Passport limitations from IRS still have significant jurisdictional issues


By Patrick Vermeister
21 March 2016

There has been a great deal of scrutiny (and deservedly so) regarding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act through the auspices of the Internal Revenue Service and its armed agents.

A general recap goes as follows: If you don’t pay your “fair share” into the healthcare system, you will face aggressive IRS agents who will see to it that you start complying.

The government’s control of the messaging process is key here. Nowhere in those messages will you find that there are millions of Americans (likely hundreds of millions) to whom Obamacare does not apply.

In short, the IRS agents can only enforce its draconian authority over those limited number of people to whom the law actually applies. Obamacare is a legal requirement for statutory “U.S. Citizens,” those who were born in Federal Territory (and thus don’t have the protections of The Constitution and Bill of Rights) or generally those who work for the National Government.

It also applies toward some American Nationals (those born in the 50 states of the Union or naturalized there) who made an ‘election’ to permit the National Government to tax them as if they were U.S. Resident Aliens. Such an election is stated to be voluntary and fortunately the election can be revoked if one knows how to do that properly.

More recently, Congress has passed a bill into law allowing the Internal Revenue Service to suggest to the State Department that a “U.S. Citizen” can be denied a passport or have an existing passport revoked or limited for having a “seriously delinquent tax debt.” The Congressional term “U.S. citizen” has a unique federal meaning and is explained in the American Journal of Jurisprudence to be those born in federal territory, not the 50 states of the Union.

Similar to the Obamacare enforcement, the jurisdictional issues of this law are obvious.

“This stresses the need for sovereign Americans to know who they are — and who they aren’t — in regard to jurisdictional issues,” said Adele Weiss, principal of Weiss+Associates, a European-based consultancy firm specializing in the Federal Income Tax. “Anything involving the Internal Revenue Service is a dead give-away that the law addresses ONLY statutory ‘U.S. Citizens.’ The National Government cannot limit the travels of a sovereign American born in one of the 50 states as it can for federal issues related to those who are statutory ‘U.S. citizens.’ ”

The confusion is intentional. The duality of meaning of terms like “United States,” and “U.S. Citizen” provides the National Government the opportunity to operate under a vast umbrella, much larger than their true authority was ever intended or designed to function under.

The constitutional United States is comprised of the 50 states of the Union, where people born there are protected by The Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is also a separate corporate entity called the “United States” that is comprised of the District of Columbia and territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. People born in these areas are NOT protected by The Constitution and Bill of Rights, and fall under a governmental system more analogous to a monarchy, where Congress serves as King. In the statutory “United States,” Congress can limit the activities, behaviors and travels of its subjects.

Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of the huge difference between the two entities colloquially called the “United States.” The rapacious National Government is using the public’s ignorance of these legal terms to further its objectives and pad its proverbial wallet.

Soon, the Transportation Safety Administration will require a passport for residents of four states — New York, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Louisiana — to fly domestically. The National Government claims that driver licenses issued by these states don’t comply with the Real ID Act in regard to data collection, information sharing and chipping.

It may seem benign on the surface, but data collection is a serious privacy issue. It’s important to reiterate: the National Government can, by law, require this of its subjects in the Federal Zone. Others must provide consent, although that consent is often given by sovereign Americans unconsciously.

It would behoove Americans to request from their U.S. Senators a copy of the Implementing Regulation (published in the Federal Register) for the Real ID Act. Most Acts of Congress do not extend beyond the limited territorial jurisdiction of the National Government, which is the District of Columbia and its U.S. Territories.

“This new passport law should be a wake-up call for Americans to really start unplugging from the matrix,” added Weiss. “With the IRS becoming more and more involved in enforcement of these U.S. territorial laws, it’s vital for Americans to utilize the Revocation of Election document we offer to qualified Americans. This helps clarify, not only to the National Government but also to the sovereign citizen himself, one’s true status in regard to which ‘United States’ he or she belongs.”

The Revocation of Election document Weiss’ firm offers has helped over 2,000 people not only exit the U.S. Tax Club, but to stay out of nasty predicaments such as Obamacare, international banking/FATCA limitations and passport/travel issues.

Weiss’ website includes copious amounts of free information showing existing laws and Supreme Court decisions affecting the sovereignty of American Nationals. Among this useful information are letters from the Social Security Administration stating that it is not required to have a Social Security Number to gain employment, and that private-sector employers are not required to participate in withholding of a portion of an employee’s paycheck if they are “one who is neither of the subject nor of the object of federal revenue laws.”

“This information flies in the face of what is generally accepted to be the status quo,” Weiss pointed out. “Each American needs to ask himself how these social conventions come to be so accepted without question, and what the National Government stands to gain from the ignorance of We The People?”

The answers to those questions should be obvious. In regard to the current election cycle, Americans are quickly seeing how easily their thoughts and actions are influenced by the merger of government, large corporations and the media (largely owned by those corporations).

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

— Thomas Jefferson

For more information on Weiss+Associates and the Revocation of Election process, readers can send an email to

Our Mission

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of
the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”
— American Communications Association
v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)