                           Chapter 14:
                           Conclusions
                                
                                
     The  areas   of  land  over  which  the  federal  government
exercises exclusive  authority are  the District of Columbia, the
federal territories  and possessions, and the enclaves within the
50 States  which have been ceded to the federal government by the
consent of  State Legislatures.   This book has referred to these
areas collectively  as "the  federal zone" -- the zone over which
Congress exercises  exclusive legislative  jurisdiction, the zone
over which  the federal  government is  sovereign.   Author Ralph
Whittington itemizes  the federal  "states"  and  possessions  as
follows:


(1)  District of Columbia ......................... Federal State
(2)  Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .................. Federal State
(3)  Virgin Islands ............................... Federal State
(4)  Guam ......................................... Federal State
(5)  American Samoa ............................... Federal State
(6)  Northern Mariana Islands ................ Federal Possession
(7)  Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands .. Federal Possession


     Inclusive of the aforementioned Federal State(s) and Federal
     Possessions,  the   "exclusive  Federal  Jurisdiction"  also
     extends over  all Places  purchased by  the Consent  of  the
     Legislature of  one of the Fifty State(s), in which the same
     shall be,  for the  Erection of  Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
     dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

                                           [The Omnibus, page 87]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 
                                                                 
     In exercising its exclusive authority over the federal zone,
Congress is  not subject  to the  same constitutional limitations
that exist inside the 50 States.  For this reason, the areas that
are inside  and outside  the federal  zone are heterogeneous with
respect to each other.  This difference results in a principle of
territorial heterogeneity:  the areas within the federal zone are
subject to  one set of rules;  the areas without (or outside) the
federal zone  are subject  to a  different set  of  rules.    The
Constitution rules  outside the  zone and  inside the  50 States.
The Congress  rules inside  the zone  and outside  the 50 States.
The 50  States are,  therefore, in one general class, because all
constitutional restraints  upon Congress  are in force throughout
the 50  States, without  prejudice to  any one  State.  The areas
within the federal zone are in a different general class, because
these same constitutional restraints simply do not limit Congress
inside that zone.




                        Page 14 - 1 of 8

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Without referring  to it as such, Lori Jacques has concisely
defined  the  taxing  effects  of  territorial  heterogeneity  as
follows:


     The  "graduated   income  tax"  is  not  a  constitutionally
     authorized tax within the several states;  however, Congress
     is apparently  not prohibited  from levying that type of tax
     upon the  "subjects of the sovereign" in the Possessions and
     Territories.  The definitions of "United States" and "State"
     are stated  "geographically to  include"  only  those  areas
     constitutionally  within   congress'  exclusive  legislative
     jurisdiction upon whom a graduated tax can be imposed.

            [A Ticket to Liberty, November 1990 edition, page 54]
                                                 [emphasis added]

     It is  in the  area of  taxation where the restraints of the
Constitution are  most salient.   Congress  cannot levy  indirect
taxes inside  the borders  of the  50 States unless the tax rates
are uniform  across those  50 States.   The  mountain of material
evidence which  impugns the  ratification of  the so-called  16th
Amendment should  leave no  doubt in anybody's mind that Congress
must still  apportion all  direct taxes levied inside the borders
of the  50 States  and outside the federal zone.  For example, if
California has  10 percent  of the  nation's population, then the
State of  California would  pay 10  percent  of  any  apportioned
direct tax  levied by Congress.  Unfortunately, the IRS currently
enforces federal  income taxes  as  direct  taxes  on  the  gross
receipts of  individual  persons  without  apportionment.    This
results in great tension between the law and its administration.

     Similarly, Congress  is not empowered to delegate unilateral
authority to the President to divide or join any of the 50 States
of the  Union.   Dividing or joining States of the Union can only
occur with the consent of Congress and of the Legislatures of the
States affected.   For  many reasons like this, Title 26 would be
demonstrably unconstitutional  if it  applied to areas over which
the 50 States exercise sovereign jurisdiction.  It is conclusive,
therefore, that  Title 26 is a municipal law for the federal zone
only.   As the  municipal authority  with  exclusive  legislative
jurisdiction, Congress is "City Hall" for the federal zone.

     The Bill  of Rights  also constrains Congress from violating
the fundamental  rights of  Citizens of  the 50  States.    These
rights include,  but are  not limited to, the right to work for a
living, and  the right  to enjoy  the fruits of individual labor.
These activities  are free  from tax  under the  fundamental law.
The fundamental  law is the Constitution for the United States of
America,  as   lawfully  amended.     The   first  10  amendments
institutionalize a  number of explicit constraints on the acts of
Congress within  the 50  States.    The  most  salient  of  these
amendments are  those that mandate due process and prohibit self-
incrimination.


