. In order to evade the fact of my sovereignty, Michael D. (unknown) Ward/ COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY has employed the common device of utilizing nom de guerre/misnomers, the fictitious: MAURICE BRAHIER; MAURICE EDWARD BRAHIER; BRAHIER,MAURICE EDWARD; etc. These fictional names constitute fraud of the first order -- I am Maurice Edward of the Brahiers with only the first letters of my Christian and patronymic names spelled with capital letters, the balance of each spelled with lower case letters. Yet Michael D. Ward/COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, in what amounts to actionable fraud for constructive willfulness and malicious prosecution, has persisted in employing the fiction to further his own purpose at my expense. The court and judge has thus far accommodated the fraud by having ignored all defendant Notices, demands for provision of rights, Notices of responsibilities and duties, and other, prior to trial, while failing to judicially determine substantive rights, legal relationships, and application of law, jurisdictional matters included. The repeated attempts to circumvent the Constitutions of the state and States united, distinctly displays willfulness to exceed jurisdiction, authority, and to commit crimes against the Constitutions, in the manner of treasonable acts.

In general, the complicity of nonfeasance and malfeasance has been detrimental, but faith and sovereign right moves the matter.

The "case law" and other presents hereon and previously, are presented only as upholding: of rights; sovereignty; natural law; et cetera, not as conferring or establishing jurisdiction, "motioning the court", as the "authority" or otherwise. All presents establish a supreme fact and law; that sovereignty of the people is second to no other power than that of the "Almighty". The inclusions and otherwise presented, are done so in best effort form, and may contain misspellings, unimportant and or unintentional misquotes, or otherwise. It does not, however, demean, demolish, destroy or de(anything) the intent of these established principles of law and upholding of rights.

I must state this though. The courts and legislatures have done a tremendous disservice to man. The founding fathers of the Constitutions were quite careful in their statements concerning "all men".

These people meant exactly what they stated. The "all men" were all of the various "mans" of mankind. They used the "red mans" "Iroquois Constitution" as partial reference basis for the Constitution of the united states. They investigated "yellow mans" various authorities. They investigated "black mans" authorities. They investigated "brown mans" authorities. Et cetera.

Hence, the true meaning of the "all men" are created equal means: all the "mans" in plural form. NOT the "white male" established by courts and legislatures. Women, of course, are an integral part of these various "mans" of mankind. So these various attempts to establish "privileges" and "benefits" of "Citizens" is a fallacy and fraud in itself, as is the purported establishment thereof.

Just as important, they were also careful to establish "religious rights".

They made defining statements such as: "Almighty God", "religion", "Nature's God", "Creator" and the like, in these declarations. Not "Christianity". As most, if not all the various religions depend upon one "supreme being" in the "religions", all "religions" regardless of name or name of their "God(s)" were distinctly and decisively included. Why? Because more "wars" have been created and fought in the name of "Christianity" and other religions, than for any other cause in the history of mankind. In fact, "religious wars" are still fought in today's world. The Nation was not to become involved in "religious persecution, or war based upon it".

This was to be and must be, a unique Nation, not found anywhere else in the world. A nation of peace, tranquility, and sovereignty for all the people in themselves, not a "GOVERNMENT" of "Kings Laws" "Star Chambers" or "Rulers" and tens of thousands of "statutes" to "control" man and subjugate him. The Master/Slave relationship established by the Constitutions is the people as sovereign "masters", government as the "slave" to the people, not as it is attempted by "governments" in today's world, which have attempted to reverse the roles.

In that "republican form of government", there is no need for "International Laws", a United Nations, or other. The Countries/Nations are able to retain their own "sovereignty" and basic laws, yet members of The United States. Any Country, any Nation could join. The requirements for membership? Institution of the Constitution and its rights and responsibilities, and recognition of the people as the true sovereign Masters. Simple, yet elegant. The end of all oppression, tyranny, and injustice.

What happened?

Greed and quest for power and authority beyond the limits of the Constitutions. What Country or Nation would wish to join in this farce of "statutes, benefits, and privileges" and control of their Nation by "banking" and "corporate" interests. Those "behind the back" snickers, turn into outright guffaws when suggestion is made to instill this Nation's form of government as it exists.

Most barely tolerate the interference by the United Nations and those other world dominating powers. Many fear that to fail to join them will be the end for their Nation. And so it sometimes happens in just that fashion, they are manipulated until they are destroyed, bankrupt, or forced into compliance.

We, begin with the basics:

Civil rights, human rights, natural rights, inalienable rights, constitutional rights, sovereign rights . . .

Which do we have?

Which of these protect us?

Which do we want.

Are the rights of a U.S. citizen different than those of someone whose political status and Citizenship, like mine, are that of a Kentucky Citizen, or of any state?

The difference lies in one's status, or citizenship. Citizenship is a political status.[See; Ex parte(ng) Fung Sing, U.S. Supreme Court; D.C. 6 F.R.D.]

