Great IRS
Hoax, Section 4.5.3, version 4.52:
In 1818, the counsel for the Plaintiff United States stated in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Bevans that:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States
have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the
express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could
be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority
of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat.,
at 350, 351.
[U.S. v. Bevans,
16 U.S. 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).]
The above case establishes that the federal government only has
jurisdiction over federal property that it owns within the states
or coming under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.In
other places, it has no legislative or judicial jurisdiction.Places
coming under the sovereignty or exclusive legislative jurisdiction
of the federal government under 1:8:17 of the Constitution include
the District of Columbia, federal territories, and enclaves within
the state and we call these areas “the federal zone” throughout
this book. When Congress is operating in its exclusive jurisdiction
over the “federal zone”, it is important to remember that the U.S.
Government has full authority to enact legislation as private acts
pertaining to its boundaries, and it is not a state of the union
of States because it exists solely by virtue of the compact/constitution
that created it. The U.S. Constitution does not say that the District
of Columbia must guarantee a Republican form of Government to its
own subject citizens within its territories. (See Hepburn
& Dundas v. Ellzey, 6 US. 445(1805); Glaeser v. Acacia
Mut. Life Ass'n., 55 F. Supp., 925 (1944); Long v.
District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1987);
Americana of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Kaplus, 368 F.2d 431
(1966), among others).
Within the federal zone, there are areas where the Bill of Rights
(the first ten amendments) applies and areas where it does not.
The best place to go for a clarification of where it applies is
the case of Downes
v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Below are quotes
from that case establishing that we have two national governments:
"The idea prevails with some -- indeed, it found expression
in arguments at the bar -- that we have in this country substantially
or practically two national governments; one, to be maintained
under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other
to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that
instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the
earth are accustomed to exercise."
[Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901), Justice Harlan, Dissent]
The U.S. Constitution limits federal government jurisdiction
over the state Citizens using the Bill of Rights.
The federal government
has unlimited powers over federal citizens within territories of
the United States because it is acting outside of the Constitution.Administrative
laws are private acts, also called “special law”, and are not applicable
to state Citizens.The Internal Revenue Code is administrative law.Here
are some more quotes from Downes that establish our
point:
“Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L. ed. 98, was an
action of trespass or, as appears by the original record, replevin,
brought in the circuit court for the District of Columbia to
try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general
purposes on that District. 3 Stat. at L. 216, chap. 60. It
was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in
one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the
other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia.
In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying
direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes
only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes;
but that it could not legislate for the District under art.
1, 8, giving to Congress the power 'to lay and collect taxes,
imposts, and excises,' which 'shall be uniform throughout the
United States,' inasmuch as the District was no part of the
United States. It was held that the grant of this power
was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently
extended to all places over which the government extends; and
that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent
part of the United States. The fact that art. 1 , 2, declares
that 'representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned
among the several states . . . according to their respective
numbers' furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned,
but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation.
'The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed
on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned
to representatives;
but that direct taxation,
in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers.'
That art. 1, 9, 4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid
in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District
of Columbia, 'and will enable Congress to apportion on it its
just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as
on the respective states. If the tax be laid in this proportion,
it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax
in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.' It
was further held that the words of the 9th section did not 'in
terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted
to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the
2d section require that it shall be extended to all the states.
They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give
a rule when the territories shall be taxed, without imposing
the necessity of taxing them.'”
“There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this
conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District
of Columbia. This District had been a part of the states
of Maryland and [182 U.S. 244, 261] Virginia. It had been subject
to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States[***].
The Constitution
had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never
be taken backward.
The tie that bound
the states of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could
not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal
and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession
of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished
the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the
United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither
party had ever consented to that construction of the cession.
If, before the District
was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act affecting
its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done
after the District was created, it would have been equally void;
in other words, Congress could not do indirectly, by carving
out the District, what it could not do directly. The District
still remained a part of the United States, protected by the
Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction
to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United
States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal
government.”
[. . .]
“Indeed, the practical interpretation put by Congress upon
the Constitution has been long continued and uniform to the
effect [182 U.S. 244, 279] that
the Constitution is
applicable to territories acquired by purchase or conquest,
only when and so far as Congress shall so direct.
Notwithstanding its duty to 'guarantee to every state in this
Union a republican form of government' (art. 4, 4), by which
we understand, according to the definition of Webster, 'a government
in which the supreme power resides in the whole body of the
people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them,'
Congress did not hesitate, in the original organization of the
territories of Louisiana, Florida, the Northwest Territory,
and its subdivisions of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and
Wisconsin and still more recently in the case of Alaska, to
establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy
to a British Crown colony than a republican state of America,
and to vest the legislative power either in a governor and council,
or a governor and judges, to be appointed by the President.
