Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Battle Lake [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
 
In Propria Persona
 
Under Protest and
by Special Visitation
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
 
 EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 97-2099-MNST
 Plaintiff [sic]/ )
 Appellees, ) USDC Minneapolis #CR-4-96-65
 v. )
 )
EVERETT C. GILBERTSON [sic],  )
 Defendant [sic]/ )
 Appellant. )
________________________________)
 )
Everett C. Gilbertson, ) DCUS Minneapolis #4-96-65
 Plaintiff/Appellant, )
 v.  ) APPELLANT'S FIRST SUPPLEMENT
 ) TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
United States, ) TO FILE ENLARGED BRIEF:
James M. Rosenbaum, )
and Does 2-99, ) FRAP Local Rule 28A(e), (j);
 Respondents. ) Rule 201(c), Federal Rules
 ) of Evidence; Full Faith
________________________________) and Credit Clause
 
COMES NOW Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
 
state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal
 
citizen"), and Appellant in the above entitled matter
 
(hereinafter "Appellant"), to provide formal Notice to all
 
interested party(s), to move this honorable Court for
 
discretionary judicial notice, pursuant to Rule 201(c) of the
 
Federal Rules of Evidence, and to apply for leave to file an
 
enlarged REPLY BRIEF, pursuant to Local Rules 28A(e) and (j) of
 
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP").
 
 
 First Supplement for Leave to File Enlarged Brief:
 Page 1 of 5

 Appellant respectfully requests discretionary judicial
 
notice by this honorable Court of the two (2) attachments which
 
are itemized as follows:
 
 (1) Appendix "A" from the book entitled The Federal Zone:
 Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue, a fully edited
 version of the Plaintiffs' winning brief entitled
 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR THE DISTRICT COURT
 TO CONSIDER THE T.R.O. AND INJUNCTION DENIED BY THE
  MAGISTRATE, in Knox v. U.S. et al., USDC, San Antonio,
 Texas, case number #SA-89-CA-1308, September 5, 1991;
 
 (2) Chapter 13, "Amendment 16 Post Mortem," from the book
 The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal
 Revenue, as incorporated by reference in the brief
 entitled NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL
 NOTICE, in U.S.A. v. Knudson, USDC, Lincoln, Nebraska
 state, case number #4:CV96-3275, May 7, 1997.
 
 Said attachments are hereby incorporated by reference, as if
 
both were set forth fully herein.
 
 
 VERIFICATION
 
I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty
 
of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America,
 
without the "United States", that the above statement of facts is
 
true and correct, to the best of My current information,
 
knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
 
 
Dated: ______________________________
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
 
 
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
 
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
 
 
 First Supplement for Leave to File Enlarged Brief:
 Page 2 of 5

 PROOF OF SERVICE
 
I, Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
 
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
 
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years
 
of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
 
that I personally served the following document(s):
 
 APPELLANT'S FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO
 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ENLARGED BRIEF:
 FRAP Local Rules 28A(e), (j);
 Rule 201(c), Federal Rules of Evidence;
 Full Faith and Credit Clause
 
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
 
class U.S. Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed to:
 
Attorney General James M. Rosenbaum
Department of Justice United States District Court
10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
 
Solicitor General Henry Shea
Department of Justice United States Attorneys
10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
 
 
Courtesy copies to:
 
William H. Rehnquist, C.J. Clarence Thomas, J.
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street N.E. One First Street N.E.
Washington [zip code exempt] Washington [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 
Paul Andrew Mitchell Alex Kozinski (supervising)
Counselor at Law, federal witness Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
c/o 2509 N. Campbell Ave., #1776 125 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 200
Tucson [zip code exempt]  Pasadena [zip code exempt]
ARIZONA STATE CALIFORNIA STATE
 
 
Dated: ______________________________________
 
 
______________________________________________
Everett C. Gilbertson, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state, federal witness
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
 
 
 First Supplement for Leave to File Enlarged Brief:
 Page 3 of 5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Attachment "A":
 
 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST
 FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER THE T.R.O.
 AND INJUNCTION DENIED BY THE MAGISTRATE
 
 Knox v. U.S. et al.
 
