                           Chapter 6:
                        Empirical Results
                                
                                
     Up to  this point,  I have  defined a  set of  key terms and
created a  scheme for understanding how these key terms relate to
each other.   This scheme was summarized in the form of a diagram
which I  have called The Matrix (see chapter 3 and also the cover
of this  book).   The Matrix is a two-by-two table which permutes
every combination  of citizen, alien, resident and nonresident to
create four unique cases:

               1.   resident citizen
               2.   resident alien
               3.   nonresident citizen
               4.   nonresident alien

     As a  body of  law, the  Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its
regulations together  require all  "citizens" and all "residents"
of the  United States**  to pay taxes on their worldwide incomes.
This requirement  applies to three of the four cases shown above,
namely, resident  citizens,  resident  aliens  and    nonresident
citizens.  In the fourth case, nonresident aliens only pay tax on
income which  is effectively  connected with  a U.S.**  trade  or
business, and  on income  from sources  within the  U.S.**  (like
Frank Brushaber's  dividend).   Their tax liability is succinctly
summarized by  the Code  itself.   Note  how  the  relevant  Code
section utilizes the phrase "includes only" as follows:

     General  Rule.  --  In  the  case  of  a  nonresident  alien
     individual,  except  where  the  context  clearly  indicates
     otherwise, gross income includes only --                [!!]

     (1)  gross income  which is  derived from sources within the
          United States**  and which is not effectively connected
          with the  conduct of  a trade  or business  within  the
          United States**, and

     (2)  gross income  which is  effectively connected  with the
          conduct of  a  trade  or  business  within  the  United
          States**.
                                  [26 USC 872(a), emphasis added]
                                                                 
     This may  sound all  well and  good, in theory.  How does it
work in  practice?  With so many words to document the recipe for
pudding, how  does the pudding taste?  Two case histories provide
the necessary proof.

Case 1

     Figure 1  shows a  letter which  an American Citizen sent to
the District  Director of  the Internal Revenue Service in Ogden,
Utah.  This letter was prepared in response to an unsigned letter
from the  IRS, requesting  that he  file a  1040 Form.   Note, in


                        Page 6 - 1 of 12

                                                The Federal Zone:
December 5, 1990
                                                                 
District Director
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah 84201

Re:  NRA  SSN #___-__-____

     On or  about  December  1,  1990,  I  received  an  unsigned
document claiming that you have not received the tax return 1040,
and requesting  that the  form 1040  be filed.  I have enclosed a
copy of that request.  I know of no such code that requires me to
file a  "tax return  1040".   If you  know of such a code, please
identify that code for me.

     I have enclosed a copy of the letter that I have sent to the
Director of  the Foreign  Operations  District,  concerning  this
matter.

     In researching  the revenue  code  book  which  your  people
kindly supplied  to me, I discovered that only an "individual" is
required to  file a  tax return (26 USC 6012) and then only under
certain circumstances.   In  looking at Section 7701(a)(1) of the
code, I  discovered that  the term  "individual" is  defined as a
"person".   Then, in checking under 7701(a)(30), I discovered the
definition of  a "United  States Person" as meaning a "citizen of
the United  States", "resident  of the  United States", "domestic
corporation", "domestic  partnership" and  a "domestic  trust  or
estate".   There is  no INDIVIDUAL  defined under 7701(a)(30) and
therefore I  cannot be  an "individual"  within  the  meaning  of
7701(a)(1) and/or 26 USC 6012.

     As well,  the Supreme Court in the case of Wills vs Michigan
State Police,  105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) made it perfectly clear that
I, the  sovereign, cannot  be named  in any  statute as  merely a
"person", or "any person".  I am a member of the "sovereignty" as
defined in  Yick Wo  vs Hopkins,  118 U.S. 356 and the Dred Scott
case, 60 U.S. 393.

     Therefore and  until you  can prove  otherwise, I  am not  a
"taxpayer", nor  an "individual"  that is  required to file a tax
return.   Please forward  to me  a letter  stating that  I am not
liable for  this tax  return, or  produce the  documentation that
requires me to file the "requested" tax return.

     If you  have any  questions concerning  this letter, you may
write to  me at  the address shown below.  Please sign all papers
so that  I know  who I  am dealing  with.  Until such a time as I
hear from  you or your office, I will take the position that I am
no longer  liable for filing the return.  Failure to respond will
be taken  as meaning  that you  have "acquiesced"  and that, from
this date  forward, the  doctrine of  "estoppel by  acquiescence"
will prevail.

