rjmarticles

In order for you to understand the full import of what is happening, I must explain certain laws to you.

When passing new statutes, the Federal government always does everything according to the principles of law. In order for the Federal Government to tax a Citizen of one of the several states, they had to create some sort of contractual nexus. This contractual nexus is the "Social Security Number".

In 1935, the federal government instituted Social Security. The Social Security Board then created 10 Social Security "Districts". The combination of these "Districts" resulted in a "Federal area" which covered all the several states like a clear plastic overlay.

In 1939, the federal government instituted the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This Act is a municipal law of the District of Columbia for taxing all federal and state government employees and those who live and work in any "Federal area".

Now, the government knows it cannot tax those state Citizens who live and work outside the territorial jurisdiction of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) or Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the U.S. Constitution. So, in 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113. In Section 110(e), this Act authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939". This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The rest of the taxing law is found in the Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created a "Federal area" overlay:

4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(d). The term "State" includes any
Territory or possession of the United States.

     4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 110(e).   The term "Federal area" means any
     lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the
     United States or any department, establishment, or agency of
     the United States;   and any Federal area, or any part
     thereof, which is located within the exterior boundaries of
     any State, shall be deemed to be a Federal area located
     within such State.

There is no reasonable doubt that the federal "State" is imposing an excise tax under the provisions of 4 U.S.C.S. Section 105, which states in pertinent part:

Sec. 105. State, and so forth, taxation affecting Federal
areas; sales or use tax

     (a) No person shall be relieved from liability for payment
     of, collection of, or accounting for any sales or use tax
     levied by any State, or by any duly constituted taxing
     authority therein, having jurisdiction to levy such tax, on
     the ground that the sale or use, with respect to which such
     tax is levied, occurred in whole or in part within a Federal
     area;   and such State or taxing authority shall have full
     jurisdiction and power to levy and collect any such tax in
     any Federal area within such State to the same extent and
     with the same effect as though such area was not a Federal
     area.

     Irrespective of what the tax is called, if its purpose is to
     produce revenue, it is an income tax or a receipts tax under
     the Buck Act [4 U.S.C.A. Secs. 105-110].
     Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 464 SW 2d. 170 (1971),
     affd (Tex) 478 SW 2d. 926, cert. den. 409 U.S. 967, 34 L.Ed.
     2d. 234, 93 S.Ct. 293.

Thus, the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding, a home that has a federal bank loan, a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any type of aid. Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.). This "Federal area" attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number or any personal contact with the federal or state governments. Through this mechanism, the federal government usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating "Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the authority of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal Constitution, which states:

     2.   The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
     all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory
     or other Property belonging to the United States, and
     nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to
     prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any
     particular State.

Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the Union, are classified as property, as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual entity". See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773. Under the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, the federal government has created a "Federal area" within the boundaries of all the several states. This area is similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in this "Federal area". Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's yellow-fringed U.S. flag flying in schools, offices and all courtrooms.

You must live on land in one of the states in the Union of several states, not in any "Federal State" or "Federal area", nor can you be involved in any activity that would make you subject to "federal laws". You cannot have a valid Social Security Number, a "resident" driver's license, a motor vehicle registered in your name, a "federal" bank account, a Federal Register Account Number relating to Individual persons [SSN], (see Executive Order Number 9397, November 1943), or any other known "contract implied in fact" that would place you within any "Federal area" and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal laws of Congress. Remember, all acts of Congress are territorial in nature and only apply within the territorial jurisdiction of Congress. (See American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909); U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 94 L.Ed. 3, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32, 69 L.Ed. 828, 45 S.Ct. 402 (1925).)

There has been created a fictional Federal "State within a state". See Howard v. Sinking Fund of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624, 73 S.Ct. 465, 476, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953); Schwartz v. O'Hara TP. School Dist., 100 A. 2d. 621, 625, 375 Pa. 440. (Compare also 31 C.F.R. Parts 51.2 and 52.2, which also identify a fictional State within a state.) This fictional "State" is identified by the use of two-letter abbreviations like "CA", "AZ" and "TX", as distinguished from the authorized abbreviations like "Calif.", "Ariz." and "Tex.", etc. This fictional State also uses ZIP codes which are within the municipal, exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress.

This entire scheme was accomplished by passage of the "Buck Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Secs. 105-113, to implement the application of the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" to workers within the private sector. This subjects all private sector workers who have a Social Security number to all state and federal laws "within this State", a "fictional Federal area" overlaying the land in California and in all other states in the Union. In California, this is established by California Form 590, Revenue and Taxation. All you have to do is to state that you live in California. This establishes that you do not live in a "Federal area" and that you are exempt from the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 and also from the California Income Tax for residents who live "in this State".

