Had an "AHA!" moment while doing legal research

Bear with me, this is a bit long but very worth it.

I was doing a research project for a university project when I came across this a couple of years ago. I put it down for a while and have now come back to it. I am in a bit of shock at the moment. And please, this is not a tin-foil hat topic. This is all according to the law and backed by precise legal references. Before blowing this off, please get through the whole post. It is long. If, afterward you disagree, by all means, do so. But at least get through it.

I was doing a project that had to do with legal jurisdiction. I came across Title 26 during this research...the IRS tax code. Now, first off, most do not understand the law. I did not in the past...I had no clue how precise and exact it is. Everything in law MUST have a law AND a regulation to enforce that law. Next, key terms must be specifically defined. There are NO generalities in the law, no implicit meanings. The law is explicit. If there is an implied use of a word, there is a reference to where it is implied from. If there is no reference, the implication does not apply.

Are you following me so far? Okay. Now onto the shocking info. According to the IRS tax, "TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701 Definitions" the United States is defined as:

Did you catch that? According to the IRS tax code, State does not mean the 50 states. It "is construed to include the District of Columbia." Remember, there are no implications in law. In the definition of the tax code, state = District of Columbia. Within that same page of applicable definitions:

Why is domestic defined under the coverage of "in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State?" Why would the United States not be defined WITH any State? I will get back to that.

Don't buy my specificity explanation? Here:

You see, it is very specific of when and where a definition applies to a term.

Next, back under the Title 26 IRS code, we have the definition of a trade or business:

Now, anyone working at a private company that I know of is not considered a public office. This one blew me away:

That is right!!! A corporation is considered a person under the tax law. And you ask how corporations get tax loopholes and tax breaks? Because they are not considered a business!!! They are a person! Just like you and I....exxxxxxxcept, under their own definition, we are NOT United States persons (unless you reside within the District of Columbia). I don't live there.
Next up:

Here is another interesting example. This is saying, that any citizen or resident of the United States that does not reside in any United States judicial District, they will be treated as residing in the District of Columbia.

Okay, still with me?

Remember the definition from subparagraph A? Here is a reminder:

The Meat and Potatoes
Here is a mind bender for everyone. Have you ever heard of a "non-resident alien?" What is a non-resident alien? Someone who is NOT living in the United States AND is not a citizen. Under our "common sense" that would mean a citizen of another country living in their country right? That is precisely what it means. A non-citizen not in the United States. Now, why would that be maintained within our tax code? You might say it is to cover those who get money from corporations in the United States such as investments or part ownership. Wrong.

Here is the odd thing. You are a citizen of the state you are born in. I was born in California and therefore am a citizen of California. My birth certificate has no mention of the United States. Can you become a citizen of a state in any way other than birth? Nope. Can you become a citizen of the United States other than by birth? Yup, through Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The states cannot confer citizenship except by birth to that state. The United States cannot confer citizenship by birth nor to any state but only to the United States.

So, based upon the definition of the law, I am a citizen of California and therefor, classified by the United States government as a Non-Resident Alien.

Now, onto the discussion of jurisdiction. There is only one place that has adopted the full IRS tax code as their own and placing them under the purvue of the United States government...Puerto Rico. No other place has ever done it.

Ready for me to really blow your mind? Again, this is law, not my interpretation of the law. According to

In a GEOGRAPHICAL sense:

So, how are the 50 states referenced in law?

Why didn't they just say "the United States?" Do a search for "50" on that page. It is used twice. Not, United States...but "the 50 states."

Finally, TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. I will not quote it here as it is long. But it is the same there as well. It only deals with
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

Now. This is simply a lead off, but what I am getting at is according to the definitions of the law, unless you live in the District of Columbia and its outlying possessions or were naturalized to the United States through INS, you are not a citizen of the United States of America.

And here is the real ticker of it all. Think I am wrong here? Prove it. Show me some form of proof you are a United States citizen...

Think of what this means. Why is it that the U.S. government cannot make laws specific to a state? It can make laws that apply to all states, but not an individual state. In federal court, even a lawsuit that would only apply to that one state, what happens? It becomes federal law. Why? Because each state is considered a sovereign nation. The United States is merely allowed to do business on our behalf...How are we all free? Because, as a state citizen, the federal has no jurisdiction over you unless you commit a federal crime.

Where on your passport does it say Citizenship: United States? It does not. It states nationality: United States. Why? Because the United States government is your voucher when you travel. No individual state can have an embassy anywhere in the world. Just like the United States is supposed to, it represents you. That is part of there job under the Constitution.

What document shows proof of United States Citizenship? Any idea? Think really hard...hmmmm....what is it? How about one of these:
And permanent residence via one of these:


Here is some more. What are the pathways for United States Citizenship? From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service:
USCIS - Citizenship Through Naturalization

Where is "by birth" mentioned? ohhhh...because that is not possible in the United States...only within the actual "States of the Union" or in one "of the 50 states." Where is the United States birth certificate? You can get one from Washington D.C. right...well...Washington D.C. is not the District of Columbia now is it...is it? Think so? Find it defined that way in the law. Fact of the matter is that Washington D.C. is considered a state of the Union in the sense of jurisdiction. But, the District of Columbia is sovereign territory of the United States whose leadership structure is Congress and the head is the President of the United States of America.

An oddity, I could not find "United States of America" anywhere in the tax code. Kind of ironic since by using that would be all inclusive for all the states. The possessions are specifically mentioned in all parts that concern them...what about the States of the Union or the 50 States?