Sincerely,

/s/ NRA

             Figure 1:  Letter to District Director

                        Page 6 - 2 of 12

                                                Empirical Results


particular, his  use of  the key  words "citizen  of  the  United
States**",  "resident   of  the   United   States**",   "domestic
corporation", "domestic  partnership", "domestic trust or estate"
and "sovereign".   He  asserted his status by explicitly claiming
to be  a sovereign  who was  not  the  "Person"  defined  at  IRC
7701(a)(1), and  who was not the "United States** Person" defined
at 7701(a)(30).  The IRC defines "Person" as follows:


     Person. --  The term "person" shall be construed to mean and
     include  an   individual,  a   trust,  estate,  partnership,
     association, company or corporation.
                                              [26 USC 7701(a)(1)]
                                                                 
                                                                 
The IRC defines "United States** Person" as follows:


     United States** Person. -- The term "United States** person"
     means --

     (A)  a citizen or resident of the United States**,
     (B)  a domestic partnership,
     (C)  a domestic corporation, and
     (D)  any estate  or trust  (other than  a foreign  estate or
          foreign  trust,   within   the   meaning   of   Section
          7701(a)(31)).
                                             [26 USC 7701(a)(30)]
                                                                 
                                                                 
     Again, note  the use of the key words "citizen", "resident",
"domestic",  and   "foreign"  which  have  been  highlighted  for
emphasis.   These key  words relate  directly to The Matrix.  The
key  words  "domestic"  and  "foreign"  relate  directly  to  the
boundaries of the federal zone, that is, the "United States**" as
that term  is defined  in relevant  sections of the United States
Codes (USC).   A  domestic corporation is one which was chartered
inside the  federal zone.   A foreign estate or foreign trust are
foreign because  they were  established outside the federal zone.
Without making  these statements  in so  many words, our intrepid
American's letter  in Figure  1 can be used to draw the following
inferences  about  his  status  with  respect  to  the  exclusive
legislative jurisdiction of the "United States**":


     1.   He is a sovereign as defined by the Supreme Court
     2.   He is not a citizen  of the United States**
     3.   He is not a resident of the United States**
     4.   He is not a domestic corporation
     5.   He is not a domestic partnership
     6.   He is not a domestic estate and
     7.   He is not a domestic trust




                        Page 6 - 3 of 12

                                                The Federal Zone:


     There is  one important  thing  his  letter  did  not  state
explicitly about  him, and  that is  his status  as a nonresident
alien.   Nevertheless, this inference can, in turn, be drawn from
two of  the above  inferences:   (2) he  is not  a citizen of the
United States**  and   (3) he  is not  a resident  of the  United
States**.   As a  human being,  he is  not an artificial "person"
like a  corporation, partnership, estate, or trust.  If he is not
a citizen  of the United States**, then he is an alien.  If he is
not a  resident of the United States**, then he is a nonresident.
Therefore, he  is a  nonresident alien,  according to the statute
and its regulations.


     Now, let's  take the  pudding out of the oven and see how it
tastes.   After taking  some time  to review  his letter, the IRS
addressed the following response to our intrepid American:

     Department of the Treasury
     Internal Revenue Service
     Ogden, UT 84201
                                   In reply refer to:  9999999999
                                   June 27, 1991  LTR 2358C
                                   ___-__-____      8909  05 0000
                                   Input Op:  9999999999    07150
     To: NRA
         Address
         City, State Zip

     Taxpayer Identification Number :  ___-__-____
                           Tax Form :  1040
                         Tax Period :  Sep. 30, 1989
       Correspondence Received Date :  June 13, 1991

     Dear Taxpayer:

     Based on  our information,  you are  no  longer  liable  for
     filing this tax return.  We may contact you in the future if
     issues arise  that need  clarification.   You do not need to
     reply to this letter.

                                   Sincerely yours,

                                   /s/ J. M. Wood
                                   Chief, Collection Branch
Case 2

     It would  have been interesting to see what kind of response
NRA would have received if he had stated explicitly his status as
a nonresident alien.  Based on what we know already about the law
and its  regulations,  such  an  explicit  statement  might  have
expedited the  processing of his letter.  But hindsight is always
20/20.  Fortunately, we do have another example where an American
Citizen did just that, in response to a similar IRS request for a
1040 form.  The following is the text of the IRS request:


                        Page 6 - 4 of 12

                                                Empirical Results


     Department of the Treasury
     Internal Revenue Service
     Ogden, UT 94201
                                   Date of this Notice:  08-19-91
                                   Taxpayer Identification: (ssn)
                                   Form:                     1040
                                   Tax Periods:          12-31-89
     To:  ARN

         Your tax return is overdue -- Contact us immediately

     We still  have not  received your tax return, Form 1040 U.S.
     Individual Income Tax Return, for the year ending 12-31-89.

     We must  resolve this matter.  Contact us immediately, or we
     may take the following action:

          1.   Summon you  to come in with your books and records
               as provided  by Sections  7602  and  7603  of  the
               Internal Revenue Code;

          2.   Criminal  prosecution   that  includes   a   fine,
               imprisonment, or  both, for  persons who willfully
               fail  to   file  a   tax  return  or  provide  tax
               information (Code Section 7203).

     To prevent  these actions,  file your  tax return  today and
     attach your  payment for any tax due.  Even if you can't pay
     the entire  amount of  tax you owe now, it is important that
     you file  your tax return today.  Pay as much as you can and
     tell us  when you  will pay  the rest.   We  may be  able to
     arrange for  you to pay in installments.  Detach and enclose
     the form  below with  your return.   To expedite processing,
     use the enclosed envelope.

     If you  are not  required to  file or have previously filed,
     please contact us at the phone number shown above.

     [unsigned]


     I always  enjoy it  very much  when the IRS states that "you
can pay  in installments".   Somebody  should write  to them  and
recommend that  they  consider  augmenting  their  "Services"  by
implementing a  layaway plan.   They may even have a special form
for this  very thing:   Service  Augmentation Request  Form  (RF)
#6666666, kind  of like their "internal" form #4685, as described
on page 34 of the IRS Printed Product Guide:

          Form 4685     41890S     (Each)
          News Clipping Mounting Guide
          This guide sheet is used for mounting news clippings
          for submittal to the National Office.
          C:PA:L  Internal Use


                        Page 6 - 5 of 12

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Now, our  second intrepid  American, coded with the initials
ARN (Non  Resident Alien abbreviated backwards) also took it upon
himself to  respond in writing.  This time, however, he wrote the
following words right on the IRS letter and sent it back to them,
certified mail, return receipt requested, on September 13, 1991:


     PLEASE BE  ADVISED that  ARN is  a non-resident alien of the
     United States**,  never having  lived,  worked,  nor  having
     income from  any source  within the  District  of  Columbia,
     Puerto Rico,  Virgin Islands,  Guam, American  Samoa or  any
     other Territory within the United States**, which entity has
     its origin  and jurisdiction  from  Article  1,  Section  8,
     Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  Therefore, he is a non-
     taxpayer outside of the venue and jurisdiction of 26 U.S.C.


     This response  gets right  to  the  point.    In  his  first
sentence, ARN  is explicit  and unequivocal about his status as a
nonresident alien  with respect  to the  United States**.  He has
never lived  or worked  in the United States**.  He has never had
income  from   any  source  inside  ("within")  the  District  of
Columbia, Puerto  Rico, Virgin  Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or
any other  Territory within the United States**.  He exhibits his
knowledge of  the relevant  authority for "internal" revenue laws
by correctly  citing Article  1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) of
the U.S.  Constitution.   Lastly,  he  concludes  that  he  is  a
"non-taxpayer" who  is outside the "venue" and jurisdiction of 26
U.S.C., Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code.


     English Philosopher  William of  Occam  (1300-1349)  put  it
succinctly when he said:


              "The simplest solution is the best."


Contrast this,  the simplest  of statements,  with the dictionary
definition of "Occam's razor", as it is called:


     Occam's razor   n   [William  of Ockham]:   a scientific and
     philosophic rule  that entities  should  not  be  multiplied
     unnecessarily which  is interpreted  as requiring  that  the
     simplest of  competing theories  be preferred  to  the  more
     complex or  that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought
     first in terms of known quantities.

                            [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary]
                                            [G. & C. Merriam Co.]
                                        [Springfield, Mass. 1981]
                                                                 



                        Page 6 - 6 of 12

                                                Empirical Results


I wonder if the people who write for G. & C. Merriam Company also
obtain supplementary  compensation for  services performed inside
the exclusive  legislative jurisdiction  of the federal democracy
of the United States** (i.e., moonlight in the federal zone).

