Sources of Extraterritorial CIVIL Jurisdiction
It is helpful to address the origins of civil jurisdiction over people outside the territory subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a specific government. This kind of jurisdiction is called “extraterritorial jurisdiction”. We will provide evidence to show the origins of such jurisdiction, which in fact are all based entirely upon either CONTRACT/CONSENT or PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT PROPERTY of one kind or another. In the case of the income tax, we will also show how that extraterritorial consent is procured. This is important in showing how your consent affects or changes the CIVIL jurisdiction of the national government.
A very frequent point of confusion and misunderstanding even within the legal profession is the definition of geographical terms in the various contexts in which they are used. The table below is provided to clear up this confusion in order that people do not misinterpret geographical terms by applying them outside their intended context. Using this page is VERY important for those who will be reading and researching state and federal law. The differences in meaning within the various contexts are primarily a consequence of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
| Law | Federal constitution | Federal statutes | Federal regulations | State constitutions | State statutes | State regulations |
| Author | Union States/ ”We The People” |
Federal Government | “We The People” | State Government | ||
| “state” | Foreign country | Union state or foreign country | Union state or foreign country | Other Union state or federal government | Other Union state or federal government | Other Union state or federal government |
| “State” | Union state | Federal state | Federal state | Union state | Union state | Union state |
| “in this State” or “in the State”[1] | NA | NA | NA | NA | Federal enclave within state | Federal enclave within state |
| “State”[2](State Revenue and taxation code only) | NA | NA | NA | NA | Federal enclave within state | Federal enclave within state |
| “several States” | Union states collectively[3] | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively | Federal “States” collectively |
| “United States” | states of the Union collectively | Federal United States** | Federal United States** | United States* the country | Federal United States** | Federal United States** |
What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the GENERAL context of MOST federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only under Title 48 of the U.S. Code[4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States. This is true in most cases and especially in the Internal Revenue Code. There are four exceptions to this rule that we are aware of, and these subject matters include (are limited to):
SOURCES OF EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
- A military or foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1). This includes:
1.1 Making or executing war. This is the Department of Defense (DOD), Title 50 of the U.S. Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.), 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47.
1.2 Regulating aliens within the country. The presence test at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) implements the tax aspect of this.
1.3 Protecting VOLUNTARY STATUTORY citizens (not constitutional citizens) abroad. This is done through passports, 26 U.S.C. §911 which pays for the protection, the Department of State (DOS), and the military.
1.4 International commerce with foreign nations. This is done through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97, U.S.C.I.S., Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the foreign affairs supervision of the federal courts.
1.5 Economic sanctions on foreign countries and political rulers imposed by the Department of the Treasury. - A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2). Note that:
2.1. ” Taxes” do NOT fall in the category of “public property, loans, grants, or benefits” , but the U.S. supreme court identified them as a “quasi-contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
2.2. In the case of “agency management or personnel”, they are talking about public officers serving within the national government as EXPRESSLY GEOGRAPHICALLY authorized by 4 U.S.C. §72 and NOT elsewhere. We’ll give you a HINT, there IS no “express legislative authorization” for “taxpayer” offices to be exercised outside the District of Columbia as required, so all those serving in such an office extraterritorially are DE FACTO officers (Form #05.043). The income tax is an excise tax upon the “trade or business” franchise, which is defined in in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”, but those offices may not lawfully be exercised outside the District of Columbia. That is why the statutory geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is defined as the District of Columbia and NOWHERE expressly extended outside the District of Columbia or the Federal statutory “State” defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d).
