Great IRS Hoax, section 5.3, version 3.26

---

“Dolosus versatur generalibus. A deceiver deals in generals. 2 Co. 34.”

“Fraus latet in generalibus. Fraud lies hid in general expressions.“

Generale nihil certum implicat. A general expression implies nothing certain. 2 Co. 34.

Ubi quid generaliter conceditur, in est haec exceptio, si non aliquid sit contra jus fasque. Where a thing is concealed generally, this exception arises, that there shall be nothing contrary to law and right. 10 Co. 78.
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]

1. THE FOUR “UNITED STATES”

It is very important to understand that there are THREE separate and distinct CONTEXTS in which the term “United States” can be used, and each has a mutually exclusive and different meaning. These three definitions of “United States” were described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945):

Table 1: Geographical terms used throughout this page

Term	# in diagrams	Meaning
United States*	1	The country “United States” in the family of nations throughout the world.
United States**	2	The “federal zone”.
United States***	3	Collective states of the Union mentioned throughout the Constitution.

In addition to the above GEOGRAPHICAL context, there is also a legal, non-geographical context in which the term “United States” can be used, which is the GOVERNMENT as a legal entity. Throughout this page and this website, we identify THIS context as “United States****” or “United States⁴“. The only types of “persons” within THIS context are public offices within in the national and not state government. It is THIS context in which “sources within the United States” is used for the purposes of “income” and “gross income” within the Internal Revenue Code, as proven by:

Nonresident Alien Position, Form #05.020, Sections 6 and 7
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/NonresidentAlienPosition.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The reason these contexts are not expressly distinguished in the statutes by the Legislative Branch or on government forms crafted by the Executive Branch is that they are the KEY mechanism by which:

1. Federal jurisdiction is unlawfully enlarged by abusing presumption, which is a violation of due process of law. See:
   Presumption: Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.007
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Presumption.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
2. The separation of powers between the states and the national government is destroyed, in violation of the legislative intent of the Constitution. See:
   Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers Doctrine, Form #05.023
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. A “society of law” is transformed into a “society of men” in violation of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
   

   “The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”
   [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803)]

4. Exclusively PRIVATE rights are transformed into public rights in a process we call “invisible eminent domain using presumption and words of art”.
5. Judges are unconstitutionally delegated undue discretion and “arbitrary power” to unlawfully enlarge federal jurisdiction. See:
   Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.018
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/FederalJurisdiction.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The way a corrupted Executive Branch or judge accomplish the above is to unconstitutionally:

1. PRESUME that ALL of the four contexts for “United States” are equivalent.
2. PRESUME that CONSTITUTIONAL citizens and STATUTORY citizens are EQUIVALENT under federal law. They are NOT. A CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is a “non-citizen national” under federal law and NOT a “citizen of the United States”.
   Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
3. PRESUME that “nationality” and “domicile” are equivalent. They are NOT. See:
   Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
4. Use the word “citizenship” in place of “nationality” OR “domicile”, and refuse to disclose WHICH of the two they mean in EVERY context.
5. Confuse the POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL meaning of words with the civil STATUTORY context. For instance, asking on government forms whether you are a POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen and then FALSELY PRESUMING that you are a STATUTORY citizen under 8 U.S.C. §1401.
6. Confuse the words “domicile” and “residence” or impute either to you without satisfying the burden of proving that you EXPRESSLY CONSENTED to it and thereby illegally kidnap your civil legal identity against your will. One can have only one “domicile” but many “residences” and BOTH require your consent. See:
   Why Domicile and Becoming a “taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
7. Add things or classes of things to the meaning of statutory terms that do not EXPRESSLY appear in their definitions, in violation of the rules of statutory construction. See:
   Meaning of the Words “includes” and “including”, Form #05.014
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Includes.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
8. Refuse to allow the jury to read the definitions in the law and then give them a definition that is in conflict with the statutory definition. This substitutes the JUDGES will for what the law expressly says and thereby substitutes PUBLIC POLICY for the written law.
9. Publish deceptive government publications that are in deliberate conflict with what the statutes define “United States” as and then tell the public that they CANNOT rely on the publication. The IRS does this with ALL of their publications and it is FRAUD. See:
   Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
   DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf
   FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