The following definition is used throughout the several states in the application of their municipal laws which require some sort of contract for proper application. This definition is also included in all the codes of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New York:

     "In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior
     limits of the State ... and includes all territories within
     such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

110(d) The term "State" includes any Territory or possession
of the United States.

     110(e) The term "Federal area" means any lands or premises
     held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or
     any department, establishment, or agency of the United
     States; and any Federal area, or any part thereof, which is
     located within the exterior boundaries of any State, shall
     be deemed to be a Federal area located within such State.

The old saying that the process of taxation is akin to the plucking of a goose -- trying to get away with as many feathers with the smallest amount of hissing -- could not be more applicable than to the Commonwealth of Kentucky's ongoing practice of levying its state income tax upon hundreds and hundreds of Tennesseans who happen to work on the Kentucky portion of Fort Campbell.

I think this tax policy on the part of Kentucky is inherently unfair. That's why I have introduced legislation to correct this highly unique situation. Its aim, should it become law, is simple: Kentucky should not be permitted to impose its income tax upon Tennesseans who happen to be employed on its portion of Fort Campbell.

The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on which I sit held a hearing this past week to examine this aspect of Kentucky's tax policy. Joining me in the hearing were Senator Fred Thompson and two Clarksvillians, Worth Lovett and Ed Wilson. Each of us testified about the unfairness of this economic inequity which has burdened too many Tennesseans for too long. For years, Kentucky has been taking advantage of this multi-million dollar windfall, thanks to a World War II-era piece of legislation known as The Buck Act. When The Buck Act became law in the early 1940's, it provided states the authority to levy their income tax upon federal officers and employees who were residing in federal areas and benefitting from being exempt from a given state's income tax.

When the act became law, there were only two military posts straddling state lines, Fort Benning, Georgia and Fort Bliss, Texas, and the portions which straddled state lines were used primarily for gunnery ranges. In fact, Fort Campbell had not even been formally established until very late in 1942 -- right around the time The Buck Act became law.

History aside, though, let's consider the present. Kentucky provides no services to its portion of Fort Campbell -- no roads, no water or sewage services, no schools, no police or fire protection, nothing. Not that I nor anyone else for that matter is suggesting it should. But what I am suggesting is that federal law reflect the fairness this situation unquestionably deserves.

Moreover, despite the fact that Kentucky is obliging itself in taxing these Tennesseans without providing any services in return, it will not afford them the benefit of considering their children as ‘in-state' for tuition purposes within its higher education system. And this is supposed to be fair? I think not.

This past week's hearing was a well deserved forum for these unfairly taxed.Tennesseans, and I'm optimistic it will not be the last during the 105th Congress.

Use of the ZIP Code is voluntary. See Domestic Mail Services Regulations, Section 122.32. You should also know that the Postal service cannot discriminate against the non-use of the ZIP Code. Postal Reorganization Act, Section 403, (Public Law 91-375). The federal government utilizes the ZIP code to prove that you reside in a "federal district of the District of Columbia". This is why the IRS and other government agencies (state and federal) require a ZIP Code when they assert jurisdiction by sending you a letter. They claim that this speeds the mail, but this is a sly and subtle TRICK. It is also PRIMA FACIE evidence that you are a subject of Congress and a "citizen of the District of Columbia" who is "resident" in one of the several States.

The receipt of mail with a ZIP code is one of the requirements for the IRS to have jurisdiction to send you notices. The government cannot bill a Citizen of California, as he is not within the purview of the MUNICIPAL LAWS of the District of Columbia. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service has adopted the ZIP code areas as Internal Revenue Districts. See the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53 , Wednesday, March 19, 1986.

You must remember that the Postal Service is a private corporation, a quasi-governmental agency. It is no longer a full government agency. It is like the Federal Reserve System, The Internal Revenue Service, and the United States Marshall Service. They are all outside the restrictions of the Federal Constitution, as private corporations. They are all powerful in their respective areas of responsibility to enforce collection for the federal debt. So, if you are using a ZIP code, you are in effect saying openly and notoriously that you do not live in the State of California, but, instead are a resident in the california area of the District of Columbia (a federal district). There are some so-called Patriot groups that I consider to be patriots for money. They advocate the use of Title 42 suits (which are for federal citizens only), send mail to you with a ZIP Code, and ask you to do things that place you within the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

Remember these individuals may be agents of the government or, even worse, are advocating a one-world government by the use of the Social Security number and the ZIP code.

