AMERICAN CONSUMER TAX

AMERICAN CONSUMER TAX (ACT)

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

IRS

http://www.paulstramer.net/2016/03/alert-to-all-irs-cases-irs-lufkin-case.html

JURISDICTION
AND THE LUFKIN CASE

From: Paul
Subject: This case completely destroys the idea that the Feds have any jurisdiction whatsoever within the several states.
Date: March 4, 2016
To: Kirk MacKenzie
I wish to thank Paul for bringing this information to my attention. I knew of the case, but not all the documentation. Paul is another staunch advocate for Jurisdiction. Here are direct links to the original article, its embedded links, and Paul’s PDF file. In passing along this information, I am compelled to add my own remarks (below).


AGREE

1. I applaud Trowbridge’s efforts and completely concur with his basic premise. The various federal entities and their agents are—throughout the Union—usurping jurisdiction outside their constitutionally-granted territory, acting under color of authority, and are thus engaged in organized criminal activity in defrauding and depriving the American People of life, liberty, property, and other rights.

DISAGREE

2. The article states: “Congress have power of territorial and personal legislation (two of the three aspects of exclusive legislation, the other being subject-matter) only as expressly provided in Articles 1.8.17 and 4.3.2 of the Constitution.”

I disagree.
  • The federal government was not chartered to control the People. People were the sovereigns, not the subjects. Congress was delegated legislative authority only over enumerated subject matter and lands. The assertion of authority over people began with the unconstitutional “passage” of the 14th Amendment, allegedly creating “U.S. Citizens” subject to federal control.
  • Legislative authority is defined by Article 1.8, and only by Article 1.8. Article 4.3 deals only with Rules and Regulations.
  • Legislative authority over land is defined by Article 1.8.17, and only by Article 1.8.17, none by Article 4.3. It is tightly constrained to only lands defined therein, not all lands.
  • Article 4.3.2 added territories and possessions to the list of lands over which the federal government had some authority. However, that authority merely consisted of Rules and Regulations, not Legislation. As territories became states, legislative authority passed to the respective states, except for Article 1.8.17 lands (known as federal enclaves).
  • Article 1.8.17 refers to exclusive legislative authority. Does that mean it extends to subject matter, land, and people, as Trowbridge contends? Does it further mean Article 1.8.17 lands are untethered from other parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights; that the federal government is, in effect, its own sovereign nation, as the federal government contends? In both cases, I think not. To interpret Article 1.8.17 in either of these ways would be to defeat the entire purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To be consistent with the founding intent, exclusive legislative authority can only mean the authority is exclusive to the federal, not state governments, but still subject at a minimum to all provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
3. The article further states: "The geographic area in which the Constitution grants Congress power of territorial and personal legislation is ‘Territory or other Property belonging to the United States’ (Constitution, Article 4.3.2, e.g., the District of Columbia and the territories.” The suggestion is Article 4.3.2 defines the geographic area over which Article 1.8.17 legislative authority applies.

I disagree.

  • Federal subject matter jurisdiction is general in nature. It applies throughout these United States. Federal legislative land jurisdiction applies only to Article 1.8.17 lands.

4. My final point. In defining the word “Constitution”, it is advisable to: 1) refer to it by its full name: Constitution for the United States of America, correctly using ”for" not "of"; 2) optionally include its signing date of September 17, 1787; and 3) exclude the Bill of Rights or Amendments as part of its definition. I firmly believe the Bill of Rights is a separate founding document that is generally applicable, guaranteeing rights under state governments not just the federal one, and that Amendments 14 and above are inconsistent with the nature of the government we established. Therefore, the definition of “Constitution” we use should be to the lawful de jure United States, not the bastardized de facto one.

No comments: