|TAX DEPOSITION QUESTIONS: 3. JURISDICTION|
The U.S. Government does NOT have legislative, i.e. taxing jurisdiction, inside the fifty states. Therefore, the federal government cannot tax the income of ordinary Americans.
Findings and Conclusions
With the assistance of the following series of Questions, we intend to prove that Congress lacks the Authority to legislate an income tax on the people except in the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and in those geographic areas within any of the 50 states where the states have specifically authorized it in writing. We will also show that:
Bottom Line: The federal government cannot tax your income within the fifty states because they have NO legislative jurisdiction.
Acrobat version of this section including questions and evidence (large: 5.68 Mbytes)
Further Study On Our Website:
3.1. Admit that at Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms. (WTP #33)
3.2. Admit that at Section 7608(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than Subtitle E. (WTP #34)
3.4. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(1) states: "The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation." (WTP #36)
3.5. Admit that trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies and corporations do not have arms and legs, do not get married, do not eat, drink and sleep, and are not otherwise included in what one not trained in the law would recognize as a "person." (WTP #37)
3.6. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6012(a) states that: "(a) General Rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount . . . ." (WTP #38)
3.7. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain "persons," who are "individuals" and "estates and trusts." (See 26 U.S.C. § 1.) (WTP #39)
3.8. Admit that the "individual" mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 is the same individual as mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 1. (WTP #40)
3.9. Admit that the "individual" mentioned by Congress in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 and Internal Revenue Code Section 1 is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. (WTP #41)
3.11. Admit that at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1), the individuals identified at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are those individuals who are either citizens of the United States, residents of the United States, or non-resident aliens. (WTP #43)
3.12. Admit that the "residents" and "citizens" identified in 26 C.F.R. § 1.1- 1(a)(1) are mutually exclusive classes. (WTP #44)
3.13. Admit that as used in 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-1, the term "resident" means an alien. (WTP #45)
3.14. Admit that 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) states that: (WTP #46)
"Every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen."
3.15. Admit that a person who is born or naturalized in the United States but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1. (WTP #47)
3.16. Admit that on April 21, 1988, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, in the case of United States v. James I. Hall, Case No. EV 87-20-CR, IRS Revenue Officer Patricia A. Schaffner, testified under penalties of perjury that the terms "subject to its jurisdiction" as used at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) meant being subject to the laws of the country, and that meant the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States. (WTP #48)
3.17. Admit that in the same case, Patricia A. Schaffner testified under oath the term "subject to its jurisdiction" could have no other meaning than the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States. (WTP #49)
3.18. Admit that when Patricia A. Schaffner was asked to tell the jury what facts made Mr. Hall subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States, the prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Larry Mackey objected, and the court sustained the objection. (WTP #50)
3.19. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is never required by the Federal courts to prove facts to establish whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (WTP #51)
3.20. Admit that the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorneys, and their assistants, always object when an alleged taxpayer demands the Government prove that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the federal courts always sustain those objections, which means that the federal courts routinely prohibit the introduction of potentially exculpatory evidence in tax crime trials. If there are exceptions to this rule, please identify them specifically. (WTP #52)
3.21. The IRS keeps a system of financial records on federal judges (Treasury System of Records 46.002 as identified in Treasury/IRS Privacy Act of 1974 Resource Document #6372), IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents, and U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act. (WTP #52(a))
3.22. Admit that unless specifically provided for in the United States Constitution, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction in the states. (WTP #53)
3.23. Admit that 40 U.S.C. §255 identifies the only method by which the federal government may acquire legislative jurisdiction over a geographic area within the outer limits of a state of the Union, which is by state cession in writing. (WTP #53a)
3.24. Admit that on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet, named the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, and charged with the duty of studying and reporting where the United States had legal authority to make someone subject to its jurisdiction. (Note: this report hereinafter referred to as "the Report.") (WTP #54)
3.25. Admit that in June of 1957, the "Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States" issued "Part II" of its report entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States." (WTP #55)
3.26. Admit that the Report makes the following statements: (WTP #56)
a. "The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."
b. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,"
c. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,"
d. "On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government."
3.27. Admit that the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment means subject to both the jurisdiction of the several states of the union and the United States. (WTP #57)
3.28. Admit that the "subject to its jurisdiction" component of the definition of citizen set out at 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) has a different meaning than the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (WTP #58)
3.29. Admit that the term "foreign" is nowhere defined in the Internal Revenue Code. (WTP #58a)
3.30. Admit that the term "foreign" means anything outside of the legislative jurisdiction of the Congress, which means anything outside of federal property ceded, in most cases, to the federal government by the states as required by 40 U.S.C. §255. (WTP #58b)
3.31. Admit that a Treasury Regulation cannot create affirmative duties not otherwise imposed by Congress in the underlying statute, corresponding Internal Revenue Code section. (WTP #59)
3.32. Admit that Congress defined a "taxpayer" at Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code, as any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax. (WTP #60)
3.33. Admit that "subject to" is defined in in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1425 as: (WTP #60a)
“Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to; governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for.” Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 302
3.34. Admit that based on the above definition of "subject to", use of the term "taxpayer" in describing anyone creates a presumption of liability for tax on the part of the person being referred to. (WTP #60b)
3.35. Admit that the IRS uses the term "taxpayer" to refer to everyone, including those not necessarily subject to or liable for Subtitle A income taxes. (WTP #60c)
3.36. Admit that in Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d. 504, 508 (1961), a federal court said: (WTP #60d)
"A reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the states as a person liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them and their property is seized..."
3.37. Admit that, based on the above, it is a violation of due process and a violation of delegated authority for any IRS tax official to refer to any person as a "taxpayer" who does not first identify him or herself as such voluntarily. (WTP #60e)
3.38. Admit that the federal courts, in the case of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922) stated at 238: (WTP #60f)
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
"The distinction between persons and things within the scope of the revenue laws and those without is vital."
3.39. Admit that one who is not a citizen, resident, or non-resident alien, is not an individual subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. (WTP #61)
3.40. Admit that an individual who is not subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, is not an individual required to make a return under the Requirement of Internal Revenue Code Section 6012. (WTP #62)
3.41. Admit that the Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion of Judge Harlan in the case of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), stated: (WTP #62a)
“The idea prevails with some, indeed it has found expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all of its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside the independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers [of absolutism] as other nations of the earth are accustomed to..I take leave to say that, if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism..It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]
3.42. Admit that the jurisdiction that Honorable Justice Harlan above was referring to where "legislative absolutism" would or could reign was in areas subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. government, which includes the District of Columbia, federal enclaves within the states, and U.S. territories and possessions. (WTP #62b)
3.43. Admit that the Internal Revenue Manual says the following, in section 184.108.40.206.9.8: (WTP #62c)
Importance of Court Decisions
3.44. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service, in its responsive letters to tax payers, routinely and chronically violates the above requirements by citing cases below the Supreme Court level, which do not apply to more than the individual taxpayer in question according to the above. (WTP #62d)
|Copyright Family Guardian Fellowship||Last revision: April 01, 2012 10:02 AM|
|This private system is NOT subject to monitoring|