1999:  Black's Law Dictionary Removed Definition of "United States"
SOURCE:  The Great IRS Hoax book, Section 6.7.1.

We looked at five different legal dictionaries and a Collegiate dictionary for the term “United States”.  Here is a list of the legal dictionaries we examined:

1.        Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.

2.        Law Dictionary, Barron's, Copyright 1996, ISBN 0-8120-3096-6.

3.        Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, Copyright 1996. (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/)

4.        Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Copyright 1999, ISBN 0-314-24130-2.

5.        Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Copyright 1990, ISBN 0-314-76271-X.

Interestingly, only ONE of these dictionaries identified the definition of the legal term “United States”, and this edition was out of print after 1999!  Recall that we said in section that the definition of “United States” is a very important key to understanding the trick that Congress has played on the American people with the income tax.  Even more interesting is that the Sixth Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary was the only one of the above which properly and completely defined the term “United States”, and even that definition was removed from the Seventh Edition of the same dictionary by the publisher, in an apparent effort to further conceal the truth about the limited jurisdiction of our federal government.  If the average American understood that there are actually THREE independent definitions for the term “United States” as ruled by the united states supreme Court in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945), then a lot more people we believe would better understand the very limited application of the federal and state income tax laws.  If they understood that the term used in the Internal Revenue Code for “United States” actually means the District of Columbia, then they would understand that they are NOT residents of the [federal] United States**, but instead are residents of the United States of America.  This is the foundation of the idea that the IRC is “special law”.  As we pointed out in section 1.8.3 entitled “How Come my Accountant or Tax Attorney Doesn’t Know This”, it seems quite clear to us that there are very good reasons why your attorney would claim he didn’t know this.  Here is a summary of just a few of those reasons:

1.        Lawyers make money by litigating rather than settling.

2.        The way to encourage litigation is to put the most assets and property possible at legal risk, or at least to fool people into thinking they are at risk.

3.        There are two main ways to get the average person to put their assets at legal risk:

3.1.               Getting a marriage license from the state.  Notice we didn’t say getting married, because you can get married without a marriage license from the state, and instead have a prenuptial agreement and a private wedding where the priest doesn’t sign any kind of marriage license.

3.2.               Owing taxes to the government, who incidentally own the courts and love to use their own home turf to steal and extort tax money out of the average citizen.

4.        Lawyers therefore have a financial interest to make you believe that your assets are at risk by making you think that you owe income taxes.

5.        If no one owed income taxes, we would need probably 1/2 as many lawyers (and accountants) as we have now and the few that remained would charge less for their services because they would be in far less demand.  The following fields of law would see drastic cuts:

5.1.               Probate attorneys.

5.2.               Tax attorneys.

5.3.               Legislators and legislative analysts.

6.        Can you see why the American Bar Association and most lawyers wouldn’t want to put the definition of “United States” in any of the legal dictionaries?

We would venture to say that probably 70% of attorneys, after you tell them the correct definition of “United States”, would claim that they didn’t know the proper legal definition or even what the supreme Court said was the definition.  Lawyers are just as fallible as the rest of us.  We would also venture to say that even the ones who do know the correct definition and who are familiar with the supreme Court’s definition of the term would never admit to it because it would undermine their profession!  Furthermore, about the same percentage of attorneys don’t know that most Americans actually have dual citizenship (federal and state), and what the rights are of each type of citizen.

After we examined four contemporary legal dictionaries in vain for a definition of the term “United States”, then we went to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1983, Merriam-Webster, p. 1291 and found the following definition:

“United States (1617) a federation of states esp. when forming a nation in a usu. specified territory (advocating a United States of Europe).”

Even the non-legal college dictionary doesn’t properly define the term “United States”!  Is it any wonder that most Americans don’t even know what it means and are deceived into paying income taxes because of their ignorance(?) …they couldn’t look up the definition of the term even if they really wanted to know, which most of them don’t anyway!  The only way to eliminate this kind of ignorance is to either read this book or to look up the definition on the Internet by reading 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9).  We encourage you to do both, or you will be victimized because of your own ignorance.

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship

Last revision: August 14, 2009 08:07 AM
   Home  About  Contact This private system is NOT subject to monitoring