national_lawman

[SKYGZR]

I'm a member, and this seems a viable resource.

Dear Lawmen and Wanna Be Lawmen:

We have a devastating letter to be sent out to all IRS Operations Managers to notify them that we are swearing to complaints giving probable cause for the arrest and prosecution of all IRS Operation Managers. Please send at least one certified letter to one of your favorite Operations Manager, for the establishment of willful and knowing fraud perpetrated by IRS agents.

Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/national_lawman/ and join to get
instant updates.
Please use this email address lawmancharles@juno.com . We are America's
Posse!
2.200 +
Lawmen.
Visit my web site at http://cconces.tripod.com/

“America’s Posse”

Please join the closest Lawman Group nearest you. If there is not one near, ask me to start a group in your area. You will be notified when a new person joins your group. You will be able to contact each other by email and arrange local meeting places and times.
Joining is free and has many advantages. You will get the 21 page report on liability. You will get updates and new material as they come out. Please take responsibility in your group to ensure that the group sticks to the program and doesn’t get into goofey legal theories or waste time.
I am assembling study materials for the groups that are available anytime.
Chuck Conces
138 Lawmen Groups as of March 7, 2005
Updated on March 7, 2005

Alabama, Birmingham
Alabama, southern into Pensacola group
Alaska, Anchorage
Alaska, Fairbanks
Ariz., Phoenix – Very active and growing group. Around 40+ members.
Ariz., Tucson
Arkansas, Fort Smith – Small but a good group.
Arkansas, Little Rock
Arkansas, Mountain View
Cal., Bakersfield
Cal., Fremont – Growing group. Around 20 members.
Cal., Fresno
Cal., Los Angeles – Simi Valley – Super group leader is Angela Stark. Around 40+ members.
Cal., Needles
Cal., Sacramento – Large group.
Cal., San Bernardino
Cal., San Diego
Cal., Stockton
Cal., Yreka
Colorado, Denver – Appears to be growing rather fast.
Colorado, Grand Junction (western Colorado)
Colorado, Pueblo – Colorado Springs
Conn. Hartford
Fla., Fort Myers
Fla., Jacksonville
Fla., Orlando – Fairly large group. One of our active Florida dynamo groups.
Fla., Pensacola
Fla., Tampa – One of the best groups in the Lawmen.
Fla., W. Palm Beach – Christina is super and has been a real asset as a leader.
Ga., Albany
Ga., Dacula, Kennesaw, Marietta, Atlanta
Hawaii
Idaho, Boise
Idaho, Lewiston
Ind., Fort Wayne – Active and growing group.
Ind., Hammond
Ind., Indianapolis
Ill., Aurora – Growing group with some good people.
Ill., Chicago – Growing group. Got a slow start but is getting there.
Ill., Effingham
Ill., Peoria
Ill., Rockford and Wis., Beloit
Iowa, Davenport – Ill., Rock Island
Kansas, Topeka
Kansas, Witchita
Kentucky, Covington – Elsmere (near Cincinnati)
Kentucky, Louisville
Kentucky, Marion (west)
Kentucky, Paintsville
Louisiana, Baton Rouge
Maine, Waterville
Maryland, Frederick
Mass., Eastern
Mass., Western
Mich., Bat. Creek – Chuck’s group. Have meetings once in a while for special projects.
Mich., Bay City
Mich., Flint
Mich., Grand Rapids – Mac is our great leader now and he is very capable.
Mich., Howell
Mich., Ironwood
Mich., Lansing
Mich., Monroe – Small group but good people.
Mich., Mount Pleasant
Mich., Stockbridge – Bill is our dynamo here. We have monthly meetings and they are very well attended by members from other groups.
Mich., Wayne County area
Minn., Fergus Falls
Minn., St. Paul - Anoka
Miss., Biloxi
Miss., Jackson
Mo., Columbia
Mo., Kansas City
Mo., Springfield
Mo., St. Louis
Mont.,
N. Carolina, Charlotte – Small bu growing group.
N. Carolina, East Coast
N. Carolina, Asheville-Hendersonville – We have some good people in this group.
N. Carolina, Raleigh
N. Carolina, Winston-Salem – Fast growing.
N. Mex., Albuquerque – Good growing group.
N. Mex., Artesia – We have some excellent people in this group.
N. Mex., Gallup
N.Y.C. area
N.Y., Binghamton
N.Y., Buffalo
N.Y., Elmira
N.Y., Hurley
N.Y., Long Island
Neb., Omaha
Nev., Las Vegas – One of our better groups. Thom is a super leader.
Nev., Reno – Good growing group and has a lot of promise.
New Hampshire, Manchester
Ohio, Cincinnati
Ohio, Cleveland – We have a new outside group joining our Cincinnati people.
Ohio, Columbus
Ohio, Dayton
Oklahoma, Tulsa
Oregon, Cave Junction
Oregon, Portland – Fast growing.
Oregon, Roseburg – Loma is a very special and super lady who does a lot of work for us.
Penn., Erie
Penn., Lancaster
Penn., Philadelphia – Fast growing.
Penn., Pittsburgh
Penn., Scranton
S. Carolina, Charleston
S. Carolina, Greer-Greenville
S. Carolina, N. Myrtle Beach
S. Dakota, Mitchell – This group is super great for being isolated out on the prairie!
Tenn., Chattanooga
Tenn., Knoxville Oakridge area – We have a great group here. I have met most of them.
Tenn., Memphis
Tenn., Nashville
Tex., Austin – Good growing group.
Tex., Dallas – Good growing group.
Tex., El Paso
Tex., Greenville
Tex., Houston
Tex., Midland
Tex., Kerrville – I am familiar with Kerrville and know these cowboys will do the job.
Tex., S. Padre Island – Ernie is down there for the winter and is helping the small group along. Ernie is exceptional.
Tex., San Antonio
Utah, northern area
Va., Manassas – Growing fast.
Va., Richmond
Va., Suffolk
W. Va., Charleston
Wash., Seattle – Growing fast.
Wash., Spokane – Growing fast.
Wash., Vancouver
Wisc., Fond Du Lac
Wisc., Green Bay
Wisc., Kenosha
Wisc., Prairie du Chien
Wyoming, Cheyenne

