Subject: Re: The Buck Act
From: [email-masked] (Bob Cathar)
Date: 14 Sep 1994 18:21:16 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,alt.society.civil-liberties,alt.revolution.counter,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.activism

You've been warned about lawyers and their jargon...

Foxvog Douglas ([email-masked])...  
                                    ^^
                                   (Finland)

  ...wonders about the term "includes".   

    (from the "Buck  Act", 4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113.)
   
>>   "In this  State" or "in the State" means within the exterior
>>   limits of  the State ... and includes all territories within
                                  ^^^^^^^^
>>   such limits owned or ceded to the United States of America.

Doug comments:

 > The second half of the definition merely clarifies areas which 
 > are not excluded from the defintition.  Just as if i rent a 
 > house and the contract states that i may use any room of the 
 > house, "and this includes the attic,"  it does not mean that i 
 > may only use the attic and no other room of the house.  It 
 > appears that the author may not have English as a first language 
 > to be trapped by such grammatical mistakes.

You would be quite right, Doug, if you were commenting about
some everyday conversation, or even (perhaps) your rental
agreement or lease.

Doug speaks excellent English (I can't tell if he is a Finn or an 
American). But Doug doesn't speak the "English' used in 
The Buck Act (and in the Internal Revenue Code). Unfortunately,
most Americans don't speak that language either :(   (YET!:-)

The "key" here is to understand that this act is *not* an everyday
conversation, written in "English". It's written in what is 
often called "legalese". Have a look...

     ********* Credit and Disclaimer ******* 

I found the following information in Lynn Meredith's excellent
book "Vultures In Eagle's Clothing" 

Everything below until the next line of *'s is quoted directly
from Lynne's book (pages 129, 130 and 131).

I am not an expert (Yet!) but just had to stick my neck out here
because I read this yesterday and, lo and behold, here's 
an application! If I'm wrong, will some knowledgable individual
please let me know?

BTW It does seem silly, that to clear up the above small
misunderstanding, such lengthy details are needed. Nevertheless...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

GUIDE TO DECODING THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

"Learning a New language, Words of Art

What is the gretest weapon the IRS has in its silent assault on our 
property? WORDS..."Words of Art!"

These are "words that have a particular meaning IN A PARTICULAR 
AREA OF STUDY and have either NO MEANING or a DIFERENT MEANING
OUTSIDE THAT FIELD." --"Barrons Dictionary of Legal Terms"

The IRS typically calls "Words of Art", TERMS. By using these words
that have "different meanings" outside of the Internal Revenue Code,
the IRS has been able to mislead the American people into paying
a tax they don't owe.

 ******************************************************************
 * Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the          *
 * surface, many Citizens, because of respect for the law, are    * 
 * cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance. *
 * ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^  ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^  *
 ***************************--US v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179,187--*****

Where is the United States Government a foreign government to
California (or to any other of the 50 states)? 

Where is California (or any other of the 50 states) 
a *foreign country*?

Where is California (or any other of the 50 states)
*"without"* the United States?

Where is a Citizen of California (or a Citizen of the 50 states)
not a United States *citizen*?

Where is a Citizen of California (or a Citizen of the 50 states)
not a United States *resident*?

Where is a Citizen of California (or a Citizen of the 50 states)
not an *individual*?
 
Where is a Citizen of California (or a Citizen of the 50 states)
an *alien*?

Where is a perosn not a people?

Where are the 50 states not *States* within the United States?

Where is an *employee* not someone working in a common occupation
in any of the 50 states?

Where are *wages* not compensation for labor?

Where is a *trade or business* a government occupation?

 WHERE??? IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE   [that's where!]

Before you can understand the Internal Revenue Code, you must 
speak their same language. The Malat v. Riddell court ruled,

  "Congress may provide its own definitions for the terms
   used. The student should be aware of a number of general
   definitions contained in the 26 IRC..."

Using "common usage" meanings, the Internal Revenue code would
be blatently unconstitutional. However, by changing the meaning
of words, the Code and its implementing Regulations DO NOT, 
impose a tax on compensation for labor earned by American 
Citizens in the 50 states.

[Now, let's look at that word "includes."]

 --------------------------------------------------------------
 | IMPORTANT! When the words include, includes, and including | 
 | are used in a statute, ONLY those things listed after the  |
 | word, include (or its derivative), or with the EXACT SAME  |
 | meaning are to be a part of that definition. To help       |
 | remember this rule of statutory construction, every time   |
 | you see any derivative of the word include,                |
 | think, "include *only*" or "includes *only*"               |
 | or "including *only".                                      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------

INCLUDE, INCLUDES, AND INCLUDING

In understanding the "Words of Art" the IRS uses, it must be 
understood that, in a statutory construction, a word means
EXACTLY what is written and cannot be expanded to other things! 
When a regulation is codified, it is required that all legal 
terms be SPECIFICALLY DEFINED to avoid being challanged
and "voided for vagueness".