One final shot here at convincing the unconvinced. Where does the IRS get its power? Where does Title 12: the IRS Tax Code derive its power? Title 8...Immigration and Naturalization. Where does INS get its regulatory authority? Department of Justice. How do I know that? Because the United States only has jurisdiction over its own residents and citizens. If you were born in one of the states, what jurisdiction does the INS have over you? How about the Department of Justice? Absolutely none. Zippo, zilch, null.

What is the deal with non-resident aliens? Well, you remember years ago when Harry Reid stated the tax system was voluntary? He was not lying...for once, he was not lying. The W-4 is a voluntary withholding form. Get it? When you file a W-4, you are stating how much you are giving the United States government and signing it under penalty of perjury. Thus, you are volunteering a contract with the United States government as a non-resident alien. (No, I am not saying don't file your taxes. I do not advocate tax evasion or any nonsense as such. Pay taxes you owe. I don't know enough to be giving out any advice of any sort at this point. Here in about 6 months I will be applying to law school though and really getting this pulled apart. Maybe in the future I will be able to do something but I still have a long way to go and a lot to learn. But if this grows legs and I find out I am paying taxes under false pretense and taxes I do not owe...well...we will see where this goes)

If you still do not believe, prove me wrong. At least have some counter-information to back up your argument though. Otherwise, I would like to see where this goes and who is willing to pick up the ball on this one with me...just for research for now. Who knows, maybe more later. Let me know what you think.

 

A final note here. My point in this whole post is not to be anti-tax or anti-IRS. It is to further my research and hear opinions of the concept of U.S. jurisdiction. Because if this is true, what Act that affects each of us here would not apply if it turns out that we are non-resident aliens to the United States? The CSA. Are you following now?

All these bullshit laws, the United States can make for the United States all day long...but...if we are outside their jurisdiction...they do not apply to us. Talk about the level of government misinformation...but again...prove me wrong here.

 

To my first two responders, where it defines state to include all the actual states, it was for that one definition. However, in the law, that doesn't apply outside oft hat section of code. And a "geographical sense" is different from the specified definition. It even tells you the difference. So no, I am not grasping at straws.

And this is about the entire structure, not just the IRS. Start looking up some laws and do your own research. If you want to keep assuming and never do any of the work, well, you will always remain a slave to this government because you are too lazy.

This kind of furthers my point. You realize what this was for right? Slaves and immigrants. Slaves had no birth certificate and immigrants needed to be naturalized. Therefore, a system was created to make slaves and immigrants citizens. In the nature of the legal definitions, "any State" is the District of Columbia and the federal possessions. Not the 50 states of the union.

I mean, it don't just sit there and go, "uh, dude , it has been teh states my whole life, you are wrong" because going along with what you have been told, taught or heard is what has got us to this point in the first place. Do some critical thinking...then come back.

So far, my points remain correct other than two who failed to understand the concept of state being something other than what they have been taught their whole lives.

 

You are totally incorrect. You are a citizen of the state you are born in for you entire life. You may become a "resident' of another state, but you cannot become a citizen of another state. It would be illegal. A state does not have the power to confer citizenship except through birthright. Only the U.S. government can confer citizenship...but not through birthright. See how the powers are split? One controls birthright, the other controls immigration.

Show me your birth certificate for another state, other than the one you are born in. That is preposterous isn't it? That is the only way you could. The two concepts are equally preposterous. Neither makes sense.

And if you are doubting me, tell me at what point you took an oath or switched citizenship when you moved between states....You change your residence status, not your citizenship status.

And one further example...if I move to Mexico, am I now a citizen of Mexico and not California? No...there is a pretty big process to switch citizenship. In no country in the world does citizenship just change...that is such a ridiculous thought. I would still pay Mexico taxes, probably learn to speak Spanish and maybe even drive like Mexicans do...but I am still a California citizen until either I die or relinquish my personalities to California and obtain Mexican citizenship.

 

I understand if it isn't worth everyone's time. Like I said...it is a piece of research that has not been able to be proved wrong.

 

In the sense of a country, yes, the states are states. I am specifically stating that according to legal definition as it is used and defined under federal law, they are not. It is a huge concept to wrap the head around and is difficult to understand. But think about it objectively and it begins to make sense.

It is difficult in here to share the overall concept on the basis of referencing legal decisions, laws, judicial opinions, etc. But, for those who are willing to actually do a little digging of their own, you will eventually come across this very same idea. My entire point is that every law is very specific and does not maintain room for assumption or innuendo. And, in accordance to the law and how it is defined, I am correct.

 

Precisely. For those not getting the point here, you can volunteer that you are a US citizen but that doesn't make you so...unless you have gone through Immigration and Naturalization Services...but you are a citizen of the Republic of <insert state here>. I am a citizen of the Republic of California, even though I live in Nevada...for a few more days...heading back to Cali.

 

I understand your thought process and it takes a lot of reference work that apparently cannot simply be done on forums, but at what point did that definition "INCLUDE" the 50 states? Here is my frame of reference:
Judge decisions in related/unrelated law:

And that is just a few legal decisions. My point is, again, state can hold far more meanings than we were all brought up to believe. In law, the definitions only tells you what a term INCLUDES. It never tells you what it DOES NOT include. That is beyond the scope of definition and would require immense paperwork. So, following my logic here, if State is defined as the District of Columbia, but mentions nothing else, it is only talking about the District of Columbia.

If you continue to doubt, I will dig up more.