CHAPTER 1

PART 1

Introduction

At the outset, those wishing to acquire a homeschooleddoctorate in Liberty and the political philosophy associatedthereto should read and study the Quotes of our Founders,particularly Thomas Jefferson, found in Appendix F. It will be amind expanding experience, I guarantee it.

In 1984 the author was convicted of willful failure to file incometax returns. It was a four day trial and during the testimony ofthe author's employer's payroll accounting clerk, the clerk wasasked two questions by the judge. The first question was, "Isthere a Social Security number on Defendant's pay stub?"And the second question was "Are there any Social Securitydeductions shown to have been taken out of Defendant'spay?" The payroll clerk answered "yes" to both of the Judge'squestions. The judge sought no other information throughoutthe trial. However, during the jury instructions the judge told thejury that "if you find the Defendant had wages, I am instructing,you that those wages were income as a matter of law." To his orher dismay, the reader will soon know why the judge gave suchan instruction and it will be "The Truth that makes you mad."Was the judge hinting that Social Security is the root cause ofALL income taxes or was he telling us outright? In Part 2, thisissue will be dissected and analyzed in detail in order to betterunderstand the significance of the Judges Jury instruction.

Also, because the following analysis is steeped in legal theoryand prior court decisions, this treatise includes Appendixes, A-F.It is hoped that this additionally included material will be helpfulin improving the reader's comprehension by providing addedproof for the points and conclusions expressed in the followingdiscussions.

Thus, in order to properly set the stage before we undertakethe discussion below, the reader might well want to review the6 appendixes in an effort to lay some groundwork, using firstprincipal legal concepts found therein which are generally notwell understood by the average Person.

CHAPTER 2

PART 2

The misapplicationof federal Law

There exists in many of the Union States a desire by some ofits legislators to rid their Union State of the shackles of muchof the recent federal legislation and, in effect, return their UnionState to its rightful Constitutional Sovereign Statehood status.However, to do so requires an extremely necessary and boldmove on the part of the State legislators, and quite possiblythe Union State governor, to pull it off. Anyone concernedwith the history of this Republic should be aware of the firstprinciple fact that each of the 50 Union States are Sovereignin their powers and duties for the single purpose to protect thepeople's sovereignty from all aggressors, foreign and domestic.If you have had the occasion to read Appendix B you learnedthat the following quote from the United States Supreme Courtin Federal Marine Commission (FMC) v. South Carolina StatePorts Authority, 535 U.S. 743 (2002), wherein Justice Thomas,writing the opinion for the Court, expresses in abstract the longchain of legal opinions regarding Union State sovereignty:

Dual sovereignty is a defining feature of our Nation'sConstitutional Blueprint. See Gregory v. Ashcroft,501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991). States, upon ratificationof the Constitution, did not consent to becomemere appendages of the federal government.Rather, they entered the Union "with theirsovereignty intact." Blatchford v. Native Villageof Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779 (1991). [Emphasisadded] An integral component of that "residuaryand inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39,p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison), retainedby the States is their immunity from private suits.Reflecting the widespread understanding at the timethe Constitution was drafted, Alexander Hamiltonexplained:

States, in ratifying the Constitution, did surrender aportion of their inherent immunity by consentingto suits brought by sister States or by the federalgovernment. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706,755 (1999). Nevertheless, the Convention did notdisturb States' immunity from private suits, thusfirmly enshrining this principle in our constitutionalframework. "The leading advocates of theConstitution assured the people in no uncertainterms that the Constitution would not stripthe States of sovereign immunity." Id., at 716.(Emphasis added)

While a sovereign, such as any one of the 50 Union States, hasthe option to consent to being a defendant in private suites, itdoes not have the Constitutional option to volunteer to pay atax imposed by another sovereign. I bring this point up herebecause it is a little known fact that each and every one ofthe 50 Union States is paying an excise tax to the federalgovernment, and that excise tax is the so-called employer'sshare of FICA and Medicare taxes. The people of New York,for example, will find the line item expense for the FICA andMedicare Employer Excise Taxes listed as an expense itemunder the account number 9030.8 in the New York State budgetwhich is also true for each of its instrumentality's budgets. Aswe will soon learn, it is this tax that causes the Union Statesto forfeit their...