[AndyK]

In reverse order of latest posts:

Rattler14:

I don't have any problem with the paraphrase except for the reference to contracts. The Constitution is not a contract.

If you really believe that it is, please post the legal definition of a contract and explain how every aspect of that applies to the Constitution.

Sonik:

I've copied a long article on the 5th amendment and interpretation of double jeopardy. I'd like to submit it, but have no idea how to do so.

So, while I wait for someone to instruct me on that, let me answer your last post.

Unfortunately the answer is neither (a) nor (:cool:. It's more like a little of each.

Just look at the jurisdictions of and within a state. There are overlapping, simultaneous jurisdictions between the state, counties, townships, cities, etc.

Do you have a problem accepting that?

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 10:47 PM:

I am not defending Schiff. Nor will I attack him ad hominem just because he was in Federal Prison three times. Nonetheless, I refuse to defend him. I do agree with a good deal with some of the material found in his conclusions. I do find some merit in some of his arguments. But oh well. . . it will not change my philosophy regarding this monumental scam of income taxation.

Sonik Speed

[post=”2519″][/post]

First, let me cast aspersions at him one last time. One of the people who testified against him at his trial was a retired woman who lost all her savings and her house because she (1) bought his materials, (2) followed his advice, (3) paid him additional fees for assistance with the IRS paperwork (which he never filed), and (4) still had to pay all the back taxes with accrued interest.

He is a slimeball.

As to your statement above, I'm curious. Could you give examples of some of the material?

I'd love the chance to refute his arguments and save someone from making a big mistake ala Schiff.

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 6 2006, 02:30 AM:

Does anyone know if the IRS is hiring for any JOB vacancy? If so, then where can I get a job description and location information. I am actually willing to consider to work for the IRS. It sounds like an exciting opportunity to work for them. The pay is really good too. They can sure use a young guy like me.  🙄

BTW – I AM NOT KIDDING!

Sonik Speed

[post=”2521″][/post]

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/ has almost all federal jobs listed. You can build an on-line resume and apply electronically.

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 05:50 PM:

AndyK said:

Quote:

For Pete's sake, Schiff was either so stupid or mentally ill that he is now on his THIRD prison term for violating the same law. You'd think he might have learned after his first or second conviction and jail term, but he didn't.

Schiff is neither stupid nor mentally ill. I will prove this legally.

With respect to the first description, there is a Tax Court memo on Schiff (I cannot remember the exact citation, but I know it exists 100%) in which the dicta stated that Mr. Schiff is a man that is competent and very well educated (or words to that effect). While it is VERY UNSUAL for me NOT to state something absent proof, I can guarantee that it exists. The regulars should know my credibility 🙂 But in any case, this Tax Memo's determination proves that he is NOT STUPID. Mr. Schiff is neither mentally ill. In Schiff's last trial he was put through a Psychological Examination by the Judge. The Government?s own clinical psychologist, Danial S. Hayes, Ph.D. L.L.C. gave an analysis of Mr. Schiff:

Quote:

? the research and documentation he believes to be in support of his beliefs, and the commitment and passion with which he holds his beliefs to be true.? He appears to have extremely rigid, fixed, inflexible, doggedly, determined opinions and beliefs that cannot be changed by others? reasoning. And, in this case, even punishment has not had a corrective impact in his thinking or behaviors. He appears impervious to any suggestion that he reconsider his conclusions or his actions, in part because of the thorough research he has conducted which has yielded evidence and facts to support his conclusions, coupled with the fact that he considers himself to be an ?expert? with knowledge that supersedes that of any other individual claiming to have expertise in this subject area. Most people have beliefs that have a greater degree of flexibility and openness to change than does Mr. Schiff.? Although some may have beliefs that parallel Mr. Schiff?s, they differ from him in that they are unwilling to jeopardize their freedom and suffer the consequences of their beliefs to the degree that Mr. Schiff has.? As a result, it would be almost impossible at this point in his life to persuade him that he is wrong, particularly since he feels that there are few if any individuals who could match the breath and depth of knowledge he appears to have as a result of the time, effort, focus, and intellect he has devoted to the subject.? Any arguments against him are likely o be seen by him as na?ve and sophomoric, and he is likely to dismantle any such arguments quickly and handily by quick reference to materials his opponent is unlikely to have at the ready for consideration and rebuttal.? ?

He holds these beliefs with such conviction that even the severe consequences of incarceration for the rest of his natural life fails to shake his resolve.? This does tend to set him apart from the average individual?He adamantly feels that he has discovered something that is very important to the American people regarding this nation?s economic and taxation practices, and whereas others who are not driven by a Mood Disorder might be more open minded to arguments, weigh personal consequences and elect not to pursue their campaign, Irwin Schiff has chosen a route fraught with significant and possible disastrous consequences.?

For IRS Commissioner Mark Everson to say “Mr. Schiff earned this sentence,” would indicate to me on how powerful Irwin Schiff's name was echoed throughout the United States.

I must however be neutral on topics concerning Mr. Schiff. Many years ago, I attended one of Mr. Schiff's seminars just in curiousity, to hear what this guy had to say in general. Mr. Schiff charges about $75.00 a head for people to attend his seminar. I had no problem with the admission. But since I read one of his very old books, The Biggest Con: How The Government is Fleecing You, I knew that he knew certain facts with our money system and the Federal Reserve. When I met a young lady collecting money at the front door, I handed over to her $75.00 worth of silver Norfed currencies, that were recently purchased. Very interestingly, the girl did not know what to do with them, so she called out for Irwin and Irwin and Sonik Speed had the following conversation (to the best of my recollection):

IRWIN SCHIFF: Wow – what's this?