So you must be aware of the movement towards a one-world government through annihilation or elimination of State Citizens by use of the so-called 14th Amendment and its related laws.

This movement can be halted by the efforts of everyone to return to the status of Primary State Citizens. By becoming a State Citizen and not a citizen of the United States you can get the federal government off your back and out of your billfold.

I myself want the Original Constitution for the United States of America put back in force, as applied against the federal government, and the States restored to their original status as Republics.

So, all you have to do is to study and determine your status, whether you are a "slave" and a second class citizen (commonly referred to as a "federal citizen") or a Citizen of California. You must decide who and what you are!!!!!

Everyone should take time to read the published court case Colgate v. Harvey. This case is often utilized by U.S. Attorneys in their briefs. The following is a quote from page 309 of the Lawyers Edition:

Thus, the dual character of our citizenship is made plainly apparent. That is to say, a citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he resides. And while the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that citizenship "paramount and dominant" instead of "derivative and dependant" upon state citizenship.
Colgage v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 427 (1935)
80 L.Ed. 299

Now, if the Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT create a national citizenship, then WHAT did it create? It created a citizenship in the District of Columbia, commonly called the "United States" in legal terminology. So, by law, a "United States" citizen is a citizen of the District of Columbia, which is not a State of the Union of several States; it is not a star on the American flag. Therefore, the District of Columbia is alien and foreign with respect to the 50 common-law States of the Union. In law, the term "resident" means "alien". I shall now establish that this is correct:

When America sends an Ambassador to France, he is then a "resident" in France and alien to France. He is just like a U.S. citizen who is "resident" in California and therefore alien to the common-law and to California.

Now, as a citizen of the District of Columbia, you are subject to ALL the municipal laws that Congress passes for the District of Columbia. This means that ALL of Titles 7, (Agriculture), 8 (Immigration), 12 (Banks & Banking), 15 (Commerce & Trade), 16 (Conservation), 19 (Customs), 20 (Education), 21, (FDA), 22 (Foreign Relations) 24, (Hospitals), 25 (Indians), Title 26 (Internal Revenue), 27 (Liquor), 29 (Labor), 30 (Mining), 33 (Navigation), 36 (Patriotic Societies), 40 (Public Buildings), 41 (Public Contracts), 42 (Public Health), 43 (Public Lands), 45 (Railroads), 47 (Telegraphs & Telephones), 48 (Territories and Insular Possessions), 50 (War and National Defense); all the above attach to you personally regardless of where you "reside" in the world. (See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S 47 (1924).) There are some individual paragraphs that attach to the common-law Citizens of the several States, but they are very few and far between.

If you recall, the President can send his troops (citizens of the District of Columbia) any place in the world and make war without the approval of Congress. This is a fact of law, since he is NOT sending any Citizen of one of the several States who is a member of the Sovereignty; he is only sending his subjects, just as the Queen of England can do to her subjects. No approval is needed.

You must remember that the Fourteenth Amendment is not law. It was never properly adopted or ratified. It is a martial law amendment adopted under martial law. When martial law ceases, so do all the laws that are promulgated under military authority.

Madden v. Kentucky, this case was decided in 1940. I would like you to read what the court said:

Again, I must refer you to Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935), 80 L.Ed. 299, 56 S.Ct. 252, 102 ALR 54. The Supreme Court of the United States of America always states the truth in their opinions. In the Madden case, it is telling you that, as a State Citizen, you have natural sovereign rights which are fundamental. But, as a "citizen of the United States" a/k/a a citizen of the District of Columbia, you have a different type of rights; these are called "privileges and immunities" and they are different from those "natural rights inherent in state citizenship."

Previously, the California Supreme Court also arrived at these same conclusions in K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545 (1927). It is a fundamental Right to be a state Citizen. The Supreme Court of Maryland in Crosse v. Board of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431, at 433 (1966), stated:

Now, if it is not necessary to be a U.S. citizen (citizen of the District of Columbia) which is a "privilege" (see Ex parte (Ng) Fung Sing, D.C.Wash., 6 F.2d 670), then WHY should you give up a 1st class Citizenship to accept a 2nd class citizenship as a subject of the District of Columbia? This "privilege" is regulated and controlled, as are all privileges.

It has been brought to my attention that the license plate sticker that you voluntarily put on your property has imbedded in the background "For Official Use Only." You have to look very hard to see it but it is there. Now every one knows that all municipal vehicles (City, County, State and federal) all have the sign on the vehicle "For Official Use Only." This implies that the corporate state has an interest in your personal property.

