"Explanation of ZIP Code Address Purpose"
(Version 910816Z; rev. 081991)
by
W. C. Updegrave
c/o 300 Adams Street, Esterly
Reading, Pennsylvania
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
It is this writer's opinion, both as a result of study, e.g.
of page 11 of the National Area ZIP Code Directory; of 26 USC
7621; of Section 4 of the Federal Register, Volume 51, Number
53, of Wednesday, March 19, 1986, Notices at pages 9571 through
9573; of Treasury Delegation Order (TDO) 150-01; of the opinion
in United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 308, 98
S.Ct.2d 2357, 57 L.Ed.2d 221 (1978); of 12 USC 222; of 31 USC
103; and as a result of my actual experience, that a ZIP Code
address is presumed to create a "Federal jurisdiction" or "market
venue" or "revenue districts" that override State boundaries,
taking one who uses such modes of address outside of a State
venue and its constitutional protections and into an
international, commercial venue involving admiralty concerns of
the "United States", which is a commercial corporation domiciled
in Washington, D.C.
More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the
National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post office, one
will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that
includes more than one State. The first sentence of the
explanatory paragraph begins: "A ZIP Code is a numerical code
that identifies areas within the United States and its
territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]. Note the
singular possessive pronoun "its", not "their", therefore
carrying the implication that it relates to the "United States"
as a corporation domiciled in the District of Columbia (in the
singular sense), not in the sense of being the 50 States of the
Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the
Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.
Properly construed, ZIP Codes can only be applicable in
Federal territories and enclaves that may be located within the
50 States of the Union, and to the "United States" and District
of Columbia and its territories -- cf. Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6
Ohio 342, 404 (1856) and U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 63 (1936) to
the effect that "in every state there are two governments; the
state and the United States." Therefore, ZIP Code addresses are
for the corporate "United States" and its agents, for example, a
customs and duty collector at New York harbor, when they move out
into the States of the Union to perform functions delegated to
the "United States" by the National/Federal Constitution, or the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor
Vehicles, or a U.S. Congressman.
Explanation of ZIP Code Purpose:
Page 1 of 6
But, by propaganda, misleading information and seditious
syntax, government has gotten nearly everyone in the 50 States of
the Union to use ZIP modes of address, and that creates a
PRESUMPTION or a PREJUDICIAL ADMISSION that one is in such a
Federal venue, or that one is such a government agent.
In general, it is well settled in law that Income Tax
Statutes apply only to corporations and to their officers,
agents, and employees acting in their official capacities, e.g.
from Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 44 L.Ed.2d
1, 95 S.Ct. 1538 (1975): "... However, all 'income tax statutes'
apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no
matter whether state, local, or federal." Since corporations act
only through their officers, employees, etc., the income tax
statutes reach out to them when acting in their official
capacities, but not as individuals. This is the real purpose for
Identifying Numbers -- cf. 26 CFR 301.6109-1(d) & (g) and 26 USC
6331(a) and 26 CFR 301.6331-1, Part 4.
Use of a ZIP Code address is tantamount to the admission of
being a "citizen of the United States" who does not necessarily
have the protections of the first eight Amendments to the
Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) when proceeded against by
Federal or State authority -- Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20
S.Ct. 448 (1900), but, "All the provisions of the constitution
look to an indestructible union of indestructible states", Texas
vs White, 7 Wall. 700; U.S. v. Cathcart, 25 F.Case No. 14,756;
In re Charge to Grand Jury, 30 F. Case No. 18,273 (65 C.J.
Section 2) -- not known to be overturned.