SONIK SPEED: They are silver dollars, Irwin.

IRWIN SCHIFF: (Observes for about 30 seconds) They are really nice – but I can't use these.

SONIK SPEED: Sure you can! They are not illegal.

IRWIN SCHIFF: Yeah but no one will accept them.

SONIK SPEED: Irwin, they are not illegal. I use them from time to time. In fact, the Treasury said it was okay as long as it is not claimed to be “LEGAL TENDER”

IRWIN SCHIFF: You are a first. I never had anyone come up to me to give this.

SONIK SPEED: (Very angrily and in a loud voice) But Irwin, you talk about the fraud in your book The Biggest Con: How The Government is Fleecing You. You say that Federal Reserve Notes are not real money. This is real money, Irwin! I even have your book with me to have you sign it.

IRWIN SCHIFF: I am sorry, but I cannot accept these.

SONIK SPEED: I can't believe this!

IRWIN SCHIFF: Look banks won't accept them and neither can I. Just pay $75.00 and come right in..

I threw $75.00 on the table where the girl was sitting and just walked right in. Again, I cannot PROVE that this dialogue happen. I yield towards my credibility and the regulars of the Family Guardian website should just trust my word on this.

Sonik Speed

[post=”2513″][/post]

I'm not in the least bit surprised that Shiff wouldn't accept NORFEDs — There was no way for him to transfer them to any of his overseas accounts.

But to get back to your/my original issue — stupidity versus insanity: Just because someone is (as you cited) “very well educated” does not mean he can't, at the same time, be as dumb as a door post. I'm sure you, like everyone else does, know a fair number of well-educated but stupid people.

Next, let's look back at the quotation you posted, in specific “…whereas others who are not driven by a Mood Disorder…” Doesn't that seem to imply that Shiff IS driven by a mood disorder? In any case, there are different levels of insanity. My comment relates to someone who is so out of touch with reality that they either refuse to, or are incapable of, rationally dealing with what is happening to them. Schiff's behavior at trial clearly indicated his disconnection. He was operating under the assumption that HE was in control of the proceedings, that HE was free to conduct his case and defense however he wished, and that HE was immune from compliance with the rules and procedures of the court.

I stand my ground on this one. Schiff is either stupid as a rock or crazy as a loon as demonstrated by his total inability or unwillingness to learn from his past experiences.

I truly believe that someone who has been convicted and jailed twice for the exact same offense should learn from that and not set himself up to go through the same process for a third time.

Schiff is going to die in prison. He brought it on himself. As much as he complains of being a political prisoner, he isn't He's just another common, albeit high-profile, tax evader.

BTW: I don't have the specific URL, but Schiff was interviewed on CNN or CSPAN or something today. If you drop by Quatloos, there's a thread “Schiff Speaks” or something like it which gives the link.

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Apr 5 2006, 05:22 PM:

First, I definitely agree 100%, that truck drivers that travel (in commerce) from state jurisdiction to state jurisdiction – are unquestionably engaged in actions that are subject to Federal jurisdiction. However, I want to focus the attention to the TWO ABOVE bold and underlined emphasis. In the first one you claim that there is such a thing called “overlapping jurisdiction”. The Constitution DOES NOT MENTION anything about “sharing” jurisdictions. As you know, the Constitution is VERY BINARY: Federal Powers OR State Powers. (Notice how I did not say “AND”) The concept of “shared jurisdiction” is entirely a species created by the state and Federal right of contracting. Like citizens, both the former and latter can also exercise in contracting.

It is not a matter of contract.  There are no contracts between any two levels of government establishing or defining jurisdictions.  The jurisdictions are established by the Federal and state constitutions.  As I stated earlier, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  To the extent of its defined powers, as interpreted and validated by the courts, it covers every square inch of each of the 50 states and beyond.  Powers not reserved to the Federal government devolve to the states without any contractual aspect whatsoever.

I would agree that “shared jurisdiction” is NOT unconstitutional, because the states have a right to engage in “Contracts” or “agreements” with the Federal government. For an example proof of this please see 42 USC 418(a)(1), where it talks about voluntary agreements for coverage of State and local employees on social security coverage. In relevent part:

Quote:

The Commissioner of Social Security shall, at the request of any State, enter into an agreement with such State for the purpose of extending the insurance system established by this subchapter to services performed by individuals as employees of such State or any political subdivision thereof.? Each such agreement shall contain such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, as the State may request.

Please do not misunderstand me. Under no way, shape or form am I claiming that Social Security is a contract. It is absolutely NOT a contract with the private American. But when it comes to State and local employees – it is somewhat of a different ball game. I am just quoting 42 USC 418(a)(1) just to show that the states/local municipalities are fully capable of coming to an “agreement” which might ultimately shows that there is some sort of “shared jurisdiction”.

You are concentrating on shared jurisdiction and ignoring overlapping jurisdictions. State (and within them, local) jurisdictions overlap portions of the federal. They do not diminish or in any way interfere with the federal.

I want to touch up on the latter part that was bold and underlined in your quote. You are just hypothesizing, and there is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that that COULD happen.

I'm sorry — I lost track. Which part of my sttatement are you challenging?

Next, I unfortunately agree with this statement (Thank you Mr. Roosevelt and Court Packing plan – I say in sarcasm <_< ):

Quote:

There are at least two areas in the Constitution which have been proven (by Supreme Court decisions) to be somewhat elastic: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.? The Court has extended quite a bit of latitude to the government in terms of upholding legislation and regulations under these points.