It was not until they had attained a certain population that
power was given them to organize a legislature by vote of the
people. In all these cases, as well as in territories subsequently
organized west of the Mississippi, Congress thought it necessary
either to extend to Constitution and laws of the United States
over them, or to declare that the inhabitants should be entitled
to enjoy the right of trial by jury, of bail, and of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, as well as other privileges of
the bill of rights.”
[Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901) ]
Based on the above and further reading of Downes, we can
reach the following conclusions about the applicability of the Constitution
within United States the country:
- That the District of Columbia and the territories are not
states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving
jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states;
- That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev.
Stat. 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases
where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question;
- That the District of Columbia and the territories are states
as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect
to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property;
- That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution
providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior
courts as Congress may see fit to establish;
- That the Constitution
does not apply to foreign countries or to trials therein conducted,
and that Congress may lawfully [182 U.S. 244, 271] provide for
such trials before consular tribunals, without the intervention
of a grand or petit jury;
- That where the
Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to
territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature
can enact laws inconsistent therewith, or retract the applicability
of the Constitution to those territories.
- That Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution
authorizing duties, imposts, and excises (indirect taxes) applies
throughout the sovereign 50 states, and not just on federal
land.Here is the quote from Downes confirming
that:
“In delivering the opinion [Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat.
317, 5 L. ed. 98], however, the Chief Justice made certain
observations which have occasioned some embarrassment in
other cases. 'The power,' said he, 'to lay and collect
duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must
be exercised, throughout the United States. Does this
term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the
American empire? Certainly this question can admit but of
one answer. It is the name given to our great Republic which
is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia,
or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within
the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania; and it
is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution,
that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and
excises should be observed in the one than in the other.
Since, then, the power to lay and collect taxes, which
includes direct taxes, is obviously coextensive with the
power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, and
since the latter extends throughout the United States, it
follows that the power to impose direct taxes also extends
through- [182 U.S. 244, 262] out the United States.' So
far as applicable to the District of Columbia, these observations
are entirely sound. So far as they apply to the territories,
they were not called for by the exigencies of the case.”
- Once a state is accepted into the union of states united
under the Constitution, all lands in the state at that time
are then covered by the Constitution in perpetuity excepting
land under federal jurisdiction (enclaves).If the federal government
then chooses to purchase state lands back after the state joins
the union to set up a federal enclave, such as a military base
or federal courthouse or national park, than the land that facility
resides on that formerly was governed by the Constitution continues
in perpetuity to be governed by the Constitution, even though
it then becomes subject to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction
of the federal government under Article 1, Section 8, Clause
17 of the Constitution.
- States east of the Mississippi had very little land that
continued under federal jurisdiction at the time they were admitted
to the union as states of the Union.Therefore, nearly the entire
state in these cases is covered by the Constitution.The opposite
is true in states west of the Mississippi, where large portions
continued under federal jurisdiction after these territories
were admitted as states.Those areas that were federal enclaves
at the date of admission which continue to this day to be under
federal jurisdiction are not subject to the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights.
- Direct federal taxes and rights are mutually exclusive.
You will note that when a new state is admitted to the Union,
its lands then irrevocably have the Constitution attached to
them and are covered by the Bill of Rights while at the same
time, a new requirement to apportion all direct taxes is added
in the former territory. The reason is that once people have
rights, they become sovereign and at that point,
it becomes impossible for the federal government under the Constitutional
protections to encroach on those rights by trying to collect
direct taxes because direct taxes then must be apportioned
to each state as required under Article 1, Section 2, Clause
3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution.This
is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Knowlton v.
Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900):
“Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons,
upon the possession and enjoyment of rights; indirect
taxes are levied upon the happening of an event as an exchange.”
[Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)]
We now summarize the above findings graphically to make them
crystal clear and
useful in front of a judge and jury
in court:
Table 4‑3: Constitutional rights throughout the United States*
(country)
|
#
|
Type of property
|
Constitutional
Rights
|
Example
|
Authorities
|
|
1
|
Territories
|
No
|
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, etc.
|
1. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901);
2. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 422,
4 L. ed. 579, 605, and in United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet.
526, 10 L. ed. 573
|
|
2
|
Federal enclaves
within
states:
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
|
2.1
|
Ceded to federal gov.
after
joining union
|
Yes
|
Federal courthouses
|
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901);
|
|
2.2
|
Also enclaves at the time of
admission
|
No
|
Indian reservations
|
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901);
|
|
3
|
Sovereign states
|
Yes
|
California, Texas, etc.
|
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); |
|
4
|
District of Columbia
|
Yes
|
District of Columbia
|
1. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
2. Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317, 5 Wheat.
