TABLE OF CONTENTS

JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!
(The reasons why you should allow your peace to be disturbed) ......................1

A WHO SAYS SO?
(The reliability of what is here written) ...................................................3

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!
(How to Beat the System).............................................4

A YOU CAN'T GET BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP!
(How to become comfortably impoverished) ..........................................4

  • 1) RESTRUCTURING YOUR ASSET ATTITUDE ................... 4
    B RESTRUCTURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PROPERTY 5
  • 1) CLEARING THE WAY ...................................................5
    i) Bankruptcy...............................................6
    2) ESTATE OPTIONS 7
    i) The Corporation 7
    ii) The Limited Liability Company 8
    iii) The Family Limited Partnership 8
    iv) The Unincorporated Organization 8
    v) The Sovereign Trust 10
    3) DOMICILE OF THE ENTITY 10
    4) TAX FACTORS 11
  • i) Tax Reduction Devises 11
    ii) Tax Procedures 11
    iii) Special Tax Reporting 11

    5) BANKING 12

    WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE FOOLING AROUND WITH?
    (You're the one who's in charge) 14

    A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 14
    B CONSTITUTIONAL FORMAT 16
    C SOVEREIGNTY AND CITIZENSHIP 18
    D UNALIENABLE RIGHTS 21
    E CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS 22
    F CORPORATE GOVERNMENT 25

    WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO?
    (How the foreign private bankers stole your money) 27

    A FRACTIONAL BANKING
    (How the manipulators create "money" out of thin air) 27

    B THE CENTRAL BANKING SYSTEM
    (How the theft is accomplished) 28

    C THE FEDERAL RESERVE I
    (How the federal government legitimized the theft) 28

    D THE NATIONAL DEBT
    (The objective of the theft) 30

    I'VE GOT YOUR NUMBER, NOW!
    (The truth about the tax seam) 33

    A INCOME TAXES - DO THEY APPLY TO YOU? 33

    1) WHAT KIND OF TAXES ARE THEY? 34

    B WHAT IS INCOME? 35

    C WHAT IS TAXABLE INCOME? 36

    1) PERSONAL SERVICES 36
    2) NONRESIDENT ALIENS 38
    3) NONTAXPAYERS 41
    4) WHAT IS "INCLUDED?" 42

    TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT
    (Why the IRS can't collect your money) 44

    A THE STEPS OF ENFORCEMENT
    (What they have to do) 44

    B LACK OF AUTHORITY 45
    1) IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS ARE MISSING 45
    2) ABSENT DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY 45
    C PUBLICATION DEFICIENCIES 47
    1) GOVERNMENT FORMS ........................... 47
    2) INTERPRETATIONS, DETERMINATIONS, PROCEDURES 49
    D SPECIAL PROCEDURAL MATTERS 49

    1) RECORDS 49
    2) VERIFICATION 50
    3) RETURNS 50
    4) DEFICIENCY 51
    5) ASSESSMENT 52

    E LIENS AND LEVIES 53
    F INJUNCTIONS - CHALLENGING THE AMOUNT OF TAX 55
    G QUIET TITLE ACTIONS 55
    H INFORMATION REQUESTS 56
    I FRUSTRATING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 57

    YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME!
    (How to avoid any concern about criminal charges) 58

    A WILLFULNESS.............................................. 58

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?(How to bring all those legal concepts down to earth) 60
    A LAW

    1) RIGHTS AND DUTIES 60

    2) COMMON LAW

    3) EQUITY ..............................................

    4) VULGAR LAW

    i) Feudal Law ...........................................
    ii) Law Merchant ........................................
    iii) Admiralty Law .......................................
    iv) Martial Law .........................................
    v) Statutory Law (The Codes) ...............................
    vi) Regulations ..........................................
    vii) Colorable Law .......................................

    B JURISDICTION

    C GOVERNMENT ............................................

    1) DEMOCRACY .........................................
    2) REPUBLIC ............................................

    RECLASSIFICATION ...............................................

    A SOCIAL SECURITY .........................................

    CONCLUSION

    AFTERWORD .....................................................

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................

    APPENDICES

    JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!

    (The reasons why you should allow your peace to be disturbed)

    Nothing upsets me quite as much as the know-it-all who tries to tell me how to live my life, how big a mess the world is, and how I'd better watch out before they take away everything I've got. These Doomsday merchants are a dime a dozen, and I'll bet most of them don't know what they're talking about.

    After all, I've got a pretty fair living going on, TV keeps me up to date and reasonably amused, and, after a had day's work; I don't need another load of stress piled on. If the country's in trouble, well, that's what I expect the politicians to take care of- it's their job, not mine. They just voted themselves over $10,000 a month, so they sure get paid enough to do it right, I'd say.

    If these remarks describe your attitude about the troubles of life today, well, that same attitude was shared by our compilers, until just a few short years ago. In fact, we really miss feeling that way, because the way we feel now, we know just too darn much to be able to settle back into such complacency.

    You see, some of us, too, are among those people who had them come and lien all that we had. Some of us had to go bankrupt. When that happened, many of us realized what dear targets we were. We knew that it could happen again. And again. After such total loss, we decided to finds ways to avoid becoming exposed to a repetition of the loss.

    The only way that we could be protected was to crawl out of our shells and take a look around, to find the why and how all this could and did happen. We needed to see if there were some way to keep it from happening again. In the course of our search, we picked up a lot of pointers. Finally, we learned enough to get away from the problem, to get on with our lives, with some degree of security and peace of mind.

    What follows is what we have found out. It was not easy to discover, and some of our information is subject to variances because of rapidly changing circumstances. By and large, though, what we have to tell is solid and usable right now.

    For example, you probably feel that the best course to follow is to keep a low profile, and don't attract any attention to yourself. But consider this comment from one of our federal appellate courts:

    The cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights. x

    It probably never entered your mind that you have an absolute right to cut down on what you pay to big government. The fact of the matter is, the highest court in the land has told us:

    The legal right of a taxpayer... to altogether avoid (taxes), by any means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.2

    That very same court has also informed us that our system of taxation is based upon voluntary compliance, not upon distraint.3 What this really means is that, if you will only pay voluntarily, then the government won't come and force you to pay. To be more precise, here is what Assistant Attorney General (Taxation), Roger M. Olsen told his fellow bureaucrats, back in 1987:

    We encourage voluntary compliance by scaring the hell out of you

    We hope that you do not confuse love of country and obedience to law with trust in and submission to government. Let's examine the practices of agencies of government and exercise some independent judgment as the basis for our actions. Do you think that you might have been misled by your government? Do you feel that something out there is not quite right? Let us help you find out

    United States v. Dickerson (1969), 413 F2d 1111

    :Gregory v. Helvering (1934), 239 US 465, 469

    3Flora v. United States, 362 US 145, 176

    something about those rights, something you are not likely to have run into in your ordinary activities, and certainly not by listening to media which are totally controlled by that mysterious body we refer to as The Establishment.

    Your rights do not have real meaning unless there are duties. Rights and duties can only exist in a person.@ For the person to have any benefit from a right, other people who might be in a position to infringe on the right must be under a duty not to do SO.

    What defines the rights and duties of people is the law. This does not necessarily mean that the law is written down. In fact, when fundamental rights are mentioned, they are attributed to some "higher" authority. They are deemed inherent, unalienable and natural, and are so basic that everyone ought to understand them without any writing. Such rights have been ascribed to the Creator by the Declaration of Independence. Similarly, there are restrictions on conduct which are so manifestly necessary that it is needless to record them. Such restrictions are simply the duties which attach to those fundamental rights. Your right to life imputes a duty not to kill. Your right to property imputes a duty not to steal.

    However, not all rights are fundamental, and not all duties are really necessary. To separate these categories of rights and duties you must select a means of classification. For this presentation the classification is three-fold:

    1. Higher law: Do what is right.

    2. Man's law:

    Do what you agree to do.

    Do not trespass on me or my property.

    3. Vulgar law: Do what I say.

    That part of the higher law which has been adopted into the practical laws of society has been merged with man's law. Those parts which deal with moral issues do not belong in the law, unless they also involve real and immediate physical danger. Such laws interfere with your freedom of choice, sometimes called free agency. Usually, as you are well aware, when men try to enforce moral laws by so-called social engineering, they are resorting to the

    @Hogans v. Lavine, 415 US 528, 533

    vulgar law. The entire field of social welfare legislation belongs to this class, along with the myriad of special-interest laws which plague every aspect of our lives.

    Governments exist which purport to protect us in our rights and to compel us in our duties. If we were capable of abiding by the highest principle, that of brotherhood, government would be unnecessary. But, we are not so universally noble; thus we have had to submit to authority in government.

    There are two basic types of government. One is a government which has absolute power. The other is a government which is limited by law. Governments may be led by a single person (monarchy, dictatorship), or a select group (oligarchy), or by all of the people (democracy). The democracy usually operates by majority rule.

    What is significant is that if a democracy is not limited by law, then it is mob rule. It is mob rule because the same individuals are not the constituents of the majority as to each matter upon which the people must have a rule. By contrast, if a monarch is limited by law, as in a constitutional monarchy, you may have an orderly society even though it has the appearance of aristocracy. In either case, order and freedom will only exist when leaders have rules of law by which their positions are regulated. The highest form we have developed, called a Republic, employs representatives, who are elected by the majority, to administer the power of government in accordance with specified restrictions. The point is that the majority does not rule, it only elects.

    The French Revolution espoused the ideas of equality, liberty and fraternity. It tried to operate as a democracy, calling itself a republic. However, there were no specified restrictions, and under the direction of influential but tyrannical leaders, it degenerated into a blood-bath.

    In our own country, the Declaration of Independence should have freed the slaves. As actually applied, and as blessed by the Constitution, that Declaration failed to do so. Lincoln thought that the Emancipation Proclamation would do the job. Apparently it did not. Even a Civil War left the blacks as slaves in the South. It was thought that Amendment 13 finally made them free, and that by Amendments 14 and 15 our black brethren finally received their sovereignty, along with the rest of us.

    This is a lie. The actual effect of those amendments was to bring the entire country into a kind of bondage, a form of voluntary servitude, recognized as villeinage in Merry Old England. It made us all equal all right - equally unfree. This compilation will show you how this bondage was brought about, how it is maintained, and what you can do about it.

    A later chapter is a summary of concepts of law and government which will give you enough understanding of both to enable you to use the information contained herein. You might want to read that pan first. Our whole report is put together in such a way that you can read any pan you want, in whatever order you wish, and not lose the drift of the whole.

    A WHO SAYS SO?

    (The reliability of what is here written)

    Our only qualifications for putting this compilation of information together is the fact that our technical editor practiced law in several state and federal courts for over 33 years. Our motivation to get this right was highly charged with personal interest.

    The first reasonable question you might ask is, how can you be sure that we are not like that know-it-all we mentioned? The answer is really very simple. We are the first to admit that we don't know anything, except what we have learned from others. To give you the benefit of independent judgment on their credibility, we will identify who said what, so that you can check it out. Our own opinions are dearly stated. You can take them for whatever you may think they are worth.

    The people upon whom we are relying are men like the authors of the Constitution and their contemporaries, various modern public figures, justices of the United States Supreme Court, justices from other courts around the country, and a lot of people who have tried some things which worked and some things which did not work. We quote judicial opinions and decisions a lot, and we try hard not to quote out of context. Just to be sure, we will refer you to the whole case involved, so that you can check us out.

    Let us give you some samples of the insights which were presented to us from sources which most people believe are pretty sound. We selected these because the situation in which we find ourselves today seems like the fulfillment of prophesy:

    None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

    - Goethe

    Men will continue to endure evils as long as the evils are sufferable.

    The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies · . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up

    homeless on the continent that their fathers conquered

    TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE. ·

    The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax..

    The IRS's disregard of taxpayer's rights confirms the worst fear that the American people have about the IRS. This illegal and offensive activity must stop ....

  • David Pryor
  • Chairman, Senate IRS
  • Oversight Committee

  • IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!

    (How to Beat the System)

    The second phase is to utilize all of the defenses allowed by law to defeat the claims of the IRS. As you will see, most of their enforcement efforts are fraught with defects, and can be defeated by a determined resistance, both before a lawsuit and through the courts. Never hesitate to initiate action against the IRS where they are in the wrong (which is most of the time). Phase two enables you to deal effectively with the efforts of the IRS to entice you back into their clutches. It also will nullify most of their efforts to collect any tax. To reach this enviable position, you must know exactly how to respond to their letters and calls, and you must utilize the procedures which are legally available for your protection. These procedures are set forth in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC); under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); under the Privacy Act(PA); and by reason of the laws relating to delegated authority. Further information on these weak spots is set forth in the following pages.

    Finally, if you are not satisfied that the IRS stinger has been sufficiently pulled by your estate protection measures, or if you desire, as a matter of principle, to draw the line against governmental abuse, you may do your reclassification work. This places you beyond the reach of the taxation system which applies to subject citizens, unless you get back into it again by a subsequent consent, waiver, or other form of voluntary action. What you are doing is perfectly legal. You are simply making a public record of your true status, which renders you a non-taxpayer, or at least a payer of very limited taxes. The vital importance of this is that if you are charged with a revenue law offense, you have this reclassification record to establish your legal basis for refusing to file tax returns. Even if the court rejected your reclassification, it would be hard put to convict you of willful failure to file. Your belief in your lack of liability under the law is now a matter of record.

    A YOU Can't GET BLOOD OUT OF A TURNIP!
    (How to become comfortably impoverished)

    i) RESTRUCTURING YOUR ASSET
    ATTITUDE

    Most of you have developed an attitude about property which tends to disable you when it comes to dealing with your creditors. This is the attitude which says that your success in life is measured by how much you have acquired.

    The falsity of this concept is readily apparent when you examine the affairs of those whom we call the super-rich. Upon close examination, you find that such people have access to every conceivable luxury, but they never seem to owe a tax or be in debt. Why is this? Simply because they don't own anything of significant value. Everything they use is owned by some trust, corporation, foundation, or the like. Such people have learned that the enjoyment of wealth, undisturbed by the envious, requires a separation of the user from the ownership of the property. When properly done, the user has the full benefit of unlimited assets, but he is legally unable to control any of them. The property is thereby beyond the reach of creditors, public and private.

    Of course, you might worry about being taken care of when you have no control. However, if you handled your paperwork properly in the first place, control would no longer matter. The paperwork does the job. The paperwork commands the managers to do certain things, most of which will

    enures to your benefit. What does not, enures to the benefit of those you care about.

    There arc numerous methods to arrive at the enviable position of being completely insulated against creditors. This program simply mentions a few of them, sufficient to start you on your way. What you select will depend upon what you need and desire.

    The point is that estate protection is undertaken not to defeat your creditors. Indeed, this cannot be done, lawfully- If you physically remove money or assets from the jurisdiction, you may actually be committing some crime. However, if you clean up your affairs first, then you can cause the implementation of a program which gives you the benefit of full usage of property, none of which is available to your creditors, public or private. This use can even pass to your family members, with the same insulation against the/r creditors. After all, if you have done your work properly, you have not misled any creditors, not even the IRS. This is neither tax avoidance nor tax evasion; those terms simply do not have application to what you have done (if done properly, and timely).

    B RESTRUCTURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO
    PROPERTY

    !) CLEARING THE WAY

    Many of you will receive the information contained in this presentation at a time when you are significantly in debt, and perhaps already under pressure from the IRS. The existence of these demands, present and impending, requires special legal consideration in re-arranging your financial affairs. A person in debt is not allowed to simply re-situate his assets, then thumb his nose at his creditors. If the transfer is not made for fair value, or if it is made simply to hinder or delay creditors, the transfer will be set aside as a fraudulent conveyance. It will be the same as if no transfer were made in the first place. If the creditor is the IRS, they will not even bother to seek a court evaluation of such a conveyance. The IRS will simply declare the transferee to be your "nominee" or "alter ego." With this label ascribed, seizure will be made, and your transferee will be required to go to court in an effort to prove the validity of the transfer, to recover the asset.

    Of course, if your transfer is to an entity in a foreign land, with no branch in the USA subject to local jurisdiction, neither court action nor seizure will be effective against that transferee, unless the foreign jurisdiction is a party to a treaty of some kind allowing American creditors (or our government) to be assisted in debt collection (usually taxes) in that foreign place. Be aware, however, that such a transfer might be punishable as a crime.

    To determine whether or not you are open to claims of fraudulent conveyance or alter ego, you must understand the three different classes of creditors: present, future, and potential creditors.

    A present creditor is one to whom you now owe money, or some legal duty. As to him, any conveyance for less than fair value, whether or not you intended to hinder or delay collection, will be set aside on demand. The IRS claims this position as to any tax which has been assessed against you.

    A future creditor is one with whom you are involved financially, or doing business, wherein a future liability is presently determinable. This may arise where you built a home, subject to some guaranty, and the building is defective. Common sense should be sufficient to tell you whether or not any relationship which you have with another involves a determinable future financial or other obligation. Such a creditor can reach the transferred assets if it can be shown that they were transferred for less than fair value, or with intent to hinder or delay collection or enforcement. The IRS would be in the position of a future creditor as to any income which you have become entitled to receive, for which you have a duty to make a return at any time.

    In both of the foregoing situations, the IRS will assert that your transfer was to a nominee, and will proceed with a seizure. If the transferee was a person who conspired with you to conceal assets, that person may become personally liable for your taxes to the extent of the value of assets so concealed. By contrast, if the conveyance of property was to an entity formed with a substantial business purpose, and all of the procedures required for due creation of the new business entity were satisfied, the integrity of the business will be respected-t

    @Moline Properties, Inc. v. C. I. R. (1943), 329 US 436; Perr@ R. Bass, 5O TC 59

    A potential creditor presents no problem to anyone. You are not required to structure your life to protect everyone who might at some future day extend you credit, or have a claim against you. If it were otherwise, the laws pertaining to gifts would be meaningless. The IRS is a potential creditor as to taxes on income which you have not yet become entitled to receive. Neither the IRS, nor any other potential creditor, will ever have a legal claim on assets which you sell, transfer, give away, or dispose of, no matter to whom or by what means you may do SO.

    Also, always look up the local statute of limitations concerning conveyances, because even a fraudulent conveyance may be immune from attack, if done long enough ago.

    If you are exposed to the problem of present or future creditor claims, you must be sure that your conveyances are completely valid. If you have sufficient assets to deal with all claims, you are solvent. If the transfers which you contemplate will not make you insolvent, you probably have no problem. However, if transfers might render you insolvent, you cannot make them without regard for the consequences. This means that you must receive fair value, and be acting without intent to hinder or delay collection. The matter of fair value seems quite simple: just sell or trade the asset for money or equivalent value. Unfortunately, many things which are actually of equal value are not so treated, when the creditor comes calling. A transfer to a trust, in exchange for certificates of interest, or to a corporation, for its shares, are clearly fair value transactions. In fact, even if the certificates or shares are made assignable to a third person, there is fair consideration. The problem is, in the first instance, it might be deemed to be a transfer to hinder or delay creditors; and in the second, the assignment of the consideration is a gift, without fair value to you, and may be treated the same as if no assignment were made. Unless the transferee is outside of the reach of local law, he may be required to return the asset to you (meaning to your creditors).

    By this analysis we have reduced the solution of the problem to two obvious steps: get money for the transfer; unless it is to defeat a tax claim, move the money to a jurisdiction where it cannot be seized. If the IRS is involved, you cannot make such a transfer unless it is to purchase some asset for value from a foreign source. However, there seems to be no requirement that the asset be returned to a jurisdiction within reach of the IRS. Just be sure the transaction was not intended solely as a devise to defeat collection!

    A special warning must be heeded: if the IRS has substantial claims against you, you may find yourself unable to secure a passport to do those "offshore" things you wish to do. Unless you have secured a foreign passport of some kind, you will be locked in until you get your tax problem under control.

    i) Bankruptcy

    An alternative method for clearing the way is to file a bankruptcy. This will bring all of your creditors forward, and settle all claims, once and for all. In the absence of fraud, all taxes owed on returns timely filed over three years ago, or on late returns filed over two years ago, are discharged in a Chapter 7 (liquidation)@ or 11 (reorganization) type of bankruptcy. A discharge will also apply to unfiled returns (for which returns were due more than three years ago) or to late returns filed after the bankruptcy, if you file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (wage earner plan); even fraud will not prevent discharge of taxes under that Chapter.2

    Chapter 13 is not available to one who has no regular earnings, or who has debts over $100,000 (unsecured) or $350,000 (secured). However, one may file even though the claims of creditors (including the IRS) exceed these sums. He is entitled to dispute the claims. If he prevails against his creditors sufficiently to reduce the tax to the limits permitted, he may proceed with his Plan. For the person with excessive debt, he would file a "Chapter 20" bankruptcy: first a Chapter 7, to reduce the debt to the allowable maximums, then a Chapter 13, to arrange installment settlement of what remains. After filing the bankruptcy, in order to satisfy the government's concept of "good faith," one must file all past due-returns; a home-made return is recommended (explained later herein). However, even if you filed no returns, if the IRS fails to file a claim, demand discharge for taxes which are not

    '11 USC @507 & 523

    211 USC §@507(A)(iii) and 1328(a)

    otherwise dischargeable The literal language of the Bankruptcy Act @ not permit discharge of current taxes,2 but that should not dissuade you from making the effort.

    Caution: be sure to wait until 240 days after any tax first becomes assessable (in non-Chapter 13 cases), to insure dischargeability.

    The significance of bankruptcy is that, under any form, the old taxes can be discharged, and the current taxes can be paid in installments over a period of three to five years - installments which you determine, not installments imposed upon you by the IRS.

    Another blessing of bankruptcy is that the bankrupt can challenge the amount of the tax claim due without first paying that amount? This would apply even to an amount previously adjudicated in the Tax Court (although not where the District Court has made the decision. Then, wait for the time limit to elapse before filing bankruptcy).

    By reason of the potential of bankruptcy, you may be able to make a deal with your creditors, fully documented, executed and enforceable, or with the IRS, under their rules concerning compromise. Then you may be able to proceed with your estate protection. You need only be sure that you have made adequate provision to comply with your agreements. If this is not possible, and you are unable to move forward with the debt burden which you have, select the proper form of bankruptcy and get a discharge. Forget about the damage to your credit. If you are really in such a situation, your credit is gone, anyway!

    2) ESTATE OPTIONS

    Five estate entities are worthy of your consideration. Omitted are the statutory trust (a favorite of attorneys), and the general partnership (where you simply involve your friends in all of your problems). In selecting an entity, first decide if it will simply hold, protect, and maintain assets, or if it

    tin re Price (1989 CA9), 871 F2d 97 211 USC @507

    @11USC@505

    will be used for business purposes. If not for a business purpose, the tax consequences are less onerous, but it may not be an entity capable of bankruptcy. If for business purposes, be prepared to handle its records in complete compliance with IRS requirements (unless it is a foreign entity with no jurisdictional exposure). Of course, regardless of tax exposure, the success of any entity depends to a significant degree upon the completeness of the records it maintains. However, remember that those records are private and immune from forced production. All business entities are regarded as privileged activities,4 and they are subject to taxation, regulation and disclosure of records.

    In addition, be sure that the entities are completely independent of each other. If they are not disconnected, they may be bunched together and treated as one entity, or as your alter ego. Separate management (separate from yourself), proper capitalization and complete records are your best protection against this danger. Avoid any claim that the management is a thinly veiled substitute for the debtor.

    A common problem with estate protection programs is that the programmer shows negligible sources for his opulent life. Common sense dictates that you have a lifestyle and income which are mutually compatible. Let the records reflect that you are paying for those things which you use. The fact that the payments ultimately benefit a person or entity whose increase pleases you is beside the point. If you haven't the means to pay cash, borrow. Just be sure that your income can support the interest on what you borrow! Ideally, give security on what assets (if any) you retain, to secure what you borrow.

    i) The Corporation

    A corporation operates on four levels of control. 1) Shareholders have the right to elect the directors. They do not control otherwise. 2) Directors set policy, appoint officers, and may ratify acts of officers. 3) Officers manage the business and hire the workers or contract for work to be done. 4) Hired personnel or independent contractors perform the objectives for which the corporation was formed. There are some states, such as Nevada, where the corporation may have one shareholder, one director,

    4Hecht v. Malley, 265 US 155-156

    and one officer, which person is hired to work for that corporation!

    American corporations are best domiciled in Nevada, Wyoming, or Delaware because of the absence of state income tax, thereby minimizing interchange of information with the IRS. Wyoming has the advantage of allowing a corporation to be the sole director of another corporation. Nevada allows the issuance of bearer shares.

    Since the tax reform act of 1986 destroyed individual deductions for most interest expenses, a corporation is desirable where such expenses run high.

    If you are going to the trouble to form a corporation, be sure to use it to its full potential and purpose: it should deduct all withholding from payments to officers and employees (let them fight about it with the IRS); every conceivable benefit a corporation can offer to its officers and employees should be provided and deducted; the maximum profit on all business should be secured, with every imaginable deduction taken.

    Be aware that the IRS gets double taxes when the corporate form is used (other than an "S" type) -once on profits, and again on dividends paid shareholders. Therefore, structure the affairs of the corporation so that most of the gross income goes into expense deductions. However, it is prudent to show some profit, and pay some tax. This minimizes a red flag, inviting an audit of corporate records -which are not immune under the 5th Amendment.

    i/) .The Limited Liability Company

    A limited liability company is an association of members who divide the responsibilities, operations and profits of the company among themselves by contract. It may or may not employ other people, or enter into independent labor contracts. About 17 states have recognized this company form. It permits members to act together in management like partners, yet they enjoy protection against debts and other liabilities of the company (beyond their investment), just like corporate shareholders.

    Mother virtue of such a company is that it is taxed like a partnership, avoiding the double tax applied to the corporation.

    In Utah, such a company may exist with corporate members. This is particularly valuable, since the charter for the company can distribute the profits of the company unequally among the members - according to whatever division they may determine. Thus, if the principal member were a foreign entity, in a country enjoying tax treaty benefits with the USA, most of the profits might go offshore without any nonresident alien withholding! Of course, this same benefit could apply to a corporation with foreign shareholders.

    iii) .The Family Limited Partnership

    A limited partnership is managed by general partners who share profits with limited partners who have no control over the business. The partnership may hire people or let independent contracts, and a limited partner could be hired. The general partners have personal liability for partnership obligations, while the limited partners are only liable to the extent of their ownership interest.

    A family limited partnership is simply one where the limited partners are primarily family members. This is a matter of choice, and it would not be unusual for the general partner to be a foreign corporation - domiciled beyond the jurisdiction of the creditors of the partnership.

    The special virtue of any partnership is that the personal creditors of a partner cannot seize partnership assets. Their claims and judgments can only be enforced by a charging order, which means that they get the payments or distributions due to the debtor partner, when and if such payments or distributions are declared and paid. There are some courts which permit the interest of the limited partner to be sold to satisfy his creditors.@ On the other hand, if a creditor gets a charging order, he is treated as an assignee, and can be levied upon for your tax debt.:

    iv) The Unincorporated Organization

    The common law trust, Massachusetts business trust, pure trust, business trust, or unincorporated

    @Crocker National Bank v. Jon R. Parreton@ 208 CA3d 1, 255 CR 794

    business organization is best called by the name, "unincorporated organization" (UO). This is the title used in the IRC to designate an entity which is not simply an association which should be taxed like a corporation. If the UO operates a business, it will be called a business trust and it may pay taxes. However, if it is properly formed, it will be taxed as a partnership, not as a corporation.

