I have used the term ‘includes’ many times, and since it is impossible to interpret the USC correctly without a proper understanding of this term, I will give some detailed attention to it’s definition and usage in legal writings. I will start by focusing on ‘resident,’ as found in the laws of the ‘STATE OF CALIFORNIA’…although I am confident that only insignificant details will vary from corporate ‘State’ to corporate ‘State.’

For example, in my case, I am not now, and never have been, a resident of the corporate STATE OF CALIFORNIA, because this term of art refers to one who lives on any federal territory located within the borders of California, such as a military base.

The word resident is a term of art that has a special meaning in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA CODE (which is how it is often written). The General Provisions of this Code, Section 17014, defines ‘resident,’ in pertinent part, as:

1. Every individual who is in this state for other than a temporary or transitory purpose.
2. Every individual domiciled in this state who is outside the state for a temporary or transitory purpose. (Emphasis added.)

Unfortunately, the above definition of resident is deceptive, because it must be understood that the phrase ‘in this state’ in (1) and (2), is another term of art, which has a special meaning that is precisely defined in the Code’s General Provisions, Section 6017, and Assessments Section 11205:

(As shown above, this use of ‘United States of America’ is a constitutionally unauthorized usage, sometimes employed by the corporate federal ‘United States,’ misleadingly to designate itself, or one of its agencies. It must not be confused with the original meaning of that phrase, as found in the Declaration of Independence, and Article I of the still valid Articles of Confederation: "The title of this confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.’"—which is the name of the delegating authority, not that agency [the ‘United States’] to which the U.S. Constitution later delegated specific limited powers within the states, at 1:8, or plenary powers within the federal zone, at 4:3:2.)

The above definition of ‘in this state’ still does not clarify the meaning of the term ‘resident,’ however, until the special meaning of yet another painted word, ‘includes,’ is understood.

While it would be easy to assume that the above definition means "all land within the borders of California, and does not exclude federal territory therein," the proper interpretation is fundamentally and crucially different! What is really meant, is that land ‘in this State’ refers only to "territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America" (i.e., an agency of the corporate federal U.S. Government).

I believe that it is beyond contention that the use of ‘includes’ is meant to mislead and deceive. The law writers prove themselves to be able to be completely unambiguous when a forthright statement is called for—as 26 USC 6103(b)(5) or 4612(a)(4), quoted in section 6, above. However, the correct interpretation of this term, as used in all corporate State and federal codes and regulations, has been made quite clear, if one probes deep enough.

For instance, if one goes back to the January 1, 1961 revision of Title 26 Code of Federal Regulations, at Section 170.59, it states:

The example represents the class…and that class only! Which is to say, if Puerto Rico is given as a class example, this would indicate that no union state, being party to the Constitution, could be referred to, since Puerto Rico is not yet, at least, a union state.

As the Supreme Court has put forth several times, the statutes must be assumed to be written exactingly, and, therefore, taken to mean precisely what they say. (This will be painfully obvious, when we read Public Law 86-624, below.) So, no meaning can be imputed into their words, other than specifically what is written. Therefore, what is excluded must be interpreted to mean that it was intended to be excluded.

This revision of 1961, is where this essential qualification of "includes" was introduced, although this concept has been accepted in law for millennia. For example, in the maxims: the Ejusdem generis rule (of the same kind, class, or nature), as well as Noscitur a sociis (it is known by its associates) and Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another).

It is interesting, although not unexpected or important, that it was watered down in the most recent revisions, for the older version still has legal force and effect. Now, the code tries to disguise things by saying, in 26 USC § 7701(c) Includes and Including:

This, of course, is a desperate effort—which, for the most part has succeeded!—to obfuscate the earlier phrasing: "which are in the same general class." But, for anyone with half a mind, it is seen to be just the same old smoke and mirrors.

A Supreme Court ruling supports this:

Even more interesting, considering its source, is Treasury Definition 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pages 64 and 65, where the terms ‘includes’ and ‘including’ are defined as follows:

In the Montello case, above, the U.S. Supreme Court, puts its cachet to this view:

Some 80 court cases have chosen the restrictive meaning of ‘includes,’ etc., such as this one last example:

To elucidate more clearly the 1961 definition, above: ‘includes’ and ‘including’ shall not be deemed to include things not enumerated, unless they are in the same general class. For instance, ‘State,’ in 26 USC 7701(10): "The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of Columbia…" Here, "the District of Columbia," without any doubt, is not "in the same general class," category, or genus as Missouri or California—it is a federal "State." The District of Columbia has a totally different jurisdictional set up than a union state. It is under the absolute jurisdiction of the ‘U.S.,’ and the states are not. Only in the federal zone does the U.S. have jura summi imperii, right of supreme dominion, complete sovereignty.

And, two sections from the Conclusion of my paper:

1. The Alaska and Hawaii Omnibus Acts, mandate that the IRC stop referring to Alaska and Hawaii as being ‘States,’ upon their being made states of the union. Therefore, 26 CFR 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen [revised April 1, 1999] now reads: "(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States…" They were previously, then, federal States, which is what the IRC said it applied to. Quod erat demonstrandum. (QED, ‘which was to be demonstrated.’)

13. In section 7 of this paper I quote an alcohol and tobacco tax act, of 1868, which reads: "…and the word ‘State’ to mean and include a Territory and District of Columbia." So, here we have the federal States referred to openly and unmistakably. Furthermore, ‘mean’ and ‘include’ are equated, which makes ‘include’ restrictive. This is bolstered in 12 USC 202 Definitions where it says: "the term ‘State’ means any State, [comma, that means, here, ‘which comprises the following’] Territory, or possession of [i.e., belonging to] the [District] United States…" ‘State,’ here, unquestionably has to indicate a federal State, because of the other sample examples, which are totally distinct from a union state and, therefore, cannot be in the same list with it. QED.

Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship