From the Radio Free Michigan archives

ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot

If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to
bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.
------------------------------------------------

I've come across claims that there is another class of citizenship in
these United States, and that members of that class do not have to
file taxes and hence do not have to obtain a Social Security Number
for any reason.  

I would very much like to obtain informed opinions and citings from
legal decisions in support for or against, as I don't yet have all the
facts.

To kick off the discussion, I'll offer what I've learned so far.  But,
please: I'm primarily interested in the legal aspects.  Discussing the
philosophical or social implications would be fun, but only as asides
to the legal aspects.  Also, I'm not especially interested in the
tax consequences so much as I'm interested in the overall issue of
individual Sovereignty and the loss thereof.

                                *  *  *

0. The Issue

With respect to US citizenship and SSNs, there are two claims made:
1) that US citizens are required to file taxes and the IRS requires
taxpayers to obtain an SSN; and 2) that there is another class of
citizenship whose members do not have to file taxes and are not
subject to most federal regulations.

The first claim is undeniably true.  US citizens must definitely file
taxes and the IRS definitely requires taxpayers to obtain SSNs.

A summary of the argument for the second claim follows.  I am trying
to track down all supporting information---court decisions in
particular---to determine its veracity.

Where I've wished to add supporting evidence or personal interjections,
I've placed references in square brackets [] to a Notes section.


1. The Argument In Favor of Claim 2

1.1. Classes of Citizenship

There are two distinct and separate classes of citizenship: 1) State
Citizenship, which has existed since before and after the Union was
formed; and 2) US citizenship, which has existed only since the 14th
Amendment (which actually created the class of US citizenship).

By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a
Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born.  


1.2. Common Law

Common Law is the basis of the U.S. Constitution and the various State
constitutions.  Common Law derives from English law, and is largely
uncodified.  Common Law is approached as axiomatic, and provides that
persons have inalienable (or "natural") rights that cannot be taken
away by governmental entities. [1]


1.3. The Nature of Sovereignty

The term Sovereign has very special meaning in law.  It is from Common
Law and derives from the body of law applicable to Kings (Sovereigns).
A Sovereign is not necessarily subject to any higher authority.
However, if one is not a Sovereign then one is subject to some higher
authority.

There are three classes of Sovereigns in the United States: "We The
People", the State Governments, and the Federal Government.  Hence, a
State Citizen is a Sovereign.

Each Sovereign State Citizen, with respect to every other Sovereign
State Citizen, is a Sovereign.  Each State, with respect to every
other State, is a Sovereign.  The United States of America ("the US"),
as a country, is a Sovereign with respect to every other country in
the world.

The Sovereign "We The People" created the States.  The States are
subject to the Sovereign We The People that created them.  The
Sovereign States created the US.  The US is subject to the Sovereign
States that created it.


1.4. Classes of Constitutions

Each State has two constitutions: 1) an original Common Law
constitution with which the State, as a Sovereign Country whose form
of government was required to be a Republic (not quite the same thing
as a Democracy), entered into the Union; and 2) a Corporate
constitution created sometime after the State entered into the Union
and had incorporated.

California, for example, has two Constitutions: the original Common
Law constitution of 1849, and the statutory law ("Corporate")
constitution of 1879.  Both constitutions are still in effect.  The
Corporate constitution cites the original Common Law constitution and
is a substitute for it.  The term substitute has special meaning in
law. It does not mean "to replace" or "to supersede". [2]

The State Constitutions and the Federal Constitution are documents
specifically creating and delineating the powers and restrictions of
the created government.  All other powers are to remain with the
People and all powers granted to the government are from the People.

The Constitutions give a Sovereign Citizen no rights whatsoever,
because a Sovereign Citizen already possessed all rights possible:
the Citizen was and is the ultimate Sovereign in this country.
The Constitutions simply acknowledge and state the preexistence of
these "inalienable rights" and guarantee that the government will not
in any way infringe or take away these rights.

Among other things, the various Constitutions state that any
government shall not infringe on the right of individuals to enter
into contracts.


1.5. The Nature of the District of Columbia

Each State in the Union is a separate Country.  This is stated by US
Supreme Court Cases and Congressional Record, most recently in 1968.

Late in the 18th century, 13 separate countries agreed to form a Union
and to create a 14th separate country called the District Of Columbia.
The land for the Federal District of Columbia was taken from the
country of Maryland. [3]

Washington D.C. and all States are separate countries with respect to
each other.  Therefore, any entity, whether a person or a corporation,
while residing in another country, is a foreigner (an "alien").

The US Government (of the District of Columbia) is a foreign/alien
corporation with respect to each State.


1.6. Classes of Citizenship Revisited

Sovereign State Citizenship is a Common Law birthright.  That status
was not and is not created by the State or the United States; it is
axiomatic.

US citizenship was created by the 14th amendment to the Constitution,
hence US citizens are subject to the US government.  