As a Kentucky Citizen, a different set of laws and rights apply to me than to those who are "citizen of the United States (i.e. citizen of the District of Columbia, or federal government)

Historical Perspective

In 1783, after the Revolutionary War, the Treaty of Peace was signed by the King of England and our founding fathers. Not to a central government but to the individual representatives of the "States"/colonies. The power of this treaty, profoundly affected American Law, as the courts latter stated:

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights that formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 21 Dall. (21 U.S.) 89 (1829)

Since all citizens, at that time were citizens of their respective states, it was the people of the states who possessed those rights, not the "citizens of the United States." When the U.S. Constitution was written, "technically and abstractly there [was] no such thing"[See; Ex parte Frank Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)] as a citizen of the United States.

State Citizens, through the power vested in them by the sovereign declaration in the Treaty of Peace, created states and state Constitutions as restriction and limitation on the State government, and through the states came the Federal Constitution creating the Federal Government.

This Constitution is also restrictions and limitations on the federal government.

In this way, the power flows from the people to the government, not at all the way the courts and judges explain it, their version makes it sound like the power flows from the government to the people.[See: U.S. Constitution Amendments 9,10]

This why the opening words of the Constitution are "We the People."

No less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court has written:

"The question is not what power the federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people . . . . The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted."
U.S. v. Butler, 297, Us. 1 (1935)

Civil Rights

The "citizens of the United States" did not exist until after the Civil War.[See: Cory et al. v. Carter, Indiana Supreme Court ruling (1874)]

In 1866, as the forerunner of the 14th Amendment, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. Through this law, Congress created a new class of rights for freed former slaves who were not included with those sovereign rights by the Treaty of Peace and who, therefore, had no access to the courts. These newly classified "persons" [i.e. not people] were thereby given civil rights.

Civil rights were said to be the same as those that the state Citizen already had, by virtue of his/her birth and blood. Through the alleged "ratification" of the 14th Amendment[See: Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 15641 to 15646; Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968)] and later through the Social Security Act, these civil rights extended, through deliberate non-disclosure, to almost everyone in America.

As one requests a Social Security (account) number, one claims to be a U.S. citizen; all benefits and civil rights then become part of the now converted "person's" life. In this way, nearly everyone in the states has "voluntarily" given up their inalienable rights, God given fundamental rights and sovereign status to be granted the "privileges and immunities" of civil rights as subjects of Congress, i.e., U.S. citizens.

Note we must get a Social Security number for our children for insurance, etc..

Civil rights are "privileges" given to the U.S. citizens and are "protected by Congress. as stated in Title 42 of the United States Code Annotated(USCA) at Section 1983, note 853:

Rights under 42 USC Sec. 1983 are for citizens of the United States and not of state [Emphasis added]

When one enjoys civil rights, then he or she is regulated by the body that gave those rights. As the California Court of Appeals stated:

"A civil right is a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment therefore is regulated entirely by the law that created it."
[Emphasis added]Nickell v. Rosenfield, 82 Cal.App. 369, 375 (1927)

In other words, one's civil rights, unlike one's inalienable rights, are regulated by the government (Congress), who grants them and who, therefore, can take them away. In this way, even the protections secured by the Bill of Rights become "privileges" granted by the 14th Amendment, which apply to all U.S. citizens.

Inalienable Rights

Because only one class of people existed when America was founded, the following rights, protected by the Bill of Rights, were considered inalienable:

• 1. the rights of religious freedom, freedoms of speech and press ;
• 2. the right to bear arms;
• 3. no quartering of soldiers;
• 4. the right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures;
• 5. the right not to be a witness against oneself (commonly referred to as "self incrimination"), and to due process of law;
• 6. the right to a speedy and public trial;
• 7. the right to an impartial jury and assistance of counsel (not necessarily a licensed attorney);
• 8. the right to trial by jury; excessive bail, fines and punishment prohibited;
• 9. rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people; and
• 10. un-delegated powers belong to the people, unless given by the people to the states.
• 
  

People in courtrooms are informed of their civil rights, not of their inalienable rights or sovereign rights, because most Americans have been tricked into believing they are "citizens of the United States." Most have no idea that by claiming U.S. citizenship, they voluntarily choose civil rights instead of their natural birthright. For the U.S. citizen, the Bill of Rights, then, becomes merely a list of granted privileges offered through the 14th Amendment, whereas, for the state Citizen, they are fundamental rights of a free government.

Differences in Citizenship

In 1908, the Supreme Court spelled out some of the differences between the rights of national citizenship and those of state Citizenship:

"The distinction between national and state citizenship [sic] and their respective privileges there drawn has come to be firmly established. And so it was held that the right of peaceable assembly for a lawful purpose (it not appearing that that the purpose had any reference to the national government) was not a right secured by the Constitution of the United States, although it was said that the right existed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and that is and always has been one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government."
Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14(1908)

The opinion goes on to say:

"If, then it be assumed, without deciding the point, that an exemption from self-incrimination is what is described as a fundamental right belonging to all who live under a free government, and incapable of impairment by legislation or judicial decision, it is so far as the states are concerned, a fundamental right inherent in state citizenship [sic], and is a privilege or immunity of that citizenship only. Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand are only such that arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States." (i.e., 14th Amendment)[Emphasis added]
Twining (Ibid.)

