Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Taxes Chapter 1
Bookmark and Share
Posted: 19-Jun-2003, 04:47 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline

Celtic Guardian

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,048
Joined: 26-Sep-2001

Make note I have tried to get this right but some of the HTML was acting funny by converting characters like ( c ) without the spaces converts to a copyright sign ©. So if anything looks to have been converted instead of what it should be please advise and will correct this. Also so you can read the copyright symbols if any remain should be Section c of that section.

Chapter 1
Are the 50 States legally part of the income tax?

First off just in case any Government Agents ever read this. All info contained within these documents are all written using my first amendment right which states as follows.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So feel free to dispute anything but remember the above, even congress can not silence the people when they are exercising their use of free speech and of the press and in the 21st century the internet is just a new form of the press where people can exchange ideas and use their right of free speech. That said let's proceed.

This document will go into details as to how and why the IRS has no legal authority to act within the "50 States". This will be backed up with evidence from numerous places including the United States Code (Hereinafter USC), The Code of Federal Regulations (Hereinafter CFR), and numerous other areas, which will be documented so you can verify all info on your own as you wish. The only changes made to anything will be color, Size, or boldness for emphasis purposes only no other part has been changed or altered.

If you want to verify any of the code sections I have listed you can find the exact sections at these 2 sites as this is where I get most if not all of my code sections and verify them threw these sites.

United States Code - United States Code (USC for short) search site
Code of Federal Regulations- Code Federal Regulations (CFR for short) search site

As the document goes on there will be additional links to sites to obtain info as they come up during discussion and also to Scanned documents.

Now before we begin let's take a look at the normal everyday definition of the Word State.

State: (Stāt) n.
1. A condition of being.
2. A mental or emotional condition.
3.a. A body of people living under a single independent government; nation.
b. The territory of such a government.

4. One of the political and geographical subdivisions of a federated country, as the United States.
5. A social position; rank.

From here out all references to this will omit sections 1, 2, & 5 since these sections relate to a state of mind or of status. Now if you note section 3(a & B ) specifically says territory and we are not under a single form of Government since we have both a state Government and a Federal Government and under 4 it says federated country. In order to be part of this federation you must have a star on the flag in order to fall under this section of the definition of the word state. If you are otherwise a member of the United States you fall under section 3 since you are a territory and not one of the union of states called the "50 States". So as you can plainly see from even the normal everyday definition of the Word State it separates territories and the union of states called the "50 States" into different contexts of the word state.

Now lets look at how the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter IRC) defines the same words and how it applies or doesn't apply to citizens in the union of states called the "50 States". We'll start with section 7701's definition of the words United States and State since this is the core definitions of many words as it also clearly starts out section A stating "When used in this title"


United States Code
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration

US Code as of: 01/26/98

Sec. 7701. Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -

(9) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

Now as you can see I did not miss the word states in the above so let's go and see how the IRC defines this word we are discussing.

(10) State
The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District
of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out
provisions of this title.

Note how this core definition defines state to include the District of Columbia but it lists no other forms of states and note also how the only state mentioned is D.C. and it doesn't have a star on the flag of the union of states. It is also the only geographical state (Federal State) in the sense of North America. This is a Federal territory as described in the above normal definition of the Word State.

Now before I go on I will show you the IRC's definition of the word includes since there is a raging battle about what this word really does in the IRC and how it relates to many of the definitions. This is under the same section as the definitions of United States & States shown above.

( c ) Includes and including
The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

While at face value it would seem to indicate that the Term State might include the "50 States" as I showed though in the normal definition of state; territories & the "50 States" fall under separate sections of the definition of the Word State and are not the same meaning. So I have no problems with the above definition since what the IRC is defining is a Federal State and not the"50 States". Plus the fact that the above definition of the word includes does not even say every use of the word includes, so even in that sense it is very vague as to when and when not this word includes is meant to be expansive and when limiting. Just to show it can be both expansive and limiting here is how Black's Law Dictionary defines the very same word.

Includes: (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in, keep within.) To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in, attain,
shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve.
Term may, according to context, express
an enlargement and having the meaning of and or in addition to
or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Include" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation.

So as you can see from this legal definition of the same word it can be both expansive and limiting when used in Statute. Note also the blue section states "within general words theretofore used." Well the words used so far in the IRC show only Federal States not the "50 States". Plus also note if it expands it does so within the context of what is being defined. Now let's branch out and see how other sections use these same words.

Remember all personal notes will be non-bold, as statutes will be in bold text.

