CHAPTER 1

PART 1

Introduction

At the outset, those wishing to acquire a homeschooleddoctorate in Liberty and the political philosophy associatedthereto should read and study the Quotes of our Founders,particularly Thomas Jefferson, found in Appendix F. It will be amind expanding experience, I guarantee it.

In 1984 the author was convicted of willful failure to file incometax returns. It was a four day trial and during the testimony ofthe author's employer's payroll accounting clerk, the clerk wasasked two questions by the judge. The first question was, "Isthere a Social Security number on Defendant's pay stub?"And the second question was "Are there any Social Securitydeductions shown to have been taken out of Defendant'spay?" The payroll clerk answered "yes" to both of the Judge'squestions. The judge sought no other information throughoutthe trial. However, during the jury instructions the judge told thejury that "if you find the Defendant had wages, I am instructing,you that those wages were income as a matter of law." To his orher dismay, the reader will soon know why the judge gave suchan instruction and it will be "The Truth that makes you mad."Was the judge hinting that Social Security is the root cause ofALL income taxes or was he telling us outright? In Part 2, thisissue will be dissected and analyzed in detail in order to betterunderstand the significance of the Judges Jury instruction.

Also, because the following analysis is steeped in legal theoryand prior court decisions, this treatise includes Appendixes, A-F.It is hoped that this additionally included material will be helpfulin improving the reader's comprehension by providing addedproof for the points and conclusions expressed in the followingdiscussions.

Thus, in order to properly set the stage before we undertakethe discussion below, the reader might well want to review the6 appendixes in an effort to lay some groundwork, using firstprincipal legal concepts found therein which are generally notwell understood by the average Person.

CHAPTER 2

PART 2

The misapplicationof federal Law

There exists in many of the Union States a desire by some ofits legislators to rid their Union State of the shackles of muchof the recent federal legislation and, in effect, return their UnionState to its rightful Constitutional Sovereign Statehood status.However, to do so requires an extremely necessary and boldmove on the part of the State legislators, and quite possiblythe Union State governor, to pull it off. Anyone concernedwith the history of this Republic should be aware of the firstprinciple fact that each of the 50 Union States are Sovereignin their powers and duties for the single purpose to protect thepeople's sovereignty from all aggressors, foreign and domestic.If you have had the occasion to read Appendix B you learnedthat the following quote from the United States Supreme Courtin Federal Marine Commission (FMC) v. South Carolina StatePorts Authority, 535 U.S. 743 (2002), wherein Justice Thomas,writing the opinion for the Court, expresses in abstract the longchain of legal opinions regarding Union State sovereignty:

Dual sovereignty is a defining feature of our Nation'sConstitutional Blueprint. See Gregory v. Ashcroft,501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991). States, upon ratificationof the Constitution, did not consent to becomemere appendages of the federal government.Rather, they entered the Union "with theirsovereignty intact." Blatchford v. Native Villageof Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779 (1991). [Emphasisadded] An integral component of that "residuaryand inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39,p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison), retainedby the States is their immunity from private suits.Reflecting the widespread understanding at the timethe Constitution was drafted, Alexander Hamiltonexplained:

States, in ratifying the Constitution, did surrender aportion of their inherent immunity by consentingto suits brought by sister States or by the federalgovernment. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706,755 (1999). Nevertheless, the Convention did notdisturb States' immunity from private suits, thusfirmly enshrining this principle in our constitutionalframework. "The leading advocates of theConstitution assured the people in no uncertainterms that the Constitution would not stripthe States of sovereign immunity." Id., at 716.(Emphasis added)

