the term being defined is the District of Columbia so the "States" are the federal territories. You did not explain it as clearly as the other terms. Otherwise you are on point.

By the way I am a "he".

I must say I did enjoy the responses to the riddle given. With a wide variety of views, the two closest to get to the answer where Meinarsche and Loveboat.  Meinarsche, being more expansive in his response, which I agree with overall, differing only in minor particulars. Loveboat was more the direct in responding to the question, although his/her response was right, he/she unfortunately did not elaborate. Below is the response, what I am about to reveal can be proven by each and every one of you independently. The answer below looks mundane and trivial. Infact you might believe there is something very wrong with it as it goes against all your beliefs, and that it cannot be that obvious – but it is.

A warning beforehand anything you read below here is tantamount to taking the blue pill. As the saying goes:
"When a honest man, honestly mistaken, comes face-to-face with undeniable and irrefutable truth, he is faced with one of two choices, he must either cease being mistaken or cease being honest."

Yes indeed the exercise of our labor is a right. But every year our employers' issue on us W-2's and 1099's claiming that we are federally privileged workers and claim that we have been engaged in a federally privileged activity and the amount shown on the W-2s and 1099s are the profit and gains we made while engaged in the privileged activity.

How so ? Well let us first understand taxation is self assessment. In the process of filing our 1040, we through our ignorance sign a sworn affidavit claiming said figures as shown on W-2s and 1099s are not only true and correct, but also the presumptions and claims about who were are (federal privileged workers), what we were involved in (federal privileged activity) and what the earnings (profit and gain) we made in said documents issued by our payor is correct. So therefore the Feds through the IRS has every right to collect the tax.

But one asks where did I come up with this wild terms of federal privileges/worker/activity. Well did I not sign a W-4 when I got hired? Allowing the Feds to be a third party to the contract I signed with my future employer? If so where I not aware of the statutory meanings of the words "wages" (26 USC 3401 (a)) – being federally privileged earnings and "employee" (26 USC 3401(c)) – being a federally privileged worker - used in that document and understood their meaning?

Was not my employer aware of the statutory term "trade or business" ( 26 USC 7701(a)(26)) – being a federally privileged activity - found in the instructions for filing W-2?

Was I not familiar with the statutory definition of United States as defined in the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 USC 7701(a)(9)) – being a federal territory?

And most of all was I not familiar with the most important statutory word "includes and including" (26 USC 7701 (c)) found in the definition of the above statutory words defined as:

"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."

So what are the terms defined within each of the statutory definitions stated above – are they not public officers. (Start with "employee" and progress from there)

Was I not familiar with the principle of law – Inclusio unis est exclusio alterius"?

Was I not familiar with the doctrine of "noscitus a sociis" – "...... a word is known by the company it keeps. This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving "unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress." Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co.

So I claim ignorance?

Well have I not heard of the doctrine "Ignorantia juris non excusat"? Shortly translated "ignorance of the law excuses no one".

So next time I sign a 1040 I should stop complaining about the taxes burdening me, I should know that I, myself am the true culprit for my own incarceration to the tax overlords. IRS has done nothing wrong but go after what is rightfully theirs. For I have claimed that what was my right is actually a privilege, because of my own ignorance.

For those of you who are to lazy to search for the statutory definitions which are found on Cornell University website that has the whole US Code (type in google eg. 26 USC 7701 etc. to verify for yourself), I have copied the definitions below – or go to your local public library and see it for yourself. Where it says title 26 it means the internal revenue code as a whole.

1. "Includes" and "Including" (26 USC 7701(c)) – (General Definitions for title 26)
"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."

Note: The above term is the most important term one need to understand before one proceeds with the terms below for it is the key that unlocks all the doors below. Wherever one sees the statutory words "includes" or "including" substitute the term defined above.

2. "Employee" (26 USC 3401(c)) – (Collection of income tax at source on wages)
"For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation."

Note: Since now one has used the proper key the statutory definition of an "employee" is properly unlocked, and is found to mean a federal officer or privileged worker, which further unlocks the statutory term below:

3. "Wages" (26 USC 3401 (a)) - (Collection of income tax at source on wages)
"For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—"

Note: substitute the proper statutory definition of "employee" as used in the above definition.

4. "Trade or business" ( 26 USC 7701(a)(26)) – (General Definitions for title 26)
"The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

Note: Substitute the statutory definition for "includes" in the above definition.

And so where does all this activity take place?

5. "United States" (26 USC 7701(a)(9)) – (General Definitions for title 26)
"The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia."

Note: Substitute the statutory definition for "includes" in the above definition.

Go ahead try to google these terms and verify these definitions for yourself. Once you understand these terms and their proper definitions, you will find the internal revenue code to be consistent throughout the title. I challenge anyone to find within it any liability that makes a private sector worker engaged in private sector activity not involved in any form of federal privileged activity, and has not made any federal privileged income being subject to the tax.

Please note I am in no way advocating any position with regards to IRS – or telling anyone to do anything. I am just sharing information as is readily available for anyone of us to find and verify for ourselves.

One does not need to be intimidated by the courts but only an ignorant jury. A well informed and knowledgeable jury is not a sheep to be fooled with or misled – even if a judge claims otherwise and gives erroneous directions. The duty of a jury is not only to find their fellow citizen guilty or not but that whether the law itself is lawful or not – in other words jury nullification, - an instruction it is said a judge never shares to the jury, although it is his duty to do so.

What liberty shared is knowledge, even if we don't practice it because of our fears it should not mean as a jury we should punish those who are willing to stand up for their rights because of our ignorance.

It has already been made with varying permutations.

In fact, it has been made so many times that merely submitting materials along these lines will get the intrepid lawyer who submits them fined.

It needs to be understood that at certain levels, being right is meaningless. It's like sticking your head down the barrel of a naval gun and arguing that the war is unjust. Your head will be vaporized even if your argument is compelling.