Yes, same thing when you create identity, or go to the bank, or file taxes
with unrestricted signatures. In a "self assessing" system, how else can they
have the authority to send the "tax payer" an assessment after a filing. Now
you know. Good post.
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 09:23:51 p.m. PDT, Mike
<leatherlips1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 PMTo:
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
