I'm getting very tired of this non-sense. I do not care if you use my
method, first, last or not at all. I will guarantee you it is the method
I've and I'll use and use for my clients Which are not run of the mill
issues.
In my research it has come to this statement which is the core to any and
all issues with government:
Charles Danielson is United States of America National
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
Not an United States Citizen
Vacate for lack of jurisdicton
It is the very core of sovereignty.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 8:29 AM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Have you actually done as you describe Charley and been successful atLife in one word--LOVE
stopping an IRS "you owe" letter? It sounds great in theory Charley but
how is it in actual practice? I have a friend that is right now getting,
"you owe us and we are going to do nasty things to you if you don't pay,
letters from the IRS. Can you share a successful experience?
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 12:50 AM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Personally, if employed or want to be one needs A passport. If you do not--
have one or want one that recognizes your status go to
coppermoonshinestills.com and follow instructions to get a state
national passport.
Go to "my e-verify," and put you I-9 data in. That is your a non-citizen
national and use passport. It should come back confirmed. That is what an
employer will do. On W-4 form under 4 (c), put NRA or non-resident alien.
If sent any form saying checking your status or owe taxes. Take that
letter and attach this and send back.
Your name am a United States of America National
Article 1, section 8, clause 17
Not an United States Citizen
Vacate for lack of jurisdicton
If one has further issues file in your state Supreme Court on the agency
under appellate supreme court rules ,29-38. Using a special common law writ
of choice. Special refers to one who recognizes that they have
jurisdiction over what they own which is territorial jurisdicton of article
1, section,8, clause 17.
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Rick Miller <ricky520057@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Great stuff J_B. You stated: The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction.Life in one word--LOVE
The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A
and C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of
the Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 U.S.C. 255 (Now 40 USC
Sections 3111 & 3112) . I could not agree w/you more. The only issue
is, where do we go to enforce Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 U.S.C. 255 (Now 40 USC
Sections 3111 & 3112)? Where can we the People of the several states, not
a federal territory, go to bring this issue and get the IRS out of our
lives?
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 4:53 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*IRS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION*--
The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. Yes, YOU HEARD THAT CORRECTLY!
The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code,
Subtitle A and C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 U.S.C. 255.
The Constitution is unambiguous about defining WHAT Congress is
authorized to do and WHERE they can do it. The IRS cannot tax where the US
cannot legislate.
Specifically with respect to "where" Congress enjoys legislative, i.e.,
police/taxing jurisdiction, the Constitution reads:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular
states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government
of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places
purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same
shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and
other needful buildings;"
*Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17*
The Department of Justice's own Criminal Resource Manual documents the
true limits of the DOJ's police authority:
*664 Territorial Jurisdiction*
Of the several categories listed in 18 U.S.C. § 7, Section 7(3) is the
most significant, and provides:
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States," as used in this title, includes: . . . (3) Any lands reserved or
acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or
concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise
acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in
which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal,
dockyard, or other needful building.
As is readily apparent, this subsection, and particularly its second
clause, bears a striking resemblance to the 17th Clause of Article I, Sec.
8 of the Constitution.
*This clause provides:*
"The Congress shall have power. . . *To exercise exclusive Legislation
in all Cases whatsoever*, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of
Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to
exercise like Authority *over all Places purchased by the Consent of
the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection
of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
*(Emphasis
added.)
The constitutional phrase "exclusive legislation" is the equivalent of
the statutory expression "exclusive jurisdiction."
See *James v. Dravo Contracting Co.*, 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937),
citing, *Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook*, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930).
Until the decision in *Dravo*, it had been generally accepted that
when the United States acquired property with the consent of the state for
any of the enumerated purposes, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction by
operation of law, and any reservation of authority by the state, other than
the right to serve civil and criminal process, was inoperable. See *Surplus
Trading ** Co.** v. Cook, * 281 U.S. at 652-56. When *Dravo *held that
a state might reserve legislative authority, e.g., the right to levy
certain taxes, so long as that did not interfere with the United States'
governmental functions, it became necessary for Congress to amend 18 U.S.C.
