It is easy for many to become confused when confronted with the fact that the U.S. Federal Income Tax operates through voluntary participation. After all, if one can simply decline participation, then why does the Internal Revenue Service come down so heavy-handed on those who do not file their annual tax return?
The answer is both simple and complex.
Once an American files his/her first Form 1040 Individual Income Tax Return — usually occurring between the age of 18-22 — then that person enters the database of the IRS. The requirement to file returns in subsequent years becomes mandatory. At the same time, it remains voluntary, considering the fact that each American National can opt to take the exit door provided to them by the U.S. Congress.
“The utilization of a Social Security Number combined with the initial filing of a Form 1040 begins this process,” said Adele Weiss, principal of Weiss+Associates, a European-based consultancy firm specializing in the Federal Income Tax. “These things are usually done at an early age when the person is not very aware of the full legal ramifications of these decisions. It doesn’t help that the National Government purposely obfuscates the fact that neither of these two acts is required to gain or continue employment in the Constitutional Republic.”
Having or providing a Social Security Number is not required to gain employment in the private sector in the Constitutional Republic, and this fact was admitted by the Social Security Administration. Also, there is no law whatsoever that mandates an American National not working for the National Government or deriving income from government property to file an income tax return. So then, why is the opposite idea so prevalent among the millions of Americans?
Much of the confusion can be chalked up to the clever machinations of politicians, most of whom are Ivy League-educated lawyers. Weiss explains:
“Most people simply don’t realize that there are two very distinct definitions of the ‘United States’ and thus, there are two very different realities of what constitutes a ‘U.S. Citizen.’ This difference is at the heart of the confusion for most Americans.”
Yes, it’s true — there are two separate entities which are called the United States: the first being the Constitutional Republic comprised of the 50 states of the Union, and the second being the territories owned by the National Government, which is in itself a corporation.
In the Constitutional Republic, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are provided to each American born in this landmass, or naturalized there. These documents are superior to laws created by Congress. Those holding a public office within the National Government have taken an Oath of Office to protect and to defend the Constitution.
Surprising to many Americans is the fact that in the Federal Territory, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are null and void. Those born in areas such as the District of Columbia and territories like Puerto Rico and Guam have no benefit of protection under the Constitution. People here live under the dominion and control of the U.S. Congress and are, for all intents and purposes, subjects to the crown of Congressional rule.
It is in this duality of meanings of terms like ‘United States’ and ‘U.S. Citizen’ that the National Government seeks to attract anyone it can into its web while it obfuscates the fine line of jurisdiction between these two separate regions with the common name ‘United States.’ Weiss explains:
“This is why it is so important for American Nationals — a non-statutory term we coined to describe those born in the 50 states who have unalienable rights — to clearly define who they are. If you simply establish yourself as a ‘U.S. Citizen’ on a federal form, the National Government will presume you are identifying yourself as one with no unalienable rights and thus are subject to their territorial jurisdiction.”
This is part of a not-so-elaborate (yet brilliant) way of entangling you in a scheme that dates back over a century. The Federal Income Tax of 1894 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1895, as an unconstitutional act, as it was attempted without regard to the Rule of Apportionment. However, when William H. Taft became President in 1909, he took it upon himself to find a surreptitious way of getting the 16th Amendment passed without offense to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Taft, a lawyer and Yale graduate, acknowledged that the Supreme Court declared an unapportioned Federal Income Tax to be unconstitutional (in the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company). Instead of giving up on the idea, he pushed for a Federal Income Tax to be created and levied upon the National Government itself, meaning those in the District of Columbia and territories. By omission of the Rule of Apportionment, the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment shows that the FIT was only to be levied upon the National Government and not American Nationals who live and work in the private sector.
This was to be a remedy to the “rapidly increasing deficit” that the United States faced, and he was looking for creative ways to increase the revenues of the National Government. “It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have,” he went on to tell Congress in his pitch to create a Constitutional amendment.
The idea of a Federal Income Tax levied upon those who do not possess unalienable rights but are still labeled as ‘U.S. Citizens’ — albeit a statutory version — was a testament to his formidable accomplishments at Yale.
The 16th Amendment passed Constitutional muster and was adopted, without inclusion of the Rule of Apportionment deemed necessary by the Supreme Court. In 1913, the Internal Revenue Service was created to enforce the tax upon (statutory only) ‘U.S. Citizens.’ It is important to note that in corporate municipalities such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, et al, slavery and involuntary indentured servitude are not outlawed (as found in the 13th Amendment), again because the Constitution is not law in any federal territory.
Later, a provision was added so that others could choose to join the group of taxpayers. That “choice” became the filing of one’s first Form 1040. This proved to become an ingenious end-around to the Supreme Court denial of a Federal Income Tax in 1895. As long as those born in the Constitutional Republic who choose to enter the U.S. Tax Club do so voluntarily and can leave the club whenever they desire, it is not a violation of the 13th Amendment.
Weiss found the Exit Door during his vigilant search in the 10,000+ pages of the Internal Revenue Code, cleverly hidden away. “So for Americans born in one of the 50 states or naturalized into the Constitutional Republic, this is the Exit Door that lawfully removes you from the Federal Income Tax system — if he/she wishes to exit,” said Weiss, whose firm has helped over 2,000 clients end their participation in the U.S. tax scheme.
“It is perfectly legal to revoke the election you made when you filed your first Form 1040, whether knowingly or unknowingly” he continued. “The IRS has no choice but to accept your decision, provided you send it to them following our explicit instructions. As you may imagine, the IRS doesn’t like to lose a taxpayer.”
More information on this powerful 11-page Revocation of Election can be obtained by going here.