 United States District Court
 San Antonio, Texas state
 case number #SA-89-CA-1308
 
 September 5, 1991
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Appendix A
 
 Letter to John Knox:
 1929 - 1992
 
 -and-
 
 Memorandum of Law by John Knox:
 
 edited in honor of his passing
 
 by John E. Trumane
 
 
 Page A - 1 of 26

 The Federal Zone:
 
 
Reader's Notes:
 
 
  Page A - 2 of 26

 Appendix A
 
 
 c/o General Delivery
 San Rafael, California
 Postal Code 94903/tdc
 
 September 23, 1991
 
Mr. John Knox, Director
Texas Hill County Patriots
Kerrville, Texas Republic
Postal Code 78028/tdc
 
Dear John:
 
I am writing to thank you for the time you spent explaining to me
your in-depth understanding of federal jurisdiction at the recent
Denver Conference on tax and monetary reform.
 
By listening to you and Walt Myers debate the question in the
hotel lobby, I came to believe that you have done a great deal of
good research, John. I was very rewarded by my decision to stay
and pick your brains after Walt walked away.
 
I am also writing this letter to remind you of your offer to send
me copies of the legal briefs you mentioned during our conversa-
tion. Enclosed are 20 FRN's to this end.
 
I am slowly collecting substantive papers on the questions of
federal jurisdiction, the definitions of "United States", their
implications for Congressional taxing powers and statutes, and
their implications for the American economy in general.
 
It is most intriguing, for example, that Alaska became a State
when it was admitted to the Union, and yet the United States
Codes had to be changed because Alaska was defined in those Codes
as a "state" before admission to the Union, but not afterwards.
This apparent anomaly is perfectly clear once the legal and
deliberately misleading definition of "state" is understood.
 
Even though my own research has only scratched the surface of
this question, I now have ample reasons to believe that the
fluctuating definitions of "United States" in Title 26 are
likewise intentional and may constitute the essential core of a
system of deliberate legal deception that was fastened upon our
entire nation by the year 1913.
 
Notably, Mr. Brushaber was identified in his court documents as a
New York Citizen. The Union Pacific Railroad Company was
incorporated by Congress. Accordingly, Brushaber was a State
Citizen identified as a nonresident alien and taxed upon unearned
income that derived from a domestic corporation. He was alien to
the jurisdiction of the corporate United States, and nonresident
within that jurisdiction because he resided within New York
State. He derived income from a domestic corporation, because
the Union Pacific Railroad Company was incorporated by Congress,
i.e., in the District of Columbia.
 
 
 Page A - 3 of 26

 The Federal Zone:
 
 
If the Union Pacific Railroad Company had not been incorporated
by Congress, it would have been a foreign corporation (i.e.,
foreign to the federal, corporate United States). If Brushaber
had resided in the District of Columbia or in some other federal
enclave or possession under exclusive jurisdiction of Congress,
he would have been a resident alien. If he had been born inside
this exclusive jurisdiction, or if he had been naturalized, he
would have been a United States citizen, not an alien, regardless
of where  he resided. Note that I have been careful to
distinguish a "United States citizen" from a "Citizen of the
United States"; the former is a person under the jurisdiction of
Congress, while the latter is not.
 
It is quite stunning how the carefully crafted definitions of
"United States" do appear to unlock a horribly complex statute,
and also expose perhaps the greatest fiscal fraud that has ever
been perpetrated upon any people at any time in the history of
the world.
 
I will anxiously look forward to receiving the legal papers which
we discussed in Denver.
 
Thanks very much, John, for your significant contributions to our
important and difficult search for the truth in this matter.
 
