been clearly defined in the body of the document that I am reading. This is very important! It can give you a false sense of security. You may think the contract says one thing but, because of the different meanings of words “in law” it may have an entirely different meaning. These documents once signed by the individual, become valid and either support or help take away your God given sovereign rights.

For instance normal use of the word “person,” is ‘individual,’ ‘people,’ etc. But, in government documents it means “citizen of the UNITED STATES Corporation”. Most of us never even think of this when reading a government document. The reason they have redefined the word person is to make you think they (the government) are talking about a sovereign individual. This gives you the feeling that you are free, but in reality you have become a slave to the corporate state.

Other examples of the differences in words and their meaning is the word “Freeman” vs. “Free man”. On the surface they look the same. But when consulting Black’s law dictionary, you find two completely different definitions.

• ‘Freeman’ is defined in modern legal phraseology, as the appellation of a member of a city or borough having the right of suffrage, or member of any municipal corporation invested with full civic rights.

• ‘Free man’ on the other hand is a lawfully competent sovereign that can act as juror and is also an allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.
CITIZEN vs Citizen vs citizen:

• CITIZEN: All caps CITIZEN is generally defined as a Corporate Entity unless qualified with a specific explanation.

o All CAPS generally refers to Corporate or Federal designations.

• Citizen: Capitalized Citizen is defined as Sovereign Citizen or free man

• citizen: Lower case citizen is generally defined as an individual and relies on the explanation for context.

Individual:

Individual is also dependent upon the explanation and context.

PERSON, Person, person: A Person is always defined as belonging to the corporation.
Your Rights are “Self Evident”:

At the end of the Revolutionary War it was recognized that “We the People” (each individual) was a sovereign. Notice that no constitution [state or federal] has ever provided the people with any rights. The people possessed these rights before the Constitution was formed. Therefore, all constitutions (contracts with the people) state the limits of which government may exercise control of the people. In fact it is the existence and recognition of these rights that give the people authority to form both federal and state constitutions.
The existence and recognition of preexisting rights can be can be found in:

• The Magna Carta (June 15, 1215)
• The Declaration of Rights in Congress, at New York (October 19, 1765)
• The Declaration of Rights in Congress, at Philadelphia (October 14, 1774)
• The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)
• The Articles of Confederation (November 15, 1777)
• The Treaty of Paris (September 3, 1783)
• This Constitution for the United States of America (September 17, 1787 )
• And, The Bill of Rights including the 9th and 10th Amendments (December 15, 1791)

Throughout these documents, it can be seen that ‘the people are not subservient to the government, but rather that the government it subservient to the people.’
Think about this for just a second. Do you feel that the government is subservient to you, or is it the other way around? Today it is just the opposite of what our forefathers fought and died for. They fought to give us all sovereign freedom. Instead our government has given us government slavery. You see, the definition of freedom is the jurisdiction of common law, and title to one’s land. We have lost both.

It's a 30 page document and covered some of what I learned back in the 80's.

http://www.ourinterestingworld.com/H...aSovereign.pdf

I don't think we are at odds, at least not in my mind. The whole law of the sea or Admiralty law with it's wording all plays a part. We could do a thread again on this topic. Do you know where to find the legal documents where they specifically incorporated the U.S. of America?

[shadowstalker]

Disclaimer, anything I say is my ignorant opinion and not given as tax advice. For that seek a professionally trained government lacky called a CPA.

LOLOL hahaha Sorry but that line was just to cute, I had to chuckle a tad...

[we-R-one]

Ok, US, see my edit above in red.

As far as your other question in regards to when the other states were incorporated, I want to say it was the late 60's, like 1967 to 1970. I'm trying to remember what it was called....crap....it had something to do with the counties voluntarily joining........they were woo'ed in by being given federal funding for acquiescing into the system. Of course the money came at a price and that's where federal mandates came in to play. There are 3,141 corporate counties in the US.

It was my understanding that a county could rescind its participation merely with a letter of withdrawal. The problem is, finding someone who has enough balls to do it, is another story. Many counties are bankrupt (supposedly) and don't want to be cut from federal funding. So that's how the Federal government gets it's policies and programs implemented by threatening to pull funding. Additionally the mandates are what's causing some of these counties and cities to go bankrupt!

Still looking......I have more info for you, but not sure if it will post properly on the form. Let me see what I can do....

[ghostrider]

America is an extention of England, we don't speak american , we speak English. IT feels like a corporation. Check out Jordan Maxwell he has alot of info in the area your looking at .

[turiya]

All of this is covered in the Privacy Act of 1974.
After that date no law could be passed to compel you to give your social security number for any reason other than Social Security. The government knows this, so they skirt the issue and go after your SS number in a roundabout way by forcing employers (and others) to basically force you to give it to then in order to work or otherwise be employed. Again all you have to do is stand up to the employer and tell him that you will not comply.
At that point, if he continues to force you to give a SS number, you can take him to court and force him under the threat of summary judgment to do whatever you were asking.

The Privacy Act of 1974 only applies to government agencies, not private companies. The way the gov't agencies/employers skirt this is by making it part of their Administrative Policies & Procedures to require an SSN before anyone can be hired. If you go into court on this, you will have to go as pro se, as you would be hard-pressed to find an attorney that would be willing to represent you according to how you want to be represented on this issue. For the most part, they are only willing to represent clients according to how they (the attorneys) want to do the representing.

The ACLU steers well away from getting involved with this SSN stuff.

regards t

[bekrah]

Very interesting thread, it's all way the heck over my head, but I'll read and do my best to understand it. Can't really say much more as I'm lacking in this subject, but thanks for bringing it up. Now to read....

[we-R-one]

Posted by bekrah (here)
Very interesting thread, it's all way the heck over my head, but I'll read and do my best to understand it. Can't really say much more as I'm lacking in this subject, but thanks for bringing it up. Now to read....

It's very confusing how they've set it up, so don't feel bad. I've been looking at this for quite some time now, and I still don't have the complete flow yet. It's kind of like a language, you just have to expose yourself to it over and over again and then it kinda of comes together. The problem in this situation is the information isn't handy for all to find adding to the confusion and then of course interpreting some of this stuff can be difficult. I was fortunate enough to spend time with both a "reader" of the law and an "applier" of the law. The reader being the one who's good at interpreting and the applier the one who's good at just that, actually applying the law in court.

You definitely have the right attitude!

[we-R-one]

Ok, so I found a link to what I had that might somewhat simplify the information. I've been wanting to start a thread on this for a long time, but it's complicated and you really have to lay it out in such a manner so people can understand. Often the one's who really "get it" are so advanced that they can't simplify it enough for others to follow. Maybe when we get enough solid information we can start a thread with it all layed out in some type of logical order so everyone can grasp the idea.

I have some other documents I want to look at US but they're at home and I'm not going back for a few days. If I can find them readily I'll post what I have. Until then, take a look at this:

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

+EDIT+
You might want to copy and paste this for your own use in case this link is shut down. I posted some great information not too long ago about attorneys and they shut down the site shortly there after, so it wouldn't surprise me if this link got the same treatment.