Public Notice to Federal Employees
Posted on April 16, 2017by David Robinson
Judge Anna von Reitz
Public Notice Provided to All Federal Employees and Agency Personnel Including IRS/Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Personnel:
Social Security Numbers can only be issued to federal “employees” / “citizens” for use only in the performance of their official duties. See 20 CFR §422.104. SSN’s used as TIN’s apply to the same Persons/PERSONS.
That is, only federal Persons (Territorials) or PERSONS (Municipals) can be issued Social Security Account Numbers/TIN’s and that is the way it has always been, except…….
FDR and the Federal WWII Era Congress got around this and included millions of patriotic Americans by conscripting “volunteers” who agreed to pay federal income taxes as a “Victory Tax”. They did this by arbitrarily defining such voluntary taxpayers as Withholding Agents— Warrant Officers in the Merchant Marines.
The Victory Tax was supposed to sunset upon the “cessation of hostilities”, however, in September of 1945, Congress conveniently forgot to put a specific end date on this arrangement and the Internal Revenue Service continued to collect –thus changing this from a voluntary arrangement to help win the war– to an international extortion racket.
This is your reminder that the Second World War hostilities ended in September of 1945.
Any American “volunteer” who isn’t actually and naturally eligible for Social Security and who wishes to “retire” from the presumption of federal service and who revokes their election to pay federal taxes must be immediately set free and permanently released from any obligation to report, to pay, or accept responsibility for any federal Person/PERSON, and cannot otherwise be encumbered, imposed upon, or subjected by any agency or department of the federal territorial or municipal government (s).
Compulsory “citizenship” does not exist.
Those who have “retired” after becoming vested in the Social Security System as a result of this abuse are owed all their money back and/or all services promised at the time of their enrollment with no presumption of continued federal citizenship or its obligations attaching to them.
The continued issuance of Social Security Numbers to people who aren’t actually federal employees and either United States Citizens or citizens of the United States is illegal entrapment under conditions of non-disclosure and deceit; it results in mischaracterization of political status, involuntary servitude, identity theft, unlawful conversion of assets and other evils of racketeering committed against Americans who have been deliberately misinformed and told that they have to enroll in Social Security as a requirement of having a job—-any job.
Enrollment in Social Security is only required if they happen to be seeking direct employment with the federal government or are otherwise legitimately considered federal government dependents—verifiable political asylum seekers, etc.
Those born in one of the actual states of the Union who retire from such employment, including military employment, or who, owing no natural allegiance to the Territorial or Municipal governments, and having never been employed by the federal government(s), simply realize these facts and revoke their “election” to pay federal income taxes and cease thereafter to function as voluntary Withholding Agents must be set free from the presumption of any further territorial or municipal obligation.
A similar entrapment occurs when American State Citizens are encouraged to vote in federal and federated state/county elections. When they “register” to vote, they unknowingly give up their rights as stockholders and electors — an undisclosed loss — and they become “enfranchised” as presumed operators of federal corporation franchises. This sleight-of-hand conversion of Americans from electors into mere voters again serves to mischaracterize them and defraud them and subject them and deprive them of their natural birthright and material interests at the hands of people who are in fact their employees.
As none of these losses and obligations are ever fully disclosed no valid private contract can be alleged and any American who subsequently rescinds a voter registration must be removed from all registration databases and held harmless from any presumption of federal enfranchisement.
Let’s just use this one small example of the Big Lie federal employees have been told and that they have been enforcing upon others…..continuing from (1) quoting from Christopher Chapman now:
“§ 422.104. Who can be assigned a social security number.
(a) Persons eligible for SSN assignment. We can assign you a social security number if you meet the evidence requirements in § 422.107 and you are:
(1) A United States citizen; or
(2) An alien lawfully admitted to the United States….
Let’s examine the definition of United States (U.S.) used in Title 26 to see if average Americans who are not employed by the federal government are citizens of the U.S…..
In most statutes (statute law) the Unites States referred to is federal territory, just as it is in Title 26—- i.e.:
26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions
(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
(10) State —-The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
The term “State” exposes the truth that the term “United States” means the District of Columbia and no other.
Let us review, specifically the history of the evolution of this term
The code of Federal Regulation is very definitive by using the word “its”, in lieu of, “their”
Title 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Section 1 of the [Internal Revenue] Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ….
(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its [District of Columbia] jurisdiction is a citizen.
The 1939 Code through 1954 the definition of “State”:
Alaska is a U.S. Territory
Hawaii is a U.S. Territory
• 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Alaska joins the Union, so strikeout “Territories” and substitute “Territory of Hawaii”:
Alaska is a State of the Union
Hawaii is a U.S. Territory
• 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territory of Hawaii and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.