This kind of arbitrary discretion is PROHIBITED by the Constitution, as held by the U.S. Supreme Court:

‘When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power.‘
[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. 1064, 1071]

Thomas Jefferson, our most revered founding father, precisely predicted the above abuses when he said:

“It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary—an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed.“
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331]

“Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.“
[Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121]

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem.‘”
[Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297]

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.“
[Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332]

“What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building [“trade or business” scam] and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption [PRESUMPTION] of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!”
[Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168]

2. STATUTORY V. CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXTS

It is very important to understand that there are TWO separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive contexts in which geographical “words of art” can be used at the federal or national level:

1. Constitutional.
2. Statutory.

The purpose of providing a statutory definition of a legal “term” is to supersede and not enlarge the ordinary, common law, constitutional, or common meaning of a term. Geographical words of art include:

1. “State”
2. “United States”
3. “alien”
4. “citizen”
5. “resident”
6. “U.S. person”

The terms “State” and “United States” within the Constitution implies the constitutional states of the Union and excludes federal territory, statutory “States” (federal territories), or the statutory “United States” (the collection of all federal territory). This is an outcome of the separation of powers doctrine. See:

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

The U.S. Constitution creates a public trust which is the delegation of authority order that the U.S. Government uses manage federal territory and property. That property includes franchises, such as the “trade or business” franchise. All statutory civil law it creates can and does regulate only THAT property and not the constitutional States, which are foreign, sovereign, and statutory “aliens” for the purposes of federal legislative jurisdiction.

It is very important to realize the consequences of this constitutional separation of powers between the states and national government. Some of these consequences include the following:

1. Statutory “States” as indicated in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and “States” in nearly all federal statutes are in fact federal territories and the definition does NOT include constitutional states of the Union.
2. The statutory “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 USC §110(d) includes federal territory and excludes any land within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union.
3. Terms on government forms assume the statutory context and NOT the constitutional context.
4. Domicile is the origin of civil legislative jurisdiction over human beings. This jurisdiction is called “in personam jurisdiction”.
5. Since the separation of powers doctrinecreates two separate jurisdictions that are legislatively “foreign” in relation to each other, then there are TWO types of political communities, two types of “citizens”, and two types of jurisdictions exercised by the national government.
   

   “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. The preliminary inquiry in the case now before the Court, is, by virtue of which of these authorities was the law in question passed?”
   [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

6. A human being domiciled in a state and born or naturalized anywhere in the Union is a statutory “alien” in relation to the national government and a non-citizen national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and 8 U.S.C. §1452.
7. You can be a statutory “alien” pursuant to 8 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3)(i) and a constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment “Citizen” AT THE SAME TIME. Why? Because the Supreme Court ruled in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 653 (1945), that there are THREE different and mutually exclusive “United States”, and therefore THREE types of “citizens of the United States”. Here is an example:
   

   “The 1^st section of the 14^th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship–not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the [***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
   [Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]

   The “citizen of the United States” mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional “citizen of the United States”, and the term “United States” in that context includes states of the Union and excludes federal territory. Hence, you would NOT be a “citizen of the United States” within any federal statute, because all such statutes define “United States” to mean federal territory and EXCLUDE states of the Union. For more details, see:

   Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

8. Your job, if you say you are a “citizen of the United States” or “U.S. citizen” on a government form ( a VERY DANGEROUS undertaking!) is to understand that all government forms presume the statutory and not constitutional context, and to ensure that you define precisely WHICH one of the three “United States” you are a “citizen” of, and do so in a way that excludes you from the civil jurisdiction of the national government because domiciled in a “foreign state”. Both foreign countries and states of the Union are legislatively “foreign” and therefore “foreign states” in relation to the national government of the United States. The following form does that very carefully:
   

   Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001 http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

9. Even the IRS says you CANNOT trust or rely on ANYTHING on any of their forms and publications. We cover this in our Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007. Hence, if you are compelled to fill out a government form, you have an OBLIGATION to ensure that you define all “words of art” used on the form in such a way that there is no room for presumption, no judicial or government discretion to “interpret” the form to their benefit, and no injury to your rights or status by filling out the government form. This includes attaching the following forms to all tax forms you submit:9.1. Affidavit of Citizenship, Domicile, and Tax Status, Form #02.001
   http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm9.2. Tax Form Attachment, Form #04.201
   http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm

3. SUMMARY OF CITIZENSHIP STATUS v. TAX STATUS

Below is a table that maps the various “Citizenship status” options in Title 8 of the U.S. Code to a “Income tax status” found in the Internal Revenue Code, which is Title 26 of the U.S. Code. If a column contains the word “yes”, then the citizenship status row and the corresponding tax status column are equivalent to each other from a legal perspective.

Table 2: “Citizenship status” vs. “Income tax status”

---

4. EFFECT OF DOMICILE ON CITIZENSHIP STATUS

Table 3: Effect of Domicile on Citizenship Status

NOTES:

1. “United States” is statutorily defined as federal territory within 26 U.S.C. §§7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), 7701(a)(39), and 7408(d), and 4 U.S.C. §110(d). It does not expressly include any Constitutional state of the Union and therefore, by the rules of statutory construction, they are purposefully excluded.
2. The “District of Columbia” is defined as a federal corporation but not a physical place, a “body politic”, or a de jure “government” within the District of Columbia Act of 1871, 16 Stat. 419, 426, Sec. 34. See: Corporatization and Privatization of the Government, Form #05.024; http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm.
3. American nationals who are domiciled outside of federal jurisdiction, either in a state of the Union or a foreign country, are “nationals” but not “citizens” under federal law. They also qualify as “nonresident aliens” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B). See sections 4.11.2 of the Great IRS Hoax for details.
4. Temporary domicile in the middle column on the right must meet the requirements of the “Presence test” documented in IRS publications.
5. “FEDERAL ZONE”=District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States in the above table.
6. The term “individual” as used on the IRS form 1040 means an “alien” engaged in a “trade or business”. All “taxpayers” are “aliens” engaged in a “trade or business”. This is confirmed by 26 CFR §1.1441-1(c )(3), 26 CFR §1.1-1(a)(2)(ii), and 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(2). Statutory “U.S. citizens” as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1401 are not “individuals” unless temporarily abroad pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §911 and subject to an income tax treaty with a foreign country. In that capacity, statutory “U.S. citizens” interface to the I.R.C. as “aliens” rather than “U.S. citizens” through the tax treaty.

---

5. MEANING OF GEOGRAPHICAL WORDS OF ART

A very frequent point of confusion and misunderstanding even within the legal profession is the definition of geographical terms in the various contexts in which they are used. The table below is provided to clear up this confusion in order that people do not misinterpret geographical terms by applying them outside their intended context. Using this page is VERY important for those who will be reading and researching state and federal law. The differences in meaning within the various contexts are primarily a consequence of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

Table 4: Meaning of geographic “words of art”

What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only under Title 48 of the U.S. Code[4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States. This is true in most cases and especially in the Internal Revenue Code. The lower case word “state” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means one of the 50 union states, which are “foreign states”, and “foreign countries” with respect to the federal government as clearly explained in section 5.2.11 of the Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302 (OFFSITE LINK) book. In the context of the above, a “Union State” means one of the 50 Union states of the United States* (the country, not the federal United States**) mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America.

If you would like to know all the implications of the separation of powers reflected in the above table, as well as a history of unconstitutional efforts to destroy this separation, see the following references:

1. Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.020
2. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Separation of Powers” (OFFSITE LINK)

---

6. CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE OPTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

Figure 1: Citizenship and Domicile Options and Relationships

---

7. FOUR TYPES OF AMERICAN NATIONALS

There are four types of American nationals recognized under federal law :

1. Statutory “U.S. citizen” or “citizen of the [federal] United States**” or “national and citizen of the [federal] United States**”

1.1. A statutory privileged status defined and found in 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(A), in the implementing regulations of the Internal Revenue Code at 26 CFR §1.1-1(c ), and in most other federal statutes.

1.2. Born ianywhere in the United States* but domiciled in the federal zone only. Most inhabit the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States identified in Title 48 of the U.S. Code.

