(See 26 CFR 301.6109-1. "A U. S. person or foreign person must furnish "its" Tax ID number.)

1. The "United States" and the "United States of America" are TWO different entities. Read The U.S. Constitution! The PRESIDENTIAL candidate runs for President of the United States of America. He is sworn in as President of the United States. [for example]

Federal Jurisdiction Does not Extend to People in the States of the Union

"If Congress is authorized to act in a field, it should manifest its intention clearly. It will not be presumed that a federal statute was intended to supersede the exercise of the power of the state unless there is a clear manifestation of intention to do so. The exercise of federal supremacy is not lightly to be presumed." Schwartz v. Texas, 344 U.S. 199, 202-203 (1952). [413 U.S. 405, 414]

"To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the states, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he says,) the offense committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state." 17 Johns., at 223.

"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction." 10 Pet., at 737.

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed." "[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted." "Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law." 44 U.S., at 221, 223, 228, 229.

Although the latter above cases are not recent, the principles laid down are quite specific to our form of government. The federal government was not established to impose its rule on people directly, relative to the Union, but its responsibility for making law for the District of Columbia, the Territories, and Possessions of the United States is distinct from its lawmaking power for the Union. Relative to the Union, the federal government has little power to make laws effecting citizens of the States. Relative to its special jurisdiction over areas ceded to it by the States, it is a sovereign government, much like a State government. Relative to Possessions, such as Puerto Rico, the United States is the government. Possessions and territories are called "States" in Title 26.

SIXTY-FOURTH CONGRESS. SESS. I. CH. 463. 1916. 39 Stat 773

INTERNAL TAXES Part III General Administrative Procedures

Sec. 15. The word “State” or “United States” when used in this title shall be construed to include any Territory, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, when such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions.

Congress Codified the Internal Tax laws in 1916. Note that the Statute includes a rule of construction for the entire title. Where the law says that the terms “State” or “United States” shall be construed to apply only to the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Possessions of the United States, the intent of the law is crystal clear. Where Title 26 does not include the States of the Union, it is inapplicable within any of the 50 States. The legislature kindly and forcibly instructed future generations of the rule of construction to be applied to the law. The law itself admits no other construction. Any application outside Federal areas has been void from the beginning, or void ab initio, nunc pro tunc.

All along, the law has told us that the Income tax applies to specific areas. Examine the Code carefully. You will find two provisions that tax income. The first is Code Section 1, having to do with citizens or residents of the United States, and the second is at 1441, having to do with nonresident aliens. The regulation for Code section 1 follows:

SECTION 1.1-1. INCOME TAX ON INDIVIDUALS.

(a) GENERAL RULE.

Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident {resident presumes area} of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual….

(b) CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES LIABLE TO TAX. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

(c) WHO IS A CITIZEN. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen….

The soul of jurisdiction is geographical. Most federal law does not apply within the States. For example, Congress has general power to punish counterfeiting the coin or the securities of the United States. The United States does not have power to prosecute the counterfeiting of bank notes, even though issued by a federally chartered bank, except within its jurisdiction. So Congress is powerless to implement a law having effect within the States regarding the counterfeiting of anything which is not coin or securities of the United States. Counterfeiting bank notes would have to be a State crime.

In America today, we see horrible abuses of federal power. The Waco and Oklahoma City affairs are awful travesties of justice. Not only were the agencies outside their territorial jurisdiction, the courts were also outside their venue and jurisdiction. Crimes punishable under Title 18 are prosecutable by the few District Courts listed in Rule 54 of the Federal Criminal rules, not the courts having civil jurisdiction in the Several States. But nearly equal to those crimes government has committed in the Waco and OK affairs, are crimes against the Leona Helmsleys and the Willie Nelsons and all the little people as well. Mrs. Helmsley did time in prison after filing and paying income taxes. Mr. Nelson had to cough up $16 million to get rid of the IRS after filing and paying taxes.

Federal District Courts have no original criminal jurisdiction, according to Title 18 and Title 28. Their original jurisdiction is civil only, pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1948, codified at 28 USC:

28 USC Sec. 1331. Federal question

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

18 USC Sec. 5. United States defined

The term "United States", as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.

(a) Courts. These rules apply to all criminal proceedings in the United States District Courts; in the District (FOOTNOTE 1 ) of Guam; in the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, except as otherwise provided in articles IV and V of the covenant provided by the Act of March 24, 1976 (90 Stat. 263); in the District Court of the Virgin Islands; and (except as otherwise provided in the Canal Zone) (FOOTNOTE 2 ) in the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone; in the United States Courts of Appeals; and in the Supreme Court of the United States; except that the prosecution of offenses in the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall be by indictment or information as otherwise provided by law.

Remember the RED PILL.

3. Most Americans believe they MUST get a Social Security Number in order to ... WHAT?? Live and work in our own country? Ask the Social Security Administration. They'll readily admit: "The Social Security Act does NOT require a person to have a Social Security number in order to live and work in the United States, nor does it require a [number] simply for the sake of having one".

