Great stuff J_B. You stated: 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 (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 (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 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.