1.3. Subject to the “police power” of the federal government and all “acts of Congress”.

1.4. Treated as a citizen of the municipal government of the District of Columbia (see 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39))

1.5. Have no common law rights, because there is no federal common law. See Jones v. Mayer, 392 U.S. 409 (1798).

1.6. Also called “federal U.S. citizens”.

1.7 Owe allegiance to the GOVERNMENT of the United States and NOT the PEOPLE of the States of the Union, who are called United States***.

2. Statutory “nationals but not citizens of the United States**” at birth (where “United States” or “U.S.” means the federal United States)

2.1. Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B), and 8 U.S.C. §1452.

2.2. Born anywhere in American Samoa or Swains Island.

2.3. May not participate politically in federal elections or as federal jurists.

2.4. Owes allegiance to the federal “United States**”.

3. “USA nationals” (but not “citizens of the United States**”)

3.1. Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1452, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21).

3.2. Is not equivalent to a statutory “national but not citizen of the United States by birth” identified in 8 U.S.C. §1408.

3.3. Called a “citizen of the United States” by the Supreme Court and in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3.4. Born anywhere in any one of the several states of the Union but not in a federal territory, possession, or the District of Columbia.

3.5. Not subject to the “police power” of the federal government or most “acts of Congress”.

3.6. Owes allegiance to the “United States***” that comprise the several states of the Union.

3.7. May serve as a federal jurist or grand jurist involving only parties with his same citizenship and domicile status. May vote in federal elections.

4. “State national” (where “U.S.” or “United States” means only the union of states)”

4.1. Defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21), under the Law of Nationas, under state laws, and under USA Constitution.

4.1. Is equivalent to the term “state citizen”.

4.2. In general, born in any one of the several states of the Union but not in a federal territory, possession, or the District of Columbia. Not domiciled in the federal zone.

4.3. Not subject to the “police power” of the federal government or most “acts of Congress”.

4.4. Owes Allegiance to the sovereign people, collectively and individually, within the body politic of the constitutional state residing in.

4.5. May serve as a state jurist or grand jurist involving only parties with his same citizenship and domicile status.

4.6. May vote in state elections.

4.7. At this time, all “state Nationals” are also a “USA National”. But not all “USA Nationals” are a “state National” (for example, a USA national not residing nor domiciled in a state of the Union). Is a man or woman whose unalienable natural rights are recognized, secured, and protected by his state constitution against state actions and against federal intrusion by the Constitution for the United States of America.

Statutory “U.S. citizens” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1401 have civil rights under federal law that are similar but inferior to the natural rights of state nationals in state courts. We say almost because “civil rights” are statutory creations of Congress that may be taken away at any time and therefore are really privileges and franchises disguised to “look” like rights. “U.S. citizens” are privileged subjects/servants of Congress, under their protection as a “resident” and “ward” of a federal State, a person enfranchised to the federal government (the incorporated United States defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution). The individual Union states may not deny to these persons any federal privileges or immunities that Congress has granted them within “acts of Congress” or federal statutes. Federal citizens come under admiralty law (International Law) when litigating in federal courts. As such they do not have inalienable common rights recognized, secured and protected in federal courts by the Constitutions of the States, or of the Constitution for the United States of America, such as “allodial” (absolute) rights to property, the rights to inheritance, the rights to work and contract, and the right to travel among others.

Another important element of citizenship is that artificial entities like corporations are citizens for the purposes of taxation but cannot be citizens for any other purpose.

“A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”
[Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]

---

8. FEDERAL STATUTORY CITIZENSHIP STAT– USES DIAGRAM

We have prepared a venn diagram showing all of the various types of citizens so that you can properly distinguish them. The important thing to notice about this diagram is that there are multiple types of “citizens of the United States” and “nationals of the United States” because there are multiple definitions of “United States” according to the Supreme Court, as we showed in section 1 earlier.

Figure 2: Federal Statutory Citizenship Statuses

9. CITIZENSHIP STATUS ON GOVERNMENT FORMS

Table 5: Citizenship status on government forms

NOTES:

NEXT PAGE

Share this:

• Facebook
• X

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Pages: 1 2 3 4