Text File

Newsgroups: misc.legal From: jim@irvine.com (James) Subject: SSNs, taxes, legal jurisdictions, and citizenship Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1993 02:03:16 GMT Message-ID: <C0xCDH.n2K@irvine.com> Lines: 394

I've come across claims that there is another class of citizenship in these United States, and that members of that class do not have to file taxes and hence do not have to obtain a Social Security Number for any reason.

I would very much like to obtain informed opinions and citings from legal decisions in support for or against, as I don't yet have all the facts.

To kick off the discussion, I'll offer what I've learned so far. But, please: I'm primarily interested in the legal aspects. Discussing the philosophical or social implications would be fun, but only as asides to the legal aspects. Also, I'm not especially interested in the tax consequences so much as I'm interested in the overall issue of individual Sovereignty and the loss thereof.

* * *

0. The Issue

With respect to US citizenship and SSNs, there are two claims made: 1) that US citizens are required to file taxes and the IRS requires taxpayers to obtain an SSN; and 2) that there is another class of citizenship whose members do not have to file taxes and are not subject to most federal regulations.

The first claim is undeniably true. US citizens must definitely file taxes and the IRS definitely requires taxpayers to obtain SSNs.

A summary of the argument for the second claim follows. I am trying to track down all supporting information---court decisions in particular---to determine its veracity.

Where I've wished to add supporting evidence or personal interjections, I've placed references in square brackets [] to a Notes section.

1. The Argument In Favor of Claim 2

1.1. Classes of Citizenship

There are two distinct and separate classes of citizenship: 1) State Citizenship, which has existed since before and after the Union was formed; and 2) US citizenship, which has existed only since the 14th Amendment (which actually created the class of US citizenship).

By Common Law birthright everyone who is born in a State is a Sovereign Citizen of the State in which they were born.

1.2. Common Law

Common Law is the basis of the U.S. Constitution and the various State constitutions. Common Law derives from English law, and is largely uncodified. Common Law is approached as axiomatic, and provides that persons have inalienable (or "natural") rights that cannot be taken away by governmental entities. [1]

1.3. The Nature of Sovereignty

The term Sovereign has very special meaning in law. It is from Common Law and derives from the body of law applicable to Kings (Sovereigns). A Sovereign is not necessarily subject to any higher authority. However, if one is not a Sovereign then one is subject to some higher authority.

There are three classes of Sovereigns in the United States: "We The People", the State Governments, and the Federal Government. Hence, a State Citizen is a Sovereign.

Each Sovereign State Citizen, with respect to every other Sovereign State Citizen, is a Sovereign. Each State, with respect to every other State, is a Sovereign. The United States of America ("the US"), as a country, is a Sovereign with respect to every other country in the world.

The Sovereign "We The People" created the States. The States are subject to the Sovereign We The People that created them. The Sovereign States created the US. The US is subject to the Sovereign States that created it.

1.4. Classes of Constitutions

Each State has two constitutions: 1) an original Common Law constitution with which the State, as a Sovereign Country whose form of government was required to be a Republic (not quite the same thing as a Democracy), entered into the Union; and 2) a Corporate constitution created sometime after the State entered into the Union and had incorporated.

California, for example, has two Constitutions: the original Common Law constitution of 1849, and the statutory law ("Corporate") constitution of 1879. Both constitutions are still in effect. The Corporate constitution cites the original Common Law constitution and is a substitute for it. The term substitute has special meaning in law. It does not mean "to replace" or "to supersede". [2]

The State Constitutions and the Federal Constitution are documents specifically creating and delineating the powers and restrictions of the created government. All other powers are to remain with the People and all powers granted to the government are from the People.

The Constitutions give a Sovereign Citizen no rights whatsoever, because a Sovereign Citizen already possessed all rights possible: the Citizen was and is the ultimate Sovereign in this country. The Constitutions simply acknowledge and state the preexistence of these "inalienable rights" and guarantee that the government will not in any way infringe or take away these rights.

Among other things, the various Constitutions state that any government shall not infringe on the right of individuals to enter into contracts.

1.5. The Nature of the District of Columbia

Each State in the Union is a separate Country. This is stated by US Supreme Court Cases and Congressional Record, most recently in 1968.

Late in the 18th century, 13 separate countries agreed to form a Union and to create a 14th separate country called the District Of Columbia. The land for the Federal District of Columbia was taken from the country of Maryland. [3]

Washington D.C. and all States are separate countries with respect to each other. Therefore, any entity, whether a person or a corporation, while residing in another country, is a foreigner (an "alien").

The US Government (of the District of Columbia) is a foreign/alien corporation with respect to each State.

