Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8: " No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The intent of this portion of the Constitution was to prevent the creation by our federal government of a privileged class within society that is immune from the rule of law.  The founders believed this would create an egalitarian society where everyone has equal rights.  The origins of such a concept are explained by Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
[Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819]

"That liberty [is pure] which is to go to all, and not to the few or the rich alone."
[Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Gates, 1798. ME 9:441]

This concept of liberty and equality is embodied in law by treating the state and or government the same as every other private individual.  The U.S. supreme Court agreed with this concept and explained it lucidly below:

"When a state enters into business relations, and makes contracts with private persons, it waives its sovereignty, and is to be treated as a private person, and subjected to the principles of law applicable as between individuals, save only in respect to its immunity from suit." 
[Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246; 27 S.Ct. 600 (1907)]

The authority of our government is restricted by the law, and the law delegates to it certain defined and limited powers derived from the federal and state constitutions.  The constitution is the source of all power, from which the branches of the government are defined.  The legislative branch then writes statutes to implement the will of the people as limited by the Constitution.  The legislative branch then delegates the authority to interpret and implement the statutes to the Executive branch, whose duty it is to write implementing regulations that cannot exceed the scope of the statute.  The courts then enforce the statutes and the regulations that implement them.  If no implementing regulations have been promulgated, then a statute is unenforceable by the courts.  Any officer or employee of the government must then ensure that it acts within the confines of the regulations that govern his behavior.  We also alluded to this natural order of sovereignty described above in our Diagram of Natural Order.

But what happens when officials within the government overstep their lawful delegated authority?  If he uses the color of his office or the color of law to execute an act that the regulations and the statutes do not authorize him to do, then he is acting unlawfully and can be criminally charged.   If an injury happens to a third party because of his unlawful acts, then he can and should be held personally liable for such acts.  Are government servants above the law?  Here is what the U.S. supreme Court said about this subject:

“… the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government; yet it is also true, in respect to the State itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government and not to the State, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful.  That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the State, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely spread and act in its name." 

"This distinction is essential to the idea of constitutional government. To deny it or blot it out obliterates the line of demarcation that separates constitutional government from absolutism, free self- government based on the sovereignty of the people from that despotism, whether of the one or the many, which enables the agent of the state to declare and decree that he is the state; to say 'L'Etat, c'est moi.' Of what avail are written constitutions, whose bills of right, for the security of individual liberty, have been written too often with the blood of martyrs shed upon the battle-field and the scaffold, if their limitations and restraints upon power may be overpassed with impunity by the very agencies created and appointed to guard, defend, and enforce them; and that, too, with the sacred authority of law, not only compelling obedience, but entitled to respect? And how else can these principles of individual liberty and right be maintained, if, when violated, the judicial tribunals are forbidden to visit penalties upon individual offenders, who are the instruments of wrong, whenever they interpose the shield of the state? The doctrine is not to be tolerated. The whole frame and scheme of the political institutions of this country, state and federal, protest against it. Their continued existence is not compatible with it. It is the doctrine of absolutism, pure, simple, and naked, and of communism which is its twin, the double progeny of the same evil birth."
[Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270; 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885)]

But do we really have an egalitarian society without a privileged class as the U.S. Constitution requires, and do our courts ensure that our federal government and its officers have to follow the same rules that the citizenry is expected to?  The answer, in most cases, is absolutely not, as we will explain.  Lawyers have effected this trickery with word games.  The only justification for this trickery and word games is tyranny and greed by our politicians, judges, and the legal profession and the apathy and inattentiveness by the electorate that allows it to continue.  Our own apathy and legal ignorance has allowed this country to devolve into a totalitarian socialist oligarchy with the U.S. government at its head, and a corrupt legal profession and politicians usurping its power.  The U.S. supreme Court described this depraved and "intolerable" condition as 

"...the doctrine of absolutism, pure, simple, and naked, and of communism which is its twin, the double progeny of the same evil birth."  
[Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270; 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885)]