16A Am Jur 2nd. Constitutional Law 818 Definiteness or Vagueness
of Laws, Regulations and Orders, states: "It is a general 
principle of statutory law that a statute must be DEFINATE to 
be valid."

In defining the words "Includes" and "including", 
the supreme Court, ruled as follows:

  "The ordinary significance of the terms, as defined by the 
  dictionaries, both Webster and the Standard, is to 
  "confine within; to hold; to contain; to shut up; embrace; 
  and involve. Includes or the PARTICIPLE FORM thereof, is 
  defined to 'comprise within; to 'hold'; 'to contain'; 
  'to shut up; and synonyms are 'contain'; 'enclose'; 
  'comprehend'; 'embrace."  
          --Montillo Salt Co. v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452 at 455,466

 |-----------------------------------------------------------------|
 |  In the supreme court case of Gould v Gould, 245 U.S.151,at 153 |
 | the Court stated the following:                                 |
 |                                                                 |
 | "In the interpretation of STATUTES LEVYING TAXES, it is the     |
 | established rule NOT TO EXTEND their provisions, by             |
 | implication BEYOND THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE LANGUAGE USED, OR    |
 | TO ENLARGE their operations so as to embrace matters NOT        |
 | SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT. In case of doubt they are construed   |
 | most strongly against the government and                        |
 | IN FAVOR OF THE CITIZEN."                                       |
 |-----------------------------------------------------------------|

Remember, the supreme Court has ruled that, 

 "It is a well established principle of law that ALL FEDERAL
 LEGISLATION APPLIES ONLY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
 THE UNITED STATES unless a contrary intent appears." 
  --Foley Brothers, Inc., v. Filardo, 336, U.S.281 (1948)
 
Following are some IRS "Words of Art."

"Words of Art" Definition of State
----------------------------------

"The District of Columbia is not a 'state' within the meaning of 
the constitution." --U.S. v. Virginia, 1805

By following the progression of definitions for the 
Word of Art, "State" within the Internal Revenue code, it is
simple to deduce that the IRS meaning or the word State is
ONLY "those areas under the exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction 
of the United States ('Territorial States' NOT the 50 sovereign
states). the IRS capitalizes State, when referring to the 
territorial States and lower cases the 's' for sovereign states.

1939 CODE [Sec. 3797 (a) (10)] (When alaska and Hawaii were 
both Territories)
 
 "State" - The term 'State" shall be construed to *include* [only]
 the Territories and the District of Columbia, where such construction 
 is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title".

(Note: Because the District of Columbia was never one of the 50
states of the Union, it is obvious that the IRS Word of Art for
"State" does not mean, the "50 states".)

1954 Code (When Alaska became one of the 49 states and
Hawaii is the only Territory)

  "Amended 1954 Sec. 7701 (a)10 by striking out "Territories", and
  substituting "Territory of Hawaii".

  "State" [26 USC sec. 7701 (a)(10)] "The *term* State shall be 
  construed to include [only] the Territory of Hawaii and the 
  District of Columbia..."

On August 21, 1959, when Hawaii became a state, the definition
of "State" was amended as follows:

 "State"- The term State shall be construed to include [only]
  the district of Columbia..." 

(Note the exclusion of the Territory of Hawaii which has now moved 
into the classification of the "50 states") 
      
This is also the current definition of "State" in the 
Internal Revenue Code .

Sec.3121 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code [related to 'employee'
taxes] defines State as follows

 "For the purpose of this chapter-(1)STATE-The term "State" 
 includes [only] the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
 Rico, the Virgin islands, Guam and American Samoa."

******** end material from "Vultures In Eagle's Clothing" **********

Well, if you've followed this far, you should understand why,
when you read the word "include" (or one of its derivatives)
                        ^^^^^^^
in the IRS Code (or any statute) that word should be construed
to mean ONLY what follows it because in all codified regulations
it's required that all legal terms be specifically defined
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
to avoid being challanged and "voided for vagueness".

So if "Flower Garden" were defined thusly:

   "The term 'Flower Garden' shall be construed to include
    Marigolds, and Zinnias..."
 
A "Flower Garden" would be only a garden 
with Marigolds and Zinnias! 

Also, by using "Words of Art" the term "Marigold"
might be changed...

   "The term 'Marigold' shall be construed to include
    ferns . The term 'Zinnia' shall be construed 
   to mean mushrooms."
    [neither of these are even flowering plants]

Thus, our statutory Flower Garden would include [only]
Ferns ("Zinnias") and Mushrooms ("Marigolds")
and if there were "real marigolds and zinnias" growing
in your bed, it would not be a "Flower Garden".

Do you see what you're up against?

Do you see the power of the Constitution for the united States?

In most (all?) other nations, you just SHUT UP and DO AS YOU'RE
TOLD! 

But Americas must be....

