War on Truth: Clearing up the ‘snake-oil warning’

For those who may be confused by all this narrative, it is fairly straightforward that when one admits they are a U.S. citizen (via federal definition such as 3C Am Jur 2d. Section 2689). When they admit they are the property of the National Government (U.S. Constitution has no full force and effect of law within the territorial jurisdiction belonging to the U.S. Government) by claiming to be a statutory U.S. citizen they are attached to the federal income tax system by their statutory citizenship.

All statutory U.S. citizens are under the dominion and control of the U.S. Government, that government can do whatever it pleases by those in Congress.  It pleased the U.S. Government to levy the income tax upon them and others who are subject to their territorial jurisdiction.  There is nothing the National Government is doing which can be questioned as illegal with that limited focus.

What is clearly lost on Pete Hendrickson is that this international ability of the U.S. Government to tax its statutory U.S. citizens via the determination in Cook v. Tait pertains mainly to the recent issues around FATCA Guidelines being implemented against those who are statutory U.S. citizens.   FATCA in this discussion is not addressed as the emphasis is on the Revocation of Election.  For Americans living internationally, the Revocation of Election is, however, part of negating the FATCA impact.

1. Those who work for the National Government by holding some type of Public Office and derive income that is effectively connected with the performance of the functions of that Public Office.  Examples:  federal employees, federal officers, and elected federal officials of the National Government or the District of Columbia.
2. Those who are statutory U.S. Persons as defined at IRC 7701 (a)(30).
3. Those who are statutory U.S. Citizens as stated in IRC 7701 (a)(30), 5 USC 552a (a)(2), and those identified in 3C Am Jur 2d Section 2689 as having been born in territory belonging to the Federal Government.
4. U.S. Resident aliens as per 26 CFR 1.871-1 (a).
5. Those who derive income from the use of property belonging to the National Government as stated in IRC 861 (a)
6. Nonresident Alien Individuals [NRAI] who choose to live in U.S. Territories, specifically Puerto Rico and American Samoa.  See Instructions for Form 8939 and ‘Specified Individuals’
7. Nonresident Alien Individuals who have made a ‘voluntary election’ under IRC 6013 (g) or (h).  For this to be valid there must have been willful and knowing intent along with full disclosure of what the NRAI was doing via the ‘voluntary election’.  Any attempt at sub silentio inducement cannot be concluded to indicate willful and knowing intent to be taxed by the IRS statutes and be taxed as if the NRAI was considered to be a US Resident alien.

His statement “the income tax is an excise tax, and excise taxes are privilege taxes” shows a mixture of actual fact and implied fact.   He made the same claim earlier when he stated: “However, the applicability of the taxing power has nothing to do with citizenship or residency. The tax is an excise (a tax on the exercise/benefits of a privilege granted by the taxer), and it applies to anyone, natural or artificial, and of any citizenship or residency whatever, who engages in that exercise.”

The foundational basis for the Sixteenth Amendment arose from the USSC determination that the federal income tax was only a Direct Tax and even POTUS William H. Taft acknowledged that as fact in his Legislative Intent of the Sixteenth Amendment.   His other comment about excise taxes is correct.  He confuses statutory definitions and inclusions only designated for applicability within the limited territorial jurisdiction of the National Government – the District of Columbia and its U.S. Territories as if they applied directly toward American Nationals working in the private sector with no nexus to the federal statutory income tax scheme.

The U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) clearly stated in the Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Company decision (157 U.S. 429 [1895]) that the attempt by the U.S. Congress to impose a federal income tax was determined to be a Direct Tax.  All direct taxation acts must adhere to the Rule of Apportionment as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution at Article 1 Sections 2 & 9.  The USSC declared that any attempt by the Government to impose such a direct tax without regard to the Rule of Apportionment (upon American Nationals – read as NRAI – as Congress defined this term) would be an unconstitutional act.

Excise tax, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (Abridged Sixth Edition) states:

“A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege.  A tax on the manufacturer, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property.  In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the income tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes, I.R.C.”§5001)

Even the casual observer who thinks to look up the legal definition for Excise Tax can see above that the federal income tax was excluded from being an Excise Tax.

“In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely, the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises.” — Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S 1 (1916)

The Brushaber decision at no time challenged the USSC prior decision in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Company as being a direct tax.  That would be paramount to stating the USSC did not know what it was doing!  The USSC knows full well what it does but it expresses itself in legalese that many Americans find difficult to understand.  For those who prefer plain English, the federal income tax established by the Sixteenth Amendment cannot be imposed upon Americans within the Constitutional Republic without inclusion of the Rule of Apportionment and that was clearly never done by the U.S. Congress.

Why else would POTUS Taft, who later became Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, state that the federal income tax could only be levied upon the National Government as he did in the Legislative Intent of the Sixteenth Amendment letter to the U.S. Congress?