     Exactly two  weeks later,  ARN received the following letter
from J.  M. Wood,  signed  with  "hand  writing"  that  lines  up
perfectly with the same signature received by NRA.  Could it have
been a computer signature?


     Department of the Treasury
     Internal Revenue Service
     Ogden, UT 84201

                                   In reply refer to:  9999999999
                                   Sep. 30, 1991  LTR 2358C
                                   ___-__-____       8902  30 000
                                   Input Op:   9999999999   07150
     To: ARN
         Address
         City, State Zip

     Taxpayer Identification Number :  ___-__-____
                           Tax Form :  1040
                         Tax Period :  Dec. 31, 1989
       Correspondence Received Date :  Sep. 16, 1991


     Dear Taxpayer:

     Based on  our information,  you are  no  longer  liable  for
     filing a tax return for this period.  If other issues arise,
     we may  need to  contact you in the future.  You do not need
     to reply to this letter.

                                   Sincerely yours,

                                   /s/ J. M. Wood
                                   Chief, Collection Branch


Now, that's what I call fast internal revenue service.


     To give  you some  idea just  how far we need to elevate the
importance of  status and  jurisdiction, consider  the  following
lengthy quotes  from the  written work of author, attorney at law
and constitutional  expert Jeffrey  A. Dickstein.   These  quotes
were buried  deep among  the footnotes  at the end of chapters in
his brilliant book entitled Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax:





                        Page 6 - 7 of 12

                                                The Federal Zone:


     The term  "individual" which  is used  not only  in  Section
     6012(a)(1) but  also in  Section 1 as the subject upon whose
     income the  tax is  imposed, is  not defined in the Internal
     Revenue Code.   It  is, however,  defined  in  the  treasury
     regulations accompanying  Section 1.  The regulations make a
     distinction between "citizens" and "residents" of the United
     States**, and  define a  "citizen" as  every person  born or
     naturalized in  the  United  States**  and  subject  to  its
     jurisdiction [  see 26  CFR Section  1.1-1 (a)  - (c) ].  An
     extremely strong  argument can  be  made  that  the  federal
     income tax  as passed  by Congress and as implemented by the
     Treasury Department  was only  meant to apply to individuals
     within   the    "territorial   or    exclusive   legislative
     jurisdiction of  the United  States**," as those individuals
     would  be   subject  to  the  "jurisdiction  of  the  United
     States**."  These exclusive areas, per Article I, Section 8,
     Clause  17,   of  the   United  States   Constitution,   are
     Washington,  D.C.,  federal  enclaves  and  United  States**
     possessions and  territories.   Outside of  these  exclusive
     areas, state  law controls,  not federal  law.  Thus a State
     citizen, residing  in a  State, would  not meet the two part
     test for  being an "individual" upon whose income the tax is
     imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, and would
     not have  the "status"  of a "taxpayer."  It is the official
     policy of  the I.R.S.  [Policy  P-(11)-23]  to  issue,  upon
     written request, rulings and determination letters regarding
     status for tax purposes prior to the filing of a return.  On
     August 29,  1988, I  requested such a "status determination"
     from the  I.R.S. on  behalf of one of my clients;  as of the
     date of  the publication  of this book, the I.R.S. had still
     not responded.
                                                                 
              [Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, pages 83-84]
                                                                 
     Evidently, Dickstein was exposed to this particular argument
by another  attorney and constitutional expert, Lowell Becraft of
Huntsville, Alabama.   It  is very revealing that Dickstein could
justify the  following observations even with a legal presumption
that the Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified:

     ... Attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama, has made
     a powerful  territorial/legislative jurisdictional  argument
     that under  the Supreme  Court's holding  in Brushaber,  the
     income tax  cannot be  imposed anywhere  except within those
     limited  areas  within  the  states  in  which  the  Federal
     government has exclusive legislative authority under Article
     I, Section  8, Clause 17, of the United States Constitution,
     such as  on military  bases,  national  forests,  etc.,  and
     within United  States territories, such as Puerto Rico, etc.
     Indeed,  Treasury   Department  delegation  orders  and  the
     language of  Treasury Regulation  26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c)
     fully supports Mr. Becraft's scholarly analysis.
                                                                 
                    [Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, p. 33]


                        Page 6 - 8 of 12

                                                Empirical Results


     After publishing Judicial Tyranny, Jeffrey Dickstein made an
absolutely stunning  presentation to  Judge Paul  E. Plunkett  in
defense of William J. Benson before the federal district court in
Chicago.  From the transcript of that hearing, it is obvious that
Dickstein had  continued  to  distill  his  vast  knowledge  even
further, by isolating the following essential core:

     The statutes  are in  the Internal  Revenue Code.   I submit
     they mean something different if the Sixteenth Amendment was
     ratified than  they do  if the  Sixteenth Amendment  was not
     ratified.   If the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified it means
     you can  go into  the states  and collect  this  direct  tax
     without apportionment.   If  it's not  ratified you can't go
     into the  states and do that.  And since Pollock says it's a
     direct tax,  what other  connotation can  you  give  to  the
     statutes?   The connotation  that makes it constitutional is
     that it  applies everywhere  except within  the states    --
     which would  be where?   On  army bases,  federal  enclaves,
     Washington, D.C., the possessions and the territories.

           [You Can Rely On The Law That Never Was!, pages 20-21]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     Sometimes, the  answer is  staring us  right in the face. In
retrospect, I  dedicate this  chapter to  Jeffrey  Dickstein  and
Larry Becraft, who have done so much to bring the truth about our
federal government into the bright light of day.  Jeff and Larry,
we have  only ourselves  to blame for not paying closer attention
to your every words.

     In the passage quoted above from pages 83 and 84 of Judicial
Tyranny, author  Dickstein refers  to IRS Policy #P-(11)-23, from
the official  Internal Revenue Manual (IRM).  This "policy" reads
as follows:

     RULINGS, DETERMINATION LETTERS, AND CLOSING AGREEMENTS AS TO
     SPECIFIC ISSUES

     P-(11)-23  (Approved 6-14-87)

     Rulings and determination letters in general

          Rulings  and   determination  letters   are  issued  to
     individuals  and   organizations  upon   written   requests,
     whenever appropriate  in the  interest of wise and sound tax
     administration, as  to their  status for tax purposes and as
     to the  tax effect  of their  acts or transactions, prior to
     their filing  of returns  or  reports  as  required  by  the
     revenue laws.   Rulings  are issued  only  by  the  National
     Office.   Determination letters  are issued only by District
     Directors and  the  Director  of  International  Operations.
     Reference to  District Director  or district office in these
     policy statements  also includes  the office of the Director
     of International Operations.                [emphasis added]


                        Page 6 - 9 of 12

                                                The Federal Zone:


This IRS "policy", as published in their Internal Revenue Manual,
prompted the National Commodity and Barter Association in Denver,
Colorado, to  draft the  following example  of a  request letter,
updated by this author for extra clarity and authority:


                    EXAMPLE OF REQUEST LETTER
                                
     Director of Internal Operations
     Department of the Treasury
     15th and Pennsylvania Avenue
     Washington, D.C. 20224
                                
     Dear Director:

          My research  of the  Internal Revenue  Code and related
     Regulations  has  left  me  confused  about  my  status  for
     purposes of Federal Income Taxation.

          Pursuant to  I.R.M. Policy  #P-(11)-23,  "upon  written
     request" I can obtain from your office a determination of my
     status for purposes of Federal Income Taxation.

          This is  my written, formal request for a determination
     letter as to my status for Federal Income Tax purposes.

          Please take note that your determination letter must be
     signed under penalty of perjury, per IRC Section 6065.

          If this  is not  the  proper  format  for  making  this
     request, please send me the proper format with instructions.

          If I  do not  receive a  determination letter  from you
     within 30  days, I will be entitled to presume that I am not
     subject to any provisions of Titles 26 or 27.


     Sincere yours,
     /s/ John Q. Doe
     all rights reserved


     What is the lesson in all of this?  At the end of Chapter 1,
I expressed  my intention  to elevate  status and jurisdiction to
the level of importance which they have always deserved.  I am by
no means  and in  no way  advising any  Americans to utter, or to
sign their  names on, any statements which they know to be false.
On the  contrary, it  is fair  to say that I have been criticized
more often  in  life  for  being  too  honest.    If  you  are  a
nonresident alien  with respect to the federal zone, then say so.
If you  are not  a nonresident  alien with respect to the federal
zone, then think about changing your status.  You can if you want
to, because involuntary servitude is forbidden everywhere in this
land.  It's the Supreme Law!


                        Page 6 - 10 of 12

                                                Empirical Results


Reader's Notes:























































                        Page 6 - 11 of 12

                                                The Federal Zone:


Reader's Notes:























































                        Page 6 - 12 of 12