317, 5 L. ed. 98 (1820)
|
|
5
|
Foreign countries (nations)
|
No
|
Japan
|
1. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901).
2. Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
3. M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 422,
4 L. ed. 579, 605 (1819)
4. United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526, 10
L. ed. 573
5. Springville v. Thomas, 166 U.S. 707 , 41
L. ed. 1172, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717 (1897)
|
IMPORTANT:
Those areas listed above where there are no Constitutional rights
are the only
areas where direct income taxes under Subtitle A can be applied
to individuals without apportionment and without violating (clauses
1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of) the Constitution. Everyplace else,
it isn’t a tax, but a
donation.
The federal zone, or federal “United States**”, is the area of
land over which the Congress exercises an unrestricted, exclusive
legislative jurisdiction.The Congress, however, does
not have unrestricted,
exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any of the 50 sovereign
states. It is bound by the chains of the Constitution.This point
is so very important, it bears repeating throughout the remaining
chapters of this book and it also explains why the use of the word
“State” in the Internal Revenue Code doesn’t by default (26
U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (10)) mean one of the 50 sovereign states
of the union. As in the apportionment rule for direct taxes and
the uniformity rule for indirect taxes, Congress cannot join or
divide any of the 50 sovereign states without the explicit approval
of the Legislatures of the state(s) involved.This means that Congress
cannot unilaterally delegate such a power to the President.Congress
cannot lawfully exercise (nor delegate) a power which it simply
does not have.
For further evidence of what constitutes the “federal zone” and
a “State” within the IRC, we refer you to the fascinating analysis
found in section 5.6.12.2 entitled “The definition of the word ‘state’”,
key to unlocking Congress’ ruse and the limited application of the
Internal Revenue Code”.
Lastly, let us carefully clarify the important distinctions between
“States”, “territories”, and “states” in the context of federal
statutes to make our analysis crystal clear. Remember that
federal “territories” and “States” are synonymous as per
4 U.S.C.
§110(d). Keep in mind also that Indian reservations, while
considered “sovereign nations” are also federal “States”:
Table 15: Attributes of "State"/"Territory" v. "state"
|
|
Attribute
|
Authority
|
“State” or “Territory”
of the “United States”
|
“state”/
Union state
|
|
1 |
Federal government has “police
powers” (e.g. criminal jurisdiction) here? |
Tenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution |
Yes
|
No
|
|
2
|
Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 jurisdiction?
|
U.S. v. Bevans,
16 U.S. 336 (1818)
|
Yes |
No
|
|
3
|
“foreign state” relative to the federal government?
|
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition definition of “foreign
state” and “foreign laws”
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
4
|
No “legislative jurisdiction” (federal statutes, like
IRC) jurisdiction without state cession?
|
40 U.S.C. §255
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
5
|
Federal courts in the region act under the authority
of what Constitutional provision?:
|
Constitution Articles II and III.
|
Article II
legislative
courts (no mandate for trial by jury)
|
Article III
Constitutional
courts (mandatory trial by jury)
|
|
6
|
Statutory diversity of citizenship applies here?
|
28 U.S.C. §1332
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
7
|
Constitutional diversity of citizenship applies here?
|
Article III, Section 2
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
8
|
Citizenship of persons born here:
|
8 U.S.C. §1401,
8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(B), 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21)
|
Statutory “U.S. citizen
|
“national”
|
|
9
|
Bill of rights (first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution)
applies here?
|
Downes v. Bidwell,
182 U.S. 244 (1901)
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
10
|
Listed in Title 48 as a “Territory or possession”?
|
Title
48, U.S. Code
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
11
|
Local governments here have “sovereign immunity” relative
to federal government?
|
28 U.S.C. §1346(b)
Eleventh Amendment to U.S. Const.
|
No
|
Yes
|
Your ZIP Code determines which ZIP Code region you live in. ZIP
Code regions are federal areas and are part of the federal zone.
The IRS has adopted the ZIP Code regions as IRS regions. If you
accept mail that has a ZIP Code on it, you are treated as though
you reside in a federal territory and thus are subject to the IRS
and all other municipal laws of the District of Columbia.
|