    This is the entity used by the super-rich to cloud their interests. It can exist for the period of lives-in-being plus 21 years, and can be renewed time and again. By its use, like a corporation, probate is avoided. Death of a beneficiary, trustee, or grantor has no effect on its assets, so there is never anything to probate. Ownership is manifested by an attachment listing the beneficiaries, or by certificates of interest. There can be no gift or inheritance or other tax applied to the transfer of a beneficial interest (unless capable of valuation because it was acquired at one fixed value and sold at another). Since one purpose of the entity may be to avoid regulation and to minimize tax exposure, common sense would prevent value-fixing transactions.

    While the law generally recognizes the separate existence of the UO as an entity, in bankruptcy the entity has no recognition unless it is actually a business entity.x For this reason, it may be prudent (though unnecessary) to register the UO under the fictitious name laws, and pay for a business license.

    The particular virtue of this entity is that it arises by contract, which contract is protected against impairment by Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. This means that it is not an entity which arises by statute, so it is not taxed on that theory of law2. In theory, at least, it is not subject to governmental regulation, as is a partnership or a corporation, or even a statutory trust. Regulation of the UO is a technical violation of the Constitutional prohibition against contract impairment.

    Structurally, the UO is in the nature of a trust. It is governed by the laws of contract and agency combined. It comprises three essential parties: the grantor, who conveys assets to the UO (or to the trustee thereof), the trustee who operates the UO in

    '@ use §@01(s)(A)(v)

    accordance with the terms and conditions of the instrument creating the UO (usually called a "trust indenture"), and the beneficiary, who receives the assets (upon termination of the UO) and interim distributions (if directed by the terms of the trust agreement or determined by the trustee in accordance with his authority).

    There is usually only one grantor. The grantor might be an individual or an artificial entity, such as a corporation. The trustee may be one or many, and might be an artificial entity. The beneficiary may be one or many individuals and artificial entities. Obviously, any of the three, or the UO itself, may be a foreign domiciliary.

    Because of the possibility that the UO might be taxed as a corporation, it is important to minimize the 'badges" of that form. One such badge is an association of individuals. Having a single trustee helps to minimize the appearance of this badge, although a board of trustees does not create an association. Absolutely no direct or indirect management control in the beneficiaries can be allowed; otherwise, there is a merger of interest, an association arises, and the UO effectively disappears.

    Another severe problem is that the IRS will always want to pierce the UO and call it your nominee. Exchanging assets for certificates of interest would be deemed to be removing your assets from the reach of your creditors. Since the "grantor trust" arises when there is no trustee with an adverse interest (meaning an ownership interest), it would be impossible for one to create a trust, as a grantor, in which any relative has a beneficial interest! Therefore, any trust you use must be created by someone unrelated to yourself. Also, unless you are completely debt free and tax clear, you must make any transfer a sale for fair value and let the trustee handle the issuance of certificates of interest independently. You must stay out of management or control yourself, or the trust will be treated as your alter ego?

    To insure the continuity of a trust, it is prudent to have successor trustees selected by the trustee when he is appointed. Also, if there is any uneasiness in the grantor about the integrity or

    2Revenue Ruling 77-137 2Hech 3Mesker v. United States (1966 MO), 261 FS 817, 820-821
    n@,­@..@ supra, 152

    future performance of the trustee or his successor, the trust agreement should provide for a ',protector" with authority to approve of the trustee's compensation, to move the trust to another · jurisdiction, and to remove any trustee at any time without cause. This protector should not be either the grantor or any beneficiary. Also, the protector must have no power to direct the trustee, or he effectively becomes the trustee himself.

    v) The Sovereign Trust

    Almost unique in America is an entity known as the Sovereign trust. It was specially imported from England in the mid-80's and has begun to be used here.

    Basically, it is a common law type of trust. However, it has no domicile, because it is created in a place which is not within the jurisdiction of any particular government. This is done by having it executed in international waters or airspace in a boat or aircraft which has joint ownership by citizens of different nationalities - preferably three or more. Also, the trust may recite that it is governed by the law of three of more nations, simultaneously. The effect is to create a multi-national non-domiciled trust. It incorporates both "Kingdom" law and "Canon" law. It is the form of trust used by English Royalty and by the Vatican. It appears that this form of trust is utterly unassailable in any court. However, so far as is known, no court case has tested this viewpoint.

    3) DOMICILE. OF THE ENTITY

    While it may be essential for your purposes that the estate entity be established outside of the USA, be aware that other jurisdictions may present problems worse than those you fear. Foreign seizure of assets is not uncommon, particularly in Mexico. Treaties with the USA may exist which could defeat your purposes. Your passport to travel may expire and not be renewable. For many purposes, it might be sufficient simply to go outside the country to conclude your transaction, and thereby avoid a sales tax.

    Since most states share tax information with the IRS, privacy is impossible for any domestic entity.

    Of course, if you have a Sovereign trust, there is no problem of domicile. The only question is

    whether the trustee of such a trust is found within any particular jurisdiction at any time, and thereby within the authority of the local government.

    Jurisdictions which have sufficient independent jurisdiction, are fiscally sound, and are friendly, convenient and compatible include Turks & Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Isle of Man, and Channel Islands.

    Tax free jurisdictions include Turks & Caicos, Isle of Man, Gibralter, Monaco, Jersey, Guernsey, Malta, Panama, Bahamas, Cayman, and Montserrat.

    Cayman and Turks & Caicos have the rare quality of allowing a corporation to issue bearer shares.

    Having the entity offshore provides tremendous protection. For one thing, neither an American court nor the government can make enforceable orders against the entity or its offshore assets (so long as there is no domestic branch). For another, if you have borrowed money abroad, and given a security interest in domestic assets, the foreigner can come into our courts and enforce its priority claim over other creditors and the IRS.

    Another benefit merits special mention. If you have sold property to one of the entities created for estate protection, you are certainly free to lease the property for fair value. This avoids the IRS claim that the transferee is just a nominee. As for the proceeds of rents paid to the entity, these could be invested in an annuity offered by an offshore entity, payable over 20 years or so. The consideration is dearly fair, the payee is beyond reach, and it has years to play with your money. Only the UO or its successor have any power to enforce the contract of annuity. If it is deferred for a period of years, there is nothing to enforce for that period of time. Also, nothing prevents the annuity payments from being deposited to an offshore account.

    Once you have an arrangement of some kind with a foreign entity, it is simple and appropriate for you to move money offshore simply by paying the bills which the domestic entity incurs doing business with the foreign one. Money can be paid offshore to purchase corporate stock, annuities or insurance policies. These purchased investments can be the source of borrowing money to capitalize a business, domestic or foreign, without a tax consequence.

    4) TAX FACTORS

    Be aware at all times that withholding of amounts up to 30% on income paid to a nonresident alien is required, unless a favorable tax treaty is in force. This rises to 35% on a transfer of a property without paying gains tax on any increased value.@

    i) Tax Reduction Devises

    A devise long in use, particularly for actors, doctors, dentists, and other professionals, is that of the service contract. This enables one to perform services for his employer at a fixed rate of compensation, take his pay after all payroll deductions, and pay taxes on the small net received? The employer makes a contract for the services to be performed for the benefit of another company, at a contract price agreed upon. After the employer has satisfied the payroll obligation, the rest goes into the company till, subject to all reductions for company expenses and other write-offs. If the company is foreign, and is domiciled where there is a favorable tax treaty, there is no nonresident alien withholding involved. If the professional cannot contract for services unless the employer has a professional license too, it simply becomes necessary to separate out all functions which do not require a license, and have them performed on a separate contract.

    An author can sell his copyright to a foreign publisher, then repurchase the published book at a rate dose to retail, sell the book at retail, and pay his tax on the small profit involved. The publisher should have his office in the same place as the service contractor mentioned above, where there is a favorable tax treaty.

    If one sells his business for cash, invests the cash in a foreign annuity, and stays under contract with the purchaser as a consultant, he is an independent contractor, and there is no withholding. If he gave a service contract away first, then the compensation goes to his employer, his purchaser still pays no withholding, and what is left gets a minimal rate of tax.

    @26 USC §1491

    226 CFR §31-3401(d)(1); Revenue Ruling 76-479

    If one hired by a business (including a trustee of property) is required to live on company property and maintain it, he derives no taxable income by such rent-free occupancy.3 Similarly the business may need to provide him with an auto, all auto and other travel expenses, and any number of other needful promotional items, all deducible to the business, but not income to the hired person.

    ii) Tax Procedure

    If the UO expends all of its income on expenses and distributions, it has no income to report, and no tax to pay. If it does retain any accumulated profit, it will report it on a Form 1041. The tax rate applicable is that of a married person filing separately? The trustee can deduct medical expenses on trust income both for himself and his entire family.5 Because it is usually a business entity, the UO should apply to Philadelphia for an ID number, which will commence with the numbers 52. There is no estate tax involved when the UO is used.6

    iii) Special Tax Reporting:

    On the dark side, beware of the obligation of an American shareholder, depositor or control person connected with a foreign entity. He may be subject to the accumulated earnings tax. Be aware of your general reporting obligations concerning foreign entities.7 You are in control if you own 50% or more; you must report ownership of 10% or more (5% if the company is a public corporation). Proxy control is the same as ownership, for control purposes. Other foreign reporting requirements include interest or dividends over $400, your creation of a foreign trust, and any asset transfer to a foreigner. However, a reportable transfer excludes a sale for full value, unless the transfer is by the creator of a trust to that trust-s Obviously, you do

    s26 USC §119

    @26 USC @544(a)(1)

    526 USC §162

    626 USC §6502

    726 USC §6048

    '26 CH@ §@6.3-@(b)(4)

    not want ownership, control or receipts to belong to or to come from yourself, or anyone else who is in a position to have to make these reports. By contrast, you have no duty to report your directorship of any domestic corporation.

    If you plan to transport more than $5000 in cash over the border, be ready to report it. In case you did not know it, your federal reserve notes now have implanted in them a material which is detected at airport security and customs stations.

    The IRS now requires every real estate transaction to be reported.x To avoid taxable profit on the real estate, it could be transferred at a value equal to its basis to a newly formed corporation, with the price paid by issuance of shares. The shares may then be transferred at that same basis, to an offshore jurisdiction with which there is a favorable tax treaty, where there is no withholding. A subsequent purchaser of the shares could be found, and any profit is not taxable in the United States. Thus, the purchaser takes the shares of the corporation (with the realty as its sole asset) without any tax involved. If the purchaser then sells the same shares to an American, at his cost, it is a transaction with no tax consequences. Furthermore, if the seller is a foreigner, there should be no tax, even if there is a profit, since it is not fixed or determinable income! If the corporation dissolves, the stock basis should become the property basis - a final transaction requiring no special report, and still no tax, because no gain.

    Incidentally, there is no reporting requirement for the purchase of gold or silver.

    There are many other tax factors relating to your dealings abroad. The foregoing are mentioned simply to impress upon you two things: the hazards involved; the blessings available.

    5) BANKING

    Our wonderful banks are completely under the control of the Federal Reserve, and are monitored by its cousin, FDIC. All of their records are routinely open to the IRS. In other words, by banking, you are publishing all of your financial affairs, in a form presentable as evidence in court, to all branches of your government. Similarly, the credit bureaus of the country are tied into a network with all government agencies, so that everything in your credit record is also public information. Not only the government, but any private citizen with the price of a membership, can learn anything he wants to know about you. All he needs is your Social Security number.

    But, in this fast and complex society, how can this publication of your affairs be avoided? Especially, how can you avoid the problem of facing a money laundering charge, if you deal exclusively in cash, particularly if your transactions involve large sums? Present law2 requires that a bank report deposits or withdrawals of cash or a cash equivalent and all foreign transfers of $10,000 or more. There is an effort afoot to reduce this amount to $3,000. Also, a series of transactions are treated the same as a single transaction. Furthermore, the bank is supposed to report any other "suspicious" transaction to the IRS. Be assured that banks are always suspicious, and they make generous reports (without notice to you). For purposes of money laundering laws, money orders, cashiers' checks, and the like are treated as cash equivalents. In theory these laws exist to control the drug trade. In practice, those prosecuted under them are usually ordinary citizens with nothing remotely to do with the drug business.

    To prevent your circumventing their invasion of privacy, the IRS has procured laws requiring you to report all foreign accounts which at any time during the year exceed $10,000. Failure to so report is felony tax evasion. If you have a foreign account, be sure there is also a corporate account (where you are not a signatory or in control) in the same bank, and a standing instruction to the bank to loan all excess deposits to that corporation on your behalf before the deposits hit your account.

    By contrast, most foreign banks make no reports at all to their governments. In addition, banks in Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Cayman have secrecy laws which prevent disclosure of the existence of your account to anyone. Most are identified only by number, and you can transact business without a signature card - simply by a letter of instruction or a telephone call using your private code. If it is not your personal account, this power

    may be yours as a corporate director. You must remember, however, that while this information cannot be obtained by your government, if you are under a duty to make reports, you are guilty of a felony for falling so to do. Of course, if the bank has a domestic branch, suspension of their domestic charter can be threatened if they withhold information or funds upon government demand.

    In order to do banking abroad, you need a bank reference of some kind. In Canada you can secure a number as a registered business with no identification at all. This business can then open a Canadian bank account, with whatever signatory arrangements you have set up for the business. This account in turn is your business reference for the next account, which is the reference for the next, and SO On.

    If you choose to do business with a foreign bank, be sure it is AAA rated. If you wish to use a smaller bank for loans and smaller deposits, you may take that risk. If you choose to arrange the formation of a new small (class B) bank, be sure to use it to do legitimate banking business: make loans, take security, accept deposits. Such a bank can be wholly secure. It can simply deposit its funds into another bank, AAA rated, possibly even one of the big ones in New York. It could even use the major bank vaults to store gold or silver bullion, actually belonging to you, acquired to keep your balances down below $10,000!

    If you happen to work for a foreign entity which has a large foreign bank account, you may be able to use its Visa Debit Card. Since it is not your account, no bill ever comes to you. In the Channel Islands an account of $3@00 or more entitles the depositor to have such a card.

    A simpler method of banking often works for you if you open your account or rent a deposit box in an area which enjoys "duty free" status.

    Having completed your particular creditor insulation/heir protection process, you are now ready to return to the problem of rapacious taxation.

    @26 USC @6045 226 USC @6048

    WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE FOOLING AROUND WITH?

    (You're the one who's in charge)

    ? You have probably heard people say that you 'cannot raise any constitutional defenses concerning your taxes in the courts. This is true with regard to challenging the power to tax, and the validity of the tax laws themselves. The correct inquiry is, does a particular revenue law apply to you? Your liability to taxation depends upon your correct status under the Constitution. You cannot assert or defend that status without a full understanding of it. If you don't understand your status, very likely you will continue to surrender the protection it could afford you. Learn who you are! This understanding is one of the keys which this publication is designed to give you, whereby you can unlock the gate to freedom from inapplicable laws of taxation.

    A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

    In 1776 we had thirteen colonies comprised mostly of European immigrants who were sick and tired of being directed by an English government too far away to be concerned with local problems. It was also too greedy for the wealth of the colonies to leave them alone. The King failed to provide a reasonably adequate supply of currency for trade to be carried on. The colonists developed a kind of Colonial scrip, a debt free currency, which sufficed to allow local commerce. However, the bankers of Europe viewed this development with great alarm. They had worked very hard to create their privately owned central banking systems. The English government was persuaded to outlaw the scrip. In due course this placed a strangle-hold on local colonial trade. The abolition of scrip was one of the major causes of the Revolution.

    Obviously, the Revolution succeeded. However, it is critical to recognize that, when the treaty with England which established the peace was made, it did not grant independence; it recognized that it already existed.@ Also significant is that the Declaration of Independence actually recognized the inherent truth that all men are created equal, in an era when inequality was universal, and virtually no one was truly free. Remember, at this time there were thousands of slaves in the colonies. In the slave-holding states, none of them were considered in the declaration of equality of the Declaration of Independence. However, it was recognized that many of the black people were partakers of the benefits of the Revolution and the Constitution which followed:

    When the Constitution was adopted free men of color were clothed with the franchise of voting in at least five states, and were pan of the people whose sanction breathed into it the breath of life.2

    The colonies were declared to be "free and independent states" (nothing was said about any united states at that point). It was not until two years later, in August of 1778, that an official Confederation was formed, and the states were united. Its Articles specifically recognized state "sovereignty" (Article II), which merely prevented these independent state entities from being swallowed up by the Confederation. (The American concept of "sovereignty in government" will be explained later in this section.)

    This Confederation might have continued indefinitely, except that the new states kept charging tolls and trade imposts on each other. Foreigners could use their ports and facilities and deal with them as competitors with impunity. There was no army formed to protect these commercial interests. Without its commerce protected, the new confederation was doomed to collapse unless something was done about it.

    A group of businessmen and attorneys from each of the states gathered together, in secret, to draft something to overcome the problems. To pull off this ambitious goal, these men knew that they had to be very careful with the rights of the people and the independence of the states.

    To insure public acceptance, the framers acknowledged that the proposed Constitution for the United States of America was to be a document of

    tM'Ilvaine v. Coke's Lessee, 8 US 209

    2United States v.. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases #16,151

    *We, the People*, not of the states.: It Was to become a compact which provided for the people to be its beneficiaries in perpetuity. It was 'intended as a compact between the individual citizens, on the one hand, and the people as a whole, acting through their representatives, on the other hand.2 It was a compact drawn between the people,@ but effective between the states This compact created a union of states, not a union of people. The people are not members of the union; only the states are members. This is a critical concept: one is a citizen of his state; national citizenship is derived from state citizenship. Implicit in this process is the recognition that the true sovereignty was not with the states, but rather with the people as a whole

    There is a proposition before you by some researchers that because all signers of the Constitution are dead, the instrument itself is dead. The proposition ignores the principles of the third-party beneficiary contract, which endows non-parties to the instrument with its benefits. They receive those benefits unless they reject them. This is the essence of a trust. To reject the benefits of the Constitution, one only needs to expatriate. This does not require departure from the American soil; it only places one in a resident (alien) status. (For tax purposes, he may be a nonresident alien, as will be explained.)

