Fruits From a Poisonous Tree: Supporting Statutes

This book comes from this link.

Today's excerpt begins on page .

TITLE 25 USC § 1999

“Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition received emigrants from all nations and vested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of the public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed:
Therefore, any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of an officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or question the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.”

The above statute reads like it was meant for foreigners who come to this country from all over the world.
Definitions are all important in the reading of any legal writing.
The definition most important in the above statute is the words “foreign states,” so let’s look at some other statutes, Supreme Court decisions and dictionary definitions that shed more light on those words.

The Constitution was made for States, not territories,” wrote Daniel Webster.
“[T]he Constitution of the United States as such does not under it 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.

Judicial note should be taken that the United States Constitution always denoted “Citizen” and “Person” in capital letters prior to the 14th Amendment; thereafter, “citizen” and “person” were not capitalized.
The distinction between “citizens of the United States” and “Union States 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.”

The Federal Government is a “state”.

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)

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.
Asking one question can clear up the distinction between the two types of Citizen:

Are both classes of Citizenship the same and, if not, what is the difference?

Citizens of the Union States have the right of suffrage (right to vote); District citizens have no such right.

If you are not a United States citizen of Washington, D.C., or the territories and possessions, then what are you in relation to the federal government?

NON-RESIDENT ALIEN

At first that term does not seem to describe your relationship to the federal government, but Federal Income Tax Law and the Supreme Court enlighten greater understanding of the term.
The revenue laws do not use the term “sovereign citizen.”
Those laws refer to United States Persons, Resident Aliens and Nonresident Aliens.
U.S. persons are defined to include, among other things, citizens and residents (i.e.: resident aliens) of the United States.

Treasury Decision (TD) 2313

The Supreme Court decision on a tax case determined the issue.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Inc. (240 U.S. 1) 1916 is often cited by the IRS as demonstrating its authority to collect income tax and that the income tax is constitutional (limited application).
What the IRS fails to mention, and what is not apparent from looking at the court’s ruling in the case, is that the case concerned income from within the United States accruing to a nonresident alien, which is subject to the federal income tax because he was involved in a trade or business with a federally-chartered corporation.

Treasury Decision 2313 in elaborating on the case makes this apparent: “Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway 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.” (Treasury Decision 2313)

It is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by a citizen of New York, living in Brooklyn, against the Union Pacific Railway Co., a federally-chartered corporation.
The purpose of the suit was to prevent the railway company from withholding the 1% tax from the dividends payable to the New Yorker.
The state citizen lost that case.
In reliance upon that decision, the Treasury Department referred to the New Yorker as a nonresident alien who, as such, was not exempt from the withholding of taxes from dividends payable by a domestic corporation (i.e., chartered by the federal government)!
The fact that TD 2313 called Mr. Brushaber a nonresident alien seems proof enough that citizens of states are nonresident aliens for all purposes of the Code, and if this is true, then a corporation chartered in a state is foreign, while only federally-chartered corporations can be domestic.
So, anything done in a state is done without the United States.

The Treasury Department actually confirmed their understanding by their analysis of the Brushaber case on the status of a sovereign citizen as being a nonresident alien for revenue purposes.

A nonresident alien is anyone who is neither a citizen nor a resident (alien) of the United States.
Since the sovereign citizen is not a “citizen of the United States” under the Code (by virtue of the definition in the regulations), and since he does not fit the definition of a resident alien, by elimination, he must be a nonresident alien!

The term “alien” must apply to the sovereign citizen, because he is alien to the status of subject citizen, and he does not fit the special definition of resident found in the 14th Amendment.
It may also be said that, since the sovereign person does not live within the political jurisdiction of the United States, he is nonresident thereto.
Thus, he can be nonresident to the place, as well as nonresident and alien to the status of subject citizen.

Under the language of the Code, as interpreted by the tax regulations, the sovereign citizen may be liable for the tax applicable to the nonresident alien.
The Code subjects nonresident aliens to taxes upon income which is received either from a trade or business “effectively connected with the United States,” or from a source “within” the United States.
Do not assume that this means some place as foreign as France or Japan.
It appears to refer to the fifty states, just as clearly as did TD 2313.

As to taxability of nonresident alien income, in order for such income of the nonresident alien to be taxable, it will have to emanate from sources within sovereign federal areas or from an activity that is effectively connected with the political jurisdiction of the United States by reason of the ATF laws, patents, copyrights, federally-created entities, etc.
If it emanates from any of the fifty states and is not “connected” with those federally-controlled activities, such income is not taxable to the sovereign citizen.
Once again, the problem is to find a court that will apply this truth.
To do this, one must show to the court that an activity in one of the fifty states is “without” the United States.

To do this, it is suggested that a standard form subpoena, as issued by the clerk of any United States District Court, be marked as an exhibit.

Point to the return of service which states that it is signed “under penalties of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America.”
Then attach it to a motion which cites 28 USC §1746(1).
This statute defines that form of verification is applicable only “without” the United States!
Also cite 28 USC §297, showing that the fifty “freely associated compact states” are referred to as “countries.”

Combined with the Brushaber case and TD 2313, one would make it hard for the court to deny that income from within the fifty states is without the United States.

Since you have always been a non-resident alien of the United States, it seems absurd that you would be required to prove it with rebuttal evidence, but that is exactly what you have to do.
The government and the courts are not going to let you easily out of the system that it took them so long to put in place to fund their criminal activity.

Through its regulations, the government has made it difficult to expatriate, as they require that you leave the country and do the deed at a Consulate or Embassy.
However, President Bush may have made the task a little easier since he has Declared War against Terrorists as (6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only “in time of war”) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA); Simply address the Document to the Attorney General per the regulation.

There exist mountains of supporting evidence and court decisions regarding your true status, and it seems absolutely preposterous to require you to jump over obstacles in order to expatriate, but if it were made easy, then everyone would be doing it.
Again, this is one of the most important decisions of your life, so do not approach it in a cavalier manner.
Study as much as you can, and ask the good Lord for direction before making that decision.
The preceding is an example of one individual’s Expatriation Document.
Do not copy it word for word, as you can see it was a heartfelt effort and of a personal nature, as yours should be.
Notice that taxes were not even a consideration, as having taxes as one’s motivating reason makes the attempt a failure.

source