§ 7(3), by adding the words "so as," to restore criminal jurisdiction over
those places previously believed to be under exclusive Federal legislative
jurisdiction.
See H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940); S. Rep. No.
1788, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940).
*Dravo* also settled that the phrase "other needful buildings" was not
to be strictly construed to include only military and naval structures, but
was to be construed as "embracing whatever structures are found to be
necessary in the performance of the function of the Federal Government."
*See
James v. Dravo Contracting Co. , 302 U.S. at 142-43* . It therefore
properly embraces courthouses, customs houses, post offices and locks and
dams for navigation purposes.
The "structures" limitation does not, however, prevent the United
States from holding or acquiring and having jurisdiction over land acquired
for other valid purposes, such as parks and irrigation projects since
Clause 17 is not the exclusive method of obtaining jurisdiction.
The United States may also obtain jurisdiction by reserving it when
sovereign title is transferred to the state upon its entry into the Union
or by cession of jurisdiction after the United States has otherwise
acquired the property.
See *Collins v. Yosemite Park Co.*, 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938); *James
v. Dravo Contracting Co*., 302 U.S. at 142; *Surplus Trading Co. v.
Cook*, 281 U.S. at 650-52; *Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe*, 114
U.S. 525, 526-27, 538, 539 (1885).
The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a
state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land
necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or eminent
domain without the state's consent. *See Kohl v. United States, 91
U.S. 367, 371, 372* (1976). But it does not thereby acquire
legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship. The acquisition
of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession of jurisdiction
by the state.
See *Mason Co. v. Tax Commission*, 302 U.S. 97
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/302+U.S.+97?entry=gmail&source=g>
(1937); *James v. Dravo Contracting Co* ., 302 U.S. at 141-42.
State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced
by a specific enactment or by general constitutional or statutory
provision. Cession of jurisdiction by the state also requires acceptance by
the United States.
See *Adams v. United States*, 319 U.S. 312 (1943); *Surplus Trading
Co. v. Cook*, 281 U.S. at 651-52.
Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal
question.
See *Mason Co. v. Tax Commission*, 302 U.S. at 197.
Prior to February 1, 1940, it was presumed that the United States
accepted jurisdiction whenever the state offered it because the donation
was deemed a benefit. *See Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S.
at 528. * This presumption was reversed by enactment of the Act of
February 1, 1940, codified at 40 U.S.C. § 255. This statute requires the
head or authorized officer of the agency acquiring or holding property to
file with the state a formal acceptance of such "jurisdiction, exclusive or
partial as he may deem desirable," and further provides that in the absence
of such filing "it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction
has been acquired." *See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312*
(district court is without jurisdiction to prosecute soldiers for rape
committed on an army base prior to filing of acceptance prescribed by
statute). The requirement of 40 U.S.C. § 255 can also be fulfilled by any
filing satisfying state law. *United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980,
984-86 (2d Cir. 1993*). The enactment of 40 U.S.C. § 255 did not
retroactively affect jurisdiction previously acquired. *See Markham v.
United States, 215 F.2d 56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 939 (1954);
United States v. Heard, 270 F. Supp. 198, 200 (W.D. Mo. 1967).*
In summary, the United States may exercise plenary criminal
jurisdiction over lands within state borders:
A. Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into the
union;
B. Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a purpose
enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state;
C. Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent
domain, and thereafter, but prior to February 1, 1940, received a cession
of jurisdiction from the state; and
D. Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state's consent
or cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the
requisite acceptance.