 "...cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance."
     ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^       ^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^

One very nice man from Canada recently told me he didn't believe
there could be such a thing as "unalienable" rights.

I suspect the Finns think along the same lines.

That's what they're teaching in the schools here today too, so
we had all better educate ourselves quickly or tomorrows crop 
of lawyers, judges, and citizens will believe that they also, 
must SHUT UP and DO AS THEY'RE TOLD!

And of course, if they are never taught how to 
read--let alone how to THINK...

Well, they probably won't be reading "Vultures In Eagle's Clothing."

Should YOU read "Vultures In Eagle's Clothing"? 

I think you should. If the above "legalese" seems a little bit
complicated, know that it's about the most complicated part of 
the book. But after reading the entire book STARTING ON PAGE ONE,
NOT ON PAGE 129, you will easily understand everything.
(note: the term "read" does not mean "skim" or "randomly flit")

	VULTURES IN EAGLES CLOTHING is an impeccably
 	researched book, based upon truth and law. It is
	a poignant expose of the Internal Revenue Service's
	most closely guarded secrets! It contains the inspiring
	stories of intelligent and enlightened Citizens
	who followed the proper legal procedures for
	volunteering OUT of the tax system. 

	These are Americans who have stood up to the IRS
	and WON! They have stopped the Internal Revenue 
	Service's misapplication of the law in its tracks!

	These Citizens have received letters 
	from the IRS saying:

        +-------------------------------+
        |                               |
	|  "You are no longer required  |
	|                               |
	|      to file a 1040 Form."    |
	|                               |
	+-------------------------------+

	The IRS is powerless over these FREE individuals.
	"Vultures In Eagle's Clothing" will empower you
	with the same priceless knowledge that these
	educated Citizens have.

	This is vital inside information that many of them 
	paid thousands of dollars to learn.

	This book will show you how to change your current
	acquired legal status of "Voluntary U.S. Enslaved Subject"
	back to your original natural born Status of 
	"Freeborn Sovereign American Citizen" who has the
	same Rights and perogatives as the King of England (as
	long as the Rights of other Sovereigns are not infringed
  	upon).

	The presumption of law is that:

	RIGHTS NOT CLAIMED ARE CONSIDERED WAIVED!" This book will 
	show you how to stop waiving your rights and
	how to "claim your rights."

		"You have rights antecedent to all earthly
		governments; rights that cannot be repealed
		or restrained by human law; rights derived
		from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
		
			-John Adams, 2nd United States President

Do you see why Americans were once held in awe by the people
of the world? Do you see why those people would risk anything to 
come to America and become Citizens?

It wasn't because we receive a government check! 

NO! It was because our government is HELD IN CHECK by the power
of the constitution for the united States.

NOTE: If you wonder what on EARTH happened, "Vultures In 
      Eagle's Clothing" covers that too. 

	"The Truth shall Set You Free" 

	"Vultures In Eagle's Clothing" proves that,
	according to the rulings of the Supreme Court of 
	the United States, that have never been overturned,

	"If you are an American Citizen, living and working
	within one of the 50 American states, freely exercising
	your fundamental inalienable Right to acquire property
	(including compensation) by contracting your labor in 
	a lawful profession, the fruit of your labor (your income)
	is NOT taxable."

	The writers of the Internal Revenue Code know this.
	That is why there is NO law within the entire Internal
	Revenue code making a Citizen living and working in one
	of the 50 states "liable for", or "required to" pay
	the graduated Income Tax! Such a tax must be and
	isVOLUNTARY.

[Wern't you warned "*NEVER* volunteer for *anything*"? :)]

Hint: If the above sounds like something you can believe in and
      get behind, better do it before they either "revise" the 
      Constitution--leaving out anything about inalienable rights,
      or before the constitution is suspended all together...that  
       may be in the game plan. 

We The People, the Sovereign Citizens of America, together with
the Great Legislator of the Universe, our Supreme Commander,  will,
peacebly and within the framework of the law, reclaim our great
country and our wealth from the self-serving elitists who have
manipulated away our Rights and taken our property for the 
past 80 years. We will do this by teaching Citizens their 
Rights and how to legally exert them. We will return 
America to its original status as the most 
prosperous nation
in the world!

[ I've gotta add here that ALL people throughout the world
  have EXACTLY the same RIGHTS as those possessed by we Americans.
  Their so-called "governments' may not realize that fact, but 
  when we are done here....Their people WILL realize it!
  An END to tyrants and swine!]

Vultures In Eagle's Clothing

~from: 	We The People
	c/o: 17011 Beach Boulevard, Suite 900
	Huntington Beach, California (92647)

	Phone 714-375-6631
	FAX   714-375-6699

Price $39.95 plus $3.00 for postage and handling 

payable to "We the People." per copy.

There is a 30 DAY UNCONDITIONAL MONEY BACK GUARANTEE

(If you don't have the funds, see if your library will order it.

God Bless America!

-- 
--Bob   "Don't Tread On Me"