Remember the RED PILL.

Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 405(B)(i) states under Subsection (II) that Social Security Numbers are assigned:

"... to an individual who is an APPLICANT for or recipient of benefits". PERIOD.

IN FACT: 42 U.S.C. Section 301 states: "it shall be unlawful to deny any individual any right for refusal to disclose his Social Security Number". Or at least it used to.

So what authority does ANYBODY have to demand YOU give them a number that doesn't even belong to you? A number that was assigned to you as a minor? IF it was your number you could most likely CHANGE it! Or better yet, cancel it. IT'S NOT YOUR NUMBER.

Remember the RED PILL.

Perhaps it is true that "most individuals do not do a very good job of planning for distant or unlikely events like retirement and disability." This fact, if it is one, does not support the imposition of various cost on other people who in fact DO do a good job. Why should the negligence and oversight of some people impose burdens on others who are prudent and who use foresight? What is the point of being prudent if you are still burdened with the insolvency and debt of other people? We could justify bank robbery that way too: The savers should not complain when those who have failed to save take their money, since the thieves simply did not do a good job of planning. Furthermore, if most people aren't good at planning for distant and unlikely events, why would politicians or bureaucrats be any better at this than the rest of us?

4. Most Americans believe they MUST fill out a W-4 before they can get hired and start a new job. And the same goes for EMPLOYERS! This is probably the saddest of the whole scheme. I seriously doubt most employers would even BELIEVE it if you slapped 'em up the side of the head with the citation out of the Code of Federal Regulations that says it's a "VOLUNTARY WITHHOLDING AGREEMENT". 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements. If it's VOLUNTARY can it possibly be MANDATORY?

Remember the RED PILL.

"An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee."

Remember the RED PILL.

"An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments ..."

"The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding."

(d) "If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement..."

"If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the request shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee's Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer a request for withholding under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer."

Remember the RED PILL.

(2) "An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other."

Remember the RED PILL.

---

Is it possible that the federal income tax system is simply a vehicle for political and social control? If Ruml is to be believed, that's precisely the case. It is used as a mechanism for redistribution of wealth and for probing into financial affairs of the American people. It is a control mechanism, nothing more. The scheme was taken directly from The Communist Manifesto. No viable political agenda has ever proposed graduated income tax. American founders knew that the power to tax is the power to destroy so they restricted the power.

The remaining concern for most Americans is the national social welfare program known as Social Security. However, that issue, too, was long ago put to rest. In 1935 after Congress first enacted a social welfare tax, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the act as the Constitution does not authorize taxing one person for the benefit of another or otherwise imposing a national social welfare program. The following statement in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935) is as true today as when it was written:

The subsequent Social Security Act was promulgated under Congress' plenary power within territory belonging to the United States. The legislation accommodated an international agreement between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Adolph Hitler. While legislatures of States of the Union have authorized agreements for participation in the Social Security program, the agreements extend only to employees of state governments and governments of state political subdivisions. Most Americans are duped into Social Security participation through a fraudulent scheme that isn't supported by a shred of law. Technically there isn't even legitimate authority for state governments to subject employees to the scheme. As a statutory creation the Social Security Administration is territorially limited by Sec. 72 of Title 4 of the United States Code and the Tenth Amendment. For those reasons Social Security Administration agreements with States of the Union are void. The Tenth Amendment ban against government of the United States exercising powers not enumerated in the Constitution simultaneously prohibits state governments from accommodating exercise of a federal power without first securing a constitutional amendment.

Remember the RED PILL.

Sec. 72. - Public offices; at seat of Government All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law

Read the Privacy Act very carefully.

Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice "The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, the Privacy Act of 1974, and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 require that when we ask you for information we must first tell you our legal right to ask for the information, why we are asking for it, and how it will be used. We must also tell you what could happen if we do not receive it and whether your response is voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory under the law."

Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for.?? These sections DO NOT identify the specific tax NOR do they identify WHO is liable. HUH??? I didn't know that! DOES IT SAY THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO GET ANY INFORMATION OR JUST TO "ASK" FOR IT??? Hmmmmm?

Remember the RED PILL.

6109 also directs the employer to request your Social Security number. Does he have a right get it? NO! He is required by the code to request it. If you don't give it to him he is required to tell you that it is required by law, [to request it]. In other words he almost has to lie to get you to divulge something he nor anybody else has any RIGHT whatsoever to get from you.

Remember the RED PILL.

"ALL PERSONS ARE PRESUMED TO KNOW THE LAW. IF ANY PERSON ACTS UNDER ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN PERIL. HE MUST TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES." 16 AM JUR 177, 178

PRESUMPTION "The words 'Presumption' or 'presumed' are derived from the Federal Rules of Evidence. Where a 'conclusive presumption' is intended in this Act the word 'presumption' is not used at all. Phrases such as 'red is green or 'red is regarded to be green' are used when statutory language is intended to command a court to follow a particular rule of law, regardless of the actual fact." ULA 1-201(13)

ARE WE BEGINNING TO SEE THE RABBIT HOLE YET?