[weishaupt1776]

Chuck's got a good heart, but I believe that he is lost.

He believes that he is a U.S. citizen & believes that he is protected under the 14th Amendment.
Check out this interview here:
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/People...rviewChuck.htm

The 14th Amendment forces the presumption on everyone that they are a defacto U.S. Citizen until rebutted.
The UCC FS and $2.00 will get you a cup of Starbucks, but WILL NOT help in correcting your status as a dejure native of your land.
You can also say, prove I'm a U.S. citizen. But that fails when you are a plaintiff & the Burden of proof is on you.

Check out some of my posts regarding this
http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=224&page=3

The answer is in the actual language of the Amendment itself.
One needs not read mile of case cites on it, which were intentionally propagated to force the U.S. Citizen presumption.

Chuck's processes & mechanisms are detailed, well planned, & well researched. The only problem is that he is not operating with the PROPER FOUNDATION.
His foundation is that he is a U.S. Citizen who is guaranteed protection under the 14th Amendment.

This is built on sinking sand because the 14th Amendment creates defacto citizens who vote, which makes them enemies of their dejure state. This creates insurrection and rebellion, which now justifies D.C. enforcing emergency war powers. Some of these defacto citizens become Senators & reps which amounts to a defacto Nation which can now exercise war powers because people are rebelling against their dejure state nationality & dejure state government.

Now your rights are suspended and you are not guaranteed any rights under the 9th 10th Amendment.

[KaosTheory]

Yeah but constitutions do not give you "rights" they merely recognize your God given rights ....or not.....mostly not. They do recognize your unlimited right to contract then assume everything is a contract.

Chuck apparently doesn't realize that U.S. is a corporation. I am guessing he believes that he is a citizen of a corporation.

[weishaupt1776]

That was my first post of the morning right when I woke up.
I meant your God given rights, which are to be protected by the GOV according to the 9th & 10th
I believe that anything filed with the court, no matter what it says, is presumed to have been filed by a U.S citizen.
You could even swear up & down that you are not a U.S. Citizen, and the presumption is still in want of being rebutted.

The status must be corrected administratively first, and then anything you file against the FEDS, should be for a Dec Jdmt affirming your status as a dejure native inhabiting the soil within the boundaries of Florida.

The GPO printing manual 5.23 shows the names of what they call state natives.

Stevens is on point with "It doesn't matter because they are violent anyway and ignore their own laws."

I believe there is overlap w/ that concept coupled with fact that the 13th & 14th Amdmts plus the Trading w/ NME act and other acts makes people U.S. citizens who are now enemies rebelling in of own state thus "legally" justifying D.C. employing military war powers outside their 1:8:17 jurisdiction which allows the ignorance of law.

Chuck's Final endgame is to report the judges who they are complaining against to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.

Well, if you are a U.S. Citizen & want to continue to be one, you are a slave/subject/rebel BY LAW, and reporting judges in that manner would be akin to migrant tomato pickers who work for Del Monte complaining to the CEO's that it's too hot out on the plantation

[EdgarW]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Re: Stevens is on point with "It doesn't matter because they are violent anyway and ignore their own laws."

I agree. Early last month I showed up for jury duty even though I know it's all for show, given that jurors are kept in the dark as to what their true powers are. I considered ignoring the summons, but I recalled Stevens' points. I don't know about you, but I'm terrified of the armed judiciary.

Having read Stevens' Adventures in Legal Land twice, I need to re-read it and take copious notes. I'm determined to see how his ideas apply locally.

By the way, I appeared at the Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta. Kind of ironic that the judiciary decries the violence done against it. "He who lives by the sword ...?"

Best regards,

EdgarW

[PANICPASS]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Chuck's got a good heart, but I believe that he is lost.

He believes that he is a U.S. citizen & believes that he is protected under the 14th Amendment.
Check out this interview here:
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/People...rviewChuck.htm


His foundation is that he is a U.S. Citizen who is guaranteed protection under the 14th Amendment.

Chuck Conces wrote:

The Constitution grants powers to the United States but does not grant any powers to the "United States of America". If, therefore, you are a citizen of the United States, you are entitled to all the protections of the United
States Constitution, and the "United States of America" has no
prosecutorial jurisdiction over you. No court was authorized to be
established for the "United States of America" by the Constitution.

Chuck must be talking about the 14th Amendment citizens of the United States because the original constitution had only state citizens. With the passage of the 14th we all became citizens of the United States.

Eustace Mullins:

Each American citizen is a citizen of a State of the United States. That State is a signer of the compact of the States which is the Constitution, and which forms the United States of America. There is no provision for "the United States" to take direct action concerning any citizen of the United States because the United States has no people and no citizens. Only the States have citizens.

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

Chuck Conces wrote:

The Constitution grants powers to the United States but does not grant any powers to the "United States of America". If, therefore, you are a citizen of the United States, you are entitled to all the protections of the United
States Constitution, and the "United States of America" has no
prosecutorial jurisdiction over you. No court was authorized to be
established for the "United States of America" by the Constitution.

Chuck must be talking about the 14th Amendment citizens of the United States because the original constitution had only state citizens. With the passage of the 14th we all became citizens of the United States.

Eustace Mullins:

Each American citizen is a citizen of a State of the United States. That State is a signer of the compact of the States which is the Constitution, and which forms the United States of America. There is no provision for "the United States" to take direct action concerning any citizen of the United States because the United States has no people and no citizens. Only the States have citizens.

The misunderstanding is that the Constitution does talk about Citizens of the united States or State Citizens. The 14th Amendment created United States citizens. There is a big difference. Chuck claims to be a United States citizen, as does Larken Rose and others. A United States citizen has their citizenship in DC, which is where the United States, Inc. has exclusive juridsdiction. When one claims to be a US citizen he/she is admitting to the jurisdiction of the United States and the "income tax."

[SKYGZR]

***COPY/PASTE***

4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred
for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned. But neither the United States nor any
State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation
incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against
the United States, or any claim for the loss or
emancipation of any slave; but all such debts,
obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

what exactly is that saying....
and at this point in time, because i am owed by the
federal government,
am i considerd a slave?


Author L.C. Lyon does a pretty good job
of explaining Section 4 of the so-called
14th amendment here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/lyon/
(she errs by confusing "United States"
with "United States of America" however)

Section 1 created the "supply" -- federal citizens;
Section 4 created the "demand" -- ever expanding public debt.

26 CFR 1.1-1 implements that de facto slavery:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agenc...ey.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

[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]


*

[weishaupt1776]

The next is really the crux of Conces foundation in using Brushaber.
Clyde's analysis is most challenging & worth the read:

• Still waiting Chuck, please prove me wrong because it would be so much easier.* The IRS is right calling these arguments of Chuck "frivolous" because they are at the top of the list.* Both Stanton and Brushaber put forth frivolous arguments which didn't make it past a motion to dismiss.* Now, Chucky wants to lead 28K others down the same path.* But believe me, I would love to be proved wrong, so make my day Chucky.
  *
  If you read Stanton, you will see that the trial court dismissed the case and the Supreme court affirmed the dismissal.**The reasons they give are directly opposite to what Chuck professes*and says about apportionment.* If you take out of context the part where the court describes Stanton's pleadings, it sounds like the court is saying taxes have to be*apportioned because that was what Stanton was pleading as his main course.
  *
  Once you read the case in the whole, and see what previous happened (dismissal) and see the bottom line (affirmed), you will see Stanton was not*a winner.* Had the court agreed with Stanton, they would have either ruled in his favor or remanded the case for adjudication on the merits.* Neither happened in this case and while Chuck may hold a BS (kind of have to wonder what BS stands for) degree, doesn't mean he can read Supreme Court cases.* However, he is not alone in this error as many others quote the case for their view as well, but the bottom line was, it was a loser.
  *
  IN the quotes below is what he conveniently missed which shows the court doesn't agree with Stanton's (and Chucks)*flawed legal reasoning.* Just to refresh his memory:
  
  • "We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.* And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:"* Brushaber v UPR Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)*
  
  The court here goes on to elaborate why the assumption was erroneous and why Brushaber must lose his case.
  Here again, dismissal was affirmed.
  *
  Now, Chucky Concess says:*
  • "Dear Lawmen: Every time someone opens the U.S. citizenship debate, there is a furor aroused. Some people misunderstand the Court ruling and leap to unfounded conclusions. Below are my comments on those court rulings. I have never held that there was no such thing as territorial jurisdiction, although that is not the only kind of jurisdiction. There is also personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Taxes fall under subject matter jurisdiction."
  *
  To say that taxes fall under "subject matter" jurisdiction is like saying "venue" is not a factor in any tax case.* If I live in Belarus and there is no treaty*jurisdiction, then personal jurisdiction is lacking because of the venue.* In all tax matters, venue is never considered which is in error, just like Chucky is in this case.* In order for a court to have jurisdiction in the case, it is necessary to have subject matter jurisdiction to try the case, personal jurisdiction to subject the person to its judgment and rem jurisdiction to have authority over the property.* In all tax cases, rem and*personal jurisdiction are assumed in error.* If what Chucky advocates is true, you live in a dictatorship and not in land of ruled by law.
  *
  The founders formed a "Federal" government which was defined in convention to only have power to act upon the several states and not the People directly, thus you could have no direct tax.* The*16th amendment is void as any application to the people in the states,*because it doesn't act upon the people directly, and it doesn't change the nature the nature of government to a "National" type.* The "National" government can still only act upon the states and interface with the World in behalf of the states.* What we have today is a run on all power by a government which acts in contradiction*directly upon its People*no matter where they are situated (venue).
  *
  It is extremely difficult*to see how Chucky can say what he said, *without further qualification.* In other words, for courts to try a case they must have all three jurisdiction elements where property is concerned, Personal, Subject Matter and Rem.* IN any tax case "Rem" is a factor in which they have no jurisdiction, so preversely they don't consider it.* In order to have Personal jurisdiction, the party has to appear and if they appear specialily, jurisdiction must be proved.* The court must also show venue as proper in the case if it is challenged which they never do.* For Chucky to say the Feds have venue over all the USA is a false conclusion.* The venue of the home is that of the Man and none else as expressed in the Magna Carta which is sacred without warrant.* If the Feds have blanket jurisdiction (proper venue) in all the USA, you will soon see video cameras installed in your bedroom.
  *
  Not even the state has jurisdiction on your private property and*without warrant they have abide your jurisdiction and venue.* They can't come in your home without you inviting them in.* If they are on your property and you order them off, they are duty bound to obey your command till they obtain a warrant.* Thus, although they may have power over the commerce of the World, they have none on your private property unless you*use it in interstate commerce, and not incidental to commerce.* Now, I submit that either Chucky can't write what he means or he is brainwashed by the system to think venue is not a factor in the states.* All direct taxes, even property*taxes are unlawful because they are direct taxes, and by acknowledgement of the*Fed Constitution as the supreme law of the land, direct taxes are unconstitutional by implication.* All fines, penalties and fees are direct taxes and void as lawless.
  *
  The Sovereign Man is not subject to code and unless he transgresses another Man, is not subject to law as decreed in Yick Wo.* Those who follow Chucky's seriously flawed reasoning, will never prevail and only fan the flames.
  *
  • "This notably "generous to plaintiffs" provision will be recognized instantly as one describing venue choices, not subject matter jurisdiction.* Cf.* 28 U.S.C. § 1391 ("Venue generally")."* Henderson v U.S., 517 U.S. 654 (1996).
  *
  To fall for the government's con that venue is subject matter jurisdiction is false as they are like apples and oranges.* While both are fruit they are not alike.* Thus Chucky evidently would consider that Jones speaking of venue, was an error of the court.
  *
  
  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.* Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000).
  *
  Without proper venue, the court can not have "subject matter" jurisdiction no matter what the subject matter is.* For instance the court can not try a case of tax evasion against a Chinaman, living in China as the venue of the act is improper no matter what the act was, such as income from a U.S. source.* Since your private property is you domain and your private property work is private domain, any implication to venue is non existant in any lawful Nation.* The fact that the government as it pertains to the People living and working in the states of the union, is Federal in nature, means that it can not without proper venue act upon the People directly no matter what Congress implies.* Such is tyranny.
  
  
  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.