 
Sincerely yours,
 
/s/ John E. Trumane
 
John E. Trumane, Founder
Account for Better Citizenship
 
copies: interested colleagues
 
 
 Page A - 4 of 26

 Appendix A
 
 
John H. Knox
In Propria Persona
c/o General Delivery
Kerrville, Texas Republic
Postal Code 78028/tdc
 
 
 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
 
 THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
 
 
JOHN H. KNOX and LOIS C. KNOX )
  )
 Plaintiffs, )
 ) Case No. SA-89-CA-1308
v. ) (Consolidated with
 ) SA-89-CA-0761)
THE UNITED STATES, )
HERMAN SILGUERO and  )
DOROTHY SILGUERO, )
 )
 Defendants )
 
 
 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST
 
 FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER THE T.R.O.
 
 AND INJUNCTION DENIED BY THE MAGISTRATE
 
 
 Plaintiffs in the above entitled action are NONRESIDENT
ALIENS with respect to the "United States" as those terms are
defined in 26 U.S.C., and have had no income effectively
connected to a trade or business within the "United States".
They COME NOW to file this their Memorandum in Support of a
Request for the District Court to Consider the Temporary
Restraining Order and the Motion for Injunction and, in support,
to show the Court as follows:
 
 1. The issues as to whether there are different meanings
for the term "United States", and whether there are three
different "United States" operating within the same geographical
area, and one "United States" operating outside the Constitution
over its own territory (in which it has citizens belonging to
said "United States"), were settled in 1901 by the Supreme Court
in the cases of De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 and Downes v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244. In Downes supra, Justice Harlan dissented
as follows:
 
 
 Page A - 5 of 26

 The Federal Zone:
 
 
 The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression
 in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country
 substantially or practically two national governments; one,
 to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its
 restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress
 outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising
 such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to
 exercise.
 [Downes supra, page 380, emphasis added]
 
He went on to say, on page 382:
 
 It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of
 a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds
 lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher
 duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority
 to prevent all violation of the principles of the
 Constitution.
 [Downes supra, page 382, emphasis added]
 
 2. This theory of a government operating outside the
Constitution over its own territory, with citizens of the "United
States" belonging thereto under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
(4:3:2) of the Constitution, was further confirmed in 1922 by the
Supreme Court in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (EXHIBIT #4),
wherein that Court affirmed, at page 305, that the Constitution
does not apply outside the limits of the 50 States of the Union,
quoting Downes supra and De Lima supra; that, under 4:3:2, the
"United States" was given exclusive power over the territories
and the citizens of the "United States" residing therein.
 
 3. The issue arose again in 1944, in the case of Hooven &
Allison Co. v. Evatt, Tax Commissioner of Ohio, 324 U.S. 652,
wherein the U.S. Supreme Court stated as follows at page 671-672
(EXHIBIT #8):
 
 The term "United States" may be used in any one of several
 senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign
 occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns
 in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the
 territory over which the sovereignty of the United States
 extends, [3] or it may be the collective name of the
 states which are united by and under the Constitution.1
 
  [brackets, numbers and emphasis added]
____________________
 
1. See Langdell, "The Status of our New Territories," 12
 Harvard Law Review 365, 371; see also Thayer, "Our New
 Possessions," 12 Harvard Law Review 464;  Thayer, "The
 Insular Tariff Cases in the Supreme Court," 15 Harvard Law
 Review 164; Littlefield, "The Insular Cases," 15 Harvard
 Law Review 169, 281.
 
 
 Page A - 6 of 26

  Appendix A
 
 
Quoting Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176;
cf. De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1; Dooley v. United States, 182
U.S. 222; Faber v. United States, 221 U.S. 649; cf. Huus v. New
York & P.R.S.S. Co., 182 U.S. 392; Gonzales v. Williams, 192
U.S. 1; West India Oil Co. v. Domenech, 311 U.S. 20.
 
The Court, in Hooven supra, indicated that this was the last time
it would address the issue; it would just be judicially noticed.
 
 4. The issue arose in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company, 240 U.S. 1. In that case, the high Court affirmed that
the "United States" could levy a tax on the income of a
nonresident alien when that income derived from sources WITHIN
the "United States" (i.e. its territorial jurisdiction).
 
 5. Based upon the decision in Brushaber supra, the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, promulgated the Court's decision as
Treasury Decision 2313 (see EXHIBIT #1). T.D. 2313 declared that
Frank R. Brushaber was a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the
"United States". T.D. 2313 also declared that the Union Pacific
Railroad Company was a DOMESTIC CORPORATION with respect to the
"United States" (i.e. its territorial jurisdiction).
 
 6. The Complaint (EXHIBIT #2) filed by Mr. Brushaber shows
that he was a nonresident of the "United States", residing
instead in the State of New York, in the borough of Brooklyn, and
a Citizen thereof, with his principal place of business in the
borough of Manhattan. He owned stocks and bonds issued by the
Union Pacific Railroad Company, upon which a cash dividend was
declared to him by said company, a domestic corporation of the
"United States". Union Pacific was chartered by an Act of
Congress for the territory of the federal state of Utah, in order
to build a railroad and telegraph line and other purposes. It is
a matter of public record that the Union Pacific Railroad Company
was a domestic "United States" corporation, of the federal state
of Utah, residing in the District of Columbia, with its principal
place of business in Manhattan, New York. It was created by an
Act of the "United States" Senate and House of Representatives
(under their exclusive authority, granted by the Constitution for
the United States at 1:8:17) on July 1, 1862 by the 37th
Congress, 2nd Session, as recorded in the Statutes At Large,
December 5, 1859 to March 3, 1863 at Chapter CXX, page 489
(EXHIBIT #3). Considering the foregoing evidence of the
diversity of citizenship of the two parties, it is clear that Mr.
Brushaber was a "nonresident alien with respect to the United
States", who had income from sources within said "United States".
His income derived from the Union Pacific Railroad Company, a
corporate citizen created by Congress and residing WITHIN the
"United States" (i.e. the District of Columbia). (See EXHIBIT #3)
 
 
 Page A - 7 of 26

 The Federal Zone:
 
 
 ... [A] domestic corporation is an artificial person whose
 residence or domicile is fixed by law within the territorial
 jurisdiction of the state which created it. That residence
 cannot be changed temporarily or permanently by the
 migrations of its officers or agents to other jurisdictions.
 So long as it is an existing corporation its residence,
 citizenship, domicile, or place of abode is within the state
 which created it. It cannot reside or have its domicile
 elsewhere; neither can it in legal contemplation be absent
 from the state of its creation.
 
 [Fowler v. Chillingworth, 113 So. 667, 669 (1927)]
 [emphasis added]
 
 
 7. Related cases are Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3
Dall.) 171 (1796): Hylton was a Congressman; his salary was
income from sources WITHIN the "United States". See also
Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881): Springer, a Virginia
Citizen, operated a carriage business in the District of
Columbia.
 
 8. The first paragraph of the Secretary's Treasury
Decision (EXHIBIT #1) is quoted here as follows:
 
 (T.D. 2313)
 Income Tax
 
 Taxability of interest from bonds and dividends on stock of
 domestic2 corporations owned by nonresident aliens, and the
  liabilities of nonresident aliens under Section 2 of the act
 of October 3, 1913.
 
 To collectors of internal revenue:
 
 Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
 States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway
 [sic] Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that
 income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of
 interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of
 domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed
 by the act of October 3, 1913.
 [footnote and emphasis added]
 
 9. The above decision by the Secretary of the Treasury
determined that a tax on income derived from rents, sales of
property, wages, professions, or a trade or business WITHIN the
"United States", was applicable to such "income" when payable to
a nonresident alien, i.e. a Union State Citizen.
 
