The Limited Jurisdiction of the I.R.S.
How the Feds Trick You Into Volunteering to Pay the Federal Income Tax
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal
April 10, 2019
The Federal Income Tax is a purely voluntary tax. It is the only tax where the taxpayer is required to self-assess his own tax liability and submit information under penalty of perjury which can be used to incriminate him in a court of law—in violation of the 5th amendment. It is not authorized by the Constitution and the 16th amendment which supposedly authorized it was never properly ratified. Yes, the courts behave as if the amendment was passed, and legitimate, but that still doesn’t make it true. After all, the Supreme Court once ruled tomatoes are a vegetable, when in reality they are a fruit, so tomatoes could—you guessed it—be assessed a tax. There is nothing so arbitrary, ridiculous and dangerous as a court ruling designed to twist and contort facts in order to allow government to illegally steal money from other people.
When it comes to stealing people’s money, government doesn’t let something as pesky as the rule of law stop it from engaging in criminal activity. So, since they weren’t able to legitimately amend the Constitution to allow for their progressive income tax (which, by the way is an idea adopted straight out of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto), they decided to see if they could trick the people into voluntarily filing the income tax forms and voluntarily paying. They also threw in a little threat, duress and coercion just to make sure people “volunteered.” Their scam has worked beautifully over the past 100+ years as they have tricked generations of people into participating in a federal income tax charade that never really had any lawful effect to begin with.
I know there would be a lot of out of work accountants and tax attorneys if this information became widely known and the voters actually did something about it, but I present the information just the same.
I will now explain how they trick us all into volunteering to jump through their federal income tax hoops and volunteer to fill out their bogus forms and pay an illegitimate income tax. This is from a teaching I published in 2010. But, given we are in a annual Income Tax issue, I’ll republish it for the benefit of new readers to the class. For you old time FFJ readers, this will be good review, so please follow along.
- - -
What if the Caribou city council sent their police officers to Fort Fairfield to enforce Caribou ordinances and collect property taxes from Fort Fairfield inhabitants? Do you think our local police and town council would have something to say about that? How about if the City of Bangor sent their police officers to Fort Fairfield to summons people in Fort Fairfield for violating Bangor ordinances? Imagine the commotion if the Canadian government sent their Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Fort Fairfield to collect property taxes and vehicle registration fees from Fort Fairfield inhabitants on behalf of Canada. Should we all pay and submit to those police officers?
Those who hold a strict constructionist view of the Bible would mindlessly spew out the “render unto Caesar” verse (Mat. 22:21) as they rationalized paying those organizations since they are all legitimate, duly elected governments and we must pay whatever they demand of us. Of course, that is ridiculous, because the question of jurisdiction is not addressed in that Bible verse.
Jurisdiction is what is being discussed here. It would be unlawful for the City of Caribou, City of Bangor, or government of Canada to come to Fort Fairfield, or any other town or city in the U.S. for that matter, and demand those citizens follow their laws and pay taxes to them because they have never been granted jurisdiction to do so. This is plain to see.
Just as the Bangor city council has specific jurisdiction where it can exercise legislation, the U.S. Congress is limited to where it can exercise its legislative jurisdiction...Congress’ limited jurisdiction [is] described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution as follows:
“(The Congress shall have the power to)...exercise exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square as may, by the Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and the exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”
This shows the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress is limited to the District of Columbia and any lands it has acquired for military posts, bases and dockyards. That’s it. Congress has no more authority to enforce their laws inside the town of Fort Fairfield than the city of Caribou, city of Bangor, or government of Canada does. Just as Bangor, Maine has a certain, limited geographic area where it can send its police to enforce its local ordinances and collect local taxes, the U.S. Congress is also limited.
According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress only has authority to enforce its laws in the District of Columbia, military installations, navy dockyards, federal buildings and land that is owned by the Federal government. For example, the Federal income tax can only be enforced and collected within those strictly defined areas, just as Bangor property taxes can only be collected on land within the city of Bangor. Is this too difficult to understand? If so, start back at the beginning and read again, more slowly. The rest of the class will wait for you.
Now, what if the city of Bangor made arrangements with the local businesses in Fort Fairfield to require all new employees to sign an agreement to follow Bangor ordinances and made similar arrangements with the local banks to extend to their new customers? That would mean in order to have a job and earn money, or open a bank account, one would have to voluntarily sign an agreement to abide by Bangor city council rules. Does that sound ridiculous? Since there’s no enforceable law that would allow them to mandate it, how many of you would sign on to that agreement?
Well, that’s exactly what the U.S. government has done all across the united States. They have tricked everyone into accepting a Social Security number - which is voluntary - and sign W-4 or W-9 forms before being allowed to work and earn money.
The Social Security number and associated I.R.S. forms are the reason we have to pay income taxes - because we voluntarily signed on to that arrangement. According to a letter I have from Charles H. Mullen, from the Office of Public Inquiries at the U.S. Social Security Administration, there is “no law requiring a person to have a Social Security number to live or work in the United States,” nor is there a law requiring you to have the SSN “merely for the purposes of having one.” It is strictly voluntary.
Just as the Social Security program is voluntary, the disclosure of that number to an employer is just as voluntary. Few people know that when you sign a W-4 or W-9 form with the government, you admit to being a “U.S. Person” which is not a citizen of the united States, but more specifically, a person who exists within the Constitutionally limited jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.
Just as you wouldn’t sign an agreement to be bound to the city of Bangor in order to have a job in Fort Fairfield, you should not sign an agreement with the U.S. government. However, the accounting departments of all U.S. businesses have been erroneously taught by their local colleges and universities that we must sign those agreements because “it’s the law.” What law? Congress doesn’t have the jurisdiction to mandate the use of those forms outside of those aforementioned Constitutionally described areas.
It is for this reason that I suggested [in the past] that the Fort Fairfield town council declare that they will uphold the U.S. Constitution and not allow those who hold no jurisdiction in Fort Fairfield to exercise law enforcement or tax collecting authority in town - specifically the Federal income tax. We wouldn’t tolerate Bangor police stomping around in Fort Fairfield unlawfully enforcing their ordinances and we shouldn’t tolerate U.S. Marshals or I.R.S. agents for the same reasons --- no jurisdiction!
Businesses should stop mandating new employees sign on to agreements with the U.S. government (which are not mandatory) and people should stop giving their Social Security number. Remember, the Social Security Administration says there’s no law requiring us to use a Social Security number to have a job in the U.S. Without the number, no tax can be assessed against you.
We need to stop volunteering to pay to governmental organizations who have no jurisdiction to enforce tax collecting powers here. The town council needs to remind Congress where its jurisdiction is and assemble a police force to protect us from any who would violate our jurisdiction. To that end, I have already identified seven serious volunteers who have agreed to step forward and assist the town council when they decide to actually protect the people in Fort Fairfield from unlawful tax collections. Since I estimate a police force of at least 1,000 will be needed to repel federal invasions in Fort Fairfield, only 993 more volunteers are needed. If Fort Fairfield were to pass a declaration to uphold the U.S. Constitution and keep the Feds out, I suspect it wouldn’t be too hard to get the rest of those needed volunteers to move to Fort Fairfield and assist us.