Sec. 3121

United States Code
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
Subchapter C - General Provisions

Note the Chapter this is under chapter 21 whose title is Federal Insurance Contributions Act (hereinafter FICA) in other words Social Security (hereinafter SS), Note the very first word of that Chapter is "FEDERAL" also note the words in green below are part of the section check it out for yourself.

Sec. 3121. Definitions

(e) State, United States, and citizen
for purposes of this chapter -

(1) State
The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and
American Samoa.

(2) United States
The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense
includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, and American Samoa. An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

Now note how both definitions add more territories to both definitions but still do not list the "50 States" in their definitions. Note also under United States highlighted in green it clearly says "but not otherwise a citizen of the United States". Now most American citizens living in the "50 States" would fall into this category of otherwise a citizen of the United States, excluding them from this definition. Now someone asked me at one point why Hawaii & Alaska were not part of these definitions since these are from 1954 and both Hawaii & Alaska didn't become states until 1959. And after I started looking at the CFR's they clearly explain that before 1959 both Hawaii and Alaska were considered as part of this definition though I have no answer as to why the statutes do not list them as the regulations cannot add anything that is not in the statutes since only congress can write law.


[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 14, Parts 30 to 39]
[Revised as of April 1, 1999]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 26CFR31.3121(e)-1]

[Page 70]




Subpart B--Federal Insurance Contributions Act (Chapter 21, Internal Revenue Code of 1954)

Here's the proof that we are dealing with the same sections and chapters as we were in 26 USC and also proof of the date that this was originally written. Note this is from the 1999 CFR's though and has been updated as will be shown below.

Sec. 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.

(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

( B ) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ``United States'', when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term ``United States'' also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term ``citizen of the United States'' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

[T.D. 6744, 29 FR 8314, July 2, 1964]

Now as can be seen from the two definitions above Hawaii & Alaska were considered parts of this definition but it does go on to say "before their admission as states" and the term United States also say "includes" & "before their admission as states". Some of these lines above were added (by the government) since 1954 to clarify that before 1959 both Hawaii & Alaska were considered part of this definition yet the changes do not say afterwards they are still considered part of this because it only talks about beforehand. Also as you can see I did not miss the several states listed under the definition of United States, but where are the several states listed under the definition of state in the statutes of 26 USC 3121(e)? The law is only what is written into it and nothing more or less and no regulation can change that as will be shown below. Besides as I will show shortly that I have a letter from Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly that specifically says that the definitions in 3121(e) includes only what is written there and nothing else.

Now for proof that regulations cannot add to statutes.

UNITED STATES v. CALAMARO, 354 U.S. 351 (1957)

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. CALAMARO, 354 U.S. 351 (1957)
354 U.S. 351
No. 304.

Argued March 4, 1957.
Decided June 17, 1957.

Finally, the Government points to the fact that the Treasury Regulations relating to the statute purport to include the pick-up man among those subject to the 3290 tax, 11 and argues (a) that this constitutes an administrative interpretation to which we should give weight in construing the statute, particularly because ( B ) section 3290 was carried over in haec verba into 4411 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. We find neither argument persuasive. In light of the above discussion, [354 U.S. 351, 359] we cannot but regard this Treasury Regulation as no more than an attempted addition to the statute of something which is not there. 12 As such the regulation can furnish no sustenance to the statute. Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447.

So Proof the regulations cannot add to any statute something that is not in the statute. So by adding the several states to the above definition would not be legal since the statutes do not say anything about the "50 States".

Now let's take a quick look at how another section of 7701 under 26CFR talks about these two states.


[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 17, Parts 300 to 499]
[Revised as of April 1, 1999]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 26CFR301.7701-5]

[Page 549]



Discovery of Liability and Enforcement of Title--Table of Contents

Sec. 301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.

A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.

[32 FR 15231, Nov. 3, 1967, as amended by T.D. 8813, 64 FR 4970, Feb. 2, 1999]

Now at face value this may even seem to dispute my claims. But take a look at the red section as I have already shown territories and the "50 States" fall under two separate sections of the normal use of the word state so how can Alaska & Hawaii be considered part of the "50 States" prior to becoming a states? So we must assume that the use of the word state is the Federal States and not the "50 States". Since even the red says "and during the period when not states" if their not states then they would be considered territories which during the periods when not states would put them in the territory section of the normal definition of state and not the "50 States" section.

So as can be seen simply from just the above evidence it would seem clear that the term state as used in the IRC is meant to limit the term to the territories and not expand it. I have even further proof of these claims by evidence as sent in a congressional letter answering this gentleman's question about 3121(e) of the USC and House Resolution 97 (here in after HR97). Below you will find links to both the letter from Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly and also HR97 which she sponsored. Note that she is replying to a question asked about the Term State as it relates to HR97 and if it is the same as in 3121(e).

http://www.solgroup.com/notax/kennell.html this is the link to the letter mentioned above.

Now as I'm sure you saw the letter was referring to section 3(a) of HR97 which states as follows followed by a link to the governments site containing the whole bill should you wish to read it in it's entirety.


IN GENERAL- On application of the governor of a state and the chief executive officer of the affected local government or governments (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the mayor) and upon finding that the occurrence of criminal activity in a particular jurisdiction is being exacerbated by the interstate flow of drugs, guns, and criminals, the Deputy Assistant Director may deploy on a temporary basis a unit of the Rapid Deployment Force of an appropriate number of law enforcement officers to the jurisdiction to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation of criminal activity. For the purposes of this Act, the term `State' shall be deemed to include the District of Columbia and any United States territory or possession.


Now note that at the very beginning how they mention "the governor of a state" as we all know governors are the highest-ranking officials within a state. I realize that governors can also be considered governors for territories, depending on its history such as Puerto Rico, but the fact that they list territories or possessions at the end of the above section, and the fact that Kennelly's letter backs my claims for the IRC's definition of the word state, we must assume that the word Governor is talking about the "50 States" governors and not a territories governor. Plus also note in the letter it clearly talks about 3121(e) and says "The term state in 3121(e) specifically includes only the named territories of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." So even congressional researchers the legal experts on tough questions asked of congress agree 3121(e) is limiting not expansive.

So as I have shown even further, State as used in the IRC is limiting not expansive, and like I mentioned earlier the word includes as defined in the IRC doesn't say every use of the word is meant to expand it is vague in saying "shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." Which doesn't say that this is to be used in every single usage of the word include.

Now let's look at yet another definition of the word State. (Man how many times do they need to redefine something?)

Sec. 4612

United States Code
Subtitle D - Miscellaneous Excise Taxes
Subchapter A - Tax on Petroleum

Sec. 4612. Definitions and special rules

(4) United States

(A) In general
The term ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Now if we are to assume that the "50 States" are always to be considered part of the definition of the word State as found in 7701, why is it now necessary to specifically mention the "50 States" and instead of using the word includes they now use the word means. That is because if you note the header above it says excise taxes as part of the header. Excise taxes are fully constitutional as they are listed there. They list the "50 States" because they are meant to be part of this definition. Where as the term of state as listed in 3121(e) is limited to the Federal States listed if it was meant to also have the "50 States" as part of the definition of 3121(e) the above is how they would be shown as part of the definition. Now note below the word includes appears again but note now that it is expanding on the definition in subsection A above.

( B ) United States includes continental shelf areas The principles of section 638 shall apply for purposes of the term ''United States''.

( c ) United States includes foreign trade zones
The term ''United States'' includes any foreign trade zone of the United States.

Hence they have defined something in Subpart A and now in B & C they are expanding the word state to include other things within the meaning of the word state. So far no definition of the word state using the word includes shows the "50 States" to be connected with this definition. In order to expand you must first define what it is you're expanding. The IRC already redefined state under 7701 for purposes of this title so the normal definition can't be used to define the same word since it has been redefined for legal use. Now like I mentioned excise taxes are fully constitutional as they are mentioned there. The same section also says the congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Here's how it's worded.

The United States Constitution

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now also note Duties, Imposts & Excises are all forms of taxes so these they can collect with no problems. Now in my opinion at least income taxes fall into the category of a direct tax as compared to the above which are indirect taxes. Direct taxes are to be collected as follows based on the constitution.

Section 1.
Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Also in

Section. 9.
Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Now here is how the 16th Amendment to the constitution is worded.


Passed by Congress July 2, 1909.
Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Now does the red section look familiar? It's the same as in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 above. I thought they already had this power? Now note the remainder of this amendment talks about apportionment, this is what congress is giving themselves new powers in. Government based on the constitution is suppose to be small and limited in power (that's why we have the Bill of Rights which I will cover as you give away at least one of your rights by voluntarily complying with the IRS and filing form 1040 with them.) Yet here we can see the 16th amendment was written to grant congress new powers which makes this unconstitutional because they are doing just that granting themselves more powers then they are suppose to have since the Constitution already limits their power on direct taxation. Now I will not go into this in this document but a gentleman by the name of Bill Benson has done exhaustive research into the ratification process surrounding the 16th amendment and has even written a couple books on how this amendment was not properly ratified. If you would like to look into this more you can find info out at The Law that Never Was

Now since this is dealing with the Social Security Act of 1936 we'll take a quick look at how Acts of congress apply to the "50 States" The clip below is from the Federal rules of criminal procedures.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure You will have to scroll down to rule 54( c )

Rule 54. Application and Exception

( c ) Application of Terms. As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings.
''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."