____________________
2. "Domestic" in the "United States" statutes means  inside
 D.C., the possessions, territories, and enclaves of the
 "United States", i.e. federal states of which there are 14.
 (EXHIBIT #5)
 
 
 Page A - 8 of 26

  Appendix A
 
 
 10. All income tax provisions under 26 U.S.C., subtitle A
(an excise tax on "income"), are divided between sources WITHIN
and WITHOUT the "United States". They are imposed upon the
worldwide income of citizens of the "United States" and aliens
residing therein, and upon nonresident aliens (of all kinds)
receiving income from sources WITHIN said "United States" and
WITHIN the other parts of the American Empire which fall WITHIN
the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Congress of the
"United States", pursuant to 1:8:17 and 4:3:2.
 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED TO CONGRESS
 
 11. The Constitution gives to Congress the power to act for
the 50 Union States as an international representative and to do
so without (outside) the boundaries of each of those 50 States.
These powers are expressed in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1
thru 16 (1:8:1-16).
 
 12. The Constitution gave to Congress a seat of government,
known as the District of Columbia. In time, Congress created a
government for the "District", and this "District" became a
federal state by definition. (For the other federal "states" of
the "United States", see EXHIBIT #5.) However, this "state"
(D.C.) is not "united" by or under the Constitution for the
United States of America. D.C. has never joined the Union.
 
 13. Furthermore, the Constitution granted to Congress the
authority to govern the "District", just as the Legislatures of
each of the several States of the Union govern their States
within the geographical limits of those States. As Congress
began to legislate for the "District", under authority of 1:8:17
and 1:8:18, the difference between the citizens of the "District"
and the Citizens3 of the Union became apparent, in that the
citizens of the "District" did not possess the right of suffrage
or other rights (see Balzac supra, De Lima supra, and Downes
supra) and therefore were not recognized as a part of the
Sovereignty of "We the People". The Constitution for the United
States of America provided no means of taxing these "District"
citizens of the "United States". A method of forming municipal
governments and of exercising taxing power over these citizens
within the territories of the "United States" was decided by The
Insular Cases (see the Bidwell cases, supra). "The Constitution
was made for States, not territories," wrote Daniel Webster.
"... [T]he Constitution of the United States as such does not
extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and
under it ....", wrote author Langdell in "The Status of Our New
Territories", 12 Harvard Law Review 365, 371.
 
____________________
3. Please note that the U.S. Constitution always denoted
 Citizen and Person in capital letters until the 14th
 Amendment, wherein citizen and person were not capitalized.
 
 
 Page A - 9 of 26

  The Federal Zone:
 
 
 14. The distinction between "citizens of the United States"
and "Union State Citizens" has been fully recognized by the
Congress and the Courts as follows:
 
 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.
 
 [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588, 590 (1875)]
 [emphasis added]
 
 The Federal Government is a "state".
 
 [Enright v. U.S., D.C.N.Y., 437 F.Supp 580, 581]
 
 Foreign State. A foreign country or nation. The several
 United States are considered "foreign" to each other except
 as regards their relations as common members of the Union.
 
 [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1407]
 
  15. Congress identifies these citizens of the "District" as
"individuals" or citizens who reside in the "United States" and
who are subject to the direct control of Congress in its local
taxing and other municipal laws.
 
 16. In De Lima supra, the U.S. Attorney defined federal
taxes with the following words, at page 99-108:
 
 Federal taxation is either general or local. Local taxes
 are levied under Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1. Local
 taxes are for the support of territorial or non-state
 governments.
 
Congress imposed a federal excise tax on the "income" of these
citizens or "individuals" at 26 U.S.C., Section 1, as a local
tax:
 
 Such taxes are not for the common welfare of the United
 States, but are to defray the expense of the government of
 the locality, and in the dual position which Congress
 occupies in our system, as Federal Government and as local
 government for the territory of the United States not ceded
 into States of the Union, it has the power to tax for local
 purposes.
 [De Lima supra, page 99]
 
 
 Page A - 10 of 26

  Appendix A
 
 
Hence the term "from sources WITHIN the United States".
 
 General taxes are of two kinds, direct; and what, for
 brevity may be called indirect, meaning thereby duties,
 imposts, and excises. Direct taxes must be laid on all the
 States alike.
 [De Lima supra, page 100]
 
 17. A Citizen of one of the 50 States, residing therein, is
a nonresident alien with respect to this local taxing power of
Congress (see Brushaber supra). Outside the geographical area of
the "United States" (as that term is defined at 26 C.F.R.
1.911-2(g)), Congress lacks power to support the local government
by imposing a tax on the incomes of nonresident aliens  (ones
outside the locality, i.e. Citizens of the 50 States) UNLESS they
reside within that jurisdiction by residence, or UNLESS the
source of their income is situated WITHIN that geographical
territory. Any income arising from sources therein must be
withheld at the source by the "withholding agent" (see T.D. 2313,
26 C.F.R. 871, and 26 U.S.C. 1461), unless the recipient is
engaged in a trade or business therein. For a full discussion of
this local taxation, see pages 55 and 99-108 of De Lima supra.
For confirmation of the domestic municipal jurisdiction of the
"United States", see Downes supra at pages 383-388.
 
 18. Congress has control of these "individuals", whether
they "reside" WITHIN the "United States" (i.e. territorial
states, see EXHIBIT #5) or WITHOUT the "United States". These
"individuals" (i.e. born within the jurisdiction of Congress,
such as a citizen born in the District of Columbia or in one of
the territories), whether they reside  within "United States"
territories, without the "United States" in the "foreign
countries" (as defined at 26 C.F.R. 1.911-2(h)), or abroad, are
still liable for the federal income tax unless they abrogate that
citizenship by naturalization or otherwise. (See 26 C.F.R.
871-5, -6 and -12 and 1.932-1). However, at 26 U.S.C. 911(a)(1),
Congress has exempted from taxation all "foreign earned income"
of these citizen individuals, except for Puerto Ricans (see 26
C.F.R. 1.932-1(b), IRS Form 2555).
 
 19. Another type of nonresident aliens are those citizens
of contiguous countries such as Mexico, Canada and other foreign
countries. These foreigners, residents or nonresidents (as the
case may be), are subject to the tax on incomes received from any
place in the American Empire, i.e. in these united States and in
the "United States". A Union State Citizen, previously
nonresident, may lose his nonresident status by residing within
the territorial sovereignty of the "United States" for 183 days
(26 C.F.R. 1.871-7(d)(2)) and thereby becomes subject to the
local tax on incomes received from sources within and without the
"United States" (i.e. worldwide income).
 
 
 Page A - 11 of 26

  The Federal Zone:
 
 
 THE INCOME TAX IS A LOCAL TAX
 
 IMPOSED WITHIN THE "UNITED STATES".
 
 PLAINTIFFS ARE STRANGERS TO THIS LOCALITY.
 
 
 THE DEFINITIONS IN 26 U.S.C.:
 
 THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
 
 20. The definitions used in 26 U.S.C. are very clear in
defining "State" and "United States". In every definition that
uses the word "include", only the words that follow are defining
the term. For example:
 
 21. 26 U.S.C. 3121(e)(1) State. -- The term "State"
includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
 
 22. 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) United States. -- The term
"United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only
the States and the District of Columbia.
 
 23. The federal government has used these definitions
correctly, but IRS agents seem to assume that they mean the 50
States of the Union (America) when they look at the word "States"
in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9). You cannot use the common, everyday
meaning of the terms "United States" or "State" when talking
about the tax laws and many other laws that are enacted under the
local, municipal authority of the "United States" government.
 
 24. Another example is the Omnibus Acts at 86th Congress,
1st Session, Volume 73, 1959, and 2nd Session, Volume 74, 1960,
Public Laws 86-70 and 86-624. These Acts reveal the crafty way
in which the federal government uses correct English and how
Congress changes the meanings of words by using its own
definitions. For example, all the United States Code definitions
had to be changed to allow Alaska and Hawaii to join the Union of
States united under the Constitution. When Alaska joined the
Union, Congress added a new definition of "States of the United
States". This definition had never appeared before, to wit:
 
 Sec. 48. Whenever the phrase "continental United States" is
 used in any law of the United States enacted after the date
 of enactment of this Act, it shall mean the 49 States on the
 North American Continent and the District of Columbia,
  unless otherwise expressly provided.
 