With respect to your comments on the potatoe analogy – I went back and re-read my comments, and you have totally mis-understood what I meant, because of my failure to be articulate. I apologize. Let me be more clear on what I meant… I meant to say was, a murder law for example (a citizen killing a citizen) that has been comitted on state land is the law that governs. However, when you have something like Oklahoma City, then Federal Jurisdiction governs.

If you look back at the trials, you will see that both Federal and Oklahoma jurisdictions applied and were invoked. Both Federal AND state trials were held.

Again, jurisdiction is VERY VERY BINARY (unless there is some sort of governing “contract” between the two parties). I might also add that ALL OF THIS, I mentioned above in my TOP TEN POINTS. Please see above.

In conclusion, you do have a few valid points with jurisdiction. However, sometimes these valid points that you have are incomplete and do not give the whole picture.

My definitions of jurisdiction do give the whole picture and do cover the entire situation. Federal jurisdiction applies throughout the land. Period. The only restrictions on federal jurisdiction are the powers granted in the Constitution and interpreted and defined by the Supreme Court. Beyond that, and without the need for any contracts, each of the 50 states, plus the territories, possessions, and the Dictrict of Columbia have jurisdiction within their respective boundaries. They can make and enforce any laws they choose so long as they don't violate the Constitution {Case in point, limitations on State abortion control laws} Within the states, counties and municipalities have legislative and governing powers. That's the whole picture.

Sonik Speed

Remember, the key concept is “supreme law of the land” as stated in the Constitution. That statement is not, in any way qualified as to geography, contracts, or anything else. The federal Constitution is IT, the be all and end all. All else is subordinate.

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 30 2006, 08:54 PM:

Let's see if I can find an interesting new color

ANDY K: “Federal Zone” theory states that the federal government has no powers outside certain geographic areas.

SONIK SPEED: Certainly this is not true. Well of course the federal government has powers outside certain geographic areas. However, that power is NOT – I repeat – IS NOT ABSOLUTE!

Absolute is an interesting concept.  There is such a thing as shared, overlapping jurisdictions.  The federal government has no popwer, whatsoever, over most traffic laws (outside a few specific areas) — that power devolves to the states and municipalities.  Even though the CommerceClause could, conceivably be stretched thin enough to cover it, the federal government hasn't attempted.  However, let's look at truck drivers.  They are engaged in interstate commerce and all of a sudden the federal government DOES have absolute power; supplanting any other jurisdictions.  Interesting.

ANDY K – It is my contention that, based on the original ratification of the Constitution, the Constitution has become the supreme law of the land and any powers assigned to the federal government are applicable and enforceable THROUGHOUT the entirety of the 50 states plus the remaining territories, etc.

SONIK SPEED: Okay – granted. “Any power assigned” is the keyword here and this response is in full harmony with your first response. Again, I would emphasize that this power is NOT ABSOLUTE.

I don't want to come across as disagreeing, but …  To the extent that a legislative power devolves to the Federal government, and not the states, the federal power is absolute in the sense that it's existence and authority (once deemed constitutional) can not be challenged.  That's pretty absolute.

ANDY K: The only federal powers which are not enforceable in those lands are those specifically reserved to the states or deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

SONIK SPEED: Okay this is definitely true, but it is INCOMPLETE. In order for federal powers to take effect, it must full in within one of the enumerated 18 points that is given in the Constitution (See Article 1, Section 8). Another implied power of Congress can be found in Article 1, Section 10.  Do you agree with my response to complete your answer?

Sort of.  There are at least two areas in the Constitution which have been proven (by Supreme Court decisions) to be somewhat elastic: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.  The Court has extended quite a bit of latitude to the government in terms of upholding legislation and regulations under these points.

ANDY K: … federal jurisdiction, unless specifically restricted by the Constitution or denied by the Supreme Court, extends throughout, and is simultaneous with the jurisdiction of, the 50 states.

SONIK SPEED: I agree with the above statement, but I might add and say that if I were living in lets say, potato land Idaho, then Idaho law is the law of the land in Idaho.

I have to firmly disagree with you on potato laws.  THe Constitution, in its own words, is the supreme law of the land.  Any law enacted by Idaho, or any of its political subdivisions, is subservient to the Constitution.  As an example from somewhat farther south, laws mandating segregation, although legally enacted by many states, were deemed unconstitutional, null, void, and unenforceable. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

ANDY K: In fact, there are many places within this country where one is subject to at least 4 separate and distinct jurisdictions at once: Federal, State, County, and local. Each is valid and enforceable.

SONIK SPEED: Well – okay. I could accept this, with certain limitations.

What limitations?  Let's go back to Idaho, Boise, in specific.  The city/municipal regulations {as permitted by the state and federal constitutions} are valid and enforceable throughout the City.  Similarly, since Boise is a cmponent of Idaho, all Idaho State laws, unless specifically exempted, are in effect throughout Boise.  Finally, all Federal laws (exclusive of those which are specifically geographically limited shch as to DC, Puerto Rico, military installations, etc) are equally applicable throughout Boise and the rest of Idaho.

____________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION: I fail to see where I disagree with you on this issue of Jurisdiction. It seems to me that your conclusions regarding jurisdiction is no different than my conclusions.

Sonik Speed

[post=”2489″][/post]

I wonder what the remaining contention is? If any federal legislation is deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, is it not valid and enforceable anywhare and everywhere in the 50 states, possessions and territories?

[AndyK]

Albert Martin wrote on Apr 4 2006, 05:39 AM:

It was 1981 when I first became aware of the governments tax lies thanks to Irwin. Ever since then I eat ,sleep, bath, dress, work, walk and talk almost nothing but INCOME TAXES. I have been oustracized by many of my extended family. I am very proud of my wife and daughters though. They have always stood by me even in the face of IRS terror. Now My grand children are still very young but they are growing up and guess what they are going to learn from me?

So Irwin your efforts are reveberating through many generations. You have not fought in vain!

[post=”2507″][/post]

Actually, he has fought in vain.

He is in prison for probably the rest of his life.

He owes several million dollars in back taxes, fines, and penalties.

His two closest confidants are in prison.

Everyone who bought his books and services has either lost in the courts, surrendered, or is awaiting trial.

This is a major success. He has accomplished nothing for the “tax honesty” movement beyond thoroughly publicizing yet another worthless theory.

Do you really want your children and grandchildren to follow in the footsteps of this wonderful role model?

For Pete's sake, Schiff was either so stupid or mentally ill that he is now on his THIRD prison term for violating the same law. You'd think he might have learned after his first or second conviction and jail term, but he didn't.

Great role model.

[AndyK]

BOBT12 wrote on Apr 3 2006, 05:59 PM:

Where are you AndyK?

Do you have any more information to share with this forum, or is your lack of response your final answer?

[post=”2504″][/post]

Chill out.

I, too, have a job {which requires travel} and a life, both of which take precedence over time here.

I'll get back to you shortly.

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 29 2006, 08:44 PM:

Anyway… in rebuttal you crtiticize the Lopez case:

Quote:

The case involves a challenge to the use of the Commerce clause to prohibit guns at schools via Federal legislation. It has absolutely no relevance to the ?Federal Zone? issue and I am curious as to why you even bothered citing it.

WHAT!? “Federal legislation” and “Federal Zone” or whatever you want to call it, all depend upon -jurisdiction-, my dear Andy! You do not have to respond to this question (as it is 100% voluntary) – but may I kindly ask your level of education in general?

In specific, I am a college graduate with more than one advanced degree.

In trying to decipher what you are saying and what we here are saying – I believe there is a mis-understanding of the terms we are using. The phrase “Federal Zone” is what seems to be giving us the trouble. Anyway, confirm this… because I think you are talking about something different and we are talking about something different than what you are.

Thanks!

The “Federal Zone” theory states that the federal government has no powers outside certain specific geographic areas. It is my contention that, based on the original ratification of the Constitution, the Constitution has become the supreme law of the land and any powers assigned to the federal government are applicable and enforceable THROUGHOUT the entirety of the 50 states plus the remaining territories, etc. The only federal powers which are not enforceable in those lands are those specifically reserved to the states or deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, federal jurisdiction, unless specifically restricted by the Constitution or denied by the Supreme Court, extends throughout, and is simultaneous with the jurisdiction of, the 50 states. In fact, there are many places within this country where one is subject to at least 4 separate and distinct jurisdictions at once: Federal, State, County, and local. Each is valid and enforceable.

Sonik Speed

[post=”2480″][/post]

[AndyK]

Bing wrote on Mar 29 2006, 04:48 PM:

Overall, that was a nice attempt at rebuttal, even though your conclusions are mostly incorrect and your analysis falls far from the mark.?

What you are presenting as a factual statement is your opinion.? If you believe my conclusions are incorrect, please elaborate.? A blanket statement of error is not acceptable — It is merely a statement of opinion.

But thanks for pointing out the gaps in the quotations, I will go back and verify them.

Andy, you said, and I quote, “. . .Aside from the fact that this case, like Anerican(sic) Banana addresses the lack of jurisdiction of Congress in a foreign country,. . “

Ah-ha!!

You said “foreign country”, which is exactly what the several states are with respect to each other, and the federal United States.? This is a conclusive fact that is not subject to being controverted.

Please provide some support for your alleged fact.? Merely stating that something is a fact is not acceptable.? What prevents ME from saying something is an incontrovertable fact?? I'm sure you would all jump down my throat, feet first, if I attempted to do so without backing it up.

Which precisely proves the point that me, Sonik, and Author #2 said with respect to the several states, in fact, being separate countries except for those things covered by the federal Constitution. See 28 USC 297 ( a ) and ( B ) for proof. How do you reconcile your assertions, with the evidence contained in 28 USC 297 ( a ) and

( b ) ?

The same fact in 28 USC 297 is contained in Corpus Juris Secundum, 2nd edition.

There's no need to cite anything outside US statutes.? They are sufficient and stand on their own.? I'll research the meaning and implication of assigning judges and get back to you later.

Perhaps if I cited the seminal Ft. Leavenworth case, it would have been clearer to you.

Please cite it so I can look it up and research it.

Let me ask you this, can the Maryland legislature enact a law that is enforceable inside Washington, D.C.? If not, why not?

No, Maryland has no jurisdiction over D.C, Virginia, or anything outside its geographic boundaries.

Can the New Jersey legislature enact a law that is enforceable on the land where the federal courthouse sits, in Newark? If not, why not??

IF, and only if, the land on which the federal courthouse sits was ceded? by the New Jersey legislature to the federal government, then NO.? It that did not take place, then New Jersey retains jurisdiction over the federal complex and all laws passed by the state legislature apply to the federal complex.

If the states can not enact and enforce state laws on federal land, why would you think that the opposite is true, and that the federal government can lawfully enforce federal laws inside the sovereign territory of the several states.

Somewhere in the Constitution, if you care to check, is the phrase “supreme law of the land.”? When the States ratified the Constitution, they accepted the preeminence of the federal Constitution.? Thus, any federal laws, enacted within the framework of the Constitution as amended, have jurisdiction within all of the 50 states.

A few years ago, during a July 4th celebration in Philadelphia, a 600 pound stage prop fell and almost konked Assoicate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the head. Over the next few days, there were articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and representatives from the City of Philadelphia told the press that since the event was held on federal land, it was outside the jurisidction and responsiblity of the City, and Barbara Grant, who was then the Mayor's spokeswoman, said, “it is federal land, so it is like it (the mishap) happened in a foreign country.”

So what?? A mayor's spokesperson has as much legitimacy to opine on federal jurisdiction as does the mayor's dog.? Now, if the incident occurred on land ceded to the federal government, she is correct.? Otherwise, the incident occurred within the jurisdictions (PLURAL) of the City of Philadelphia AND the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania AND the federal government.

Andy, with all due respect, for your analysis to be correct, you want us to believe that jurisdiction is a one way street and only flows one way, from the federal government down to the lowly states. However, jurisdiction is a two lane highway that runs in both directions equally and at all times.

Again, this is opinion on your part.? Please back it up with fact.

Moreover, there is actually a section of the U.S. Attorneys Manual which proves the position advocated by Family Guardian Fellowship. I will have to search for it, but I am sure Sonik or Author #2 will be able to find it on Famguardian alot quicker than I can.? Help me out here, guys.

Finally, Andy if you doubt that the 50 states of the uSA are separate, independent nations, I want to suggest that you examine the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which, as you may know, is one of the Organic laws of the uSA.

You are incorrect,? The Declaration is NOT an organic LAW — it is one of the organic DOCUMENTS.? Anything prior to the Constitution was supplanted by the Constitution as LAW, when it was ratified.? The predecessor documents are excellent reference material as to the intent of the framers, but they are not law.

Bing

[post=”2478″][/post]

[AndyK]

First, please don?t shout, it isn?t necessary.

Next, my analysis of the material you cited.

I apologize for the appearance, but I can't get the

Quote:

function to work the way I want. Give me some help and I'll edit it to make it more readable.

Quote:

U.S v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995): ?Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal government has nothing approaching a police power.?

Quote:

To uphold the Government's contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

?

The Court today properly concludes that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the authority to prohibit gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school, as it attempted to do in the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4844.

The case involves a challenge to the use of the Commerce clause to prohibit guns at schools via Federal legislation. It has absolutely no relevance to the ?Federal Zone? issue and I am curious as to why you even bothered citing it.

Quote:

American Banana v. United Fruit Company 213 US 347, (1909): “The foregoing considerations would lead, in case of doubt, to a construction of any statute as intended to be confined in its operation and effect to the territorial limits over which the lawmaker has general and legitimate power. 'All legislation is prima facie territorial.' Ex parte Blain, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 522, 528; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 590, 596.”

Absolutely correct quotation. Now, let?s look at the context of the case from which this sentence was extracted. The controversy was could the United States courts enforce a United States law against actions which occurred in South America. How does this relate to limiting Federal jurisdiction to the ?Federal Zone??

Quote:

It is obvious that, however stated, the plaintiff's case depends on several rather startling propositions. In the first place, the acts causing the damage were done, so far as appears, outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and within that of other states. ?other states? being Panama, Columbia, and Costa Rica It is surprising to hear it argued that they were governed by the act of Congress.

?

No doubt in regions subject to no sovereign, like the high seas, or to no law that civilized countries would recognize as [213 U.S. 347, 356] adequate, such countries may treat some relations between their citizens as governed by their own law, and keep, to some extent, the old notion of personal sovereignty alive

?

But the general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done

?

In the case of the present statute, the improbability of the United States attempting to make acts done in Panama or Costa Rica criminal is obvious, yet the law begins by making criminal the acts for which it gives a right to sue. We think it entirely plain that what the defendant did in Panama or Costa Rica is not within the scope of the statute so far as the present suit is concerned.

Quote:

Sandberg v. McDonald: “Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction. American Banana Company v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357 , 29 S. Sup. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047.”

Citing something twice doesn?t make it any less invalid.

Quote:

Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211 (1894) : ?. . .The laws of Congress in respect to those matters This text does not appear in the cited decision {outside of Constitutionally delegated powers} do not extend into the territorial limits of the States, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.?

Quote:

This case comes on error from the district court of the United States for the district of Kansas. On March 31, 1893, plaintiff in error, having been found guilty of the crime of perjury by the verdict of a jury, was sentenced to confinement in the Kansas state penitentiary for a term of two years, and to pay a fine of $10.

The questions are these: The indictment was returned September 22, 1892. It in two counts charged the defendant with the crime of perjury, committed on January 3, 1890, in the land office at Kingfisher, Okl., in falsely testifying [152 U.S. 211, 213] that he was on a sand bar in the South Canadian river at 12 o'clock noon on the 22d of April, 1889; that this false testimony was given in a contest then pending in the land office, in which one Thomas Burch contested defendant's homestead entry on the ground that he had violated the act of congress of March 2, 1889, and the president's proclamation, by entering upon and occupying the lands opened to settlement under such proclamation prior to 12 o'clock noon of the day named therein, to wit, April 22, 1889

?

This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national goverment. It was in reference to such body of laws that section 2145, Rev. St., was enacted, and the argument which is sought to be drawn by the counsel therefrom against the jurisdiction of the district court of Kansas has no foundation.

It is enough that section 5392 has uniform application throughout the territorial limits of the [152 U.S. 211, 216] United States; that by section 563 the district courts are given jurisdiction generally 'of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States committed within their respective districts;' and that, by section 2, c. 13, (22 Stat. 400,) the territory in question was annexed to and made a part of the United States judicial district of Kansas.

?

the judgment is affirmed.

The citation recognizes that there are certain areas where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. It, in no way, limits Congress? power to only those areas.

Quote:

Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 US 281 (1948): ?It is well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears?