2.3. Civil statutory statuses such as “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, and “person” AND the PUBLIC RIGHTS and privileges that attach to them are PROPERTY legislatively created and therefore owned by the national government. Those claiming these statuses are in receipt, custody, or “benefit” of federal privileges no matter where they physically are, and thus are subject to Congress power to “make all needful rules respecting the Territory and other property” granted by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. - Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof. 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
- EXPRESS and INFORMED consent or comity in some form. Note that NO ONE can consent FOR YOU. YOU have to consent YOURSELF. Presently, “comity” is legally defined as “willingness to grant a privilege”. It USED to be defined as MUTUAL consent or agreement of both parties. This has the INSIDIOUS effect that it is OK for a judge to consent FOR YOU, or you to consent sub silentio or by acquiescence. The RESULT is that you are treated AS IF you are a privileged agent or officer of the state, which we call a “straw man”, often without compensation. This is CRIMINAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING and CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT (Form #05.046) if you didn’t KNOWINGLY consent. The purpose of this SOPHISTRY is to procure your consent INVISIBLY, so they don’t have to recognize or respect your sovereignty or autonomy. After all, they think they know better than you about what is good for you. See:
4.1. Hot Issues: Invisible Consent, SEDM (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/
4.2. How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
The above four items collectively are referred to as “extraterritorial jurisdiction“. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is defined as SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over PUBLIC property (Form #12.025) physically situated OUTSIDE of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the national government under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Congress has jurisdiction over its property and the offices it creates no matter WHERE they physically reside or are lawfully exercised, INCLUDING within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), which ironically was about SLAVES. Those who CONSENT to be statutory “taxpayers” would fall in this same category of “slave” and are treated literally as CHATTEL of the national government. HOWEVER, the Constitution confers NO EXPRESS authorization for Congress to use TACIT and PERSONAL BRIBES or GRANTS of its physical or chattel PUBLIC property or “benefits” to CREATE NEW public offices or appoint new officers to de facto offices that are NOT created by an EXPRESS lawful oath or appointment. Any attempts to do so are CRIMINAL OFFENSES under 18 U.S.C. §§201, 210, 211. More about public offices and officers in:
- The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf - Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf - Proof That There Is a “Straw man”, Form #05.037
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
For the purposes of this discussion, Sovereign States of the Union are NOT “territory” of the national government. Also, the Sixteenth Amendment did NOT confer EXTRATERRITORIAL jurisdiction to levy an UNAPPORTIONED direct tax upon labor as property within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union either. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it “conferred NO NEW power of taxation” in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916). Thus, the income tax HAS ALWAYS been a tax upon officers of the national government called statutory “taxpayer”, “citizens”, and “persons” This is ENTIRELY consistent with the legislative intent of the proposed sixteenth amendment proposed to Congress by President Taft himself:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – SENATE – JUNE 16, 1909
[From Pages 3344 – 3345]The Secretary read as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
It is the constitutional duty of the President from time to time to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures, as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In my inaugural address, immediately preceding this present extraordinary session of Congress, I invited attention to the necessity for a revision of the tariff at this session, and stated the principles upon which I thought the revision should be affected. I referred to the then rapidly increasing deficit and pointed out the obligation on the part of the framers of the tariff bill to arrange the duty so as to secure an adequate income, and suggested that if it was not possible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among them I recommended a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection.
The House of Representatives has adopted the suggestion, and has provided in the bill it passed for the collection of such a tax. In the Senate the action of its Finance Committee and the course of the debate indicate that it may not agree to this provision, and it is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of almost exactly the same character as, that which in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population. [Emphasis added] This new proposal, which I did not discuss in my inaugural address or in my message at the opening of the present session, makes it appropriate for me to submit to the Congress certain additional recommendations.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency. The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the Nation’s life in great crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent.
I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.
This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional. For the Congress to assume that the court will reverse itself, and to enact legislation on such an assumption, will not strengthen popular confidence in the stability of judicial construction of the Constitution. It is much wiser policy to accept the decision and remedy the defect by amendment in due and regular course.
Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency, but by putting on the statute book a law already there and never repealed will simply be suggesting to the executive officers of the Government their possible duty to invoke litigation.
If the court should maintain its former view, no tax would be collected at all. If it should ultimately reverse itself, still no taxes would have been collected until after protracted delay.
It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three-fourths of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of investing the National Government with power to levy an income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in the States, if proposed to them.
Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income tax measure.
I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.
The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.
Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.
I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.