1.6. Classes of Citizenship Revisited

Sovereign State Citizenship is a Common Law birthright. That status was not and is not created by the State or the United States; it is axiomatic.

US citizenship was created by the 14th amendment to the Constitution, hence US citizens are subject to the US government.

A Sovereign State Citizen (or briefly, a State Citizen) is not subject to the US government in the same way that a US citizen is. A State Citizen has the full protections of all of the restrictions on the US Government that the US constitution provides.

State Citizens are Citizens of exactly one State. The US Constitution guarantees that every State shall treat Citizens of every other State while within that State as if they were Citizens of their State.

US citizens are citizens only of the District Of Columbia. They are not State Citizens of the State in which they reside. They are technically Franchises of the Corporation called the US Government.

Any US citizen residing in one of the 50 states is considered to be a resident alien of that state, and not a Citizen of that state---and, as a special point in law, is "residing" in that State, as opposed to being "domiciled" there.

A State Citizen is subject to common law and the original state constitution. The Common Law constitution can be invoked in court by a State Citizen. The Corporate constitution does not apply to a State Citizen. [4]

The Corporate constitution of a State does apply to a resident/alien. All modifications to the original Common Law constitution contained in the Corporate constitution do apply to residents/aliens.

1.7. The Nature of Income Taxes

Both the US Constitution and the State Constitutions do allow for excise taxes.

The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress may impose taxes on income. [5]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the income tax is an excise tax because it is a tax on the earnings of corporate franchises (i.e. US citizens) and hence is an excise tax. [6]

Because a US citizen is a Franchise of a foreign corporation with respect to the State, and is residing in the State, that citizen pays some income taxes to a special state entity. In California, that entity is the Franchise Tax Board and the tax is called the Resident Income Tax.

State Citizens are not subject to the Resident Income Tax since they are not residents of the State and are not aliens with respect to the State. [7]

State Citizens are not citizens of the District Of Columbia and therefore they are not subject to the District Of Columbia's income tax.

1.8. The Nature of the Social Security Tax

Social Security was first implemented in 1935, originally not as a tax per se. The Social Security Act of 1935 was repealed in 1938 and reenacted as a direct tax on all US citizens. It is a direct tax because the Social Security Act of 1938 states that the revenues can be used for "any other purposes". [8]

The Social Security tax today is a direct tax called FICA, and the revenue collected from payees is directly given to recipients. However, the revenue is considered part of the general tax revenues (e.g. those collected from taxes on incomes and other sources), and can be spent in any way specified by Congress.

The courts have ruled that Social Security disbursements are "gifts" from the government. However, the US Government is free to do with the monies whatever it wishes.

Social Security taxes are not refundable.

Since State Citizens are not US citizens they are not subject to social security tax. The social security tax is voluntary.

2. Notes.

[1] I wanted to compare Common Law and Statutory Law, but my understanding of the nature of Statutory Law needs improvement.

[2] Each Sovereign State after entering into the Union eventually incorporated. Each State has two flags: the Sovereign State flag and the Corporate State flag. The Corporate constitution is the constitution that is full of all of the Statutory "laws" that apply to its residents. Anything the Corporate State creates is subject to it. The US Government is also a Corporation. The US also has two flags: the Sovereign United States flag and the Federal Corporate flag which, with Gold fringe, is also a military or martial law flag.

[3] The District of Columbia cannot become a state, because the land belongs to Maryland.

[4] If one examines many of the "laws" on the books and the Corporate Constitution of a State one will find that they are carefully written so as not to apply to State Citizens. They are written to apply to all the residents/foreigners/aliens/corporations (aka "Persons", i.e. non-State Citizens) residing in the state. Of course, virtually everyone in every state is a resident alien ("Person") since they are all citizens of the US. (State Citizens are "Sovereigns," and, under statutory law, not "Persons".)

[5] The tax laws, as written by the US Congress, are not actually Laws (with a capital L) at all but are codes (or contract laws). The laws most certainly are valid for US citizens. Persons who claim the tax laws are unconstitutional are also wrong: there are US Supreme Court cases stating in clear and certain terms that the "income tax" is actually an excise and hence is not unconstitutional. In addition there are US Supreme Court cases stating in clear and certain terms that the tax laws apply to US citizens even if they earn all of their income outside of the US with no direct or indirect economic involvement with US. The mere fact that one is a US citizen empowers the IRS to determine one's Federal income tax liability. The IRS usually forces US citizens to "voluntarily" determine that liability themselves.

[6] There are court rulings stating that the income tax as it now stands has nothing to do with---and never has had anything to do with---the 16th amendment.

