0 votes

dont forget, NONE OF YOU are "U.S. Citizens"...unless you reside in D.C.*


This is a great site for clearing up the confusion. here is some case law to help...I know Mike Lawson will appreciate how short this post is:)

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here is the rebutted version of the IRS "frivolous tax"


for those who rely on irs.gov for their info regarding "frivolous claims'"etc, or quatloos.com, owned and run by tax attorney and friend to the Senate finance comittee, Jay Adkisson, please read below.

The IRS admits in its writings that:
"IRS Publications, issued by the National Office, explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors... While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position." [IRM, (05-14-1999)]

thank you juliusbragg

It is especially discouraging to have the "wakeful" call you a kook without doing the due diligence. FOlks here out to know better, but we still tend to seek confirmation of our opinions rather than seek truth.
Keep on keepin' on - this is the answer to the problem.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

Don't forget...

...if you don't keep bringing folk law kookery to the larger liberty movement, it MIGHT actually succeed in growing.

Way to poison the well, fringers.


Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995

keep being an idiot, and rely on government to protect you!

Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat-- Ignorance of the fact excuses; ignorance of the law excuses not. In other words, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Texas Penal Code, Chapter 8, General Defenses to Criminal Responsibility, Section 8.03.(a): "It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect."

See, e. g., United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933); Edwards v. United States, 321 F.2d 324 (5th Cir. 1963); United States v. Palermo, 259 F.2d 872 (3d Cir. 1957). 10 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation Sec. 55A.09 (1958). He particularly objects to that portion of the charge which deals with "ignorance of the law."


What is this larger liberty movement. The unlearned sheep waiting by the trough for the master to feed them a ration of liberty..Why would one want to please the unknowing masses only to be herded in the direction of the head dogs choice. Why do you call base law or primary law kookery. If we are to be a nation of law, what means to liberty does a movement have without a playbook. Without established law and the knowledge thereof, we are but a democracy to be fed on by wolves. We have enough sheep already. It is time to put on the armor of knowledge. The unlearned masses did not form this country but the resolute fringes who were learned, resolute, and sought truth through thier own fruition.

We are a nation of law not men.

We can only remain a nation of law if we as inhabitants learn and understand the law as it applies to us. We can not base our actions and reactions on those who would corrupt the law and create a nation of men.
We must finally experience the sacrifice of the axiom which states, freedom is not free, in our quest to separate ourselves from the corruption within this once great nation. If we know the truth and do not act on such understanding, we are complicit in the subjugation of the people of this nation. Thanks again for the great link Julius. Keep educating those who are receptive to the great power we have through the information available on line. Sovereignty allows us a direct connection to the source of all power. Subjugation reassigns the power connection to an intermediary ie. the governmernt, which proves to be a faulty connection indeed.

Try being born in D.C.

. . . like I was. I believe that makes me a corporate citizen?

NO! but i hope you dont live

NO! but i hope you dont live there now!

Those born anywhere in the American union, including federal territory, but who are not domiciled on federal territory but rather in a state of the Union are non-citizen nationals. Municipal domicile and not place of birth determines whether one is a statutory U.S> citizen pursuant to 8 USC 1401. Those domiciled on federal territory, whether they are born in a state or on federal territory, become statutory "U.S. citizen" and NOT non-citizen nationals.

Why Domicile and Becoming a "Taxpayer" require Your Consent

Better yet.

Be a sovereign of your own backyard and not of a State?

Let's see you win in court.

That's all fine and well, but unless you're living in some trailer in the sticks of Tennessee the only thing you'll get for your troubles are fines. You can have all of the "T's" crossed and all of the "I's" dotted but unless what you're doing conforms to what THE MAN wants you'll get nothing....unless you get Whirly Taitz to represent you pro bono.

RS Johnson's right!

Don't blab on about this stuff until you've gone through it yourself. The old adage, "YOU CAN'T BEAT CITY HALL" is very true. You better have mega bucks socked away to defend yourself because you're going to need it. I did it all in 1996 and paid dearly for it. And there is nothing new under the sun regarding procedure now vs. then, either.

Your are so wrong it is sad!

Your are so wrong it is sad! if you don't think there is anything new in 13 years then sit back in your ignorance and continue to get screwed by the de facto corporate government. You can beat city hall and many people are doing it as we speak.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

It explains why DC never gets "States Rights"

Very succinct, good work! Maybe they could get a new slogan for their license plates. Although, "Taxation Without Representation" (what they have on their plates) could also be a cruel joke on the rest of us.

Re-Educate yourselves on wht

Re-Educate yourselves on what the 7TH Amendment actually means.

Yay! There really R smart people here!

I reserve the right to govern myself.

I reserve the right to govern myself.

good work. the truth is

good work.
the truth is easy, its contained in our DNA, it takes years to understand the lies......

Ok..now call me crazy, but isn't there another

way around this?

I know that this is an important argument and think it does a great job of exposing what the men in power have done to control us.

But, I humbly suggest that we expose the men who own he fed.

Won't this get the lie out in the open? They control directorships at the NY banks that own the NY fed. Can't we just get that in the open and this debate will be come moot?

I think it is their achilles heel.

I think the courts belong to them. Too difficult.


State vs. Federal citizenship isn't about the FED, it's about

the 14th amendment and who has absolute jurisdiction over you.

Congress has absolute jurisdiction over their citizens. (really subjects) But over State citizens they only have jurisdiction in two areas:

1) the 18 listed powers in article 1 § 8
2) if such a citizen is in any federal territory where they have exclusive jurisdiction

We don't need to repeal the 14th amendment, we just need to clarify to everyone what it means. (and the courts agree) If education doesn't work, then we could pass another amendment which clarifies State Citizenship. The 14th should be retained because it grants certain rights to people living in federal territories. (these people had no citizenship prior to that amendment unless they were born in one of the States)

Many laws apply only to Federal citizens, and that is why so many people think Congress is passing unconstitutional laws. They aren't. It just that they confound who the laws apply to.

Many of our problems would vanish without repealing volumes of law if we simply understood the nature of citizenship and the two different forms.

Bump for JB and the others.

I can't get enough of this information. Thank you.


"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

I am not a citizen of any STATE Inc.

I am an inhabitant on terra firma

I like to think...

of Florida as a citizen of me. Yeah, think about that.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A true liberal has risen to oppose Pelosi in San Fransisco, challenging her for her seat.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Far out

Far out

"The Great Spirit made us all--he made my skin red, and yours white; he placed us on earth and intended that we should live differently from each other." Petalesharo

Once again, thanks

for invaluable information. Some of us are in your debt for sharing the results of your education so that we may be better educated.

Phil. 4:13

I am not a citizen per say,

I am not a citizen per say, that would indicate chattel property. I am a free natural person.

I see your bet and raise you

Skurdal v. USA http://openjurist.org/993/f2d/886/united-states-v-skurdal

Also, I am assuming you are saying that means that Federal tax laws don't apply unless you live in DC

I may go on with

O'Driscoll v. I.R.S., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D. Pa. 1991) - The court stated, "despite [taxpayer's] linguistic gymnastics, he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for federal taxes."

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 500 (7 th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060, reh'g denied, 503 U.S. 953 (1992) - The court affirmed a tax evasion conviction and rejected Sloan's argument that the federal tax laws did not apply to him because he was a "freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a 'master' - not 'servant' - of his government."

brushaber v. union pacific railroad
United States Supreme Court : "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves. " The courts have uniformly rejected this frivolous contention.

And lastly

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 549-50 (9 th Cir. 1989) - The court, observing that Becraft's claim that federal laws apply only to United States territories and the District of Columbia "has no semblance of merit," and noting that this attorney had previously litigated cases in the federal appeals courts that had "no reasonable possibility of success," imposed monetary damages and expressed the hope "that this assessment will deter Becraft from asking this and other federal courts to expend more time and resources on patently frivolous legal positions."

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11 th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988) - The court rejected as a "twisted conclusion" the contention "that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States," and affirmed a tax evasion conviction.

Barcroft v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-5, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1666, 1667, appeal dismissed, 134 F.3d 369 (5 th Cir. 1997) - Noting that Barcroft's statements "contain protester-type contentions that have been rejected by the courts as groundless," the court sustained penalties for failure to file returns and failure to pay estimated income taxes.

These cases prove my point.

These cases prove my point. If someone IS a "citizen of the United States" by reason of having and maintaining a SS number, or Registered to vote, or a passport, or Selective Service card, or any other government contract, and THEN upon being taken to court uses the position that they are NOT a "Citizen of the United States" they will lose.

In O'driscoll for example, it says "he IS a citizen of both the United States...and liable for federal taxes"
NOW, if this had said "although O'driscoll is NOT a citizen of the United States, he is still liable for federal taxes"
then, it would contradict my point.

In Bartrug, it gets trickier, see the quote from his trial below:

“Federal income tax regulations governing filing of income tax returns do not require Office of Management and Budget control numbers because requirement to file tax return is mandated by statute, not by regulation.” [U.S. v. Bartrug, E.D.Va.1991, 777 F.Supp. 1290 , affirmed 976 F.2d 727, certiorari denied 113 S.Ct. 1659, 507 U.S. 1010, 123 L.Ed.2d 278]
This is very telling, because:
Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations

(a) Authorization

"Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue."


TITLE 44 > CHAPTER 15 > Sec. 1505.

Sec. 1505. - Documents to be published in Federal Register

(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General Applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published by Congress.

There shall be published in the Federal Register -

(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;


26 CFR §601.702(a)(2)(ii) Effect of failure to publish in the Federal Register

26 CFR §601.702 Publication and public inspection

(a)(2)(ii) Effect of failure to publish. Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms of any matter referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph which is required to be published in the Federal Register, such person is not required in any manner to resort to, or be adversely affected by, such matter if it is not so published or is not incorporated by reference therein pursuant to subdivision (i) of this subparagraph. Thus, for example, any such matter which imposes an obligation and which is not so published or incorporated by reference will not adversely change or affect a person's rights.


"The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are the official Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code."
[Internal Revenue Manual, § [4.10]]

point is, ONLY if youre a federal employee, or hold a public office, are you bound by the statutes rather than the regulations.
This is further bolstere here:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 64 > Subchapter D > PART II > § 6331

§ 6331. Levy and distraint

(a) Authority of Secretary
If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

I think it is safe to say, that Mr. Bartrug was an "employee" of the United States, by virtue of having a Social Security number.

brushaber v. union pacific railroad
United States Supreme Court : "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves. " The courts have uniformly rejected this frivolous contention.

IRS uses the Brushaber decision to prove the constitutionality of income tax on natural 'persons', yet they ignore the ruling, in the case, that the income tax is an "excise tax" and that the “person” volunteering the tax was a federal corporation. Brushaber was a "non-resident alien" but the corporation he was working with was engaged in a "trade or business" by being a federal corporation.

The federal courts ONLY have jurisdiction outside of Federal zones when dealing with Federal Entities, such as Federal persons, Federal corporations, etc.

ah...it worked, you cut and pasted the famous cases..j/k

These cases have been addressed. Ill link the page below, you should start at page 16 and read the entire document, but since you seem to take the side of the IRS, you may want to scroll down to 44 where these exact cases are explained.

Ill explain a little of it here, as you can imagine. Let me start by showing this code:
(39) Persons residing outside United States (mine: remember United States is FEDERAL ZONE)
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.

what this means is, if you unintentionally claim to be a "citizen of the U.S." or "Resident of the U.S." perhaps by having an SS card, filing a 1040, W-2, voter registration, drivers license, passport, etc...then you, will be treated as "residing in the District of Columbia"

So, if a 'person' files 1040's, w-4, w-2, for taxes, THEN decides he wants to be released of the taxes, by quickly claiming he is "NOT" a United States citizen, THEN he will be found guilty, as you will see this is exactly what has taken place in the cases you mention.
REMEMBER, even using your ZIPCODE allows the govt. to presume you are in a Federal Zone...This, again, is why the Zip is NOT mandatory...and why you will see [zip code exempt]

"Use of the ZIP Code is voluntary. See Domestic Mail Services Regulations, Section 122.32"

"A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States and its territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)].


pg 44 specifically,

Hmmmm, what if you are both correct?

I am not as far along in this process as juliusbragg, but my understanding is that it all depends upon one's citizenship in law. You can change it. Thus, the litigants in the case law you quote perhaps had not undertaken the necessary steps to ensure that they were in fact not citizens but nationals, and citizens of their respective states.

Phil. 4:13

Please be very careful

I only have this debate hoping to stop fellow patriots from getting thrown in jail!

Pardon my copy pasting

"Under a law first enacted in 1866, everyone born in the US and not subject to a foreign power "are declared to be citizens of the United States", RS sec. 1992, 8 USC sec. 1401. Someone having been born in the US is presumed to continue to be a US citizen in the absence of proper legal evidence to the contrary; Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325; Ex parte Lopez (S.D. Tex 1934) 6 F.Supp 342. Renunciation or revocation of US citizenship is regulated by 8 USC sec. 1481 et seq and is applicable only in a limited range of situations, such as expatriation and allegiance to another country and almost always combined with a voluntary and formal renunciation of US citizenship made to a US diplomatic office abroad, in fact 8 USC sec. 1483 makes clear that this is virtually impossible for someone who is still inside the US (among the very few exceptions, instances of having obtained US naturalization by fraud or subsequently committing treason or sabotage). For example, it was not possible for someone born with US citizenship, namely a Puerto Rican, to renounce his US citizenship while remaining in Puerto Rico as a "Puerto Rican national", since that was not a bona fide foreign nation. Lozado Colon v. US Dept of State "

Please do a lot of research, especially from other sources, not just freeman websites. This stuff is not taken lightly by the courts, and whatever you do, do not get involved in distributing this information because you are then liable for anyone down the line that uses your stuff