Quote:

This case presents the question whether the Eight Hour Law applies to a contract between the United States and a private contractor for construction work in a foreign country.

?

There is no language in the Eight Hour Law, here in question, that gives any indication of a congressional purpose to extend its coverage beyond places over which the United States has sovereignty or has some measure of legislative control. There is nothing brought to our attention indicating that the United States had been granted by the respective sovereignties any authority, legislative or otherwise, over the labor laws or customs of Iran or Iraq.

Aside from the fact that this case, like Anerican Banana addresses the lack of jurisdiction of Congress in a foreign country, your cited quotation does not appear anywhere in the Court?s decision. Was it, perhaps, from the arguments of one of the parties? In any case, the quotation is not case law and is irrelevant.

Quote:

New Orleans v. United States, 35 US (10 Pet.) 662 (1836): ?. . . Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the Federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is ?only? was omitted from the citation in these places, or in ?the? omitted territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.?

From the decision, a brief summary of the case

Quote:

The United States claim in this case the exclusive right over the property described in the proceedings, by virtue of their sovereignty; [35 U.S. 662, 672] and as succeeding to the sovereign rights of the kings of Spain and of France, over the territory of Louisiana, before the treaty of cession. They claim this as ungranted or vacant land; and as such that it passed to the United States by the treaty. While they do not deny that it may be subject to certain uses by the inhabitants of the city of New Orleans; they do deny that these uses have given any right of property in the soil, or authorized any interference with it, so as to change or affect it in any manner.

This is opposed by the appellants. They assert this property to be exclusively theirs; and that it was the property of the corporation of New Orleans, before the United States acquired the territory of New Orleans. That it was theirs by its having been a part of the city of New Orleans, from the first establishment of the same, by dedication; when the place was first laid out by those who were proprietors of the whole soil: by possession ever since: and that if it had become enlarged by the addition of alluvion deposits, the additions, under the laws of France and of Spain, before the cession, and by the law of the United States, since the treaty, are the property of the corporation.

?

But the question to be settled in the case before the court, on the proceeding in the district court of Louisiana, is not whether the corporation of New Orleans has a right to use the property. It is the question, whether by the treaty of cession, the United States acquired [35 U.S. 662, 673] a right to the same, as having had transferred to them the sovereign rights of Spain, and afterwards of France over the territory. This is the right asserted by the petitioner, and put in issue by the answers and pleas.

This case, again provides no support for the ?Federal Zone? concept. It represents a loss for the Federal Government in its attempt to prevent the sale by the City of certain lands to private parties. The court is denying the Federal right to assert exclusive (or general) jurisdiction over lands not specifically authorized by the Constitution. It, in no way, limits the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress.

Quote:

United States v. DeWitt, 76 US 41 9 Wall 4, 19 L. Ed 593: ?…the commerce clause…has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states?

First, the full statement in context

Quote:

The questions certified resolve themselves into this: Has Congress power, under the Constitution, to prohibit trade within the limits of a State?

That Congress has power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, the Constitution expressly declares. But this [76 U.S. 41, 44] express grant of power to regulate commerce among the States has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate States; except, indeed, as a necessary and proper means for carrying into execution some other power expressly granted or vested.

And the case at issue

Quote:

ON certificate of division in opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the case being this:- [76 U.S. 41, 42] Section 29 of the act of March 2d, 1867,1 declares,

'That no person shall mix for sale naphtha and illuminating oils, or shall knowingly sell or keep for sale, or offer for sale such mixture, or shall sell or offer for sale oil made from petroleum for illuminating purposes, inflammable at less temperature or fire-test than 110 degrees Fahrenheit; and any person so doing, shall be held to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof by indictment or presentment in any court of the United States having competent jurisdiction, shall be punished by fine, &c., and imprisonment,' &c.

Under this section one Dewitt was indicted, the offence charged being the offering for sale, at Detroit, in Michigan, oil made of petroleum of the description specified. There was no allegation that the sale was in violation or evasion of any tax imposed on the property sold. It was alleged only that the sale was made contrary to law.

To this indictment there was a demurrer; and thereupon arose two questions, on which the judges were opposed in opinion.

(1.) Whether the facts charged in the indictment constituted any offence under any valid and constitutional law of the United States?

(2.) Whether the aforesaid section 29 of the act of March 2d, 1867, was a valid and constitutional law of the United States?

Isn?t it strange how the accidentally omitted phrase ?except, indeed, ?? completely changes the meaning of the citation? The Court actually reaffirms the power of Congress to execute other powers expressly granted. This, again, provides no support for the ?Federal Zone? argument.

Quote:

Sonik Speed: (clears throat) . . . . Your premise is clearly rebutted by Mr. James Madison in Federalist Paper #14: ?It is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with whole power of making and administrating laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by separate provisions of any.?

In Objections To The Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered, Madison wrote:

Quote:

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.

He was addressing worries that the size of the new nation would preclude effective government. The particular paragraph assures the readers that not all legislation and enforcement would emerge from the Central Government, but that subordinate governments would retain their powers. This is a telling argument FOR shared Federal and State jurisdiction.

Quote:

Yet again in the interesting dicta in Ashton vs Cameron County [298 US 513]: “…for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. “

The citation in context

Quote:

The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause.

Also

Quote:

The petitioner is a mere agency or instrumentality of the state, created for local exercise of her sovereign power-reclamation of arid land through irrigation. It owns no private property and carries on public business only. The bonds are contracts of the state, executed through this agency, and secured by taxes levied upon local property. Congress lacks power to authorize a federal court to readjust obligations, as provided by the act.