    By virtue of this compact, three concepts of "United States" came into existence. First, is the concept that the United States is a sovereign nation in the family of nations. This requires foreign governments to deal with the government of the United States of America, rather than with each state or citizen separately. Second, is the idea that the United States is sovereign over its territory. This refers to the sovereignty of the government over that territory which is subject to its exclusive legislation,6

    @Martin v. Hunter's Lessee., 14 US 304, 324

    2Glas@ v. The Slooo Betse@, 4 US (4 Dull.) 8

    3Constitution, Preamble

    4Constitution, Article VH

    sGaines et al. v. Bufor@ 31 KY 481, 500-501 0Constitution, Ardcle 1/8/17

    DOt tO tile tUtllttJty t@t ta@ -,'j -- ......... -

    conceived to be the political jurisdiction of the United States. Third, the term is merely the collective name of the 50 states which are united under the Constitution.7 As will be shown, federal sovereignty is not sovereignty over We, the People.

    Patrick Henry was violently opposed to the Constitution. He feared that a central government with any strength would eventually devour the freedom of the people and the independence of the states. He was opposed to giving anything that seemed like "sovereign" power to the central government. Sophisticated observers will confirm that his fears have been substantially realized! Thomas Jefferson recognized this risk, and vigorously warned the framers that the Constitution be drawn so strongly that it would bind the men of government down, as if by chains. He would laugh at the idea that we should teach our children to trust government.

    In order to understand the intent of the Constitution, we must read its language with the meanings which applied at the time it was drafted, not by modern definitions.

    Keep in mind that the Constitution is a compact a son of contract. Everything in our system operates on a contract principle. We give something to government, and get something in return. If there is no return benefit, there is no obligation. It is a basic principle of contract that the contract is not enforceable without consideration (i.e., a form of benefit) enuring to both sides of the agreement. In America, this compact was prepared by a group which sought to establish a national government for thirteen independent states. This group purported to act for the people as a whole. The representatives of the governments of the states executed the document on behalf of the individual people of the states, and for their benefit. By their ratification, it would appear that the authority of the group who prepared the compact to act for the whole body of people was validated. No state and no citizen surrendered any, sovereignty to any government. It was merely agreed that the national government, the state governments, and the people would be bound to obey proper laws made under the authority of that compact. They would suffer penalties if they did not obey. This is a

    7Hooven v, Eva@ 324 US 652, 671-672

    common law viewpoint, applicable among free men. It does not make the sovereign people subject to their government. The beneficiaries (the people)and their descendants remain bound because the compacts (state and national) have created governmental entities pertaining to specific territories. If a person lives in the territory, either he obeys the government thereof, or he is an outlaw. Later in this work the basic ideas of government and jurisdiction will be more fully explored.

    B CONSTITUTIONAL FORMAT

    The Constitution is comprised of seven Articles and twenty-six Amendments. It sets up the three branches of our government, then deserves the relationship between that government and the states. The remainder deals with amendment, ratification, old debts to be paid, and oaths. It also provides that it is the supreme law of the land. It is not important to review the entire document to understand this treatise, although certain portions should be explained.

    Article I deals with the structure and powers of Congress. If Congress does not have a power to legislate in some area, then, generally speaking, the other branches have no powers there either. Obviously, if there is no law, there is nothing for the executive to enforce and nothing for the judiciary to interpret. So, the function of Congress is to make our laws, to the extent that the Constitution permits lawmaking. Article I also deprives the states of power to do those things for which the national government was formed.

    Our government is a limited government, and this is made dear by the fact that it can only act within those powers which are specifically delegated. These are called enumerated rights.@ Most are set forth in Article I, Section 8, and Article IV, Section 3, and include:

    Establish lower courts Control government

    property

    Punish certain crimes Exclusive legislative

    jurisdiction

    By this enumeration Congress has power to makes laws, insofar as they are necessary and proper for the exercise of its power.2 The power to make laws to carry into execution the enumerated powers is separately listed.

    Particularly important is the power given to the government to have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the seat of government and such other lands as are ceded to the government by the states for its military functions? This is a power limited in its territorial scope, but not otherwise. Because this special power has no constitutional limitation, unlike the other enumerated powers, it is similar to the power of a sovereign. It is called the "political jurisdiction" of the United States4. It operates in Washington D.C. and in all areas ceded by the states to the federal government (as enclaves). A similar power operates in the possessions and territories of the United States, but it has its source in a combination of the property powers and the inherent power to acquire territory.6 The power to acquire territory and the power to govern that territory are not delegated powers. They are deemed to be inherent powers. As will be explained, "sovereign" power, like the admiralty law, is deemed a necessity in those "uncivilized" territories. What is critical to understand, however, is that such sovereign power in our government does not operate within the 50 states (except in those ceded enclaves).

    The delegated power over property is a power to protect the assets of the government and to regulate their use. (The control over property was originally intended to apply to owned assets, and did not relate

  • Taxing
  • Borrowing
  • Coining
  • Valuation
  • Naturalization
  • Postal service
  • Regulate trade
  • Regulate patents, copyrights
  • Regulate bankruptcies
  • Regulate weights, measures
  • Control military, militia
  • Declare war
  • @Constitution, Amendments 9 & 10

    2Ullited States v. Bevans (1818), 19 US (3 Wheat) 336, 387

    3Constitution, Article I/8/17

    4Congressional Quarterly, 1989-90, 693-700

    sConstitution, Article IV/3/2 6Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393

    to the government of territory.7) When what happened to the slaves after the Civil War is shown, it will be understood how this property power has become a potent weapon, used by the revenue service to enforce the tax laws.

    Constitutional guarantees do not generally apply in the sovereign federal areas, except insofar as Congress chooses to enforce them.2 Although a fundamental right should still exist, since it is deemed unalienable, Congress can take the position that, since We the People delegated sovereign power, all of the people must be subjects, in those areas, because there cannot be two sovereigns ruling in the same place! Having such power, it was not hard to predict that Congress would try to expand it beyond its proper limitations.

    This expansion is manifestly evident in the application of the taxing power. That power is limited by the Constitution: direct taxes must be apportioned, and excise taxes must be uniform. These limitations, however, do not apply where the government has sovereign power. Remember, while the enumerated powers, which operate all over the country, are limited by the Constitution, the sovereign power in territories and areas ceded by the states is not limited by the Constitution. When we examine the revenue laws, it will be seen just how the sovereign power has been used to invade our rights within the 50 states.

    Congressional power over federal funds has also been used to expand government authority. This is done by virtue of the practice of the federal government to place conditions on its grants of federal assistance. After all, the sovereign citizen has the right to contract, even with the government! If you sell a right, it's gone (even though "unalienable"). By this process the federal government has invaded every conceivable phase of your life, regardless of the Constitution. Individuals, companies, school districts, and states all have surrendered rights in exchange for money. So, when testing a tax, be sure that you did not accept some form of government handout in exchange for the power to tax you.

    The President has only the powers to command the military, to appoint government officers (the bureaucracy and the judges), and to make treaties; he has the duty to adjourn Congress and to execute all of its laws. Congress is not supposed to give him any power to make new laws. What he does instead is to make regulations! Also, under the guise of emergency powers, Congress has given him about every other power for which he could possibly ask. Those he has not been granted have frequently been seized and assumed, without regard to the limitations of the Constitution.

    The Bill of Rights3 is supposed to be our protection against oppression by the government. It was never designed as a protection against state authority. We look to our state constitutions to see how carefully we have protected our fundamental rights against state oppression.4

    Supposedly, powers not delegated to government by the Constitution belong to the people, except to the extent that they have been given to the states by the people in their state constitutions. In actual practice, the government has grabbed a lot more power, and the Supreme Court has ratified the seizure. We will find that this often happens simply because, in our ignorance, we consent to the seizure.

    As carefully as the Constitution was drafted, it could not protect us from the wiles of men. The Supreme Court, as late as 1856,s reiterated the limitations and prohibitions on Congress, specifically declared in Amendments 9 and 10. Undelegated powers were forbidden to Congress. However, Chief Justice John Marshall, back in 1816, had emasculated this doctrine. He ruled that anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, and which could be related to an enumerated power in some way, or to constitutional objectives, was a thing authorized to be done, under the power to enact "necessary and proper" laws.6 Since the Constitution was adopted to promote the general welfare, more recent cases have decided that this includes a power to spend for the

    aConstitution, Amendments 1-8

  • @Dred Scott, supra, at 443; however, some cases have extended
  • the property power to include power to govern in territories {see ­Hooven, supra, 673-674)
  • 2H@...­.@ven, supra, 674

    4Slaughter-House Cases. 83 US 36, 76-78

    sDred Scott, supra °McCalloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316, 418

    general welfare.@ (Even this expansion cannot explain away the unconstitutional application of tax laws, or spending for education, social welfare, social security and foreign aid!)

