The IRS Mission

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

What have you signed? Think it might be time to swallow the RED Pill. Then find out how deep the rabbit hole goes?

"I didn't say it would be easy. I only said it would be the truth." Morpheus

The issues as to whether there are different meanings for the term "United States", and whether there are three different "United States" operating within the same geographical area, and one "United States" operating outside the Constitution over its own territory (in which it has citizens belonging to said "United States"), were settled in 1901 by the Supreme Court in the cases of De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 and Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes supra, Justice Harlan dissented as follows:

The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

[Downes supra, page 380, emphasis added]

He went on to say, on page 382:

It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.

[Downes supra, page 382, emphasis added]

This theory of a government operating outside the Constitution over its own territory, with citizens of the "United States" belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution, was further confirmed in 1922 by the Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, wherein that Court affirmed, at page 305, that the Constitution does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union, quoting Downes supra and De Lima supra; that, under 4:3:2, the "United States" was given exclusive power over the territories and the citizens of the "United States" residing therein.

The issue arose again in 1944, in the case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court stated as follows at page 671-672

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.

[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

[2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends,

[3] or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

Quoting Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176; cf. De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1; Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222; Faber v. United States, 221 U.S. 649; cf. Huus v. New York & P.R.S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392; Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1; West India Oil Co. v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 20.

The Court, in Hooven supra, indicated that this was the last time it would address the issue; it would just be judicially noticed.

[emphasis added]

inclusio unius est exclusio alterius -what was excluded was meant to be excluded. Thus, the absence of "under the laws of the United States of America" in 1746(2) must mean you are stating that you are (or at least wish to be,) treated like a second class [fourteenth amendment, "federal citizen"] under the "exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. See: Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the Constitution.

GOTCHA!

And now I have an admission that 1746(2) is the jurat I've been signing when I've filed a 1040 form! WOW!!! Holy smokes batman.