TAX DEPOSITION QUESTIONS: 9. AMBIGUITY OF LAW

9. AMBIGUITY OF LAW

Introduction

In the tax code, the IRS formally redefines the word "includes" to effectively mean "includes everything".  This deliberate misuse of the word "includes" leads the masses to falsely believe the IRS has jurisdiction over things, places and People that it does not.

This deliberately induced confusion and ambiguity is an act of tyranny against the People and a usurpation of power not authorized the IRS under the Constitution.  Without well defined words, the laws are meaningless, null, void, and unenforceable.

Findings and Conclusions

With the assistance of the following series of questions, we will show that the government has deliberately obfuscated and confused the laws on taxation to create "cognitive dissonance", uncertainty, confusion, and fear of citizens about the exact requirements of the laws on taxation and the precise jurisdiction of the U.S. government.  This confusion has been exploited to violate the due process rights of the sovereign People and encourage lawless and abusive violations of due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  We will also show that:

  • Critical legal terms in the IRS code defy proper definition and interpretation because of the IRS’s misuse of the word "includes".
  • This deliberate misuse of the word "includes" leads the masses to falsely believe the IRS has jurisdiction over things, places and People it does not.
  • This deliberately induced confusion and ambiguity is an act of tyranny against the People and a usurpation of power not authorized the IRS under the Constitution.

Bottom Line: Without well defined words, a law is meaningless and unenforceable. This is a basic principle of due process.

Section Summary

PDF Acrobat version of this section including questions and evidence (large: 3.83 Mbytes)

Further Study On Our Website:

  • Anti-Thought Control Dictionary -how a corrupted liberal government abuses words and language to enslave you
  • PDF Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014 (OFFSITE LINK) -extensive evidence of how the legal profession deceives the public
  • PDF Avoiding Traps in Government FormS, Form #12.023 (OFFSITE LINK) -how STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL contexts for words on forms are falsely made to appear equal and then used to recruit you into a public office in the government
  • Foundations of Freedom, Form #12.021, Video 4: Willful Government Deception and Propaganda
  • PDF Presumption:  Chief Weapon for Unlawfully Enlarging Federal Jurisdiction, Form #05.017 (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM.  Talks about how presumption is abused by a corrupted government to deceive people about the meaning of words in order to usurp jurisdiction
  •  PDF Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid -discusses government verbicide and abuse of "words of art" to usurp jurisdiction
    • Section 8.1  Statutory and Constitutional Citizens are Equivalent
    • Section 8.7  Deliberately confusing STATUTORY "Nonresident aliens" with "Aliens" in order to destroy the advantages of being a Nonresident Alien
    • Section 8.14 Word "includes" in a statutory definition allows the government to presume whatever they want is "included"
    • Section 11 Techniques for combating government verbicide and presumption when litigating against the government
  • Definition of the term "includes" in the Internal Revenue Code
  •  PDF  Rules of Presumption and Statutory Interpretation, Litigation Tool #01.006 (OFFSITE LINK) - how to prevent being victimized by abuse of "words of art" or "includes"
  • Great IRS Hoax book:
    • Section 3.9.1: "Words of Art": Lawyer Deception Using Definitions
    • Section 3.9.1.8: "Includes" and "Including" (26 U.S.C. 7701(c))
    • Section 5.10.6: Scams with the Word "includes"
    • Section 5.10.9: Why the "Void for Vagueness Doctrine" Should be Invoked By The Courts to Render the Internal Revenue Code Unconstitutional in Total
    • Chapter 6: History of Federal Government Income Tax Fraud, Racketeering, and Extortion in the U.S.A.
    • Section 6.9: Treasury/IRS Cover-Ups, Obfuscation and Scandals
    • Section 6.12: Judicial Scandals Related to the Income Tax
    • Section 6.13: Legal Profession Scandals

9.1. Admit that when Supreme Court Justices, Judges of the Courts of Appeals, and Presidents of the United States are unable to agree on what a law says, that law is ambiguous. (WTP #109)

9.2. Admit that when a law is ambiguous, it is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced under the "void for vagueness doctrine" because it violates due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as described by the Supreme Court in the following decisions: (WTP #110)

Origin of the doctrine (see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451)

Development of the doctrine (see Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, and Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223).

9.3.  Admit that the "void for vagueness doctrine" of the Supreme Court was described in U.S. v. DeCadena as follows:  (WTP #110a)

"The essential purpose of the "void for vagueness doctrine" with respect to interpretation of a criminal statute, is to warn individuals of the criminal consequences of their conduct. ...  Criminal statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law."

[U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952), emphasis added]

9.4.  Admit that the word "includes" is defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(c) as follows:  (WTP #418)

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701.