    An equally serious problem was generated by the Supreme Court in 1932, when it decided that any law enacted by Congress or the states was not open to challenge by anyone who had received any benefit under such a law, nor could if be invalidated if there were some way to construe or apply such law in a

    manner not in conflict with constitutional
    limitations.2

    Be aware, however, that whenever either a voluntary act or a questionable law appears to deprive you of an unalienable natural right, if you are not aware that such is the effect of that act or law, you should be able to prevent the deprivation because of the Supreme Court ruling which prevents an unconscious and unintended waiver of any such right? Similarly, when an official violates the Constitution, he is not deemed to be representing the government.4

    C SOVEREIGNTY AND CITIZENSHIP

    A sovereign is one in whom supreme power is vesteds. He can delegate whatever of his total authority he wishes. He can consent to whatever outside authority he may choose, or none at all. However, he cannot be "subject" to outside authority; this would be in contradiction to sovereignty.

    The creation of the enumerated powers was done by delegation This simply means that the power of the sovereign people remained with them,7

    @Butler v, United States, 297 US 1

    but that its exercise on their behalf my be done by the federal government. This relationship was well stated by the Supreme Court as follows:

    Sovereignty itself is, or course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts?

    What it means is that Americans are sovereigns without subjects, because all of us are equal?

    The State of California has particularly stressed the retention of sovereignty by its citizens?

    It is important to differentiate between sovereign power and unalienable rights. Sovereign power is subject to nothing, except what the sovereign expressly agrees or consents may be done. Unalienable rights are simply those rights which cannot be taken away; but they may be waived. In this context it may be understood how the people may remain sovereign, even in the area where the federal government exercises its sovereign jurisdiction: by consent or by waiver, the people may be without those fundamental rights, as to such areas. At least, it appears that the federal government operates on that premise.u So, although there might be some sort of waiver of rights, there is no fiction of law which can convert the natural born (sovereign) citizen of this country into a subject.L2

    This nation was formed on the basis that it had declared independence from all other authority. At that time there was no place on earth where men were free. Individual sovereignty existed only for

    2Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1932), 297 US 288

    aBrady v. United States (1937), 397 US 742 4Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, 234 FS 94

    sYick Wo, supra, 370

    9Chisholrn v Georgia (1793), ­ US (2 Dall.) 419, I LEd 440, 455, 471--472

    5Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.

    6Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 353; Billings v. Hall, 7 Cal 1; Constitution, Amendment 10

    1°California Government Code @54950: Thepeop/e of this State do not yield theh- sovereignty to the agencies which serve them,

    uHooven, supra, 674

    7Gaines, supra, 500-501

    x;@VI'Ilvalne, supra

    declared monarchs. However, with the Declaration of Independence one who had been a subject under English law became a sovereign h America.x Individual Americans had already delegated some of their authority to their respective states, and each was a species of "sovereign" country, much as the United States is now a "sovereign" nation. When the Constitution was adopted, it was a delegation of authority, and it "formed a more perfect union" of the states.2 It acknowledged that citizens, both of the states and of the United States, pre-existed its adoption? These citizens ordained and established the Constitution, and the states consented to its adoption The framers also recognized that the powers of the states had come not from the Constitution, but from the peoples.

    There have been complaints by members of our highest court that the application of a concept of sovereignty in the territories has, in effect, given rise to the creation of two national governments: one for the states (which is severely limited), and one for the territories?

    Remember that the Supreme Court has declared that, although the sovereign power may be in Congress in the federal territories and enclaves, it also recognized that in the Union States the sovereign power remains with the people? The residual sovereignty of each state is also in the people of such state.s Congress is without power to revoke your sovereignty.9

    @United States v. Lee, 106 US 196, 208 2Constitution, Preamble

    3Constiitution, Articles IVl, 1I/4 & IV/2/1 4ColBtitution, Preamble & Article VII sFederalist Papers #42, James Madison

    6Dowries v. Bidwell, 182 US 244 (dissent) 7DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 US 1, 196 aChisholm, supra, 419, 471; Bevans, supra, 336, 387 9Perry v. United States (1935), 294 US 330, 353

    Decisions comparing our laws to those in England and on the Continent usually omit to declare that all of those European laws apply in nations which have no concept of individual sovereignty, and their citizens have always been subject to either the king, or to the government which has replaced him. None of those nations have ever declared individual sovereignty for their citizens.

    Because of the corruption of citizenship which came with the 14th Amendment, it is important here to pause and examine the fundamental character of the sovereign citizen. A citizen is always a natural person. It will be remembered that a person has rights, and with those rights, he has reciprocal duties. When a person is a sovereign, his basic right is the possession of absolute power. He has no superior, except God. However, the connotation of sovereign carries with it an implication that there may be subjects. The duty of the sovereign to those subjects is to protect them. Why? Examine the characteristics of the subject, and the answer becomes obvious. A subject has the duty of allegiance (obedience) to his sovereign; in exchange, he has the right to be protected by that sovereign. Thus, it is understood that the rights and duties between the sovereign and his subjects are absolutely reciprocal: The power (right) of the sovereign is reflected in the obedience (duty) of the subject. The protection (fight) of the subject is reflected in the exercise of the sovereign power to protect the subject (duty). So, the subject gives his allegiance in exchange for protection. A sovereign needs no protection, since he has all of the power, and can protect himself. If another sovereign threatens him, the loyal subject has the duty, by his allegiance, to help the sovereign fight battles to protect that sovereign. If he did not do so, the sovereign might lose the ability to protect the subject!

    It has been pointed out that the sovereign citizen was basically a sovereign without subjects. We delegated some of our sovereign power, so that our representatives could help us protect ourselves: we gave up the powers to wage war, maintain a navy, and to control our military. In addition, this sovereign body politic, "We, the people", adopted a Bill of Rights which prohibited our government from impairing our rights. These rights are our fundamental civil rights. Our political rights - to vote, hold office, serve on juries - are not mentionedd in the Constitution. Political rights are basically covered by our State Constitutions.

    Prior to the Civil War, there really was not a true concept of "citizen of the United States". In the strictest sense, everyone was simply a citizen of the state where he lived, and naturalization was a state process.x The only subject in this country was the African slave. As we will see below, the amendments which "freed" the slave did not make him a sovereign citizen. He should have become sovereign with the Declaration of Independence. However, white men in most states refused to allow this Declaration to be made applicable to him. The Constitution officially recognized and protected slavery.2 When the white conscience was aroused to remedy the error, crafty men emasculated the effort, as we will see below.

    What is critical here is to recognize that our original citizenship came by virtue of our being state citizens; the Constitution did not create it. Thus, except for those who elect to claim citizenship thereunder, Americans do not look to the Constitution for their citizenship? It is officially recognized that our state citizenship is a thing which is separate and apart from our national citizenship.4

    So, what is the meaning of national sovereignty? National sovereignty is a fiction. It operates in our relations with other nations, since other nations simply cannot comprehend personal sovereignty, and will only deal with a national entity. Similarly, state sovereignty is an expression used to separate the powers and rights invested in states by delegation from those invested in the nation, as recognized by the Constitution? The only real sovereignty, in this country, is personal sovereignty Thus, it logically follows that, where any decision declares the powers and immunities of sovereignty which apply to a state or the national government, then a fortiori that declaration ought to apply to a sovereign citizen. Similarly, since there can only be one sovereign authority operative in a specific place at a particular time, the regulations administering the Internal Revenue Cede have established that the states are foreign countries, insofar as the provisions thereof apply to "foreign earned income:"

    The term "foreign country" when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.7

    As already explained, the sovereignty of the federal government extends only to those areas ceded by the states or acquired as possessions and territories. Our Supreme Court has explained that enclaves within a state are like the territory of a sister state, or a foreign land.s Even a national park, such as Yosemite, is deemed to be under a "distinct sovereignty" from that of California.9 Ergo, each of the 50 states is a foreign country for purposes of the foreign earned income exclusion However, be cautioned that our federal courts will resist this argument unless presented in irrefutable terms?

    In view of the fact that it is the citizens who are sovereign, we are entitled to wonder where our government ever got the idea that it could claim

    6Gaines, supra, 500-501

    '2.6 CFR 1.911-2(h)

    @Ex Parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal 300, 302

    2Constitution, Articles I/9/1 & IW2/3

    3United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 US 649, 676

    4Sadat v. Mertes, 615 F2d 1176, 1180; Slaughter-House Cases, supra, 73-74; United States v. Cruikshank. 92 US 542: There is in our political system a government of each of the several states, and a government of the United States; each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own ....

    sUnited States v. Mississippi Tax Cornre. 412 US 363, 375

    9Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co, 304 US 518, 538

    '°Compare 26 USC @865(g)(1)(A)(i)(I) with 26 CFR {}1.911-2(g) & (h): A United States Resident is one with no tax home in a foreign country; and the United States includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United States, while any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States is a foreign country. 26 USC

    {}911(d)(3) explains that a tax home is the base for computing travel expenses (per 26 USC {}162(a)6(2))

    sConstiitution, Amendments 9 and 10

    uCochrane v. U. S. (1993 CA9), 985 F2d 1027

    sovereign immunity from suit by the citizens. The law was once clearly stated that there is no inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States.t Federal immunity from suit lawfully can only be available as against a citizen who is "subject" to the federal government. That is a type of citizen whom we will study when we examine those Civil War Amendments.