Also available from the same author:
"Brief of Law for ZIP Code Implications," by W. C. Updegrave, c/o
300 Adams Street Esterly, Reading, NON-DOMESTIC, Pennsylvania
(11 pages plus "Appendix of Unused Data and Quotes")
Explanation of ZIP Code Purpose:
Page 2 of 6
# # #
"My Continuing Objection to Mail Sent with a
National Area ZIP Code Mode of Address"
by
W. C. Updegrave
c/o 300 Adams Street, Esterly
Reading, Pennsylvania
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
1. In spite of my repeated demands that you correct the
way in which you send mail to me, you insist and persist, over my
most strenuous objections and contrary to my repeated NOTICES to
you, to continue to send my mail with a National Area ZIP Code,
which is both unnecessary, even by the application of Domestic
Mail statutes and regulations, and is, in fact, an unlawful and
fraudulent attempt to define me into an alien and foreign venue
and jurisdiction that are, as a matter of fact, contrary to the
Federal and State Constitutions and the case law that has
developed on this issue. Briefly put, on the basis of my
studies, such an address can only properly apply to Federal
enclaves within the States of the Union, and perhaps to 14th
Amendment citizens of the United States. For this reason alone,
you are either making a mistaken or a fraudulent presumption as
to my status. How would you prefer to be classified: as one who
made an error? or one who has committed acts of fraud? If it is
fraudulent, then you are also engaged in a conspiracy against me
and mine. All such mail is reviewed without prejudice but not
accepted.
2. My use of the term "without prejudice, UCC 1-207" in
connection with my signature on this document, or any prior
document or instrument, indicates that I have exercised the
remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code, Article I,
Section 207, whereby I have reserved my natural and common law
right not to be compelled to perform under any contract,
commercial agreement, or bankruptcy that I did not enter
knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, and reserved all other
Uniform Commercial Code and common law remedies. It also
indicates that I do not intend to ratify any fraudulently induced
contract by continued acceptance of the benefits thereof.
Furthermore, it notifies all administrative agencies of
government that I do not and will not accept the liability
associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract,
commercial agreement or bankruptcy.
Explanation of ZIP Code Purpose:
Page 3 of 6
3. Briefly put, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) Section 111.2
and the copyrighted (hence, "private" and not governmental at
all) NATIONAL AREA ZIP CODE DIRECTORY, page 11, both identify the
term "United States" by using the third person, singular,
personal pronoun "its", which relates only to the "United States"
at the District of Columbia, its territories and ceded enclaves,
its agents and its "citizens". In this context, the term
"citizen of United States" has a very restricted definition --
cf. 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) and 301.6109(g); 42 U.S.C. 1981 & 1982;
26 U.S.C. 3121(e); 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) & (10); etc. It is to
be noted that in DMM 111.2, the term "United States" is used, but
none of the fifty states as the States in the Union is mentioned;
therefore, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius
(mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others) becomes
applicable. The 1789 Federal/National Constitution always makes
a distinction between the "States in the Union" and the "United
States", the former always being referenced in the plural, and
the latter sometimes being so referenced. The "United States"
has no venue or jurisdiction within unceded territories inside
the "States in the Union" (e.g. see Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44
U.S. (3 How.) 212, 221, 223 (1845); New Orleans v. U.S., 35 U.S.
(10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836); 4 U.S.C. 72; 48 U.S.C. Chapters 2
and 3, "The Alaska and Hawaii Omnibus Acts"; 18 U.S.C.,
Appendix, FRCrP Rules 1 and 54(c); etc.) except where a man or a
corporation can be presumed to be a "citizen of the United
States" (see 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(a), (b) and (c)), or a "Federal
citizen", or a "National citizen" (see U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252,
102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982), stating that National
("United States") citizenship mandates Social Security
participation, but the issues of jurisdiction and venue were not
raised in that case, and it was argued on narrow and
inappropriate statutory grounds -- cf. the dissent in Maine v.
Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 65 L.Ed.2d 555, 100 S.Ct. 2502 (1980),
pages 30-31 especially).
"All legislation is prima facie territorial."
[American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.]
[213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909)]
"Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to
limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction."
[New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm]
[268 U.S. 29, 31-32 (1925)]
... [T]he "canon of construction which teaches that
legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears,
is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction
of the United States ...."
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222]
[70 S.Ct. 10 (1949)]
4. Without getting into the several definitions of the
term "citizen", which the courts generally construe to mean a
mere civil status for one who is politically involved, McCafferty
vs Guyer, 59 Pa. 109, 126-127 (Agnew dissent), etc., but
sometimes the term is limited to a representative of a city in
Parliament, or one who is involved in the conduct and policy
making of a civil government, the following is certain authority
on the subject for those who are in that category. Persons who
are "citizens of the United States" do not necessarily have all
the protections of the first eight amendments to the U.S.
Constitution when proceeded against by federal and state
authorities (e.g., see Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 20 S.Ct. 448
(1900)). One of the elements that can lead to such presumptions,
by inference, is the acceptance of mail with a ZIP code mode of
address. In Hooven & Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 671-672
(1944), the U.S. supreme Court has ruled that there are three
recognized meanings for the term "United States", to wit:
Explanation of ZIP Code Purpose:
Page 4 of 6
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several
senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying
the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the
family of nations. It may designate the territory over
which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it
may be the collective name of the states which are united by
and under the Constitution.6
_______________
6. 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.
But, those three meanings are simply evidence of the word games
that the courts, legislatures and bureaucrats have played with
the minds and rights of the freemen in this country. See also
the clear admission in Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855).
5. The map on page 11 of the ZIP CODE DIRECTORY indicates
that ZIP code denominators combine more than one of the States of
the Union, hence they define a special venue related to revenue
districts established, for example, by 26 U.S.C. 7621(a) and (b),
and those are the only legitimate purposes for such a mode of
address. For instance, the ZIP codes that denominate certain
areas in the States of New York and Pennsylvania all use a five-
digit ZIP code, the first numeral of which begins with a "1",
e.g. "19600". On page 15, ibid., a list is given of state
abbreviations with two capital letters, to be used in conjunction
with ZIP codes.
6. Contrary to popular belief, "citizenship of the United
States" arises from the so-called 14th Amendment, and did not
exist before that fraudulent enactment was foisted on the
unsuspecting free men (see Utah v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975);
Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 272 (1968); Adamson v.
California, 332 U.S. 46 et seq. (1947); Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal.
300 (1855); Van Valkenberg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47 (1872);
U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed. Case No. 14,459 at 830 (1873); Cory et
al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 349-350, 17 Am. Rep. 738 (1874);
Sharon v. Hill, 26 Fed. Reporter 337 at 343-344; State v.
Manuel, 20 N.C. 144, 152; Arver v. U.S., 245 U.S. 366, 388-89
(1917); Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 509 (1938)). In fact,
such statutory provisions as 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982, now
codified in the same title of the U.S. Codes as the Social
Security Act (so called), still clearly make a distinction
between "citizen of the United States" and "white state citizen".
It is also clear from various other authorities that there is a
distinction between state citizenship for whites and 14th
Amendment citizenship of the United States, since even such a
distinction can be drawn from the language of the infamous 14th
Amendment itself. In Cory v. Carter, supra, quoting and basing
its analysis on the opinion in the Slaughter House Cases, 16
Wall. 36, the court, with respect to the First Section, said:
"... [I]t overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all
persons born within the United States and subject to its
jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main
purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can
admit of no doubt." ... It recognizes and establishes a
"distinction between citizenship of the United States and
citizenship of a State."
[emphasis added]
Explanation of ZIP Code Purpose:
Page 5 of 6
However, with reference to the second clause, that same opinion
continues:
This clause does not refer to citizens of the States. It
embraces only citizens of the United States. It leaves out
the words "citizen of the State," which is so carefully
used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the
United States, in the preceding sentence. It places the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States
under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and leaves
the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State under
the protection of the State constitution. This is fully
shown by the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
[emphasis added]
7. There are lots of reasons to believe, e.g. by an
examination of 42 U.S.C. 1982 (which distinguishes between
"citizens of the United States" and "white state citizens"), that
Taney's dicta in the Dred Scott case was not really overturned by
the 14th Amendment, and lots of authorities to show that it was
never validly adopted or ratified and that, in fact, the 14th
Amendment did not repeal any part of the original 1789
Constitution for the United States of America.
Therefore, please state concisely, with supporting points,
rationale and authority: What are the underlying presumptions by
which you send me mail using such a mode of address?
Explanation of ZIP Code Purpose:
Page 6 of 6
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
ZIP Code Essays