Appendix A

 

Letter to John Knox:

1929 - 1992

 

 

-and-

 

 

Memorandum of Law by John Knox:

 

edited in honor of his passing

 

 

by

 

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Federal Witness

and Private Attorney General

Reader's Notes:

                                                                        c/o general delivery

                                          San Rafael, California

                                          Postal Code 94901/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 conversa­tion.  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.

 

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/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, Founder

 

Account for Better Citizenship

 

 

copies:  interested colleagues

 

John H. Knox

In Propria Persona

c/o 111 Stephanie Street

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:

 

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]

 

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)

 

      ... [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.

 

      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.

 

      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]

 

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).

 

 

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 U.S.C.S. 1, "Other provisions:"]

[emphasis added]

 

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)".

 

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.  Every human in a nation is a natural Citizen of a place called a nation, if he was born in that nation.  Those same people must be naturalized (born again) if they want to become a citizen of another nation.  Original citizenship exists because of places, not agreements.  This is jus soli, the law of the place of one's birth (see Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition).

 

      30.   Here are two questions, your own answers to which will solve the dilemma.  In a geographical sense, where is the State of Texas located on the continent?  In a geographical sense, where is the "United States" (Congress) located on the continent?

 

                31.   Now, since typewriters were purchased from the areas that just joined the Union, namely Alaska and Hawaii, according to Title 1, Congress had to use a term that is NOT used in the Internal Revenue Code, in order to buy the same typewriters from the same geographical area:

 

      Sec. 45.  Title I of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1960, is amended by striking out the words "for the purchase within the continental limits of the United States of any typewriting machines" and inserting in lieu thereof "for the purchase within the STATES OF THE UNION AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF ANY TYPEWRITING MACHINES".

 

[emphasis added]

 

And, for declarations made under the penalties of perjury, the statute at 28 U.S.C. 1746 separately defines declarations made WITHIN and WITHOUT the "United States" as follows:

 

      If executed WITHOUT the United States:  I declare ... under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

      If executed WITHIN the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths:  I declare ... that the foregoing is true and correct.