 [cf. 1 USCS 1, "Other provisions:"]
 [emphasis added]
 
 
 Page A - 12 of 26

  Appendix A
 
 
Where is it otherwise expressly provided? Answer:
 
 Sec. 22. (a) Section 2202 of the Internal Revenue Code of
 1954 (relating to missionaries in foreign service), and
 sections 3121(e)(1), 3306(j), 4221(d)(4), and 4233(b) of
 such code (each relating to a special definition of "State")
 are amended by striking out "Alaska,".
 
 (b) Section 4262(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
 (definition of "continental United States") is amended to
 read as follows: "(1) Continental United States. -- The
 term 'continental United States' means the District of
 Columbia and the States other than Alaska."
 
When Hawaii was admitted to the Union, Congress again changed the
above definition, to wit:
 
 Sec. 18. (a) Section 4262(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
 Code of 1954 (relating to the definition of "continental
 United States" for purposes of the tax on transportation of
 persons) is amended to read as follows: "(1) Continental
 United States. -- The term 'continental United States' means
 the District of Columbia and the States other than Alaska
 and Hawaii."
 
 
 WHAT ARE THE STATES OTHER THAN ALASKA AND HAWAII?
 
 25. They certainly cannot be the other 48 States united by
and under the Constitution, because Alaska and Hawaii just joined
them, RIGHT? The same definitions apply to the Social Security
Acts. So, what is left? Answer: the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. These are the States OF
(i.e. belonging to) the "United States" and which are under its
sovereignty. Do not confuse this term with States of the Union,
because the word "of" means "belonging to" in this context.
 
 26. Congress can also change the definition of "United
States" for two sentences and then revert back to the definition
it used before these two sentences. This is proven in Public Law
86-624, page 414, under School Operation Assistance in Federally
Affected Areas, section (d)(2):
 
 The fourth sentence of such subsection is amended by
 striking out "in the continental United States (including
 Alaska)" and inserting in lieu thereof "(other than Puerto
 Rico, Wake Island, Guam, or the Virgin Islands)" and by
 striking out "continental United States" in clause (ii) of
 such sentence and inserting in lieu thereof "United States
 (which for purposes of this sentence and the next sentence
 means the fifty States and the District of Columbia)". The
 fifth sentence of such subsection is amended by striking out
 "continental" before "United States" each time it appears
 therein and by striking out "(including Alaska)".
 
 
 Page A - 13 of 26

 The Federal Zone:
 
 
 27. This one section, all by itself, contains all the
evidence you need, by words of construction, to prove that the
term "United States" on either side of these sentences did not
mean the 50 States united by and under the Constitution. If that
is not conclusive to you, then see the following:
 
 26 C.F.R. 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.
 
 (a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
 "State" includes [in its restrictive form] 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 [in its expansive form] Guam and
 American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical
 sense. The term "citizen of the United States" includes [in
 its restrictive form] a citizen of the Commonwealth of
 Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1,
 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
 
 [emphasis added]
 
Please note the bolded terms. In paragraph (a), Alaska and
Hawaii only fit the definition of "State" before joining the
Union. That means the definition of "State" was never meant to
be the 48 now 50 States of the Union unless distinctly expressed.
If paragraph (b) confuses you, the following is submitted:
 
 28. The word "geographical" was never used in tax law until
Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union, and it is not defined in the
Internal Revenue Code. So, we must use the definition found in
the Standard Random House Dictionary:
 
 ge.o.graph.i.cal 1. of or pertaining to geography 2. of
 or pertaining to the natural features, population,
 industries, etc., of a region or regions
 
 29. Were you born in the "United States"? The preposition
"in" shows that the "United States" in this question is a place,
a geographical place named "United States". It is singular, even
though it ends in "s". It also can be plural when referring to
the Union States which are places which exist by agreement.
 
 
 Page A - 14 of 26