Hawaii joins the Union, strikeout “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”:
Alaska is a State of the Union
Hawaii is a State of the Union
• 7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
Notice how Alaska and Hawaii only fit these definitions of [Territorial] “State” before they were declared to be States of the United States of America, and now are hereby admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever. [emphasis added]
Let’s examine some court cases that further solidifies this subject:
Before the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] [bold emphasis added]
It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied [sic] to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several state communities, or who should afterwards, by birthright or otherwise, become members, according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)] [bold emphasis added]
… [F]or it is certain, that in the sense in which the word “Citizen” is used in the federal Constitution, “Citizen of each State,” and “Citizen of the United States***,” are convertible terms; they mean the same thing; for “the Citizens of each State are entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” and “Citizens of the United States***” are, of course, Citizens of all the United States***. [44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting] [italics in original, underlines & C’s added]
As it was the adoption of the Constitution by the Conventions of nine States that established and created the United States***, it is obvious there could not then have existed any person who had been seven years a citizen of the United States***, or who possessed the Presidential qualifications of being thirty-five years of age, a natural born citizen, and fourteen years a resident of the United States***. The United States*** in these provisions, means the States united. To be twenty-five years of age, and for seven years to have been a citizen of one of the States which ratifies the Constitution, is the qualification of a representative. To be a natural born citizen of one of the States which shall ratify the Constitution, or to be a citizen of one of said States at the time of such ratification, and to have attained the age of thirty-five years, and to have been fourteen years a resident within one of the said States, are the Presidential qualifications, according to the true meaning of the Constitution. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870)] [bold and underline emphasis added]
After the 14th amendment [sic] in 1868:
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. [Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36] [(1873) emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state. [Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327][(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]
We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own …. [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542] [(1875) emphasis added]
One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443. [McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323] [(1883) underlines added]
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens. [State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380] [6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state.
[4 Dec. Dig. ’06, p. 1197, sec. 11]
[“Citizens” (1906), emphasis added]
There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. [Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]
There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter.
[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823] [(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]
A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state. [Du Vernay v. Ledbetter] [61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]
… citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. … citizens of the United States** … were also not thought of; but in any event, a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution. [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914] [emphasis added]
That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country. [Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)]
No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the proposition that in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government and at the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides. Determination of what is qualified residence within a State is not here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject. [Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383 (USDC/WDMO 1953)]
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873). Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.
[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]” unquote Christopher Chapman.
Attacking Americans who are not obligated in any way to pay federal income taxes, and certainly not obligated to pay “municipal” taxes merely disguised more generally as “federal” taxes, is against the law, both statutory and Public. Coercing exempt persons and/or denying their claim of exemption is a criminal act of extortionate racketeering and inland piracy.
There are American state nationals (people who live as non-federal, non-citizens) and American State Citizens (who occupy public offices of the land jurisdiction states). These are distinctly different groups within one Body Politic which are foreign to the “United States” as defined in Title 26 and throughout Federal Code.
None of them are naturally liable to pay federal income taxes and none of them are subject to territorial or municipal law. The sooner IRS employees become fully acquainted with these facts and the limitations of their powers and jurisdictions with respect to these Americans, the better for everyone involved.
These facts are underwritten by the most fundamental principles giving rise to the government of this country. Please note the following:
The limited and exclusive power of legislation conferred on the Congress and the geographic authority of these powers is summed up by these controlling sections of the actual Constitution:
• “power of personal and subject-matter legislation throughout the Union and upon the high seas at Art, I, § 8, cl. 1-16;
• “power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation over (what will be) the District of Columbia at Art, I, § 8, cl. 17; and
• “constructive (implied) power of territorial, personal, and subject-matter legislation at Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 in the form of ‘Rules and Regulations,’ id., ‘respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States,’ id., i.e., federal territories and enclaves.
Please note that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power of territorial legislation over any person or property anywhere in the Union.
Unless a person is naturally and/or truly voluntarily subject to the Territorial “United States” defined as the District of Columbia in Title 26, they cannot be subjected as a Municipal citizen, either; and Congress has no delegated legislative power allowing it to usurp its territorial or municipal authority upon the actual states and people otherwise.
Read that as—-no, means no. There’s a difference between consensual sex, and rape.
When people born on the land of one of the actual organic states claim their non-territorial, non-municipal, non-citizen political status and give evidence of the same intention by issuing an Act of Expatriation from the presumption of Territorial citizenship, and the surrender of the Municipal PERSON issued to them back to the Secretary of the Treasury, and otherwise give Notice of their revocation of election to pay federal income taxes or to otherwise subject themselves and their assets to any territorial or municipal code, that decision must be respected and adhered to by all agents of the territorial and municipal government without question or exception.