Wm. H. Taft
Some people have asserted that it is deceptive to claim that the phrase above “shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government” implies it is a tax upon the government. In retort, the following proves we are not only correct, but that the only real DECEPTIVE one was Taft Himself:
- Taft could have said “shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring upon the national government the power to levy an income tax” but DID NOT state it more correctly this way.
- The legislative implementation of what he proposed he described as an excise and a privilege tax ONLY upon corporations, which even after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, is EXACTLY and ONLY what the Sixteenth Amendment currently authorizes. These corporations are NATIONAL corporations, not STATE corporations, by the way.“Income” has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335; Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 219. After full consideration, this Court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207. And that definition has been adhered to and applied repeatedly. See, e.g., Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, supra; 518; Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527, 535; United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169; Miles v. Safe Deposit Co., 259 U.S. 247, 252-253; United States v. Supplee-Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 194; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 167; Edwards v. Cuba Railroad, 268 U.S. 628, 633. In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. Eisner v. Macomber, supra, 206. [271 U.S. 175]”
[Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926)] - The U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell agreed that the income tax extends wherever the GOVERNMENT extends, rather than where the GEOGRAPHY extends. Notice it says “without limitation as to place” and “places over which the GOVERNMENT extends”.“Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317, 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. 216, c. 60, Fed. 17, 1815. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in [****32] one as legislating [*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. I, sec. 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. I, sec. 20 , 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 [****33] represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to States, shall be apportioned to numbers.” That Art. I, sec. 9, P4, 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 ninth 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 second section require that it shall be extended to all the [**777] 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.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)] - The fact that when former President and then Chief Justice Taft heard the FIRST case in the Supreme court after ratification, he stated that the liability for an income tax had NOTHING TO DO with one’s nationality or domicile! Cook, American national abroad in Mexico and domiciled there was outside the statutory geographical “United States”. Recall that the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932) held that domicile was the SOLE basis for income tax so Cook technically could NOT owe an income tax. But his litigation related to a 1040 return he previously filed in which he INCORRECTLY declared his status as that of a “U.S individual”. Thus, he made an ELECTION (consent) to be treated as a statutory “U.S. person” and thus ELECTED himself into a voluntary “taxpayer” office to procure protection of the national government while abroad. Notice he calls “protection” a BENEFIT, and thus a VOLUNTARY EXCISE TAXABLE FRANCHISE! Notice he says the SOLE BASIS in this case was the STATUTORY STATUS under the Internal Revenue Code of “citizen”, and not “domicile”. That civil statutory status and NOT Constitutional or Fourteenth Amendment status, we prove in How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024, is an OFFICE within the Department of Treasury who works for the Secretary of the Treasury.”The contention was rejected that a citizen’s property without the limits of the United States derives no benefit from the United States. The contention, it was said, came from the confusion of thought in “mistaking the scope and extent of the sovereign power of the United States as a nation and its relations to its citizens and their relations to it.” And that power in its scope and extent, it was decided, is based on the presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and that opposition to it holds on to citizenship while it “belittles and destroys its advantages and blessings by denying the possession by government of an essential power required to make citizenship completely beneficial.” In other words, the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found and, therefore, has the power to make the benefit complete. Or to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, and was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal — the government having power to impose the tax.”[Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)]
- The definition of “person” in 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 26 U.S.C. §7343 for the purposes of penalty and criminal enforcement purposes limits itself to government employees and instrumentalities of the government. The rules of statutory construction and interpretation forbid adding anything to these definitions not expressly provided, such as PRIVATE constitutionally protected men and women. Thus, anyone who doesn’t fall within the ambit of these definitions is, by definition, a VOLUNTEER because not a proper target of enforcement.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F>CHAPTER 68>Subchapter B>PART I>Sec. 6671
Sec. 6671. – Rules for application of assessable penalties
(b)Person defined
The term “person”, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
TITLE 26>Subtitle F>CHAPTER 75>Subchapter D> Sec. 7343.
Sec. 7343. – Definition of term ”person”
The term ”person” as used in this chapter [Chapter 75] includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs - The following memorandum of law proves that the only proper target of IRS enforcement are public officers WITHIN the government.
Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf - The fact that “United States” is geographically defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia and the CONSTITUTIONAL states of the Union are never mentioned. That place is synonymous with the GOVERNMENT in 4 U.S.C. §72 and not any geography.
- The fact that the ACTIVITY that is subject to excise taxation within the Internal Revenue Code is legally defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”, meaning an office WITHIN the national and not state government. For exhaustive details on this subject, see:
The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf - The fact that the Federal Register Act and the Administrative Procedures Act both limit the TARGET of direct STATUTORY enforcement to the following groups, none of which include most people in states of the Union and which primarily consist of government employees only:
- A military or foreign affairs function of the United States. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1) .A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2).Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof. 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf - The fact that they can only tax legislatively created offices who work for them. See:
Hierarchy of Sovereignty: The Power to Create is the Power to Tax, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm - The idea that governments are created to PROTECT private property, not steal it, and that taxation involves the institutionalized process of converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property without the express consent of the owner. Thus, the process of PAYING for government protection involves the OPPOSITE purpose for which governments are created—converting PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property, often without the consent of the owner, for the purposes of delivering the OPPOSITE, which is PREVENTING PRIVATE property from being converted to PUBLIC property! The Declaration of Independence declares that all just powers derive from the consent of the governed, and yet we make an EXCEPTION to that requirement when it comes to taxation? Absurd. So they HAVE to procure your consent to occupy a civil statutory office BEFORE they can enforce against you or else they are violating the Thirteenth Amendment and engaging in criminal human trafficking. For a description of just how absurd it is to NOT require consent to this office and to convert (STEAL) private property without the consent of the owner, see:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf - A query of the ChatGPT-4 AI Chatbot confirms our analysis is correct:
So what the President proposed was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more. This is important. More on the history of the Sixteenth Amendment at:
- Taxation Page, Section 13: 16th Amendment, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#16th_AMENDMENT - Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Sections 3.8.11 and 3.8.12
https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm - Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6.7.1: 1925: William H. Taft’s Certiori Act of 1925. President Taft’s SCAM to make the income tax INTERNATIONAL in scope by DENYING all appeals relating to it so the Supreme Court wouldn’t have to rule on the illegal enforcement of the income tax.
https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm - The Law that Never Was, William Benson. Book about the FRAUDULENT ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.
- Congressional Debates on the Sixteenth Amendment, Family Guardian Fellowship
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/History/Congress/1909-16thAmendCongrRecord.pdf
EVEN in the case of item 2 of the extraterritorial jurisdiction list entitled “A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” above, legislative control over property is limited to public offices, and NOT to private state nationals. A “public officer”, after all, is legally defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as someone in charge of the PROPERTY of the public. We have never seen any case hold that merely possessing physical property of the national government while physically present within a constitutional state confers DIRECT, PERSONAL legislative jurisdiction over the person whose hands that property is physically in.
The above exceptions are discussed in:
- Hot Issues: Laws of Property, SEDM (OFFSIE LINK)
https://sedm.org/laws-of-property/ - Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404 (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/ - Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052 (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-Memlaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf - Federal Enforcement Authority within States of the Union, Form #05.032 (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/product/federal-enforcement-authority-within-states-of-the-union-form-05-032/ - IRS Due Process Meeting Handout, Form #03.008 (OFFSITE LINK)
https://sedm.org/Forms/03-Discovery/IRSDueProcMtgHandout.pdf
The lower case word “state” in the context of federal statutes and regulations means one of the 50 union states, which are “foreign states”, and “foreign countries” with respect to the federal government. In the context of the above, a “Union State” means one of the 50 Union states of the United States* (the country, not the federal United States**) mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America.
If you would like to know all the implications of the separation of powers reflected in the above table, as well as a history of unconstitutional efforts to destroy this separation, see the following references:
- Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf - Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Separation of Powers” (OFFSITE LINK)
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/SeparationOfPowers.htm
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6017
[2] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 17018
[3] See, for instance, U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2.