To quote Justice Cardozo in defining the case

Quote:

The question is a narrow one: Is there power in the Congress under the Constitution of the United States to permit local governmental units generally, and irrigation or water improvement districts in particular, to become voluntary bankrupts with the consent of their respective states?

Again, this fails to support the existence of a ?Federal Zone? and the limitations of Congressional jurisdiction to it.

[AndyK]

Author #2 wrote on Mar 27 2006, 09:04 PM:

AndyK,

By “a much more authoritative forum”, do you mean a forum of those whose main goal is to perpetuate the feeding frenzy off the plunder from the illegal enforcement, and do so at the tune of $200 per hour or more?? Ahem…I mean fellow sharks?? I guess all fish hang out in schools, and sharks are no different, are they?? These are the deacons of the state-sponsored church called federal court.?

The judge is the priest and licensed attorneys are? deacons.? Worship service is the hearing or trial.? Being “admitted” means you can participate in the witchcraft and the human sacrifices executed at the altar of Baal, which is why they call it the “BAALiff”.? The judge sits around in a black robe and chants in latin out of his state-sponsored Bible, the Infernal (Satanic) Revenue Code.? The jury are the twelve disciples of the priest who all tithe their first fruits to the church in the form of income taxes.? Once they start thinking for themselves and demand to supervise the judge by reading the law for themselves, they are immediately recused because they won't join the angry mob of voters BRIBED with the plunder, I mean federal “benefits” that keep the ecosystem functioning and growing like a cancer on the body politic.

I guess you aren't used to trying to explain the law to ordinary people who are motivated to do research and remove it from the realm of the exclusive priesthood that those in the legal profession have attempted to make it.? The Chief Priest, I mean the Judge, never lets the worship service get that far, now does he?? . . . and it looks like, true to form, you aren't either because you want to perpetuate the ignorance, fear, and false presumption that puts wind in your sail, as you say.?

Things never get better because those who know the truth are afraid to take food off their table by sharing it.

Nevertheless, thanks for joining us and we appreciate your insight, which hasn't added one iota to the main goal of this website, which is public education about the law to make up for the vacuum of independent thought and legal education found in the fool factory…I mean the public FOOL system..I mean the public “School” system we have now.? Heaven forbid that the servant who runs the public schools, our loyal government, would ever want the students to know who is REALLY in charge, which is them.

Author #2

[post=”2472″][/post]

Save your rants for someone who might be impressed.

You spewed a lot of words above but said absolutely nothing either coherent or relevant to the topic under discussion.

Based on the amount of research, work, and reasoning you put into the Family Guardian, SEDM, and their contents, I would have expected better of you.

Andy

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 27 2006, 07:46 PM:

Mr. AndyK – while it is not my duty to defend Family Guardian on issues that they post, it is however my duty to defend truth. I do not see anything wrong with his citations. You seem to find the need to add the phrase:

Quote:

“Unless expressly provided otherwise in the law itself, all laws passed by the U.S. Congress shall conclusively be presumed to apply only within the former, or first of the two jurisdictions, called the federal zone, above. “

You are certainly, in fact WAY OFF and incorrect that “all bills passed by Congress” gives the Federal government exclusive jurisdiction in the union states.

Sonik Speed

Before you criticize; please check the source to which I posted a specific reference.

What I posted is a verbatim quotation from the Family Guardian page I specifically cited. The only change is the bold highlighting of the last sentence.

I don't lie, change the words of others or misrepresent what anyone else has said.

It's too easy to check (especially when I cite the source) and I prefer to stand on solid ground.

As to the court cases you cited above, none of them contradict me.

When single sentences are removed from the decision of a case and isolated from the legal question at issue, they can take a very different meaning from the original.

I have yet to see a single case, at any level which supports your contention of the isolation of Congress to the Federal Zone.

Next, you said “I actually saw a FEDERAL POLICE CAR. In his presence, if I were to speed 50 miles over the speedlimit in a city highway, there is NOT A THING that Federal police officer can do to me.” I suggest that you NOT try that in the counties around (but external to) Washington DC. Several different federal police agencies have jurisdiction in those areas, and not just to enforce traffic laws.

Finally, I don't know how you came up with “You are certainly, in fact WAY OFF and incorrect that “all bills passed by Congress” gives the Federal government exclusive jurisdiction in the union states.”

The federal government does not have EXCLUSIVE jurisdictionm outside of a few hundred square miles of real estate. It does have joint jurisdiction with the states throughout the rest of the entirety of the country.

As I predicted much earlier, we are rapidly approaching an impasse. You, and Author #2, are expressing a belief, one of the predicates of your position, which I consider contrary to established law.

This is not something which can be resolved by any amount of discussion here.

If you or Bing wish to assume I am conceding defeat by refusing to remain a party in beating both sides of a dead horse at once, then so be it. You are entitled to your opinions.

Only time and a much more authoritative forum will make the ultimate decision.

Andy

[AndyK]

Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 27 2006, 01:24 PM:

Finally – since the wonderful world of FAMILY-GUARDIA accepts the basic premise that there are certainly other ways of congregating, 'assembling' or  'associating' with the government in which implies jurisdiction (ex: the 10 points above to name a few) then is Sonik Speed to assume that ANDY K now believes that this website DOES NOT carry misinformation on any type of education regarding jurisdiction?

Sonik Speed

No. I believe that there is significant misinformation regarding Federal Jurisdiction:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Chal…urisdiction.htm

Quote:

As we explain throughout this website, our national government of the United States legislates for two distinct territorial jurisdictions. 

The Federal Zone, which includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands.  This jurisdiction is also referred to as the “territorial jurisdiction” or the areas over which the sovereignty of the government of the united States extends.

The sovereign 50 states of the Union of states.  These states are foreign governments with respect to the United States.  They are also referred to as “foreign countries” in 28 U.S.C. ?297 and 26 CFR ?1.911-2(h) and “foreign states” in 28 U.S.C. ?1603.   

Terms clarifying these concepts appear below:

Foreign government:  “The government of the United States of America as distinguished from the government of the several states.”  [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

Foreign laws:  “The laws of a foreign country or sister state.”  [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Foreign States:  “Nations outside of the United States…Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state.  The term “foreign nations', …should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense.”  [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]

Unless expressly provided otherwise in the law itself, all laws passed by the U.S. Congress shall conclusively be presumed to apply only within the former, or first of the two jurisdictions, called the federal zone, above. 

http://famguardian.org/SovImmunity.htm

Quote:

14. The criminal laws of the federal government only apply on federal land under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.  This is a result of the fact that the federal government has no police powers inside of states of the Union.  There are very few exceptions to this, and all are identified in the federal Constitution, including mail fraud and counterfeiting.  Everything else comes exclusively under state jurisdiction.  We therefore do not live inside the “United States” identified in most federal statutes and are not subject to most federal statutes.

The conclusions above misinterpret the concept of “exclusive jurisdiction.”

The term is used specifically to eliminate the possibility of concurrent state/fedreal jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.

It is being interpreted as if it were written “Congress' exclusive jurisdiction shall be over the District of Columbia.” That is not what the words say and not what they mean.

Within the powers delegated to Congress and the Federal government by the Constitution, the jurisdiction is the entire 50 states, territories, and possessions. To argue otherwise is a quixotic exercise in sophistry.

In specific, with respect to the Federal income tax, the following court decisions specifically refute the “federal zone” premise”

Quote:

In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th 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.? This contention has been uniformly rejected by the courts.

In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 549-50 (9th Cir. 1989)

United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988)

Barcroft v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-5, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 1666, 1667, appeal dismissed, 134 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 1997)

These are specific, on-point cases which address and dismiss the “federal zone” contention.

So, based on these and other holdings by the Supreme Court, I believe promoting the concept of a “Federal Zone” as restrictive of jurisdiction constitutes spreading misinformation.

[AndyK]

Bing wrote on Mar 27 2006, 07:42 AM:

Andy, uhhh, sir, if you can be so kind as to answer my question concerning whether or not you agree or disagree that in the past, the US Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term “Liberty?

And if you do disagree, and thereby insist that the US Supreme Court has NOT defined the definition of the term “liberty”, can you please tell us your reasons why you disagree.

I am not aware of the Court's either having done so or not, so I can't either agree or disagree.

So far, you have made vague references in your reply posts, to Famguardian.org “premises”, but oddly enough, you have stopped short of actually identifying what you think those premises really are which you supposedly disagree with.? Do you think your approach in presenting what purports to be your position, is fair?

I think you will agree that such a vague position as the one you have taken, is hardly fair to the uninitiated readers of this Forum.

Now, you have posited repeatedly that the premises are incorrect, and therefore the conclusions of this website are equally incorrect, however,? you fail to state the premises that you insist are faulty.? Can you identify for us the premises to which you have referred?? And if not, why not?

So, cutting through all of the chit-chat, I refer you back to my lead question concerning whether you agree or disagree that the US Supreme Court has defined the meaning of the term “liberty?”

If you fall silent, well, then most of us will simply assume that contrary to you unfounded retorts, your arguements are weak and your so-called position is unsupportable.

Thanks.

Bing

[post=”2463″][/post]

With respect to my disagreement with the underlying premises, it will take a while to work up a list and my specific disagreements. I do intend to reply to this point in some detail.

For openers, let's just look at two: the foundation in religion and the elimination of the word “friv**ous” from the permissable vocabulary.

Religion

Family Guardian states”Family Guardian does not have any religious tests or faith requirements, other than that people are believers. They don't have to be Methodists or Buddhists or Christians or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other such thing, …

Anyone who meets the above criteria, we believe, is capable of being worthy to deserve liberty, which the Declaration of Independence points out comes only from 'Nature's God'. “

First, this premise excludes anyone who does not believe in and obey a supreme diety. That, in itself, contradicts one of the rights granted in the Constitution — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” This right includes the right to NOT practice a religion. Thus, predicating Family Guardian on acceptance of a deity can lead to false conclusions.

Additionally, there are significant differences between the religions Family Guardian mentions above (and many which he omits). Some of these differences are specifically contradictory — for example the correct day of the Sabbath and the acceptance of Jesus as a savior. Once religion is established as a basis for almost anything, it becomes necessary to define what constitutes a valid religion (does Satanism count?) and to resolve the inherent contradictions between the different beliefs.

Friv**ous

This word has a specific legal and judicial interpretation which is distinctly different from “incorrect.”

For example, assume I was to refuse to pay my local tax bill which is printed on colored paper because I am color-blind and can't clearly read it. I could take this argument all the way to the Supreme Court, losing all the way, and not be deemed friv**ous because I am the first person to raise this issue. I would be incorrect, but not subject to any sanctions.

However, once I have lost on this point, anyone else who argues the same thing WOULD be raising a friv**ous argument because the issue had been completely argued and decided.

Thus, it is perfectly legitimate to state that a position or argument is friv**ous IF AND ONLY IF it has been raised in an appropriate forum, argued, and decided. For example, the argument that Federal jurisdiction applies ONLY within the District of Columbia and certain other specific areas (as opposed to the entirety of the 50 States, possessions, and territories) IS friv**ous. It has been argued throughout the courts and settled as incorrect by the Supreme Court.

Andy