Now as I pointed out above this is applicable to these rules only. So as we can at least see by these rules which govern criminal procedures Act's of Congress are limited to the areas above.

Now how would these rules apply though with criminal acts surrounding taxes such as evasion and fraud and other similar so-called criminal acts? Also note none of the crimes listed under title 26 are listed under title 18 titled Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Now someone told me this doesn't matter since they are listed under 26 USC but would be interesting to find out if crimes do have to be listed under 18 to be considered crimes I know 18 does cover mail crimes yet the USPS does have it's own title. If they do have to be listed there to be considered crimes, then you can break whatever you like under 26, because no tax crimes are listed under 18 at least as far as evasion goes. If on the other hand these crimes can be listed elsewhere then they are listed under 26 but will cover this even further in separate document.

Well this will end this update for now. As I have pointed out using numerous evidence to back my claims up, the definition of State is meant to include only Federal Territories (or in other words Federal States) and not the "50 States" as the IRS would love for you to believe. I have even shown how congressional research came to this same conclusion yet amazingly FICA is still taken out of everyone's paychecks. This needs to be stopped. It's already been some what concluded that SS will be lucky to last till 2050 and how many people will donate money into this program (even though they don't need to) and not see one cent returned to them when it's their time to retire and live the good life. I'll tell you who will be living the good life, The politicians who socked away all our money in their accounts and spending it before you ever get to see one red cent returned to you. How many people have died prior to their receiving their full amount returned to them? Where does the balance go? Especially on those who have no one left to receive the benefits that they spent a lifetime donating into when they didn't have to. Think about it all and feel free to comment on anything. I certainly am not an expert in this field, but I am stating what I see when I read the codes and websites that deal with this. Also and there are more then a few that have come to the same conclusion that I have and that is that the income tax & SS is limited to Federal States only. If it was meant to be collected in the "50 States" it would say that they are included in the definition of state. This argument has been around for awhile, and yet the code sections have not been changed to include the "50 States" in the definition. So since the IRS can see there has been confusion of this yet have done nothing to clarify what is said then we can assume it means exactly what is listed there and nothing else, otherwise they would have fixed it to eliminate any confusion.

Have to work on Chapters 2 & 3 so they work on the forum so will post these in their own separate posts when I can edit them for use here. To many HTML tags that won't work well here.
PMEmail Poster               
Posted: 20-Jun-2003, 09:08 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline

Celtic Guardian

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 247
Joined: 11-Jun-2003

Realm: Dayton, OH

Wow! That was a little long and complex for me, I agree with the basic thrust of your argument: Federal income taxes are illegal. A little tidbit for you: When the income tax was first created, one senator (his name escapes me) wanted to limit it to 1.5%. Another senator persuaded him not to put that in, though: he was afraid it would jump straight to 1.5%!


RPG: pseudonymn: Kent
Real name: Jonathon? (maybe, maybe not...I'm not gonna give it away in my siggy!!)
PMEmail Poster               
Posted: 20-Jun-2003, 11:42 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline

Celtic Guardian

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,048
Joined: 26-Sep-2001

Well Chapter 1 is just the tip of the Iceburg. I have 2 follow up chapters on taxation plus a chapter on the courts and what jurisdiction they are really under and another post to do up on the fact the congress is violating their oaths of office as I type this by ignoring a 1st amendment petition that each member has had for over a year and which they refuse to answer despite the founding fathers being clear that petitions have to be answered and I will prove everything I just said above when I post smile.gif I will because I can.

And sorry in advance Chapters 2 & 3 are just as long winded but no way to keep it short and prove my case with evidence. Most of that post was evidence related very little comments.
PMEmail Poster               
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topic Start new topicStart Poll


Celtic Radio is a SonixFM radio station that is based in Canada. SonixFM and SonixCast provide music license coverage through SOCAN.
© Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance Tavern, Ye O' Celtic Pub, Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©, Cari Buziak

Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.

[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medieval Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt