Territorial
courts are not ignoring or misinterpreting the law they are applying the only
law that can be applied. The
opinions cited by the IRS are all of non-judicial officers of territorial
courts. My research simply permits
any reader of Title 28 U.S.C. to understand why Alaska, Hawaii, Washington D.C.
and Puerto Rico, the 48 states of the Union and the date January 1, 1945 must
considered and accounted for when determining the territorial composition of the
districts and divisions of the United States district courts.
The
first step in unlocking the essential character of the present federal
government was achieved when I discovered that only one Article III had been
ordained and established in Hawaii. It
is very clear that the President may only appoint Title 28 U.S.C. United States
district court judges to that court, thus limiting that court to territorial
law. I have several approaches:
1.
A
case is begun in state court when a bank or employer takes a depositor’s or
employee’s funds or wages to pay an IRS or FTB claim of unpaid income taxes.
The biggest banks and employers will employ high priced attorneys to
remove the depositor’s or employee’s state case to an Article IV territorial
federal court where that non-judicial court can decide tax issues for the
legislative branch. The pro per
plaintiff berates the employer’s attorney for their incompetence in claiming
that the federal court to which they want the state court case transferred has
territorial jurisdiction. In
a recent California case, Morrison & Foerster, a law firm with more than
1,000 lawyers in 19 offices worldwide was rebuffed by a lone employee.
In state court the employer will not be able to allege issues that cannot
be determined by the state court, because of separation of powers.
Big and little employers will have no choice than to pay the wages of
those employees who have earned them.
2. In a federal criminal case, as soon as the defendant is indicted by a federal grand jury a challenge to that jury’s qualification is made and proof offered that the federal court’s judicial district consists of the federal territory in the counties named to comprise the district or division.
3. Any person that has been convicted in a United States district can challenge that conviction, because the federal court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of the crime or if it did have jurisdiction where the crime occurred on federal territory the juries can be challenged.
4. Any federal conviction can be set aside where there was no territorial jurisdiction in the court where the matter was tried. It appears to be clearly the law that litigants have no power to confer jurisdiction on any federal trial court.
5.
Martha
Stewart and the Enron defendants can available themselves of all of the above.
It is only a matter of when enough people will recognize that you and
thousands already know.
The
truth does make you free but it also devastates lies.
The federal government will shrink but it will not disappear as the
Soviet Union did. There will come a
time soon, when all the federal courts will conform to the truth.
Ed
Rivera
Subject:
IRS Website
Ed,
Here
is a page from the IRS website regarding federal territory and jurisdiction.
It appears that the courts just ignore the law and misinterpret it any way
they want. Is there any way to win an argument on a factual case law
basis? Or, if one takes your approach (where their jurisdiction is denied),
what is to prevent them from doing what ever they want any way?
Thanks
for your reply.
John
Small
Bus/Self-Employed
III.
The Meaning of Certain Terms Used in the Internal Revenue Code
A.
Contention: Taxpayer is not a "citizen" of the United States, thus not
subject to the federal income tax laws.
Some
individuals argue that they have rejected citizenship in the United States in
favor of state citizenship; therefore, they are relieved of their federal income
tax obligations. A variation of this argument is that a person is a freeborn
citizen of a particular state and thus was never a citizen of the United States.
The underlying theme of these arguments is the same: the person is not a United
States citizen and is not subject to federal tax laws because only United States
citizens are subject to these laws.
The
Law: The
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for
United States citizenship, stating, "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Fourteenth
Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship.
Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely
citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been
uniformly rejected by the courts.
Relevant
Case Law:
O'Driscoll v. I.R.S., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9829, at *5-6 (E.D.
Pa. 1991) - The court stated, "despite [taxpayer's] linguistic gymnastics,
he is a citizen of both the United States and Pennsylvania, and liable for
federal taxes."
United
States v. Sloan,
939 F.2d 499, 500 (7 th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1060,
reh'g denied, 503 U.S. 953 (1992) - The court affirmed a tax evasion conviction
and rejected Sloan's argument that the federal tax laws did not apply to him
because he was a "freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of
Indiana, and a 'master' - not 'servant' - of his government."
United
States v. Ward,
833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11 th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S.
1022 (1988) - The court found Ward's contention that he was not an
"individual" located within the jurisdiction of the United States to
be "utterly without merit" and affirmed his conviction for tax
evasion.
United
States v. Sileven,
985 F.2d 962 (8 th Cir. 1993) - The court rejected the argument that the
district court lacked jurisdiction because the taxpayer was not a federal
citizen as "plainly frivolous."
United
States v. Gerads,
999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8 th Cir. 1993) - The court rejected the Gerads' contention
that they were "not citizens of the United States, but rather 'Free
Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota' and, consequently, not subject to
taxation" and imposed sanctions "for bringing this frivolous appeal
based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments."
Solomon
v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202-03 (1993) - The court rejected
Solomon's argument that as an Illinois resident his income was from outside the
United States, stating "[he] attempts to argue an absurd proposition,
essentially that the State of Illinois is not part of the United States. His
hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him
exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and
residents. [His] arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long
dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such
contentions."
B.
Contention: The "United States" consists only of the District of
Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves.
Some
argue that the United States consists only of the District of Columbia, federal
territories (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and federal enclaves (e.g.,
American Indian reservations, military bases, etc.) and does not include the
"sovereign" states. According to this argument, if a taxpayer does not
live within the "United States," as so defined, he is not subject to
the federal tax laws.
The
Law: The
Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States
citizens and residents, not just those who reside in the District of Columbia,
federal territories, and federal enclaves. In United States v. Collins,
920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the
court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19
(1916), and noted the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the
"Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United
States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves. " The
courts have uniformly rejected this frivolous contention.
Relevant
Case Law:
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 549-50 (9 th Cir. 1989) - The court,
observing that Becraft's claim that federal laws apply only to United States
territories and the District of Columbia "has no semblance of merit,"
and noting that this attorney had previously litigated cases in the federal
appeals courts that had "no reasonable possibility of success,"
imposed monetary damages and expressed the hope "that this assessment will
deter Becraft from asking this and other federal courts to expend more time and
resources on patently frivolous legal positions."
United
States v. Ward,
833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11 th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S.
1022 (1988) - The court rejected as a "twisted conclusion" the
contention "that the United States has jurisdiction over only Washington,
D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and
possessions of the United States," and affirmed a tax evasion conviction.
Barcroft
v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-5, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1666, 1667, appeal dismissed,
134 F.3d 369 (5 th Cir. 1997) - Noting that Barcroft's statements "contain
protester-type contentions that have been rejected by the courts as
groundless," the court sustained penalties for failure to file returns and
failure to pay estimated income taxes.
C.
Contention: Taxpayer is not a "person" as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code, and thus is not subject to the federal income tax laws.
Some
maintain that they are not a "person" as defined by the Internal
Revenue Code, and thus not subject to the federal income tax laws. This argument
is based on a tortured misreading of the Code.
The
Law: The
Internal Revenue Code clearly defines "person" and sets forth which
persons are subject to federal taxes. Section
7701(a)(14) defines "taxpayer" as any person subject to any
internal revenue tax and section 7701(a)(1) defines "person" to
include an individual, trust, estate, partnership, or corporation. Arguments
that an individual is not a "person" within the meaning of the
Internal Revenue Code have been uniformly rejected. A similar argument with
respect to the term "individual" has also been rejected.
Relevant
Case Law:
United States v. Karlin, 785 F.2d 90, 91 (3d Cir. 1986), cert.
denied, 480 U.S. 907 (1987) - The court affirmed Karlin's conviction
for failure to file income tax returns and rejected his contention that he was
"not a 'person' within meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 7203" as
"frivolous and requir[ing] no discussion."
United
States v. Rhodes,
921 F. Supp. 261, 264 (M.D. Pa. 1996) - The court stated that "[a]n
individual is a person under the Internal Revenue Code."
Biermann
v. Commissioner,
769 F.2d 707, 708 (11 th Cir.), reh'g denied, 775 F.2d 304 (11
th Cir. 1985) - The court said the claim that Biermann was not "a person
liable for taxes" was "patently frivolous" and, given the Tax
Court's warning to Biermann that his positions would never be sustained in any
court, awarded the government double costs, plus attorney's fees.
Smith
v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-290, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 377, 378-89 (2000) - The court described
the argument that Smith "is not a 'person liable' for tax" as
frivolous, sustained failure to file penalties, and imposed a penalty for
maintaining "frivolous and groundless positions."
United
States v. Studley,
783 F.2d 934, 937 n.3 (9 th Cir. 1986) - The court affirmed a failure to file
conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's contention that she was not subject to
federal tax laws because she was "an absolute, freeborn, and natural
individual" and went on to note that "this argument has been
consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for
decades."
D.
Contention: The only "employees" subject to federal income tax are
employees of the federal government.
Some
argue that the federal government can tax only employees of the federal
government; therefore, employees in the private sector are immune from federal
income tax liability. This argument is based on an apparent misinterpretation of section
3401, which imposes responsibilities to withhold tax from "wages."
That section establishes the general rule that "wages" include all
remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer. Section
3401(c) goes on to state that the term "employee" includes "an
officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any
political subdivision thereof".
The
Law: Section
3401(c) defines "employee" and states that the term "includes an
officer, employee or elected official of the United States . ." This
language does not address how other employees' wages are subject to withholding
or taxation. Section
7701(c) states that the use of the word "includes" "shall not
be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term
defined." Thus, the word "includes" as used in the definition of
"employee" is a term of enlargement, not of limitation. It clearly
makes federal employees and officials a part of the definition of
"employee", which generally includes private citizens.
Relevant
Case Law:
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7 th Cir. 1985) -
Calling the instructions Latham wanted given to the jury "inane," the
court said, "[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. §
3401(c) the category of 'employee' does not include privately employed wage
earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the
context of [the law] the word 'includes' is a term of enlargement not of
limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended
to exclude all others."
Sullivan
v. United States,
788 F.2d 813, 815 (1 st Cir. 1986) - The court rejected Sullivan's attempt to
recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating "to the
extent [he] argues that he received no 'wages' . . . because he was not an
'employee' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is
meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the
persons listed therein." The court imposed sanctions on Sullivan for
bringing a frivolous appeal.
Peth
v. Breitzmann,
611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985) - The court rejected the taxpayer's
argument "that he is not an 'employee' under I.R.C. § 3401(c) because he
is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate
officer," stating, "[he] mistakenly assumes that this definition of
'employee' excludes all other wage earners."
Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994) - The court characterized Pabon's position - including that she was not subject to tax because she was not an employee of the federal or state governments - as "nothing but tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish." The court imposed a penalty of $2,500 on Pabon for bringing a frivolous case, stating that she "regards this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse her own misguided views."