                        Page 14 - 2 of 8

                                                      Conclusions


     The Internal  Revenue Code  and its regulations impose taxes
on the  worldwide income  of United  States** citizens and United
States** residents.   Throughout  this book, two stars "**" after
the term "United States**" are used to emphasize that the "United
States" in  this context  has the  second of  three separate  and
distinct meanings.   These  meanings were  defined by the Supreme
Court in the pivotal case of Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, which
is still  the standing case law on this question.  The high Court
indicated that  the Hooven  case would  be the last time it would
address a  definition of  the term  "United States".   Therefore,
this ruling,  and the  preceding case law and law review articles
on which  it was  based, must be judicially noticed by the entire
American legal community.

     The United States**, as that term is used in the IRC, is the
area  over   which  Congress   exercises  exclusive   legislative
authority;   it is  the federal  zone.   If you  are not a United
States** citizen,  then you  are an  alien with  respect  to  the
United States**.  If you are not a United States** resident, then
you  are   nonresident  with  respect  to  the  United  States**.
Therefore, if you were born outside the federal zone, if you live
and work  outside  the  federal  zone,  and  if  you  were  never
naturalized or  granted residency privileges by the federal zone,
then you are a nonresident alien under the Internal Revenue Code,
by definition.   Be  clear that an "alien" is not a creature from
outer space.  The term "alien" is the creation of lawyers.

     Nonresident aliens  only pay taxes on income that is derived
from sources  that are  inside the  federal zone.   According  to
explicit language  in the Internal Revenue Code, gross income for
nonresident  aliens   includes  only   gross  income   which   is
effectively connected  with the  conduct of  a trade  or business
within the  United States**,  and gross  income which  is derived
from sources  within the  United States**,  even  if  it  is  not
connected with a U.S.** trade or business.  Thus, employment with
the federal  government produces earnings which have their source
inside the  federal zone.   Similarly, unearned dividends paid to
nonresident aliens from stocks or bonds issued by U.S.** domestic
corporations also  have their source inside the federal zone, and
are therefore  taxable.   Frank Brushaber  was such a nonresident
alien.

     For any federal tax liability that does exist, a nonresident
alien can  utilize Form  1040NR to  report  and  remit  that  tax
liability to  the IRS.   As  a general  rule, a nonresident alien
need not  report or  pay taxes  on gross  income which is derived
from sources  that are  outside the  federal zone,  or  on  gross
income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade
or business  that is  outside the  federal zone.  The regulations
specify a  key exception  to this general rule:  a return must be
filed, however,  by nonresident  aliens who  are engaged  in  any
U.S.** trade or business, whether or not they have derived income
from any U.S.** sources.



                        Page 14 - 3 of 8

                                                The Federal Zone:


     The law  of presumption has made it possible for the federal
government to  impose income  taxes on individuals who had no tax
liability in  the first  place.  The regulations which promulgate
the Internal  Revenue Code make it very clear that all aliens are
presumed to  be nonresident  aliens because  of their "alienage",
that is,  because of their status as aliens from birth.  However,
through their own ignorance, in combination with a systematic and
constructive  fraud   perpetrated  upon   them  by   the  federal
government, nonresident  aliens may  have filed 1040 forms in the
past, in  the mistaken  belief they  were required to do so, when
they were not required to do so.

     The receipt of these forms, signed under U.S.** penalties of
perjury,  entitles   the  federal   government  to  presume  that
nonresident aliens  have "elected"  to be  treated  as  residents
and/or they  have volunteered  to be  treated as  taxpayers.    A
completed,  signed   and  submitted  1040  or  1040A  form  is  a
voluntarily executed  commercial agreement  which can  be used as
prima facie  evidence, in  criminal trials and civil proceedings,
to  show  that  nonresident  aliens  have  voluntarily  subjected
themselves to  the federal  income tax.    This  presumption  was
described in  a decision  of the United States** Court of Appeals
for the  9th Circuit,  in the  1974 ruling of Morse vs U.S. which
stated:


     Accordingly, when  returns were  filed in  Mrs. Morse's name
     declaring income  to her  for 1944  to 1945,  and making her
     potentially liable  for the  tax due  on  that  income,  she
     became a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue
     Code.
                       [Morse vs United States, 494 F.2d 876,880]
                                                 [emphasis added]
                                                                 

     Within the  borders of  the 50  States,  the  "geographical"
extent of  exclusive federal  jurisdiction  is  confined  to  the
federal enclaves;   this  extent does not encompass the 50 States
themselves.   We cannot blame the average American for failing to
appreciate this subtlety, particularly when officials in Congress
and elsewhere  in the  federal government  have  been  guilty  of
constructive as  well as  actual fraud  ever since the year 1913.
Not only  are the  key definitions of "State" and "United States"
confusing and vague;  the term "income" isn't even defined in the
statute or its regulations, and neither is its "intent".

     Close examination  of Title  26, the  Internal Revenue  Code
(IRC), reveals  that  the  meaning  of  "income"  is  simply  not
defined, period!  There is an important reason in law why this is
the case.   At  a time  when the U.S. Supreme Court did not enjoy
the benefit  of 17,000  State-certified documents  which prove it
was never  ratified, that  Court assumed  that the 16th Amendment
was the  supreme law of the land.  In what is arguably one of the
most important rulings on the definition of "income", the Supreme


                        Page 14 - 4 of 8

                                                      Conclusions


Court of  the United  States has clearly instructed Congress that
it is  essential to  distinguish between  what is and what is not
"income", and  to apply  that distinction  according to truth and
substance, without regard to form.  In that instruction, the high
Court has  told Congress  it has  absolutely no  power to  define
"income" by  any definition  it may  adopt, because that term was
considered by the Court to be a part of the U.S. Constitution:


     Congress cannot  by any definition it may adopt conclude the
     matter,  since   it  cannot   by   legislation   alter   the
     Constitution, from  which alone  it  derives  its  power  to
     legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can
     be lawfully exercised.
                                 [Eisner vs Macomber, 252 US 189]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     Clearly, the  Internal Revenue  Code has  not  distinguished
between what  is, and  what is  not income.  To do so would be an
exercise of  power which  Congress has  been told,  in clear  and
certain terms,  it simply does not have.  This is a Catch-22 from
which the  Congress cannot  escape, without  officially admitting
that the  16th Amendment  is not  law.   Congress either  defines
income by  statute, and  thereby exercises  a power which it does
not have,  or it  fails to define income, thereby rendering whole
chunks of  the Internal Revenue Code null and void for vagueness.
If it  argues that  the  word  "income"  is  not  really  in  the
Constitution after  all, because  the 16th  Amendment  was  never
ratified, Congress will admit the amendment is null and void.

     The confusion  that results from the vagueness we observe in
Title 26  is inherent  in the  statute and evidently intentional,
which raises  some very  serious questions  concerning  the  real
intent of that statute in the first place.  The hired lawyers who
wrote this  stuff should have known better than to use terms that
have a  long history of semantic confusion.  For this reason, and
for this  reason alone,  I am now convinced that the confusion is
inherent in  the language  chosen by  these hired  "guns" and  is
therefore deliberate.   Could  money have anything to do with it?
You bet it does.

     It is clear that there is a huge difference between the area
enclosed by  the federal  zone, and  the area  enclosed by the 50
States of  the Union.   No one will deny that money is a powerful
motivation for  all of  us.   Congress had literally trillions of
dollars to  gain by  convincing most  Americans  that  they  were
inside its  revenue base  when,  in  fact,  most  Americans  were
outside its revenue base, and remain outside even today.  This is
deception on  a grand  scale, and  the proof of this deception is
found in the statute itself and its various amendments over time.





                        Page 14 - 5 of 8

                                                The Federal Zone:


     It is  quite stunning  how the carefully crafted definitions
of terms  like "State"  and "United  States"  do  unlock  a  huge
statute,  a  mountain  of  regulations,  and  a  pile  of  forms,
instructions and  publications that are all horribly complex, and
deliberately so.   As fate would have it, these carefully crafted
definitions also  expose perhaps  the greatest  fiscal fraud that
has ever  been perpetrated  upon any  people at  any time  in the
history of the world.

     It is  now time  for a  shift in  the  wind.    Let  justice
prevail.   Let no  man or  woman be penalized from the oppression
that results  from arbitrary  enforcement of  vague and ambiguous
statutes  that  benefit  the  few  and  injure  the  many.    The
Constitution for  the United  States of  America  guarantees  our
fundamental right to ignore vague and ambiguous laws because they
violate the  6th Amendment.  This is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Unlike other governments elsewhere on the globe, and down through
the ages,  the federal government of the United States of America
is not empowered to be arbitrary.


     In the  long history  of the  world, only  a few generations
     have been  granted the role of defending freedom in its hour
     of maximum danger.  I do not shrink from this responsibility
     -- I  welcome it.   I  do not  believe that  any of us would
     exchange  places   with  any   other  people  or  any  other
     generation.   The energy,  the faith,  the devotion which we
     bring to  this endeavor  will light  our country and all who
     serve it  -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the
     world.

                              [President John Fitzgerald Kennedy]
                                [Inaugural Address, January 1961]






                             #  #  #
















                        Page 14 - 6 of 8

                                                      Conclusions


Reader's Notes:























































                        Page 14 - 7 of 8

                                                The Federal Zone:


Reader's Notes:























































                        Page 14 - 8 of 8