A Sovereign State Citizen (or briefly, a State Citizen) is not subject
to the US government in the same way that a US citizen is.  A State
Citizen has the full protections of all of the restrictions on the US
Government that the US constitution provides.

State Citizens are Citizens of exactly one State.  The US Constitution
guarantees that every State shall treat Citizens of every other State
while within that State as if they were Citizens of their State.

US citizens are citizens only of the District Of Columbia.  They are
not State Citizens of the State in which they reside. They are
technically Franchises of the Corporation called the US Government.

Any US citizen residing in one of the 50 states is considered to be a
resident alien of that state, and not a Citizen of that state---and,
as a special point in law, is "residing" in that State, as opposed to
being "domiciled" there.

A State Citizen is subject to common law and the original state
constitution.  The Common Law constitution can be invoked in court by
a State Citizen.  The Corporate constitution does not apply to a State
Citizen. [4]

The Corporate constitution of a State does apply to a resident/alien.
All modifications to the original Common Law constitution contained
in the Corporate constitution do apply to residents/aliens.


1.7. The Nature of Income Taxes

Both the US Constitution and the State Constitutions do allow for
excise taxes.

The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that
Congress may impose taxes on income. [5]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is an excise tax
because it is a tax on the earnings of corporate franchises (i.e. US
citizens) and hence is an excise tax. [6]

Because a US citizen is a Franchise of a foreign corporation with
respect to the State, and is residing in the State, that citizen pays
some income taxes to a special state entity.  In California, that
entity is the Franchise Tax Board and the tax is called the Resident
Income Tax.

State Citizens are not subject to the Resident Income Tax since they
are not residents of the State and are not aliens with respect to the
State. [7]

State Citizens are not citizens of the District Of Columbia and therefore
they are not subject to the District Of Columbia's income tax.


1.8. The Nature of the Social Security Tax

Social Security was first implemented in 1935, originally not as a tax
per se.  The Social Security Act of 1935 was repealed in 1938 and
reenacted as a direct tax on all US citizens.  It is a direct tax
because the Social Security Act of 1938 states that the revenues can
be used for "any other purposes". [8]

The Social Security tax today is a direct tax called FICA, and the
revenue collected from payees is directly given to recipients.
However, the revenue is considered part of the general tax revenues
(e.g. those collected from taxes on incomes and other sources),
and can be spent in any way specified by Congress.

The courts have ruled that Social Security disbursements are "gifts"
from the government.  However, the US Government is free to do with
the monies whatever it wishes.

Social Security taxes are not refundable.

Since State Citizens are not US citizens they are not subject to
social security tax.  The social security tax is voluntary.


2. Notes.

[1] I wanted to compare Common Law and Statutory Law, but my
    understanding of the nature of Statutory Law needs improvement.

[2] Each Sovereign State after entering into the Union eventually
    incorporated.  Each State has two flags: the Sovereign State flag
    and the Corporate State flag.  The Corporate constitution is the
    constitution that is full of all of the Statutory "laws" that
    apply to its residents.  Anything the Corporate State creates is
    subject to it.  The US Government is also a Corporation.
    The US also has two flags: the Sovereign United States flag and
    the Federal Corporate flag which, with Gold fringe, is also a
    military or martial law flag.

[3] The District of Columbia cannot become a state, because the land
    belongs to Maryland.

[4] If one examines many of the "laws" on the books and the Corporate
    Constitution of a State one will find that they are carefully written
    so as not to apply to State Citizens.  They are written to apply to all 
    the residents/foreigners/aliens/corporations (aka "Persons", i.e.
    non-State Citizens) residing in the state.  Of course, virtually
    everyone in every state is a resident alien ("Person") since they
    are all citizens of the US.  (State Citizens are "Sovereigns,"
    and, under statutory law, not "Persons".)

[5] The tax laws, as written by the US Congress, are not actually Laws
    (with a capital L) at all but are codes (or contract laws).
    The laws most certainly are valid for US citizens.  Persons who
    claim the tax laws are unconstitutional are also wrong:
    there are US Supreme Court cases stating in clear and certain terms
    that the "income tax" is actually an excise and hence is not
    unconstitutional.  In addition there are US Supreme Court cases
    stating in clear and certain terms that the tax laws apply to US
    citizens even if they earn all of their income outside of the US
    with no direct or indirect economic involvement with US.
    The mere fact that one is a US citizen empowers the IRS to determine
    one's Federal income tax liability.  The IRS usually forces
    US citizens to "voluntarily" determine that liability themselves.

[6] There are court rulings stating that the income tax as it now
    stands has nothing to do with---and never has had anything to do
    with---the 16th amendment.

