Time: Mon Mar 17 13:08:31 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA03165;
	Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:46:34 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:02:57 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: A Win against IRS! (1 of 2)

Note:  There are some pages that are almost totally blank.
Use PAGE DOWN key liberally.

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]











                           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 USPS P. O. Box 6189
                                   San Rafael, California
                                   Postal Code 94903-0189/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

Account for Better Citizenship


copies:  interested colleagues



















                        Page A - 4 of 26
                                                       Appendix A


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
vs.                            )   (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  vs Bidwell,  182 U.S.  1 and Downes vs
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 vs 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.  vs 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  vs United  States, 183 U.S. 176;
cf. De Lima vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1;  Dooley vs United States, 182
U.S. 222;   Faber vs United States, 221 U.S. 649; cf. Huus vs New
York &  P.R.S.S. Co.,  182 U.S.  392;   Gonzales vs Williams, 192
U.S. 1;  West India Oil Co. vs 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 vs 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 vs Chillingworth, 113 So. 667, 669 (1927)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     7.   Related cases  are Hylton  vs 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 vs  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  vs 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 vs Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 588, 590 (1875)]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     The Federal Government is a "state".

                 [Enright vs 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


========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail