Fallacies of The Federal Zone

Examination of fallacies contained in The Federal Zone by Mitch Modeleski (aka Paul Andrew Mitchell) compiled from TAXGATE by the Legal Department at deoxy.org

From Destroyed Arguments by Larry Becraft

V. Non-resident Aliens:

Some contend we are for tax purposes non-resident aliens; again, this improper argument has been correctly rejected by the courts.

1. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992)
3. United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340, 1342 (7th Cir. 1993).

      But the rejection by the courts of this issue has not deterred Lynn Meredith, who has continued to promote this argument through her book, Vultures in Eagles Clothing, via a multi-level sales scheme. Lawyers know that fraud is a knowing misrepresentation of facts (or in this case, law) to another upon which that other party relies to his detriment.

      Concerned Americans try the program promoted by Meredith in her book, but when they get into trouble, they get absolutely no help from Meredith as she refuses to even answer their calls. She spends her spare time on cruise ships. Paul Mitchell (aka "Mitch Modeleski") also puts forth the "non-resident" theory as do many others.

      Another's comment: One has to ask themselves if they are NOT a Citizen, but only a non-resident alien as these people argue, then how do they expect the protection of the Constitution that clearly only protects the Citizen? Although what little is left of the Constitution makes this less and less of a point of contention one could argue. Also if we are not Citizens then WHO IS? So it appears to at once fall through your hands like so much sand.

From Snake Oil and Myths by Thurston Bell

Non Resident Alien To the Federal Zone

This strategy appears to be yet another attempt to explain the seemingly lawless actions against the U.S. Citizen by the Judicial system in this country, which are actually the result of the Citizens being unknowingly, by custom or law, shouldered with the burden of proving that they are correct. So it is not difficult to imagine what happens when the U.S. Citizen is lacking a defense with legal and statutory merit when brought before the court to explain why they did not file a tax return, or do not owe a tax.

      To really get to the root of the weakness of the Non Resident Alien/Federal Zone argument is that not only are Non Resident Aliens (which people using this argument claim to be) subject to the withholding of the income Tax under 26 U.S.C. 1441, are required to be assigned a Social Security Number pursuant to Title 42 405(c)(2)(B), and are taxed upon U.S. sources pursuant to 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv) and -8T(d)(2)(iii)(A), they cannot claim the protections of the U.S. Citizen status under these respective and other related laws which plainly show that U.S. Citizens do not have to be assigned a number and that they are only taxed and withheld from in accordance with 911, ultimately.

      So, it is rather apparent that statutorily, this argument is a trap, as the IRS and the courts are going to apply the statutes whether you like it or not. Why is that?

      The answer to that question is very simple, as the U.S. Congress has specifically defined "gross income" as something that can be earned by anyone within the realm of its power and authority. Since the Congress has subject matter jurisdiction over "gross income" which almost every employer is reporting (truthfully or not) to the Federal government under penalty of perjury, it is not going to matter what you claim yourself to be when the government has a witness claiming that you made "gross income" subject to the Income Tax Act.

      By slipping the "place where" (physical jurisdiction) gross income is earned into the definition and the laws setting forth the criteria of when a person, resident or not, citizen or not, receives gross income the mere fact of the employer making the legal presumption that the circumstances were all correct to claim that someone made "gross income" becomes the foundational statement supporting the information entered into the IRS computer, and then used by the IRS to support its claims against the person.

      So, now you should be able to see that in personum jurisdiction (authority over the person) is completely determined by the testimony of the employer that "gross income" was paid, which evidences subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the government has the right to make a claim against the person and his property, and the nonresident alien U.S. Person is scrambling around in his mind trying to figure out how the Judge is justifying his ignoring the person's argument that he is a Non resident of the U.S. and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

      The problem really is easy to see, the person cut off his only method of escape through the protection of the statutes and regulations which would give him an argument with legal and statutory merit, and is left with nothing concrete to argue and win with, other than some case law which he has not bothered to personally Shepherdize (discover if it is still standing) nor read to see if the positions of the case were applicable to his case.

      I wonder how people sleep at night knowing that they wrote and sold a book with such off-point information in it, which some poor inexperienced and unstudied soul is going to implement years from now.

      It is the ethical nightmare of situations such as those above, which has kept Taxgate from being a book form. It is our intent to update and correct it on a continuous basis, so that what we know on the cutting edge is available to you always. There is no reason or justification (not even 'Buyer beware') that anyone should be allowed, intentionally or unintentionally, to stumble around in the dark.

For more details please visit TAXGATE.COM

Political Corrections
The Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension