[weishaupt1776]

Conces:

• Our position is simple. A direct tax must be apportioned. Any lawfullyimposed tax can be imposed on any citizen and it must have subject matter jurisdiction, not merely territorial jurisdiction.

Clyde:

• This simple expression has some real problems (frivolous) as he quotes the Supreme court for his position in his papers but ignores the court saying that the 16th Amendment removed the need for apportionment of the income tax.
  *
  Territorial Jurisdiction evidently means nothing, and the Federal government has carte blanc authority in all states despite Art. 1.8.17.* So why even have that article if it is meaningless.* I think the DOJ Attorney Handbook would disagree with that position, as well as Lopez and Jones (2000).* Note they did have subject matter jurisdiction in these cases, but it was territorial jurisdiction that was lacking, which translates to personal jurisdiction.
  *
  Chuck gives new meaning to "National" government and would destroy all vestiges of "Federal" government.
  *
  As late as Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452*(2002) the court listed in the footnotes:
  "2. The "actual Enumeration" was originally to be used both for apportionment of Members of the House of Representatives and for direct taxation.* Adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, removed the requirement of apportionment for direct taxes.* U.S. Const., Amdt. 16 ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration")."
  *
  You will keep shooting yourself in the foot if you hang your hat on this proposition, when the*whole Supreme court thinks otherwise.* You will never find one lower court judge who is going to agree to this*bologna.* It appears to me that the courts think the 16th Amendment gives them all the subject matter jurisdiction they need to tax you without apportionment, but what they lack clearly shown by Lopez*cited in*Jones is territorial jurisdiction.* See: Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000),* "Were the Court to adopt the Government's expansive interpretation, hardly a building in the land would fall outside § 844(i)'s domain, and the statute's limiting language, "used in," would have no office."*

Clyde in another critique:[list]You are not reading the context here Chuck.* The two cases citied show that the court uses US and USA interchangably.* It has nothing to do with taxes and no where does it say it does.* It says nothing of "Foreign Source" either, so you were shooting off your foot from the hip.* You completely missed the point.* It says: "Foreign Authority".
*
In fact Jones is not a tax case, it is an arson case.* The whole reference here was on jurisdiction and not taxes.* If they don't have jurisdiction to try arson cases in the states on private property with no solid tie to interstate commerce, then they don't have income tax authority to try tax crimes,*either.* They don't have any civil authority*either.
*
The point is that I have done extensive research on the National v Federal relationship and if we have a federal government, then they don't have any general jurisdiction in the states.* Our founders organized a "Federal" government in relation to the states and a National government in relation to the United States.* When dealing with a state or anyone in it not directly tied to interstate commerce or some solid nexus, then the US has no authority per Art. 1.8.17.* Otherwise that Art. of the Constitution is void.* However the DOJ also disagrees with you.
*

• 665 Determining Federal Jurisdiction
  When instances are reported to the United States Attorney of offenses committed on land or in buildings occupied by agencies of the Federal government -- unless the crime reported is a Federal offense regardless of where committed, such as assault on a Federal officer or possession of narcotics -- the United States has jurisdiction only if the land or building is within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
  PRACTICE TIP: A convenient method of determining the jurisdictional status is to contact an appropriate attorney with the agency having custody of the land. If the land is other than a military base, the regional counsel's office of the General Services Administration usually has the complete roster of all Federal lands and buildings in its region and can frequently provide a definitive answer to jurisdiction. If the land in question is part of a military base, contact with the post Staff Judge Advocate may be helpful. If the military personnel in the field or the field attorneys of the agency having responsibility for the land are unable to render assistance, the Office of Enforcement Operations of the Criminal Division should be called. Each United States Attorney would be well advised to request from each agency within the district a report on the jurisdictional status claimed for each of its facilities and assurance that documentation is available.

But if you can't see that it doesn't make any difference to me, I think you are just leading others astray.
I left off the rest of the sentence in Moore which futher illustrates the point of the use of the terms US and USA to wit:
"restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the . . . Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty."
*
Chuck uses a lot of double talk.* US is the same as USA and used interchangeably.
*
"Obviously this foreign authority does not bind us.* After all, we are interpreting a "Constitution for the United States of America."* Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 868, n. 4 (1988) (SCALIA, J., dissenting).* And indeed, after Soering, the United States Senate insisted on reservations to language imposing similar standards in various human rights treaties, specifying, for example, that the language in question did not
*Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of August 30, 1959."* Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254.
*
On one hand he claims evidently they can tax in the states then on the other he claims they can't.* To me that is non sense, either they can legislate outside the Art. 1.8.17 limitation or they can't.* How can one provision defeat another in conflict?* These Men who framed this document, knew there was not a conflict in it.* Art. 1.8.17 is cast in stone, see Jones.
*
Subject matter jurisdiction doesn't exist for the feds beyond Art. 1.8.17 either, see Jones.* Personal jurisdiction nor rem does either.* You must*have all three to move a case where all three are involved.* I parted ways with Chuck years ago when he started with such non sense.
*
Personally, I don't care what he thinks or whether we agree or not.* I think the court made it clear that to tie everything to commerce by implication was to give unbridled license to the feds to produce a virtual dictatorship.* Congress can not by implication gain control over non federal areas under the guise of interstate commerce*and can't do indirectly what they can't do directly but they certainly have many times in the past because of lawless judges.[list]


*