    D UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

    Unalienable rights are those which belong to a man because he is a man. However, before we developed the idea of a sovereign individual, or a sovereign citizen, only monarchs enjoyed such rights. In our nation, they are considered to be so fundamental and basic to humanity that there is no humanity without them. Obviously, in the days of slavery, those who were slaves did not have any rights, unalienable or otherwise. This censure on human nature merely points up man's inhumanity to man; it does not change our history, nor the legal effects of history on our institutions.

    The Declaration of Independence characterized life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be included among our unalienable rights. Southern white people simply did not consider blacks to be men. They were property. There were many who disagreed, even in those days, but in order to secure unanimous approval of the Constitution, it was necessary to insert compromise provisions, which protected slavery until 1803. However, it took ninety years before the country was ready to recognize the injustice. To rectify it all still remains to be done. Even after the Civil War and the supposed freedom of the black man, federal courts seemed to tacitly recognize that certain citizens were not free, because only "free" citizens were held to have unalienable rights!2

    In reading the Constitution, remember that it is We, the People who are doing the delegating and reserving of rights, not the government. This is evident from the Amendments@ which reserved, undelegated powers to the people and the states.

    Not all unalienable rights were listed either in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. Only those which had been blatantly abused by governmental authority (in colonial experience) merited special mention. They dealt with such things as administration of justice and personal freedoms.4 Property rights were protected against seizure without due process of law and just compensation,s and contracts were protected againstt impairment.6 But the scope and nature of those rights was left for state definition under the general category of fundamental rights.7 The importance of the distinction arises when it is understood that, although fundamental rights have general constitutional protection, they are recognized in the federal enclaves and territories only to the extent that Congress chooses to recognize them.s

    The entire Bill of Rights is merely an expression of our intention to be free from the burden of endless political laws which merely restrict and regulate our lives. Constitutions are not made to grant rights; they merely recognize rights and limit the power of government.9 It was never intended that Congress would be peopled by career politicians who would spend each year dreaming up laws for us. On the contrary, the Constitution contemplated limited lawmaking. To be sure that the legislators would not simply forget their elected duties, they were required to meet in session at least once a year,

    3Constitution, Amendments 9 & 10

    4Constitution, Amendments 1-8 (1: Religion, speech, press, assembly, petition; 2: bear arms; 3: no quartering; 4: search, seizure, warrants; 5: grand jury, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, due process, condemnation; 6: speedy trim information, confrontation, subpoena, counsel; 7: jury trial; 8: bail, cruel punishments

    sConstitution, Amendment 5

    6Constitution, Article 1/10/1

    @Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421

    2United States v. Morris, 125 Fed 322, 331

    7Slaughter-House Cases, supra, 76

    sHooyen, supra, 674 9In re Bergcraw, 33 Cal 349; 65 Pac 828

    starting on the first Monday in December? However, by 1933 legislation had become big business. Congress managed to obtain an Amendment to have the mandatory session start on January 3 each year.2

    We must realize that specification of "fundamental" and "unalienable" rights depends on where you live, or in what forum you are asserting such rights. While they are all deemed to be inherent, and to exist independent of any Constitution, Amendment, or law,3 if your particular state, territory, or court chooses not to acknowledge any such right, you may as well not have it. Fortunately, the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights seem to be enforced in every type of American court, so long as they are not regarded as 'waived? That protection is rather hollow, however, as a defense against taxation. This is true because the original Constitution (exclusive of the Bill of Rights) protected no fundamental rights against federal invasion. It merely required the states to give equal treatment to citizens, without regard to the state from which they came.s

    The Bill of Rights purports to limit the federal government in its powers, but only to the extent specifically designated. (Theoretically, our federal government is restricted by all of our fundamental fights; in practice, this protection is invoked only when a court finds it expedient.) The Bill of Rights left the states just where it found them, added nothing to the power of the government, and took no power away from any state. It was strictly a control devise against oppression by our central government6. In fact, with the exception of two Amendments7, none of the Amendments grant anything; they simply prohibit certain types of legislation or conduct.

    @Constitution, Article U4/2

    2Constitution, Amendment 20

    3Hale v. He@­.@el, 201 US 43, 74

    4Hale. supra, 74; Sullivan v. United States 15 F2d 809, 812

    sConsfitution, Article IV/2/1

    6United States v. Cruikshank@ 92 US 542, 552; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 74 US 321

    7Constitution, Amendments 14 & 16

    Unalienable means not subject to separation. However, we can separate ourselves from an unalienable fight simply by waiving that right. The Supreme Court has given us some protection against inadvertent waiver. It has declared that a citizen does not waive an unalienable right unless he does so knowingly, with full appreciation of the circumstances thereof? One who loses his rights is not presumed to have acquiesced in that loss? Certainly, if we have inadvertently done any consenting to the invasion of such rights, we ought to be free to revoke such consent.

    While it is true that the original Constitution does not compel states to give us any rights, except for equal privileges and immunities as state citizens and interstate travelers, it does require that we have a Republican form of government? This is enforced for new states, because prior to admission their constitutions are reviewed by Congress. Such a form of government is itself a recognition of the existence of individual sovereignty and unalienable rights. Thus, the popular fraud that the 14th Amendment is our guarantee of rights must give way to the truth that such rights were protected before that Amendment existed. Courts have held that the Bill of Rights was not carried to the states by the 14th Amendment, except to the extent that any such right is independently deemed fundamental.

    The inherent contradictions found in the foregoing analyses of "fundamental rights" and their supposed protections arise not from a misunderstanding of the law, but rather from conflicting applications found in the court decisions.

    E CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS

    The Civil War did not end slavery, contrary to popular views. It merely separated the slaves from their masters. These four million black peopleu

    sBrady v. United States, 397 US 742, 748; Johnson v. ZerbsL 304 US 458, 464; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 US 389,

    393

    9Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. P.U.C., 301 US 292, 307 x°Constitution, Article IV/2

    uSlaughter-House Cases, supra, 69

    continued to be in the status of subjects.@ They were not even "free" subjects; had they been, no 13th Amendment would have been necessary. Even after the 13th Amendment made them "free" they remained subjects. They were still ineligible for citizenship, as the law was then interpreted.2 Since the emancipated black man was not a citizen, he became a resident alien - or, more simply, a resident. This resident subject was a species of property, just as was the ancient English serf. The 13th Amendment prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude. Nothing was said about voluntary servitude. Most bond-servants from Europe had been in a state of voluntary servitude, in that they had contracted for a term of service in exchange for some benefit. An apprentice had been in a similar servile state. His voluntary agreement put him there. More whites came to America as voluntarily indentured bond-servants for seven year terms, to work off their passage, than all blacks who came here by force as slaves. After this country was formed, the rules for the enforcement of personal service ended in the concept of personal sovereignty (for white people). However, the black was not a sovereign. After the adoption of the 13th Amendment, he was free as to all of the world, but not as this master. His master was the American sovereign, meaning the American body politic: We, the people.

    The people had delegated to the government the power to administer their property.3 Thus, the power of administration of these subjects was in the government: they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even those blacks who had been freed by their masters, prior to the Civil War, were not part of the body politic (with rare exceptions). Our Supreme Court had confirmed this discrimination? Furthermore, as of 1787, every southern state had a constitution which prohibited blacks from voting or holding citizenship. Most prohibited land ownership as well.

    would "go back" to Africa (even though he had never been there, and was as native to America as any white). Of course, America was his home, and he had no intention or desire to leave. But this left those millions without work, without homes, and without means. They were a threat to the southern economy. The long-nurtured attitude of contempt for black men caused the white legislatures of eleven southern states to pass laws which would guarantee that the free blacks had no rights and no jobs and no property? However, martial law was still in force. The 14th Amendment was prepared, and Congress let the recalcitrant southern states understand that their return to full governmental power was suspended until the Amendment was ratified6. This was clearly duress. The Utah Supreme Court has openly declared the invalidity of Amendment 14 as recently as 1968. However, it conceded that we must submit thereto until the Supreme Court invalidates it officially.7

    The language of the 14th Amendment makes it quite clear that it does not apply to a sovereign citizen. Not one single white person owes his citizenship to Amendment 14,s nor did it give the white man any new unalienable rights? The condition for receiving citizenship under the Amendment is that one be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It also created a new concept of residence. The subject, who had been a resident alien, now became a resident citizen.

    Allegiance is a concept which applies to subjects, but not to sovereign citizens. It is a feudal concept which would not ordinarily apply in this country. In this country, Citizenship is constitutional, while allegiance is personal; citizenship is freedom, but allegiance is servitude; citizenship is a political tie, while allegiance is a territorial tenure? No sovereign citizen owes allegiance to any power on

    The effect of emancipation was to enable the black man to go where he chose. It was thought he

    t­Chisholm, supra, LEd at 472

    2Yan Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 47

    5Slaughter-House Cases, supra, 70

    6Slaughterhotl@e Cases, 83 US 36, 70-71

    7Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266