The "people" and "citizens" referred to in the Bill of Rights are the same as the "persons" and "citizens" referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment.This statement is false. Black's Law Dictionary states:
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." (1)This fact has been acknowledged by countless court cases throughout the history of American jurisprudence, including United States v. Cruikshank (1875):
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights,within its jurisdiction, it must protect." (2)In reality, there are two distinct citizenships in this country: free-born Citizens of the states, and secondary subjects of the federal government known as "citizens of the United States." The former are classified by law as "domiciles" of their respective states (their "legal home" (3)); the latter are merely "residents" within each state, (4) for their "legal home" is in the District of Columbia.
"[C]itizens of the United States" (Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1) are protected by the Bill of Rights.This statement is false. Again, we turn to the rulings of the courts to substantiate our answer. According to the Slaughter House Cases of 1873:
"[T]he distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized andestablished.... The language [of the Fourteenth Amendment] is, 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge theprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is a little remarkable, if this clause were intended as a protection to the Citizen of the state against the legislative power of his own state, that the word Citizen of the state should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States, in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and with a purpose.... [W]e wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of [the Fourteenth Amendment to] the federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment...." (5)In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment granted what are known as "civil rights" to the newly created citizenship of the United States government, because they were not protected by the Bill of Rights, which apply only to Citizens of the states. This fact has been recognized as recently as 1993 in Jones v. Temmer:
"The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neitherincorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual [U.S.] citizens. Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." (6)
Citizens of the several states are under the jurisdiction of federal law (Acts of Congress).This statement is false. As noted above in the quote from United States v. Cruikshank, each class of citizen is subject to the jurisdiction of his own government. Jurisdiction has a very precise legal definition as an "area of authority." (7) Generally, jurisdiction is a geographical term and limits the exercise of authority to a specific location. This is known as "lex loci," or "the law of the place." (8) According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:
"'Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession." (9)This means that federal law applies only to those who live (domicile) within Washington, D.C. (incorporated in 1982 as "The State of New Columbia" (10)) or in a federal zone or territory. Since the several states are not federal territories, they do not exist within federal jurisdiction, but act as sovereign legal entities. (11) However, the creation of what are known as "political subdivisions" (12) within the boundaries of the states, enables Congress to enforce its laws to a limited extentwithin what otherwise would be foreign territories to the "ten miles square" (13) of the District of Columbia. This is known as "lex loci contractus," which means that "the law of the place" may apply to other places through legal contract. (14)
The terms "Colorado" and "State of Colorado" and the abbreviations "Colo." and "CO" are synonymous in the eyes of the federal government.This statement is false. The truth is that these terms and abbreviations are very different in meaning. According to the 43rd Congress:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not consider all attempts to avoid tax liability to be criminal offenses.This statement is true. According to the Internal Revenue Code:
"Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render suchstatements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe." (23)What most Americans do not know is that the persons "made liable" to the Internal Revenue Code are, for the most part, Fourteenth Amendment citizens. (25) As noted above, U.S. citizens are considered by law to be "corporate franchises" of the District of Columbia, and therefore are expected to pay a tax in exchange for this "privilege." This is why the federal income tax is known as "internal revenue"-- it is "internal," or "comprised within the boundary lines... [and] domestic" (26) to the federal territories, and therefore "foreign," or "subject to another jurisdiction" (27) with regards to the several states. Therefore,U.S. citizens are subject to the taxation laws; state Citizens are not.
"When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or withrespect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include the information required by such forms or regulations." (24)
"The legal rights of the taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means the law permits cannot be doubted." (28)Even the IRS will openly admit that avoidance of taxation is not a criminal offense, but a "right of the taxpayer":
"Avoidance of tax is not a criminal offense. All taxpayers have the right to reduce, avoid, or minimize their taxes bylegitimate means. The distinction between avoidance and evasion is fine, yet definite. One who avoids tax does not conceal ormisrepresent, but shapes and preplans events to reduce or eliminate tax liability, then reports the transactions. Evasion, on the other hand, involves deceit, subterfuge, camouflage, concealment, some attempts to color or obscure events, or making things seem other than they are." (29)According to the 1992 Forms and 1040 Instructions booklet, published by the IRS, each person who files an income tax return is "among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily." (30) Even the statutes dealing with Form W-4 (which most workers are presented by their employers when they are hired) make it clear that "the furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding." (31) This is what is known as "voluntary compliance," or "to yield... to adapt oneself to; to act in accordance with... unconstrained... acting of oneself." (32) The Supreme Court itself has declared that "our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." (33)
"An individual may be under no obligation to do a particular thing, and his failure to act creates no liability, but if hevoluntarily attempts to act and do the particular thing he comes under an implied obligation." (34)In other words, signing your name to Form 1040 is to "create an obligation" (35) to accept a tax debt which, in most cases, would not have existed otherwise. In a 1969 ruling of the Supreme Court, it was stated:
"Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to IRS agents." (36)There is simply no law that requires any American to file a tax return each year on April 15th, as this would amount to a forfeiture of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of "the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and the Fifth Amendment's protection against "self-incrimination." (37) An American Citizen cannot be "compelled... to be a witness against himself," but he can certainly volunteer to do so. This is why such stress is placed upon "voluntary compliance" in IRS publications.
It is a moral and American duty to pay income tax to the IRS.This statement is false. Again, let us quote the Supreme Court:
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose.... An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
"Since an unconstitutional law is void... it imposes no duties... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and nocourts are bound to enforce it." (39)
Endnotes and Documentation1. Black's Law Dictionary (West Publishing Company, 1990; SixthEdition), p. 657.