*U.S. DOJ Criminal Resource Manual*, October 1997 Section 664
The police power is vested in the States and not the federal
government. *See Wilkerson v. Rarer*, 140 U.S. 545, 554, 11 S.Ct. 865,
866 (1891) (the police power "is a power originally and always belonging to
the States, not surrendered to them by the general government, nor directly
restrained by the constitution of the United States, and essentially
exclusive"); *Union National Bank v. Brown*, 101 Ky. 354, 41 S.W. 273
(1897); *John Woods &Sons v. Carl*, 75 Ark. 328, 87 S.W. 621, 623
(1905); *Southern Express Co. v. Whittle*, 194 Ala. 406, 69 So.2d 652,
655 (1915); *Shealey v. Southern Ry. Co.*, 127 S.C. 15, 120 S.E. 561,
562 (1924) ("The police power under the American constitutional system has
been left to the states. It has always belonged to them and was not
surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by
the constitution of the United States … Congress has no general power to
enact police regulations operative within the territorial limits of a
state"); and *McInerney v. Ervin*, 46 So.2d 458, 463 (Fla. 1950)
"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." *Standard v
Olson*, 74 S.Ct. 768. "It has also been held that jurisdiction must be
affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." *Special Indem. Fund v
Prewitt*, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308 *Even the IRS's own CID manual
shows it does not have jurisdiction* *inside* the fifty states:
"The Criminal Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes
applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws
involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and
non-resident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements."
IRS Criminal Investigation Division
The Supreme Court says the government has an obligation to ascertain
bona fide authority:
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk
of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the
government stays within the bounds of this authority." *Federal Crop
Insurance v. Merrill*, 33 U.S. 380
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/33+U.S.+380?entry=gmail&source=g>
at 384 (1947).
*The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure even states there is no
jurisdiction inside the States:*
" 'Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to
and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or
in an insular possession*.*" See 18 USC, Rule 54 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Note: There is NO reference to the 50 "states."
The IRS must establish jurisdiction or it will be sanctioning FRAUD:
"Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation
of the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character
and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate
as an Estoppel."
*Carmine v. Bowen*, 64 U.S. 932
"*Silence can only be equated with fraud* where there is a legal or
moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
intentionally misleading. ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by
the IRS. Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers
and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from government in its
enforcement and collection activities .... This sort of deception will not
be tolerated and if this is the 'routine' it should be corrected
immediately."
[*U.S. v. Tweel*, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)][quoting U.S. v. Prudden,
424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
The U.S.C. codifies the Constitutional requirement at Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 and proscribes the procedure and required
documentation for the federal government to successfully assert
jurisdiction inside one of the fifty states. To wit: 40 USCS § 255 (now
3111 and 3112) clearly and specifically requires that a "notice of
acceptance" is to be filed "with the Governor of such State or in such
manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are
situated." "Such lands," of course, referring to those lands that the
federal government, through its agents, is claiming exclusive or concurrent
jurisdiction over the people living thereon. The text of § 255 concludes
with the statement "Unless and until the United States has accepted
jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, *it
shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted*
*.*" [Emphasis added]
Obviously, if the requirements of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of
the Constitution of the United States are not complied with, and/or if the
procedural requirements of 40 U.S.C. § 255 are not complied with, then no
public servant who is acting as an agent of the United States, i.e. the
federal government, has any bona fide authority whatsoever to attempt to
force compliance with any federal law, rule, code, statute, etc. on anyone
living in such an area that is not subject to any bona fide jurisdiction of
the federal government.
In support of this rather an obvious conclusion, the second paragraph
of interpretive note 14 of 40 U.S.C. § 255 says: "In view of 40 U.S.C. §
255, *no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal
criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands
acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as
provided in said section, *and fact that state has authorized
government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. * Adams v. United
States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S Ct 1122." * (plaintiff's
emphasis). [Federal jurisdiction] " ...must be considered in the light of
our dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our
complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what
is national and what is local and create a completely centralized
government." * United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624
(1995).*
The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. The current system of
enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and C is repugnant to
and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and
its implementing statute, 40 U.S.C. 255.