something I recently found out that they don’t tell you is there is a power of
attorney that you are giving to the Social Security Administration which is why
they can ignore Title 42 section 407 and give your money to the IRS. You need
to make it known it was a fraud and take away that poa.
From: J_B
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 7:59 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: IRS Can't collect that BS
tax from State Citizen. Another use for Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 :-)
attached with directions SS-5
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:29 PM Alla Miyets <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
surboate, how do you fill out the ss form to correct the status?
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 06:47:11 PM EDT, surfboate
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note, there maybe a separate form for correction of status where you are.
With Canada corp. it's on the same form. Maybe phone them up and ask them .
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 03:35:58 p.m. PDT, surfboate
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It too me two seconds to find it. Too hard for this group ,lol.
https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ss-5.pdf page 5, pick other. If they are too ;
hopeless to do what it says on page 3, keep being a slave then. I have no doubt
there are many other ways like Charlies, but that is the one that i know of.
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 03:08:28 p.m. PDT, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
surboate to attach what your talking about for the folks who might not be
familiar with this paperwork you talk about "social insurance application form"
thanks
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 6:02 PM surfboate <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another way to do what ? If wishing to not to pay "income " tax i already
told the group, correct the status of the legal fiction as other on social
insurance application form. Might be slightly different with the social
security form, but it will be there somewhere. Knowing what inome is (told you
that is too), so you can eliminate it.
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 01:59:15 p.m. PDT, Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is true but, surfboate can you recommend a way to do it then?
I believe one should be able to just go get employed and employers hand out
charity cards for the United States. But they do not. So what should one do?
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 2:52 PM surfboate <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Only legal fictions can be "employed". Man has no place in the system.
Only a legal fiction can have status and that is "elected" by the entitlement
holder. They can't even mention man. lol
On Sunday, July 11, 2021, 12:51:08 a.m. PDT, 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.
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.
--
Life in one word--LOVE
--
Life in one word--LOVE