While a sovereign, such as any one of the 50 Union States, hasthe option to consent to being a defendant in private suites, itdoes not have the Constitutional option to volunteer to pay atax imposed by another sovereign. I bring this point up herebecause it is a little known fact that each and every one ofthe 50 Union States is paying an excise tax to the federalgovernment, and that excise tax is the so-called employer'sshare of FICA and Medicare taxes. The people of New York,for example, will find the line item expense for the FICA andMedicare Employer Excise Taxes listed as an expense itemunder the account number 9030.8 in the New York State budgetwhich is also true for each of its instrumentality's budgets. Aswe will soon learn, it is this tax that causes the Union Statesto forfeit their Sovereignty because the paying of a tax is anabsolute admission of subject status and in the case of payingand collecting Chapter 21 taxes, the Union States in questionare emulating a federal State thus creating an inferencethat the Union States are mere appendages to the FederalGovernment. This then creates an additional inference thatthe Union State territory is now federal territory under thejurisdiction of Congress power to exclusively legislate withthe entirety of federal territory. Paying a tax is different fromconsenting to suite. The people of said Union State(s) in theirConstitution never gave said Union State(s) the option to paytaxes to any other sovereign, let alone the Federal Government(the United States) which is a creature created by both theSovereign Citizens and their respective Sovereign States. Thenotion that a creation can turn around and tax its Creator is alogical, linguistic, and constitutional absurdity. If that were nottrue, such a notion would contradict the above set out SupremeCourt opinion due to the fact that a taxable sovereign is anoxymoron and a semantic contradiction of terms. Sovereignsact like sovereigns and subjects act like subjects and never thetwain will meet within the same entity. In other words, no entitycan be both.

To begin with, there is a very naïve misunderstanding ofjurisdiction among the general public and also, unfortunately,among the agents they elect as their representatives to enforceand protect their respective Constitutions. A white paper hasbeen included in Appendix B which shows that Union Stateterritory such as the territory of New York, Oklahoma, etc.,is, in general, not within the territory over which Congresshas been given the power to legislate. The federal legislationreviewed herein requires a healthy understanding of the limitsof its jurisdiction. Such understanding is necessary to fullycomprehend the shift in the semantics of the common wordsbeing redefined within federal statutes to new meanings as wewill be discussing. Also, please take note that in the generalarrangement of the statutes being discussed herein, Congresschose to redefine many of the terms after they would have beenread assuming the reading occurred in the same sequence asthey are catalogued in the published law code. Consequently,during the first reading they would seem to contain the conceptsconveyed by the common use of the term, not the conceptsconveyed by Congress' redefinition. It is doubtful that theaverage reader of the originally read statute would go backand reread a statute containing a redefined term and be able toadequately comprehend the true meaning of the law now in theredefined sense.

Think of it this way. In our Constitutional Republic there are atotal of 51 unique sovereign territories, the 50 Union States andfederal territory with the moniker of the United States. In theUnion States the laws applicable and enforceable therein areenacted by a Union State Legislature. In the case of Federalterritory, the laws applicable and enforceable therein areenacted by the Congress of the United States. Consequently,the simple concept here with respect to the Union States'association with the federal territory is simply that the federalterritory is a separate and independent sovereign Statepossessing the same scope of authority over its sovereignterritory as does any one of the Union States exercises overits sovereign territory. In other words, Congress exercises thesame legislative authority over federal territory as does a UnionState Legislature likewise exercise over the sovereign territoryof a Union State. So whenever one thinks of jurisdiction, thinkof the 50 Union States and one Federal State which togetherrepresents all the unique territory of our Constitutional Republic,none of which overlaps in the least.

To cast this into a political bed of concrete, the Supreme Courtstated further that the sovereignty of the United States wasestablished through Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which Lopez[United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 131 LEd. 2d 626, 115S.Ct. 1624] characterized as the "Constitutionally mandateddivision of authority." This "division of authority" uniquelycreated, in fact, a dual but mutually exclusive sovereignty in theUnited States of America; one being that of the United Statesand the other (albeit 50 in number) being that of each of theStates of the Union.

Since each governmental sovereign organs have constitutionallydelegated powers, the fundamental first principle question iswhat is the scope and sphere of said delegated powers? Theanswer is that each is sovereign within the boundary(s) of itsassigned and/or acquired territory(s); the United States beingsovereign over all territory ceded to it by the States and theStates remaining sovereign over their own territory "as to allpowers reserved."

"Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all powersreserved. It must necessarily be so, because theUnited States have no claim to any authority but suchas the States have surrendered to them." Chisholm v.Georgia, 2 Da11 (U.S.) 419, 435, 1 LEd. 440 (1793)Iredell, J. (Emphasis added)

The conduit through which all constitutionally delegated powersflow is jurisdiction. As to what jurisdiction remained with theStates, the Supreme Court asked and answered the question:

"What then, is the extent of jurisdiction which astate possesses? We answer, without hesitation;the jurisdiction is co-extensive with its territory;co-extensive with its legislative [sovereign] power."United States v. Baevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat) 336,386, 387.

Since the sphere and scope of the delegated powers for each isco-extensive with the jurisdiction of its legislature, coextensivewith its territory, it remains to be shown just what basis oneuses to determine such jurisdiction as a first principle issueof Constitutional law. The whole concept of dual but mutuallyexclusive jurisdictions between the United States and theStates of the Union was further ratified by an InterdepartmentalCommittee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areaswithin the States, convened in 1957, and chaired by the thenAssistant Attorney General, Mansfield D. Sprague during theEisenhower administration. The Committee published thetext of their findings and recommendations in two volumes,the first designated as Part I, The Facts and CommitteeRecommendations and the second as Part II, A Text of the Lawof Legislative Jurisdiction. It is in Part II that the Committeeratifies the concept of dual but separate sovereignties," to wit:

"The Constitution gives express recognitionto but one means of Federal acquisition oflegislative jurisdiction—by State consent underArticle 1, section 8, Clause 17.... Justice McLeansuggested that the Constitution provided thesole mode of jurisdiction and that if this mode isnot pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can takeplace. Id @ 41

"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there hasbeen a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause17 by Federal acquisition of land with State consent,or (2) by cession from the State to the FederalGovernment, or unless the Federal Governmenthas reserved jurisdiction upon the admission ofthe State, the Federal Government possesses noLegislative jurisdiction over any area within the State,such jurisdiction being for the exercise by the State,subject to non-interference by the State with (lawful)Federal functions and subject to the free exerciseby the Federal Government of rights with respect tothe use, protection, and disposition of its property. Id@45(emphasis added)

"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral actionon its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over anyarea within the exterior boundaries of a State. Id @46(emphasis added)

"On the other hand, while the Federal Governmenthas power under various provisions of theConstitution to define, and prohibit as criminal,certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in theUnited States [of America], it has no power to punishfor various crimes [such as drugs and firearms],jurisdiction over which is retained by the Statesunder our Federal-State system of government,unless such crime occurs in areas as to whichlegislative jurisdiction has been vested in the FederalGovernment.' Id @ 107. (Insertions added by theauthor)

The last paragraph of the Committee's findings parallels exactlywhat Thomas Jefferson had to say opposing the "Sedition Act"when he wrote The Kentucky Resolutions addressing Congress'authority to punish such crimes, to wit:

"2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the UnitedStates, having delegated to Congress a power topunish treason, counterfeiting the securities andcurrent coin of the United States, piracies, andfelonies committed on the high seas, and offensesagainst the law of nations, and no other crimeswhatsoever...." (emphasis added)

In the context of the Dual Sovereignty what then is theConstitutional jurisdictional relationship between a Union Stateand the Federal Government, known as the United States, infederal legislation.

"The United States Government is a ForeignCorporation with respect to a State." 19 CorpusJurus Secundum §883, In re: Marriam's Estate, 36N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed in United States v.Perkins, 163 U.S. 625.

Consequently, if the United States Government is a ForeignCorporation with respect to a State, it follows, conversely, thata State is foreign with respect to the United States Government.Since the United States Government's legislation has noauthority in a foreign land, it therefore has no authority in aState which is foreign to the United States Government. This isa very important concept to keep in mind.

The title of this Part hints that the problem herein beingaddressed is the misapplication of Federal Law as it pertainsto the excise tax being paid by each of the Union States andthat is, in fact, exactly the base cause of the loss of Sovereigntyamong the Union States. The tax law we are concerned aboutis, as aforesaid, the FICA/Medicare excise tax on employeesand employers found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) atChapter 21. § 3101 It is firstly an income tax on employeesengaged in the act of "employment" where the income ismeasured by the employee's wages and secondly it is an"excise," tax legislated in § 3111, on the employers alsoengaged in the act of "employment" and also measured by theamount of wages paid to the employee.

OK, so hold your nose and let's dive into the abyss of somefederal law, but the author must initially warn the reader thatthe following analysis could be termed as the unraveling oftransmogrified semantics. When a term has been redefined inor for statutes, it loses its commonly understood meaning orconcept, but rather takes on the meaning of the redefinition asspecified at the exclusion of all other possible previously knownmeanings.