"UCC 1-201(13) states: presumption or presumed means that the party against whom the presumption is directed has the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more provable than its existence." The best way to prove such nonexistence is to revert the burden of proof to the Government to prove the facts. Presumption: "Although a presumption is not evidence, it may be considered as a substitute for evidence. A "rebuttable" presumption is one which prevails until it is overcome by evidence to the contrary." The first clue that a "regulation" is not a mandatory law, is that it is "rebuttable." Prima Facie: "On the face" or "at first view." A fact presumed to be true unless disproved by evidence to the contrary. The plaintiff's evidence will compel such a conclusion if the defendant produces no evidence to rebut it." "The bottom line of the "presumption" rule is that you will be presumed to be a Sec. 1 graduated taxpayer until you provide evidence that you are not. That means the government can continue to extort taxes from all Americans who remain ignorant of the law. This currently provides the IRS with mass revenue! The Federal courts have long held that when the presumed taxpayer has shown that the IRS made an assessment without any evidence, the burden of proof is shifted to the IRS. Below is the origin of why the courts must do this:

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Sec. 556. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision (d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The agency may, to the extent consistent with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes administered by the agency, consider a violation of section 557(d) of this title sufficient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur. A party is entitled to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. In rule making or determining claims for money or benefits or applications for initial licenses an agency may, when a party will not be prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.

However, the IRS can escape their burden of proof by abusing the Law of Presumption and making an unchallenged assertion that is ridiculous or unfounded or downright wrong. As long as the accused doesn’t challenge their ridiculous assertion, then the presumption is that they are correct. Here are two cases that talk about the burden of proof:

Once the Government has carried its initial burden of introducing some evidence linking the taxpayer with income producing activity, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to rebut the presumption by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the deficiency determination is arbitrary or erroneous. (Cites omitted)." Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1985) "...[t]he discussion of the burden of proof in Foster applies only to the procedural effects of the presumption that an assessment is accurate. Once a taxpayer has introduced evidence sufficient to support a finding that the assessment is wrong, Foster prevents the Government from simply resting on the presumption and requires it to come forward with some evidence to support a conclusion that the assessment is correct in spite of the taxpayer's evidence. But the taxpayer continues to bear the risk of nonpersuasion. Foster does not relieve the taxpayer of the burden of proving the government's assessment wrong by a preponderance of evidence." Higginbotham v. United States, 556 F.2d 1173, 1176 (4th Cir. 1977)

The fact that we no longer have to endure assessments of taxes from IRS claims that are not supported by any evidence, is great news. The long believed authority for the IRS to make assessments of amounts out of thin air is now dissolved. VERY IMPORTANT: At the same time, the burden of proof rests squarely on us to demonstrate that we are NOT U.S.** citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court. This is done by following the steps found in section 8.5.3.12 to develop evidence supporting this conclusion.

IS IGNORANCE BLISS!?

Do the American People REALLY wish to "Volunteer" their hard earned money to an unforgiving government? A government who has now VIOLATED the Peoples Right for Petition of Redress of Grievances? A government that ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to answer the Peoples questions and refute the Peoples irrefutable evidence of FRAUD and ABUSE by the IRS? Is it moral to keep this charade up once you've awoken from the The American Matrix to send them YOUR SUPPORT for this proven FRAUD and ABUSE? By NOT doing anything about this the People will not only stay in The American Matrix but they will continue, ABSOLUTELY, condoning this Theft-By-Deception.

---

Benjamin Franklin wrote,"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."

---

Virtually every Federal initiative in the Union of several States in both civil and criminal actions is defective by virtue of being without lawful authority. All cases are prosecuted in United States District Courts in the name and by authority of the United States of America. At first blush, these facts seem legitimate and innocent enough, but the underlying difficulty is akin to remembering if the order of stripes on the deadly coral snake is red then black, or red then yellow. The "United States District Court" isn't what it seems; the "United States of America" isn't what it seems, either.

These are fatal flaws. Remember the RED PILL.

---

Has Title 26 Section 7851 been enacted into law? NO! It says; the income tax provisions of 26 USC will end after enactment of this title. Enactment [the process by which a bill in the Legislature becomes a law - Black's Law Dictionary, page 364] or the Title becoming "real law" will eliminate the Income Tax. So IF Title 26 Subtitle A becomes Law, then the 'Income Tax Law' would be TRULY the "law that never existed". So IF Title 26 Subtitle A is NOT law then it is only a 'request of the citizens of the United States of the Americas to voluntarily contribute' to the "law that never existed".

---

Remember the RED PILL.

Now let's look at the Enforcement ABILITY of the Internal Revenue Service. Section 7851 Applicability of Revenue Laws

(a) General Rules.

(6) Subtitle F [Enforcement] reads "The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed this title."

---

Liberty: "With Liberty and Justice for ALL." Do the People know what that word means? How often do they think about it? HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO US? -- VERY!

---

Remember the RED PILL.