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

(c) Includes and including

The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

9.5.  Admit that the word "includes" is defined by the Treasury in the Federal Register as follows:   (WTP #419)

Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as:

“(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.  It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”

9.6.Admit that the definition of the word "includes" found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 is as follows:   (WTP #420)

Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. Take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. “Including” within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228.”

9.7.  Admit that if the meaning of the word "includes" as used in the Internal Revenue Code is "and" or "in addition to" as described above, then the code cannot define or confine the precise meaning of the following words that use "include" in their definition:   (WTP #421)

“State” found in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110PDF  Click here for evidence

“United States” found in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9)PDF  Click here for evidence

“employee” found in 26 U.S.C. 3401(c ) and 26 C.F.R. 31.3401(c )-1 Employee. 

“person” found in 26 C.F.R. 301.6671-1 (which governs who is liable for penalties under Internal Revenue Code).  PDF  Click here for evidence (WTP Exhibit 421)

9.8.  Admit that if the meaning of "includes" as used in the definitions above  is "and" or "in addition to", then the code cannot define any of the words described, based on the definition of the word "definition" found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423:    (WTP #422)

definition: (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423) A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term.  The process of stating the exact  meaning of a word by means of other words.  Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes."

9.9.  Admit that absent concrete definitions of the above critical words identified in question 9.7, the meaning of the words becomes ambiguous, unclear, and subjective.   (WTP #423)

9.10. Admit that when the interpretation of a statute or regulation is unclear or ambiguous, then the by the rules of statutory construction, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer as indicated in the cite from the Supreme Court below:   (WTP #424)

"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..." Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938) (emphasis added)

9.11.  Admit that in the majority of cases, doubts about the interpretation of the tax code are not resolved in favor of the taxpayer by most federal court as required by the Supreme Court above.   (WTP #424)

9.12.  Admit that an ambiguous meaning for a word violates the requirement for due process of law by preventing a person of average intelligence from being able to clearly understand what the law requires and does not require of him, thus making it impossible at worst or very difficult at best to know if he is following the law.   (WTP #425)

9.13.  Admit that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 500, under the definition of "due process of law" states the following:   (WTP #426)

"The concept of “due process of law” as it is embodied in Fifth Amendment demands that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the means selected shall have a reasonable and substantial relation to the object being sought."

9.14.  Admit that if the definition of the word "includes" means that it is used synonymously with the word "and" or "in addition to", then it violates the requirement for due process of law found in the Fifth Amendment.   (WTP #428)

9.15.  Admit that the violation of due process of law created by the abuse of the word "includes" found in the preceding question creates uncertainty, mistrust, and fear of citizens towards their government because of their inability to comprehend what the law requires them to do.   (WTP #429)

9.16.  Admit that the violation of due process caused by the abuse of the word "includes" (in this case, making it mean "and" or "in addition to) identified above could have the affect of extending the perceived jurisdiction and authority of the federal government to tax beyond its clear limits prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.   (WTP #430)

9.17.  Admit that an abuse of the word includes to mean "and" or "in addition to" indicated above could have the affect of increasing and possibly even maximizing income tax revenues to the U.S. government through the violation of due process, confusion, and fear that it creates in the citizenry.   (WTP #431)

9.18.  Admit that fear and confusion on the part of the citizenry towards their government and violation of due process by the government are characterized by most rational individuals as evidence of tyranny and treason against citizens.   (WTP #432)

9.19.  Admit that the U.S. Constitution provides the following definition for "treason":   (WTP #433)

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:
“Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies…”

9.20.  Admit that Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1583, provides the following definition for "war":   (WTP #434)

"Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between citizens in the same nation or state."

9.21.  Admit that agents of the IRS involved in seizures of property use guns and arms and against citizens, making the confrontation an armed confrontation.   (WTP #435)

9.22.  Admit that IRS seizures can and do occur without court orders, warrants, or due process required by the Fourth Amendment and at the point of a gun.   (WTP #436)

9.23.  Admit that property seizures as described above amount to an act of war of the government against the citizens.   (WTP #437)

9.24.  Admit that acts of war against citizens, when not based on law, are treasonable offenses punishable by execution.   (WTP #438)

9.25.  Admit that the bible says in 1 Tim. 6:10:

"The love of money is the root of all evil."  1 Tim. 6:10

9.26.  Admit that violation of due process produces injustice in society, which is why the founding fathers required us to have a Fifth Amendment.   (WTP #439)

9.27.  Admit that the purpose of the government is to write laws to prevent, rather than promote, injustice in society, and thereby protect the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness of all citizens equally.   (WTP #440)