This article deals with the unlawful/unconstitutional actions by Union State actors which relinquishes the sovereignty of said Union State and by so doing also relinquishes the Union State territory to federal territory and thus federal law all in violation to one of the founding principles of the founders which was to maintain a mutual exclusivity between the United States (federal government) and the Union States.
THE QUIET UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF STATE LANDS
BY COLORABLE FEDERAL LAW
Introduction
Hopefully, the concept presented below is one of the last layers left to peel off the onion and at the same time provides the tax honesty movement with a valuable offensive tool. The reader can thank Pete Hendrickson (losthorizons.com) for bringing to the fore that actions create facts, which if not true need to be rebutted. The following is an abstract of a rebuttal brief the author used to show a court that the Respondent (IRS) had to be hiding behind an un-rebuttable presumption of federal jurisdiction while failing to divulge just how such could exist in any one of the Union States. This was my attempt to flush it out.
1. It has come to my attention that the majority, if not all, of the municipalities in New York including the State itself, pay the employer FICA and Medicare tax imposed by IRC Sec. 3111 and collect the employee FICA and Medicare tax imposed by IRC Sec. 3101 . The obvious question that requires an answer at this juncture is “how does this matter affect the case at bar?” The quick answer is that since Sections 3101 and 3111 apply strictly to Federal Government related “employment” as defined and Sec 3111 Employer tax relates strictly to Federal Government agencies and instrumentalities having “employees” as defined engaged in the act of “employment” as defined, it may entice some overzealous federal employee to harbor the un-rebuttable presumption that the Union State of New York is situated as a federal state in federal territory over which the Constitution grants Congress with exclusive legislative jurisdiction at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Such an un-rebuttable presumption could lead one to further presume that a Union State such as New York was, in fact, a federal State as defined at IRC sec 3121(e)(1). Petitioner will provide an in depth analysis of this issue below, because such un-rebuttable presumptions and inferences if harbored by Respondent shed a great and grave Constitutional dark cloud on the issues at bar and elsewhere, even to suggest the possibility of treason.
2. The author will lean heavily upon Supreme Case Law and Federal Statutes in this analysis to point out why the un-rebuttable presumption suggested in paragraph 1 creates such a serious Constitutional conflict upon which every Court, both Federal and State, should resolutely set its face. About six years ago, the Supreme Court declared that:
“Dual sovereignty is a defining feature of our nation’s constitutional blueprint.” Federal Marine Commission (FMC) v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743. (2002)
Early in this country’s existence (1793) The Supreme Court decided a jurisdictional issue thus:
“Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Da11 (U.S.) 419, 435, 1 LEd. 440 (1793) Iredell, J. (Emphasis added)
Consistent with the concept of “Dual Sovereignty” is another Supreme Court ruling back in 1896:
“The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with respect to a State.” 19 Corpus Jurus Secundum §884, In re: Marriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed in United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625 (1896)
Conversely, it can be concluded that New York State, a Union State party to the creation of the Federal Constitution, is likewise a Foreign Corporation with respect to the United States whose territory is beyond the reach of Congress when it is exercising its Constitutional power granted in Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 to exclusively legislate within its own territorial boundaries as for example as specified in IRC Sec 3121(e)(2).
[1] Clearly the definition of federal states does not include any of the Union States and pay particular attention to the fact that Congress is in fact and law defining a federal state.
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter -
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
3. Now we observe by looking at IRC Sec 3111 how Congress has imposed a special tax on itself and any federal state together with any instrumentalities thereof. IRC Sec 3111 imposes a specific excise tax on the United States as an employer as defined and any federal State or instrumentalities thereof which also act as employers as defined.
Section 3111. Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) -
While “wages” are the measure of the tax, “employment” is the activity that is being taxed and is defined thusly:
Section 3121. Definitions
b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed
(A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either,
(i) within the United States , or
(ii) on or in connection with an American vessel or American aircraft under a contract of service which is entered into within the United States or during the performance of which and while the employee is employed on the vessel or aircraft it touches at a port in the United States, if the employee is employed on and in connection with such vessel or aircraft when outside the United States, or
(B) outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States as an employee for an American employer (as defined in subsection (h)), or
(C) if it is service, regardless of where or by whom performed, which is designated as employment or recognized as equivalent to employment under an agreement entered into under section 233 of the Social Security Act ; (emphasis added)
From the above we see that we need to know what the definition of an American Employer is. To wit:
(h) American employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “American employer” means an employer which is:
(1) the United States or any instrumentality thereof,
(2) an individual who is a resident of the United States,
(3) a partnership, if two-thirds or more of the partners are residence of the United States,
(4) a trust, if all of the trustees are residents of the United States, or
(5) a [federal] corporation
4. Now what does this all abstract out to mean? First Congress has defined “Employment” to mean any service, of whatever nature, performed by an employee …. within the United States, or in connection with an American vessel or American Aircraft …. or outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States as an employee for an American employer (as defined in subsection (h) (setout above) or …). Two parts are of concern here, one is that employment can include any service perform by an employee within the United States, or the other is that a citizen or resident of the United States working outside the United States for an American employer who is the United States or any instrumentality thereof, whose situs is within the territory over which Congress and therefore the United States has been granted exclusive jurisdiction by the federal Constitution .
5. Now since New York State and its instrumentalities are paying the FICA and Medicare tax imposed by Sec 3111, the State by and through its employees are acting as if it is the United States or one of its Instrumentalities thereto, thus transforming a Union State into a federal state, which is contrary to “Constitutional blueprint of Dual Sovereignty” and the characteristic of being a Foreign Corporation with respect to the United States. This alters both the Union State and Federal Territorial jurisdiction by the simple unconstitutional act of various state actors who are unlawfully paying and collect the Chapter 21 taxes in collaboration with the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. There is only one Constitutional method of transferring jurisdiction (territory) from a Union State such as New York and that is spelled out in a report from The Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States, convened in 1957, and chaired by the then Assistant Attorney General, Mansfield D. Sprague during the Eisenhower administration. Part II, A Text of the Law of Legislative Jurisdiction, of the Report states that:
“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 of jurisdiction and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place. Id @ 41
“It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by 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 the State, -¬such jurisdiction being for the exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions. Id @45(emphasis added)
“The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. Id @46 (emphasis added)
6. The concern here is that while the state actors, i.e. the employees of New York and its instrumentalities, are the offending parties to such a Constitutional travesty (creating colorable federal jurisdiction by paying and collecting federal FICA and Medicare Taxes), no federal employee may observe the unlawful acts of said state actors and form the un-rebuttable presumption that the Union State of New York is within the United States (IRC 3121(b)(A)(i) or is an American Employer as an instrumentality of the United States (IRC 3121(h)(1)) and thus presumptively conclude the Union State of New York lies within federal territory thus making the citizens thereof exposed to any and all federal legislation. In Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution commands that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” A Republican Form of Government has to mean the existence of a Constitutional Blueprint of Dual Sovereignty, each State as one sovereign and the United States as the other. Thus, we see this Country’s Constitutional Blueprint as laying out 51 Sovereigns and 51 separate legislative jurisdictions. See also Paragraph 2 above. Furthermore, since the federal government is Constitutionally charged with the duty to protect each and every Union State from “invasion,” when the federal government itself is responsible for the invasion , it becomes a classical example of the fox guarding the hen house. What, exactly, is an invasion ? Well, it’s the occupation of another sovereigns land for the purpose of controlling its people.
7. As a matter of law, linguistics, and political logic, the soil of a Union State as itself a sovereign cannot simultaneously be under rule of another sovereign, namely the United States, to which it can owe a tax. Also, since when could anyone imagine a creation attempting to destructively tax its creator? The Union States and the people are the creators of the United States. Accordingly, the author herein suggests that any federal suit at law, the opposing party to the United State in its motion for admissions and confession should require the parties representing the United States to admit that they harbor the presumption that federal jurisdiction exist in the Union State designated as New York due to the fact that New York is paying the employer tax (IRC 3111) which is in fact and law limited to the territory over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority.
8. A great many people are going to scoff at the whole notion expressed here. Pete Hendrickson (losthorizons.com) together with Ludwig Von Mises has taught us that actions, above all else, create facts in the record that various agents of government draw conclusions from. In his book, Cracking The Code (CTC) Pete Hendrickson’s primary example is that 1099’s and W2’s when not rebutted stand as facts, prima facie, that the amounts listed therein are taxable income. The same is true here. When the Union State actors act in the same manner as federal state actors pursuant to Chapter 21 taxing authority by paying and collecting FICA taxes therein imposed, they are creating evidence, prima facie, that said Union State has been unconstitutionally transformed into a federal state , thus unconstitutionally transferring Union State sovereign jurisdiction to federal United States jurisdiction, and thus expanding Congress’ legislative authority beyond that provided in the federal Constitution and likewise in a manner not supported by the federal or State Constitutions. Since only those “employers” who pay an excise tax (§ 3111) for having individuals in his employ . . . paid by him with respect to “employment” as defined, paying the § 3111 tax creates colorable evidence that the employer so paying must be one who has been made required/liable to pay by statute. One such “employer” so required is an “instrumentality of the United States” under § 3121(h)(1). Consequently, when Union State actors act to create such colorable evidence, i.e. appearing as an “instrumentality of the United States,” a compounding colorable effect arises that the Union State in question lies within the legislative territory over which Congress has exclusive legislative authority. This is so because an “instrumentalities of the United States” is by definition federal territories/states within the exclusive territory of the United States. Now you have colorable evidence that a Union State has relinquished its sovereign jurisdiction to the federal government. Since such colorable evidence is itself prima facie evidence that both federal and state actors are covertly tampering with the Constitutional structure of our Republic, and since tampering with the constitutional structure of our Republic can be construed as an overt attempt to overthrow our Republic, who then could deny that such colorable acts could be construed as acts of treason?
9. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there exist a Section 233 agreement between the President of the United States and anyone of the Union States, it is by no stretch of the imagination that such an agreement, as explained above, becomes a federal occupancy of said State’s sovereign territory and therefore an encroachment upon the rights of the people of said State and the incursion for the purpose and conquest and plunder and thus again an invasion into Union State territory by the federal agencies, Congress, and the President upon whom rests the duty and mandate that any such invasion be quashed. Consequently, who could deny that any such agreement could likewise be construed to be an act of treason?
10. At the risk of beating a dead horse, let’s review just how federal agencies believe they can enforce federal law within any one of the Union States. Let’s say a federal law enforcement agent wants to prosecute someone for breaking a federal law within any one of the Union States. To be sure that he is not encroaching on territory outside of the United States, he looks at the records housed in the custody of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Code and lo and behold, he, the agent, observes that the Town/Township, County, and State are all paying and collecting the FICA tax. The agent can then safely presume he is operating in federal territory which is, of course, subject to the Laws of the United States, i.e. federal law.
11. At this juncture, take another look at the FICA statutes and in particular the definition of the act of “employment.” Notice that any and all employee/employer relationships occurring within the United States as defined in § 3121 (b)(A)(i) are subject to the tax as defined in §3101(a) and §3111(a) being imposed and all remuneration in the form of wages stemming therefrom are taxable as taxable income. So, when the above mentioned federal agent notices that the Town, County, and State in which a individual natural person resides is paying and collecting the FICA tax he presumes said Town, County, and State must be within the United States, thus in spite of arguments to the contrary, said agent trods on with his presumption and concludes that any and all remuneration of any kind is therefore taxable and he must do his best to collect the tax as if the act of “employment” as defined occurred within the United States as the facts in the record might suggest. How many people did federal jail time because of the above scenario? Quite a few!
12. Possible remedy. Every Union State instrumentality has a municipal attorney, Town Attorney, Village Attorney, City Attorney, County Attorney, State Attorney General, etc. He is fundamentally responsible for the actions of his charge and is bonded for that purpose. It would seem logical that he or she has the charge to see to it that the employees of said municipality are acting in a manner that guarantees the sovereignty of the State and thus its municipalities and their independence from the federal government as a “foreign corporation.” To some folks, to be sure, the municipality’s attorney’s failure to advise said municipality to cease and desist such unconstitutional behavior (actions) borders on treason, but at the very least it is definitely malpractice. Accordingly, any one damaged by such unconstitutional behavior which, as a matter of fact, is destroying the Constitutional Blueprint of our Republic, it would seem, has a lawsuit against the offending attorney in concert with others so damaged, i.e. a class action. Of course, the defendants as a matter consistency would be all the attorneys of the chain of the instrumentalities up to and including the state capitol, i.e. Town, County, and State’s Attorneys.
13. We are characterized by the way we act. If we act like a simpleton, we are a simpleton. If the facts show that we act like a murder, we are thus a murderer. If the facts show that we sign federal tax forms and pay federal taxes then we are federal taxpayers. If the facts show that we as a Union State instrumentality act like a federal instrumentality by paying federal employer taxes and collecting and paying over to the federal government employee FICA taxes, it can then be presumed that the territory over which we have been granted legislative authority must be federal in nature, and thus under the jurisdiction of federal law as granted .
14. If, indeed, this really is the last layer to peel off the onion, every tax honesty group should wrap their banner around this Maypole in concert, to inform the public and their State and local governments as to just what skullduggery has been going on behind the “wizard’s” curtain. Good Luck.
Poor Clyde
2007