Excise taxes are indirect taxes.  Some may purchase goods and services that have an indirect (excise) tax included in the price of the product being sold.  The manufacturer who enjoys this privilege must pay the excise tax.  If one chooses not to purchase the product or service that has an excise tax included within its pricing structure that individual has no tax liability for payment.  Rather, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to file and pay that tax on the income the product or service generated.

This is why Dwight E. Avis, Head of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division and Bureau of Internal Revenue, stated in his sworn testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee in February, 1953, that:

“Let me point this out now: Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now, the situation is as different as night and day. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply, and therefore the alcohol and tobacco tax has been handled here in this reorganization a little differently, because of the very nature of it, than the rest of the overall tax problem.”

The liquor tax as Mr. Avis stated is a type of excise tax imposed only on the manufacturer who in turn passes that tax cost onto the individual who purchases that product so that it might recoup the cost of the excise tax imposed.  Any income from the sale of products or services related to an excise taxable event causes taxation derived in this manner as “taxation on income in its nature is an excise tax.”

The federal income tax is a ‘voluntary tax’ as he stated.  This is confirmed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury statute at 31 USC §321 (d)(1) & (d)(2) in which the Treasury Department states the federal income tax is a “gift or bequest” made payable to and for the use of the United States (the National Government).  A statutory “gift or bequest” is identical to that tax being stated by Mr. Avis as a “voluntary tax”.

The problem Pete Hendrickson has relates to his confusing the indirect or excise tax on income for products and services with the true nature of the federal income tax. Mr. Avis statement declared the federal income tax as being a ‘voluntary tax’ (for American Nationals) as there was no adherence for the Rule of Apportionment in the wording of the 16th Amendment. The USSC in the Pollock decision clearly stated the federal income tax to be a direct tax and as such could only be applied toward American Nationals working within the Constitutional Republic — the private sector — by the inclusion of the Rule of Apportionment as required by the US Constitution at Article 1 Sections 2 & 9.

History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment

The ‘History and Purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment’ was published by the United States Government Printing Office [GPO] and on page 1953 you find the U.S. Government statement related to the Sixteenth Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court declaration in the Pollock case to be:

“The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court’s decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional.

A tax on incomes derived from property, the Court declared, was a “direct tax” which Congress under the terms of Article I, §2, and §9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population …”

It appears that he has never read the Legislative Intent of the Sixteenth Amendment written by then POTUS William H. Taft stated in part:

“… in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S. 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population.”

Pete Hendrickson stated the federal income tax is an excise tax. The U.S. Supreme Court thinks otherwise and shows him he is sincerely wrong! The USSC declares the federal income tax as a direct tax that requires the adherence to the Rule of Apportionment found in Article 1 Section 2 & 9.

“The decision of the Supreme Court in the income tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that Government had.”

POTUS Taft concluded the target audience for the federal income tax to be only the National Government! It is a target not based on citizenship or residency but on strict limitations via jurisdiction. The word ‘deprived’ says it all. The federal income tax cannot be levied upon American Nationals.

“I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the State in proportion to population.”

As the jurisdiction for the application of the Sixteenth Amendment was written so as to not be declared as “unconstitutional,” the federal income tax was levied only upon the National Government meaning the territory where the National Government is seated. According to 4 USC §72, that only identified the “ten mile square” meaning the District of Columbia (and by extension the U.S. Territories).

Thus when people, such as Mr. Hendrickson, argues statutory laws, he is also stating sub silentio that he is one who is subject to the limited territorial jurisdiction of the National Government -- where the Federal Income Tax is completely legal. He is confused by attempting to extend the jurisdictional scope of the law within the IRC to the Constitutional Republic – and to American Nationals – who are “neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.” He lacks awareness of jurisdictional limitations!

This is a very impressive ability the U.S. Government came up with to tax just those who are statutory U.S. citizens. However, the unfortunate part is that most American Nationals (read as Nonresident Alien Individuals as that term is used by the U.S. Congress) have been caught up with this obtuse terminology due to a lack of knowledge about statutory definitions as have foreign financial institutions and their legal staff.

The other group is those “legal nontaxpayers” as described in Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) in which this Federal Appellate Court stated in part:

“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws.”

The question that seems to escape Mr. Hendrickson is “How is it possible for these two groups referred to by the Federal Appellate Court to exist if he is correct in that all Americans according to him are U.S. Taxpayers?”

The answer is very simple. One has to look back to the beginning of the original attempt by the U.S. Congress in 1894 to impose the federal income tax upon American Nationals without regard for the Rule of Apportionment due to such a tax being classified by the U.S. Supreme Court as a direct tax.

In our Resource Center (postdate 7 FEB 15) you will find what the Government Printing Office [GPO] stated on page 1953 relating to the federal income tax as a direct tax and accordingly the Sixteenth Amendment was only levied upon the National Government.

Overall, what Pete Hendrickson has stated above is truly stated by him but what he has stated is not a statement of the truth.

The context to which Pete Hendrickson drew his conclusion to make the claim for the Revocation of Election is unknown etiology as he continued his misguided and fraudulent statements to the more domestic region. We know that there is a difference in application of the IRC in these two separate and distinct geographic jurisdictions that he apparently is completely unaware of by his unsupported statements.

His reference to 26 USC §1 is outright silly. He is dealing with his comment as related to statutory law and the jurisdiction to which it only applies but he clearly does not understand the facts related only to the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. For this reason, he fails to understand the limited jurisdictional nature of the federal income tax by his commentary. There is no argument about the IRC being legal, but he missed the application only within the territorial jurisdiction of the National Government.

The reason his reference is silly is that he is acting as a U.S. Taxpayer, probably one who is an NRAI who made an election but was not aware of the impact and ramifications of it on his life and those who are his audience. If one deals with the IRC as he does, then you must be a U.S. Taxpayer of some type and you should and must file and pay that tax even if you were born in the Constitutional Republic. By such a declaration, one makes the ‘voluntary election’ to be taxed as if you were a U.S. Resident Alien!

Weiss+Associates deals with the foundational aspects of jurisdiction as illustrated in the USSC Pollock decision, the Legislative Intent of the Sixteenth Amendment which proves that the National Government could only levy the federal income tax upon the National Government should ring clear. The actual wording in the Sixteenth Amendment shows that the US Congress willfully omitted any inclusion or reference to the Rule of Apportionment so that it could be made applicable within the territorial jurisdiction of the National Government – The District of Columbia – in order to not violate the U.S. Constitution.

Part of the reasoning for the IRC statute 6013 (g)(4) is to provide and exit door for American Nationals (read as NRAI) from having to continue their participation within the US Tax Club was to avoid any conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which outlaws slavery and involuntary financial servitude. If a government can control the wealth of the people via a heavy progressive income tax, et al, then those people are slaves or property of that government and exist under the dominion and control of any government who operates in that fashion.

The fact that the U.S. Congress wrote the regulation 26 CFR §1.871-1 (a) addressing the sub silentio option for American Nationals (read as NRAI) to submit to their limited territorial jurisdiction was a real piece of clever legislation. However, it also could not violate the USSC Pollock decision, which protects American Nationals from this income tax. Thus, Congress devised a word of art to convert American Nationals into taxpayers without challenge so they elected to call such American Nationals by the term U.S. Resident Aliens when they made that election so that the constitution would not be violated.

The National Government is a corporation with limited territory – the District of Columbia and US Territories – and all who are not citizens, residents, employees, etc, are viewed as foreigners to that limited territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the states of the Union are foreign jurisdictions to that of the District of Columbia. The people within the Constitutional Republic are, for the most part, alien to the legislative jurisdiction of the US Congress for its statutory and regulatory laws that do not meet the litmus test to impact the Constitutional Republic. Therefore, the Congress granted those American Nationals [read as NRAI] the option to leave the US Tax Club at their option.

Hendrickson persists in maintaining his cyclical perspective as a charter member of the antediluvian Flat Earth Society. His thinking in the field of federal income taxation is perhaps why he faces a declining audience. He only thinks that Weiss+Associates use ‘residency and citizenship’ as the foundation for the Revocation of Election. This statute was addressed in the section on IRC 6013 (g)(4) and there is nothing stated in that statute about a linkage to residency or citizenship status as being part of the equation.

There are two separate jurisdictions to be considered for the implementation of the federal income tax. Any attempt without regard for the Rule of Apportionment cannot be applied within the Constitutional Republic. However, within the limited territorial jurisdiction of the National Government, this income tax can be applied by the US Congress as within this jurisdiction the Constitutional limitations that exist with regard for the Constitutional Republic are not required to be adhered to.

When one discusses statutory laws as their focus points, they are acting as one who is a US Taxpayer. Any attempt to argue with the IRS or the National Government on this matter is frivolous and without merit.

Just recently, a Revocation of Election client sent us a copy of an IRS Letter 288C which reflects the statement by the IRS as to our documentation by the IRS stating:

“We have received your information regarding your ‘Revocation of Election Established by the U.S. Congress’ and have associated the information with your account.”

There are many more illustrations we provide to those who are seeking information, and we post them on our website. Mr. Hendrickson created his problem by attacking Weiss+Associates, and it must be remembered that we are merely defending our position based on the federal laws that exist with the unique perspective regarding the jurisdictional limitations for the federal income tax.

It is often best to learn the facts before one leaps. The goal with our Resource Center is to say “Take no one’s word for anything”. Investigate to your own satisfaction what the facts are in order to find the truth and then make a decision.

Just because one is sincere and loud, does not make them correct. His audience would do well to avoid the kind of personality who talks about the law but does not quite fully understand it.