I myself do not have plates on my personal property, but I do travel in it. I have a bill of sale that this piece of machinery has been sold to me free and clear with no other outside interests. The corporate state now has to prove that they have obtained an interest in my personal property.

The corporate state when a car is first sold, requests that Original Certificate of Origin, either be destroyed or forwarded to them. The purchaser is not to receive it. The corporate state then, has he purchaser sign a power of attorney over the vehicle to them. The state then, assigns a license number to that item. Then, the corporate state can control and tell everyone how to drive the state vehicle that they have leased for a yearly rental fee (an excise tax, commonly called registration fees). If you read the California Statutes, you will see that an individual who carries his own property, or travels for his own reasons and pleasure is exempt from such fees. The DMV Code is just an administrative interpretation of the Statute that created the code. The DMV Code is legally correct, they just do not tell the whole truth of the matter. The code is specifically written for commercial users. So, if you are leasing a vehicle from the corporate state or from any one else you are operating a vehicle, (remember that they have combined the terms "operator" and "driver" to mean the same thing).

A Citizen of one of the Several States, does have the absolute right to travel, this is unquestioned. But, an alien be it a Citizen of Japan, Germany, or the District of Columbia, does not have this right, for them it is a privilege to travel, as they are outside the scope of intent of the Original State and Federal Constitutions. This the Supreme Court has ruled upon numerous times.

Now that you have this information, what are you going to do??? You have to decide who and what you are, the government assumes that you are an alien (citizen of the District of Columbia) as you have admitted such by obtaining a social security number, driver's license, and registering your personal property. There are numerous other legal attachments that also entrap you, so as the highest court has stated, "Those that sleep on their rights, do not have any."

This is a newsletter that may be dangerous to your well being, as it contains some truth that you were or are not supposed to know or understand.

To begin with, I must tell you that all words used in any type of law have a specific meaning attached as it relates to that specific law. They do not mean the standard everyday dictionary meaning at all times, as you are mislead into thinking.

First, you must understand that this is an educational forum, and I will give you the meanings that are utilized by the various governmental agencies, to deprive you of your rights and property.

The word "person" as it is used in most of the statutes refers to the same person as defined in the so-called 14th Amendment. It does not include everyone, as you are led to believe. There are several court cases that define who is that specific "person," and one of those cases is Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43.

Next the term "United States" has three (3) different distinct, and separate jurisdictional meanings. This has been stated in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652. There the court stated:

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution.

Each of these definitions have completely different jurisdictions and cannot be mixed. Do you know which of the meanings are being utilized when they say "United States"? When in doubt, ASK! This always brings some type of answer, and you will at least know for yourself what they are doing to you with your permission.

There are several groups that are claiming federal rights, that originate in the 1866 Federal Civil Rights Statute, 14 Stat. 27. They should read and understand the law before claiming such statutory rights and privileges. They might be surprised to find out what they are stating and claiming.

The law states the United States is a foreign corporation in relation to one of the several States. Remember, that the District of Columbia is not one of the States of the Union of several States, but is a foreign nation (corporation). See 20 C. J. S. sec. 1785, p. 11. So under these facts of law the "U. S. citizens" of the District of Columbia are only alien residents in any one of the several States. So, if all state agencies are operating under the purview of the municipal laws of the District of Columbia, have they registered with this State's Department of State as an agency of a foreign power doing business in this State?

The original Political Code of 1872, states that you are either a Citizen of this State, a Citizen of another State, or an alien. So, if you do not possess Primary and Paramount State Citizenship, then you must be a resident alien, who can and must be controlled at all times when, where, how, and why to do anything affecting the public (Citizens of the State).

I am a Citizen of this State first, then as a consequence, I am a Citizen of the United States of America, as defined in the Original Constitution for the United States of America (1787), and have full, complete and unencumbered access to all of the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendments 1 through 10. The U. S. Supreme Court has stated that since 1969, Amendments 1 through 8 have limited application to the States through the 14th Amendment for the U. S. citizens. They as citizens of a non-state (notice a difference of status between the State and the District of Columbia) have no access to the 9th and 10th Amendments. As a Citizen of a State, I have all the powers not given to the governments. I am a sovereign and as the courts have stated the Constitutions are a limitation upon the government as it relates to the Citizen of the State. But this is not so if you are a citizen of the District of Columbia. SO, just what are you??? If you are a slave on the Federal plantation known as the District of Columbia, then act like one. If you are a Citizen of this State then act like the sovereign you are by heritage and Birthright. Read and understand the laws that apply to you. You must always obey these laws under all circumstances. I do not obey the laws of Japan, Germany, England or the municipal laws of the District of Columbia for the very simple reason that I am not one of their citizens.