Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 02, 1998 at 22:48:23:
In Reply to: pi = 103993/33102 (Well, almost.) posted by Man of Reason on September 01, 1998 at 18:22:01:
Treasury Decision 2313 is proof that the IRC
is a municipal code, and state Citizens are
nonresident aliens with respect to the
exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the
United States (federal government).
There are no apportionment provisions anywhere
in the IRC.
We have explained this fact many times by
referring to the Downes Doctrine, first
promulgated in Downes v. Bidwell, namely,
the apportionment and uniformity rules
simply do not apply inside the federal zone,
because the Constitution of the United States,
as such, does not extend beyond the limits
of the states which are united by and under it.
Federal citizenship is a political franchise,
the exercise of which can be taxed by means
of excise taxes. All pertinent cites have
been repeated ad nauseam. Roa v. Collector
held that citizenship is a term of municipal
law! The Roa statement on citizenship is
quite pivotal in this entire discussion.
Since the 14th amendment was never ratified
properly, there is no constitutional
authority for the proposition that federal
citizens must be Citizens of the Union state
in which they reside.
Citizenship is extremely pertinent, because
the CFR imposes a specific liability for the
federal income tax on "citizens of the
United States" [sic].
It does not impose a specific liability
on citizens of France, Belgium, or Spain.
Nor does it impose a specific liability
on Citizens of ONE OF the United States
of America. See 28 U.S.C. 1746 for a
statute which uses both terms "United States"
and "United States of America". This statute
is THE reason why Form 1040 is never notarized;
a verification pursuant to one of the two
forms in section 1746, is quite adequate.
To argue that citizenship is not at all
relevant, is to overlook these obvious
Nevertheless, these regulations are overly
broad extensions of the corresponding
statutes (i.e. IRC Section 1), because
said section imposes no specific liability
on "citizens of the United States".
As such, the regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1
are unconstitutional when enforced upon
Citizens of ONE OF the Union states
(who are not also federal citizens).
See Alla v. Kornfeld for pivotal authority
that the class of Citizens mentioned in the
Constitution is entirely different and
distinct from the second class of federal
citizens. This case constructed the
Diversity Clause, discussed in detail
elsewhere in this forum.
A jury consisting of federal citizens ONLY
is not a lawful jury, because that restriction
is codified in the Jury Selection and Service
Act. State Citizens are not even mentioned;
the omission thereof can, and should, be
inferred as intentional. We have, therefore,
the same situation as occurred in the South
before the Civil Rights movement, namely,
juries were all white because the laws
deliberately excluded blacks from jury service.
There was a time when women were also excluded
from the voting booth. Both of these legal
monstrosities inevitably gave way to a broad
cultural understanding of the essential bias
and fundamental harm they inflicted upon the
Now the laws deliberately exclude state Citizens,
not only from jury service (grand and petit),
but also from the voting booth. As such, these
state Citizens are being taxed without
representation. No taxation without
Last but not least, the entire matter was
rendered res judicata by the Plaintiffs' win
in Knox v. U.S. et al.
Your attempt to be logical fails completely
in the face of the above statements.
Your stubborn adherence to generalizations
further proves the points we have been
making here for many months now.
As the angels have been heard to say,
we can ONLY show you the truth: the
rest is up to you. The Perfect Law of
Freedom strictly prohibits us from
compelling you to change anything
about yourself, after you hear the truth.
See James 1:25 for biblical authority.
You are born with free moral agency,
and our efforts to document the facts
do not guarantee that you will
necessarily agree with them, or
necessarily disagree with them.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Post a Followup