The Shackles of "Voluntary Compliance"

The Real Story Behind the Federal Tax System

by Greg Loren, Durand suijuris

This Country's Two Distinct Citizenships

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.
U.S. Citizens Are Not Protected by the Bill of Rights

"[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)

The Question of Federal Jurisdiction

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)

Those people who are Fourteenth Amendment federal citizens are considered to be "territorial property" (15) and "corporate franchises" (16) of Washington, D.C. and are under the jurisdiction of federal law, regardless of where they "reside." State Citizens, on the other hand, are "non-resident aliens" (17) with regards to the federal government and are subject only to the legislatures of their respective states, which are "foreign countries" (18) to the District of Columbia. State Citizens areno more bound to obey "Acts of Congress" than are citizens of France.
How Americans Unknowingly Enter Federal Jurisdiction

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 word 'State' shall be construed to include [mean] the Territories and the District of Columbia.... (19)

This definition has not changed to this day, for Title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code) states very clearly that the term "'State' shall be construed to include[mean] the District of Columbia...." (20) Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, quoted above, also defines "State" in this way. Therefore, in American law, the term "State of Colorado," or the abbreviation "CO," is to be distinguishedfrom "Colorado," or the abbreviation "Colo." The former refers to a "political subdivision" of the District of Columbia, while the latter refers to the sovereign state admitted to the Union in 1876. This is not just a game of semantics, but is a matter of very real legal consequence. When one signs a legal document of the "State of Colorado" or completes his home address with CO (followed by a zip code), he is, in a very real sense, creating a legal "nexus" (21) between himself and the District of Columbia, thereby placing himself under the jurisdiction of federal law. As far as the federal government is concerned, he is to be taken at his word that he is not a free-born state Citizen, but a second-class Fourteenth Amendment citizen "subject to the jurisdiction" (22) of the U.S. government.
The Internal Revenue Service and Tax Liability

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)

"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)
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.

So is avoidance of taxation a criminal offense? According to our own legal system, it is not:
"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)

How then have millions of free-born American Citizens been made to voluntarily comply with the monstrous tax system? Simply because the IRS has written its voluminous tax laws in such a way that the average American, who does not have a knowledge of the distinct citizenships that exist in this country, will believe that the terms "U.S. Individual," "U.S. Taxpayer," "Resident of the United States," etc. actually refer to him and will act accordingly. According to the ruling of Guardian T&D Co. v. Fisher (1906):
"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.
The Moral Implications of Tax Avoidance

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:

"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what onlyappears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance." (38)

As tax season approaches each year, the American public is literally barraged by the media with exhortations to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Accompanying these are usually stories that depict the IRS as a stern, but fair, enforcer of the law against "tax evaders." The IRS itself never has to spend a dime on public relations, for all it has to do is rely upon such free advertisement and exploit the natural desire of most honest Americans to "obey the law" in order to continue its charade.Even many well-meaning religious leaders contribute to this illusion by telling their congregations that it is a sin not to "pay taxes to whom taxes are due" (Romans 13:7). However, what each of us needs to realize is that it is not illegal, much less immoral, to refuse to comply with a law that does not apply to us. In the Bible we are told, "[W]here there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). This is an abiding legal principle that even "secular" courts will readily accept:
"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 Documentation

1. Black's Law Dictionary (West Publishing Company, 1990; SixthEdition), p. 657.
2. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588, 590.
3. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 484.
4. Ibid., pp. 1308-1309.
5. Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394.
6. Jones v. Temmer, 829 F. Supp. 1226.
7. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 853.
8. Ibid., p. 911.
9. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 54(c).
10. Title 28 USC 3002(15)(a) clearly defines the District ofColumbia (United States) as a "federal corporation."
11. Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 Dall 6; 1794.
12. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1159.
13. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
14. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 911.
15. Ibid., p. 1473.
16. Ibid., p. 339.
17. Ibid., p. 1057.
18. 26 CFR 1.911-2h.
19. Title 25, Internal Revenue, Chapter 1, p. 601, Revised Statutes of the United States, 1863-1864. I have placed the word "mean" in brackets, not to change the meaning of the sentence, but to clarify it. In law, "include" most often is used as a term of limitation. In other words, if something is not included, it is excluded.
20. 26 USC 7701(a)(10).
21. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1044.
22. U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.
23. 26 USC 6001.
24. 26 USC 6001(a).
25. There are a few exceptions to this rule, which cannot be enumerated here due to space constraints.
26. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 815.
27. Ibid., p. 646.
28. Gregory v. Helvring, 293 U.S. 465, 469.
29. Internal Revenue Service Manual, p. 4231-161.
30. 1992 Forms and 1040 Instructions, p. 3.
31. 26 CFR 3402(p)1(b)(1)(i).
32. Black's Law Dictionary, pp. 286, 1575.
33. Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145.
34. Guardian T&D Co. v. Fisher, 26 SCt. 186 at 188.
35. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 322.
36. United States v. Dickerson, 413 F.2d 1111.
37. Actually, the term "self-incrimination" does not appear in the Fifth Amendment and is somewhat misleading, for it implies that there has in fact been a crime committed to which the person is not required to confess.
38. U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187.
39. Sixteenth American Jurisprudence (Second Edition), Section177.

Common Law Copyright 1995
Greg Loren, Durand suijuris
Permission to copy and distribute the preceding article is hereby granted provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

The information in the preceding article is not intended for purposes of rendering legal or other professional advice. We in no way advocate evasion of legitimate or constitutional taxes, or the nonpayment of any lawfully owed debt.
Back to home Page