[7] Do Citizens of Thailand (a foreign country) pay their taxes to the US Government? No. State Citizens are considered non-resident aliens with respect to the District of Columbia. There is an IRS form W-8, "non-resident alien declaration", that exempts one from the Federal Income tax. If one files a W-8, the IRS will eventually send one a letter stating that one is exempt from all Federal tax liability. I have yet to actually see such a letter though.

[8] Many persons today, especially older persons, still claim that the Social Security tax is not a direct tax and is like an account into which they have paid and from which they expect all of "their" invested money back plus some. But that is only as it was originally implemented and stated to the American People, and has not applied since 1938.

3. Analysis

3.1. Questions of Status and Jurisdiction

The key legal issue seems to be one of Status. Is one's status under law Sovereign or Subject? Status is critical to any legal proceeding so that proper and legal jurisdiction can be determined. It is beginning to look like the outcome of any given case, whether argued before the US Supreme Court or some other court, is ultimately affected by Status and Jurisdiction. Another key legal issue which ultimately affects Status are the terms "domiciled in/living in" and "resides in/residing in". According to law a citizen of his own country is domiciled in or lives in his country. A foreigner/alien or diplomat while "living in" a country not his own resides in or is residing in that country.

The question then in court is which constitution one can invoke. The constitution that one can invoke is totally dependent upon one's Status.

3.2. Contracts and Social Security

A State Citizen or US citizen is entering into a contract by obtaining a driver's license, a credit card, a bank account, a social security card, by filing income tax returns, etc. Once one is party to a contract the terms of that contract are in full effect and actually are law for the parties of the contract and fully enforcible to the full extent of the Law.

The governments and courts must make sure the terms of the contract are followed to the letter. This is what the Federal Government and State Governments are supposed to do and are doing with great effect. They enforce the terms of contracts voluntarily and non-fraudulently entered into by two or more parties.

A State Citizen, by obtaining a social security number, is signing a contract. The terms of a contract can constrain or supersede any of the rights the Sovereign previously held. And those terms are fully enforcible by the courts.

The social security contract binds the parties to the laws and statutes regarding social security.

The social security contract also makes one a US citizen and hence makes one subject to the 14th amendment and to any other laws that apply to US citizens. One is still a State Citizen, but all the Federal laws, income tax laws, social security laws, etc., constrain one's rights contractually.

3.3. Rights of US citizens vs. Rights of State Citizens

All US citizens are subject to the US Government and have "civil rights," but have neither "inalienable" rights nor rights guaranteed by the Constitutions. The rights that US citizens hold are only those granted to them by the US Government.

Civil rights can be removed or changed at will by legislation. For example, US citizens were given the right to a trial by jury only in 1968. Previously, US citizens might be given trials by jury but the guaranteed right to a jury trial did not exist for them. In contrast, State Citizens have had that right guaranteed by the State and US Constitutions since their existence.

A State Citizen has absolutely no need of civil rights. A State Citizen already holds all rights as inalienable.

No challenges regarding constitutionality may be mounted by aliens/foreigners and US citizens since they did not create the US constitution---instead they are created constructs of the US constitution. Sovereign State Citizens can challenge the constitutionality of laws, codes, or statutes. This is why US citizen tax-protesters get slam-dunked when they stand before the US Supreme Court (or the Tax Court for that matter) and claim that the income tax is unconstitutional. They are wrong twice: they cannot legally even present the challenge, and the income tax is an excise tax and is constitutional.

4. Conclusions

Some individuals now claim to be State Citizens by virtue of having obtained letters from the states in which they are domiciled acknowledging their Citizenships in those States. Also, to deny Federal jurisdiction, these Citizens have attempted to break all contractual ties with the US Government, by returning their Social Security cards, by submitting IRS W-8 forms and by closing all financial accounts with members of the Federal Reserve System (credit cards, bank accounts, loans) etc. In addition, to deny Corporate State jurisdiction, these Citizens have returned their driver's licenses, vehicle registrations, and license plates.

These Citizens claim that Federal Statutory laws, statutes, codes, etc., and the state Corporate constitutions, do not apply to them---and have never applied to them---and also that none of the State Statutory laws, statutes, codes, etc., apply to them.

In traffic and tax cases, the state courts are upholding these claims so far, but not without a huge fight per individual case. I have yet to actually sit in on a case to see this happen, but I have read some of the decisions rendered on such cases. Most cases against State Citizens are eventually dismissed, because the courts appear not to want more legal precedents set.

The above is a summary of most of the support that I have found so far for claim 2. I have not verified all of this. This is what I am trying to do right now. So: does anyone have informed opinions about this matter? Can anyone point to solid legal work that secures or refutes the correctness of claim 2?

--James Zarbock