We alluded to this state of affairs in our article entitled Two Political Jurisdictions: "National" Government v. "Federal" Government, where we established that there are two simultaneous political models operating in our country which are diametrically opposed.  We know from reading our Great IRS Hoax book section 3.2 that the Bible is the basis of all law and that the law, according to Jesus, is fulfilled by two commandments identified in Matt. 22:36-40:  

1. To Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind; 
2. To love your neighbor as yourself.  

We can therefore know if we and our government leaders are obeying God's Law by whether we have fulfilled these commandments.  We also know from 1 John 4:7 in the Bible that God is a God of love and these two commandments therefore make sense because they are both founded on love.  But what happens when our public servants become corrupted and lose sight of these two commandments and how can we recognize it?  We must use this love concept once again.  If they violate these commandments, then they achieve the opposite goal.  What is the opposite of love?  It is not hate but selfishness.  Love, more than anything else, means unselfishness.  The people who are our public servants are there to serve us (see Bible, Matt. 20:27).  They are recipients of the public trust and act as fiduciaries on our behalf:  not for their personal benefit but for ours.  When their priorities change to put their interests above ours and they become selfish and lust after power and money, then they are violating God's law and have become communists and totalitarian dictators who more often than not make their subjects into government slaves in one form or another.  The surest and easiest way to identify such selfishness is to look for laws and actions by our government and its agents that reveal hypocrisy and lawlessness (or acting outside of their lawful authority).  These characteristics, after all, were the very characteristics that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for in his time as documented Matt. 23:13-36.

We know from reading sections 3.10 and 4.1 of the Great IRS Hoax that our government is founded upon the Constitution and derives all its delegated authority from that document.  The document is the social contract that binds the government to the people and restrains the power of that government from becoming totalitarian.  It creates the concept of limited and delegated powers and makes all acts committed which are not specifically authorized by the Constitution illegal, null and void ab initio (from the beginning).  To the extent that our government oversteps its delegated authority is the extent to which it has become totalitarian, and its public servants have become selfish dictators and instigators of treason against the Constitutional Republic.  The foundation of a stable government that stays within its delegated powers is a written Constitution, and an independent judiciary that punishes all infractions against it.  After all, even with a Constitution, if infractions against it are never enforced by the courts, then it means nothing.

We'll now proceed to identify the main sources of hypocrisy within the tax system which lead us to believe that the people who work for the IRS are communists, as the U.S. supreme Court describes them.  We will do this by comparing the rules the IRS has to live by with the rules Citizens have to live by and show how they are different and there is no reason why this needs to be other than to advantage the government and thereby prejudice the rights of Sovereign Americans.  The first thing you should notice about this table is that we don't use the word "taxpayer", but instead use "Sovereign American":

But how did we arrive to the point of being "communists", as the U.S. supreme Court describes, who allow our government servants to trample our rights?  It took a progression of evil acts to get to this point. The most powerful and important tool the government used was to use words to deceive you called "words of art". Below are the main "words of art" they used to accomplish this trickery and their true meanings:

• "United States":  The federal United states.
• "trade or business":  the holding of public office in the United States government.
• "income":  profit earned by a federal corporation
• "gross income":  "income" as defined above assigned to specific taxable classes.
• "taxpayer":  a person who has volunteering to make themselves liable to pay a tax, even though they weren't otherwise liable.
• "employee": an elected or appointed federal government employee
• "includes":  a term of limitation.  When introducing an expansion or listing of items, encompasses everything that is includes, and therefore excludes everything not listed.

 Once you understand the true meaning of these words, you will understand the very limited application of the federal income tax laws and you will be able to interpret court decisions you read in a new light altogether.  For instance, below is a federal court cite that makes it appear to those who don't understand the "words of art" above that the government is not obligated to follow the law and is not accountable to the sovereign people, when in fact it is and the agents and judges can be sued:

JUDGE DECEPTION:  "...Judge, magistrates, and prosecutor involved in taxpayer's prosecution for failure to file returns were absolutely immune from taxpayer's subsequent civil suit seeking damages against them."

"Prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from civil damages liability when he acts in quasi-judicial capacity."

"Internal Revenue agents are absolutely immune from civil damages liability to taxpayers alleging common-law torts."

"Internal Revenue agents are immune from liability for constitutional torts insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.""
[Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1985)]

NOTE:  The cite above uses the tricky word "taxpayer", which we know means the person they are referring to is "liable" for the tax in question. If he is indeed liable for the tax, or pretends that he is by answering to the word "taxpayer", then of course it's reasonable for a court to say that government employees like judges, magistrates, and prosecutors are immune.  The key point, however, is that there is no statute making him liable so he should have proved up front that he was  a "nontaxpayer" and a person "not liable" before he proceeded with argument or allowed himself to be described with such a word, which effectively violates his right of due process by creating a false presumption about his liability.  The above court could not have made the ruling that it did above if the Citizen had proved with evidence that he was a "state national" and a "nontaxpayer" prior to argument because then they would have had to refer to him as an "American" or a "state national", and a "nonresident alien", in which case there are lots of authorities showing that government officials are liable to Citizens (not "taxpayers", but "Citizens") for the wrongs they commit or for Constitutional violations. NEVER, EVER, EVER therefore either refer to yourself as a "taxpayer" or allow others to use this word to describe yourself, or your case will be doomed and your rights will be violated as they did above.

Here's another equally deceptive statement the IRS often makes about tax protester arguments:

IRS DECEPTION: "No taxpayer has ever won using that false argument."

That's an absolutely true statement, because at the moment he won, he'd become a "nontaxpayer" and therefore could not in the future be described as a "taxpayer" in that circumstance.  But does it state the truth that MOST AMERICANS are not liable for Subtitle A income taxes and that many people who couldn't be described as "taxpayers" very commonly win on issues with the IRS and the IRS refuses to elaborate on the techniques they used? Ask people who use such deceptive arguments:

YOUR PROPER RESPONSE:  "I didn't ask if a 'taxpayer' won.  I asked if anyone won using that argument, including all nontaxpayers or Americans."

And here are some other common deceptions and their proper responses:

IRS DECEPTION:  "Did you make 'income'."

YOUR PROPER RESPONSE: "Do you mean income in the Constitutional sense, which is defined by the supreme court as profit from a federal corporation? No I didn't have any 'income', and therefore I couldn't have any taxable income."

IRS DECEPTION: "Do you live in the United States?"

YOUR PROPER RESPONSE: "I don't live in the United States defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), which is the only place where Subtitle A income taxes can be assessed and collected lawfully and which is defined as the federal United States."

IRS DECEPTION: "Are you an 'employee' as defined in Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code?"

YOUR PROPER RESPONSE:  "Subtitle A income taxes are excise taxes on "public officers" within the federal government in receipt of taxable privileges and I'm not one of those."

IRS DECEPTION: "Have you been involved in a 'trade or business' in the 'United States' during the period in question."

YOUR PROPER RESPONSE:  "I haven't lived in the 'United States' during this period, and I haven't held a public office in the U.S. government during that time either that would then allow me to be described as being involved in a 'trade or business' that could be subject to the excise tax found in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code."

IRS DECEPTION: "Are you a 'U.S. citizen'."

YOUR PROPER RESPONSE:  "I wasn't born in a territory subject to the sovereignty of the United States and therefore I couldn't be a U.S. citizen at birth.  Instead, I'm a 'state national' who is treated as a 'nonresident alien' for the purpose of Subtitle A federal income taxes."

Once you can understand the deceptive words they use, you are well equipped to regain your rights.  Without that knowledge, the genie is out of the bottle and our government has free reign to trample our rights.  Get educated using our Great IRS Hoax book and you can put the tyrant government genie back in its bottle.  Use your newfound knowledge to tell the naked emperor that he has no clothes!

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship