Who should care about jurisdiction when laws are created? You should


By Patrick Vermeister
1 February 2016

The matter of jurisdiction is probably most recognized by the average American on many popular TV-network crime dramas.

A felony is committed, and the perpetrator flees across some boundary. Law enforcement must be correct in apprehending a suspect, and then it must be determined which charges and which court will proceed in seeking justice.

Understandably, jurisdiction is an issue even with misdemeanors. But why is it so important? Don’t we all live by the same basic laws?

The answer is demonstrably NO! Many laws differ between jurisdictions, and some laws don’t even exist for neighbors across the street.

Think of taxation, for example. A resident of Mystic, Calif., in the Tahoe area is subject to the onerous state income tax, yet a neighbor who lives just across the border in Verdi, Nev., is free from state income tax because Nevada doesn’t have one. They may shop at the same stores, but one clearly has more to spend, all other things being equal.

Taxation and jurisdiction intersect in other ways. Many people who live close to a geographic border often drive a few extra miles to another state to fill up their gas tanks because fuel can be 20-30 cents cheaper per gallon. This is a version of tax avoidance and is perfectly legal.

In some cases, you can tell where a city limit ends, as sometimes items such as sidewalks and street lamps cease to exist just yards into an unincorporated area.

These are obvious examples of the differences jurisdiction has in our everyday lives.

But what may come as a surprise to many is the fact that jurisdiction plays a very important role on the topic of Federal Income Tax applicability.

Yes, on a national level, jurisdiction is an extremely important aspect of understanding the role our National Government has in influencing our lives.

Jurisdiction means the rightful authority for a government to have in enforcing the rules and standards it creates.

As it relates to the Federal Income Tax, jurisdiction is critical in understanding to whom this direct tax is lawfully targeting.

Ever since the CONSTITUTIONAL United States was created giving the citizens, and the states in which they live, supreme authority, the National Government set out trying to create a national tax.

As late as 1895, the Supreme Court struck down attempts made to levy an income tax upon all Americans. This was a time when the United States was undergoing big changes. The Spanish-American War of 1898 may have lasted only three months, but the United States’ victory over the Spanish Empire led to the acquisition of territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippine Islands.

This was one of the first examples of American expansionism, and there had to be a set of rules for these territories, as they were certainly not granted statehood. They ostensibly were annexed by the District of Columbia, which is a Federal Zone ruled over by the oligarchical powers of the U.S. Congress.

People born in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other territories are essentially subjects to the crown of Congress and do not enjoy the unalienable rights provided in the first 10 amendments to The Constitution. This is, of course, a soft form of slavery.

Think about that for a moment. A child born in D.C. has no right to free speech or due process as a child born yards away in, say, College Park, Maryland. This is jurisdiction at work.

“Many people don’t know that there are two powerful entities referred to as the ‘United States,’ ” said Adele Weiss, principal at Weiss+Associates, a European-based consultancy firm specializing in the Federal Income Tax. “Consequently, there are two very different definitions of what a ‘U.S. Citizen’ is.”

The two versions of the United States are: 1) the Constitutional Republic, comprised of the 50 states of the Union, and 2) the Federal Zone, a corporate entity whose property includes the District of Columbia, all insular territories not granted statehood and those humans born there.

This corporation can also create financial products for anyone to invest in, for the benefit of their subjects. These products can include bonds, retirement programs and tax schemes.

“Constitutional limitations don’t exist in the Federal Zone,” Weiss noted, “so the National Government can do as it pleases to its subjects. Programs like Social Security do not place the Feds into a contractual obligation to return benefits. Taxpayers are gifting their money to the National Government, which is not required to pay anything back to anyone.” This fact is born out in two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980) and Fleming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).

But how did the power to levy a Federal Income Tax — limited in scope to the Federal Zone — morph into a monster that engulfs some in the Constitutional Republic?

The answer lies in understanding jurisdiction and the power of wordplay being conducted by many politicians who are crafty Ivy League-educated lawyers.

Shortly after becoming President in 1909, William H. Taft went about in yet another attempt to create a Federal Income Tax. He was the chief proponent of the 16th Amendment, the Constitutional add-on that created the income tax. A Yale graduate, Taft clearly was skilled in legalese.

Noting that the Supreme Court had denied the National Government of a power to levy a direct tax upon those in the Constitutional Republic without using the Rule of Apportionment, he cleverly said: “I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.”

Did you catch the key phrase in Taft’s statement? He pushed for a tax upon the National Government itself, which means it could tax those subjects who were born in federal territory, work for the National Government, foreigners from other countries, or derive income from federally created financial products like bonds.

That means those born in one of the 50 states working in the private sector are not, and never have been, obliged in any way to fill out a Form 1040 tax return.

One provision added later allowed sovereign citizens of the Constitutional Republic the choice to have their income taxed like that of a U.S. Resident Alien (foreigners from countries like Mexico, Brazil and China who must have the National Government’s permission to work in the 50 states or the Federal Zone).

“This is how unsuspecting Americans get tangled up in Federal Income Tax issues,” added Weiss, whose firm helps those who wish to exit the U.S. tax system lawfully do so. “Once caught in the web, one has to be skilled at escaping, and politicians are constantly trying to obscure the existence of that Exit Door that clearly exists.”

Watch politicians and start dissecting their words. When they say ‘United States,’ they don’t specify which United States they are referring to: the Constitutional Republic or the Federal Zone. This is most definitely done on purpose as all statutes in the Internal Revenue Code only apply within federal territory and toward those who have a domicile, residence, or abode there physically or via an IRC statute like 26 USC 911 (d)(3) for a legislative tax home.

“Unfortunately, sovereign Americans don’t fully understand this distinction when they are asked whether they are ‘U.S. citizens’ on government forms,” Weiss pointed out. “Checking that box without specifying WHICH United States applies to you allows the National Government to presume on its own. You can bet that they wish to presume you are one of its subjects.”

Weiss’ firm suggests for those born in the 50 states to call themselves ‘American Nationals’ and avoid using ‘U.S. citizen’ whenever possible to avoid confusion.

Thus, understanding jurisdiction is vitally important for these sovereign nationals to fully protect their rights and freedoms granted by The Constitution.

More information on jurisdiction can be gleaned here.

Our Mission

“It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of
the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”
— American Communications Association
v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)