[7] Do Citizens of Thailand (a foreign country) pay their taxes to the US
    Government?  No.  State Citizens are considered non-resident
    aliens with respect to the District of Columbia.  There is an IRS
    form W-8, "non-resident alien declaration", that exempts one from
    the Federal Income tax.  If one files a W-8, the IRS will
    eventually send one a letter stating that one is exempt from all
    Federal tax liability.  I have yet to actually see such a letter though.

[8] Many persons today, especially older persons, still claim that the
    Social Security tax is not a direct tax and is like an account into
    which they have paid and from which they expect all of "their" invested
    money back plus some.  But that is only as it was originally
    implemented and stated to the American People, and has not applied
    since 1938.


3. Analysis

3.1. Questions of Status and Jurisdiction

The key legal issue seems to be one of Status.  Is one's status under
law Sovereign or Subject?  Status is critical to any legal proceeding
so that proper and legal jurisdiction can be determined.  It is
beginning to look like the outcome of any given case, whether argued
before the US Supreme Court or some other court, is ultimately
affected by Status and Jurisdiction.  Another key legal issue which
ultimately affects Status are the terms "domiciled in/living in" and
"resides in/residing in".  According to law a citizen of his own
country is domiciled in or lives in his country.  A foreigner/alien or
diplomat while "living in" a country not his own resides in or is
residing in that country.

The question then in court is which constitution one can invoke.  The
constitution that one can invoke is totally dependent upon one's
Status.


3.2. Contracts and Social Security

A State Citizen or US citizen is entering into a contract by obtaining
a driver's license, a credit card, a bank account, a social security
card, by filing income tax returns, etc.  Once one is party to a
contract the terms of that contract are in full effect and actually
are law for the parties of the contract and fully enforcible to the
full extent of the Law.

The governments and courts must make sure the terms of the contract
are followed to the letter.  This is what the Federal Government and
State Governments are supposed to do and are doing with great effect.
They enforce the terms of contracts voluntarily and non-fraudulently
entered into by two or more parties.

A State Citizen, by obtaining a social security number, is signing a
contract. The terms of a contract can constrain or supersede any of
the rights the Sovereign previously held.  And those terms are fully
enforcible by the courts.

The social security contract binds the parties to the laws and
statutes regarding social security.

The social security contract also makes one a US citizen and hence
makes one subject to the 14th amendment and to any other laws that
apply to US citizens.  One is still a State Citizen, but all the
Federal laws, income tax laws, social security laws, etc., constrain
one's rights contractually.


3.3. Rights of US citizens vs. Rights of State Citizens

All US citizens are subject to the US Government and have "civil
rights," but have neither "inalienable" rights nor rights guaranteed
by the Constitutions.  The rights that US citizens hold are only those
granted to them by the US Government.

Civil rights can be removed or changed at will by legislation.  For
example, US citizens were given the right to a trial by jury only in
1968.  Previously, US citizens might be given trials by jury but the
guaranteed right to a jury trial did not exist for them.  In contrast,
State Citizens have had that right guaranteed by the State and US
Constitutions since their existence.

A State Citizen has absolutely no need of civil rights.  A State
Citizen already holds all rights as inalienable.

No challenges regarding constitutionality may be mounted by
aliens/foreigners and US citizens since they did not create the US
constitution---instead they are created constructs of the US
constitution.  Sovereign State Citizens can challenge the
constitutionality of laws, codes, or statutes.  This is why US citizen
tax-protesters get slam-dunked when they stand before the US Supreme
Court (or the Tax Court for that matter) and claim that the income tax
is unconstitutional.  They are wrong twice: they cannot legally even
present the challenge, and the income tax is an excise tax and is
constitutional.


4. Conclusions

Some individuals now claim to be State Citizens by virtue of having
obtained letters from the states in which they are domiciled
acknowledging their Citizenships in those States. Also, to deny
Federal jurisdiction, these Citizens have attempted to break all
contractual ties with the US Government, by returning their Social
Security cards, by submitting IRS W-8 forms and by closing all
financial accounts with members of the Federal Reserve System (credit
cards, bank accounts, loans) etc.  In addition, to deny Corporate
State jurisdiction, these Citizens have returned their driver's
licenses, vehicle registrations, and license plates.

These Citizens claim that Federal Statutory laws, statutes, codes,
etc., and the state Corporate constitutions, do not apply to
them---and have never applied to them---and also that none of the
State Statutory laws, statutes, codes, etc., apply to them.

In traffic and tax cases, the state courts are upholding these claims
so far, but not without a huge fight per individual case.  I have yet
to actually sit in on a case to see this happen, but I have read some
of the decisions rendered on such cases.  Most cases against State
Citizens are eventually dismissed, because the courts appear not to
want more legal precedents set.

The above is a summary of most of the support that I have found so far
for claim 2.  I have not verified all of this.  This is what I am
trying to do right now.  So: does anyone have informed opinions about
this matter?  Can anyone point to solid legal work that secures or
refutes the correctness of claim 2?

--James Zarbock


------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.


All files are ZIP archives for fast download.

 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)