Privileges The Supreme Court then listed the following "Six Privileges of National citizenship (i.e., U.S. citizenship)

Thus, among the rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this are:

• 1.the right to pass freely from state to state;
• 2.the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances;
• 3.the right to vote for national officers;
• 4.the right to enter the public lands;
• 5.the right to be protected against violance while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal; and
• 6. the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its law.

[M]ost of these cases (citations omitted were indictments against individuals for conspiracies to deprive persons of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, and met with a different fate in this court from the indictments in United States v. Cruikshank and Hodges v. United States, because the rights in these case were rights of state, and not of national citizenship. We can assume it to be true, then, that the exemption from self-incrimination is not a fundamental right of national citizenship, included in the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States."Twining (Ibid.) The protection of the Fifth Amendment is, in fact a fundamental right of state Citizenship and that Citizenship only.

Remember that the state constitutions were written before the federal Constitution. These rights were enumerated in the state constitutions and "existed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." (Ibid.) Obviously, a court of law, though it can inspire many useful insights, has little to do with where or what our rights truly are, or can be. State Citizenship adds a whole new perspective to what we have been led to believe and is certainly something that needs to more widely understood.

Matters of the cases

I have demanded on two occasions, Bill of Particulars as Interrogatories to COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY and its purported representatives. No proper answers have been filed, just supposed statements, which do not apply or supply my Right to these answers.

. Accordingly, the COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ATTORNEY and the Plaintiff, "COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY", are subject to the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A, 932 (1906), and by way of silence has effected fraud, pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977). In particular, the fraud is against the Constitutional Oath of Office, required at Article VI Sec. 3 of the Constitution of the United States, which is prescribed as necessary for holding public office for United States Government or governments of the several States party to the Constitution.

On sovereignty and other matters

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly government; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
John Adams

Corpus Juris Secundum 91 Section 4

The United States has no inherent sovereign powers (70) and no inherent common-law prerogatives, and it has no power to interfere in the personal or social relations of citizens by virtue of authority deducible from the nature of sovereignty,(71)�

"Standing cannot be inferred argumentatively from averments in the pleadings, but rather must affirmatively appear in the record; it is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute; the parties must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction, and if they fail to make the necessary allegations, they have not standing."
FW/PBX, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603

There is no presumption in favor of jurisdiction, and the basis for jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown. Hanford v. Davis, 16 S.Ct. 1051, 163 U.S. 273, 41 L.Ed. 157 (1896) (emphasis added)

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime, in order to sustain a conviction therefor,�" U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475 at 481 (1974).

A jurisdiction defect can never be waived by the Defendant, nor acquiesced by the Defendant, in the absence of a positive showing upon the record that jurisdiction was clearly and unambiguously established.

Further, all courts of justice are duty-bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of jurisdiction, although those acts are not formally put into evidence, nor in accord with pleadings, Jones v. U.S., 137 U.S. 202, 11 S.Ct. 80 (1890).

In United States v. Lopez, Supreme Court case No. 93-1260, decided April 26, 1995, Chief Justice Rehnquist recited principles relating to delegated authority which were articulated by American founders:

"We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, - [t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and undefined. - The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated division of authority -- was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties -- Gregory V. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). - Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. - Ibid".

The "citizen of the United States" is entitled to "privileges and immunities" where the Preamble Citizen-sovereign had and has inherent and in/un-alienable rights -- rights he is endowed with by God himself. The Constitution of the United States and constitutions of the several States merely secure in/un-alienable and inherent rights recognized and preserved by English-American common law tradition -- rights construed as substantive, being antecedent to the constitutions establishing government.

However, the Fourteenth Amendment, where those who received the civil citizenship franchise are concerned, reverses the order -- the State, meaning the Federal State subject to Congress' Article IV Sec. 3.2 plenary power, is sovereign where the citizen is subject, enjoying only those rights, privileges and benefits conferred by Congress.

Today, however, the Fourteenth Amendment isn't so much an issue as citizenship in the geographical United States -- the United States Code and exercise of Federal authority is anchored to the geographical United States under Congress' Article IV Sec. 3.2 legislative jurisdiction.

While the Fourteenth Amendment plays a significant role in determining rights and privileges for citizens and residents of the geographical United States, and it is prudent to distinguish between the sovereignty of the Citizen of a Union state and the subject status of citizens of Federal states, territorial jurisdiction is all-important.

The Internal Revenue Code sheds light on the subject with the definition of "United States person" at Sec. 7701(a)(29):

• (29) United States person. The term "United States person" means --
• (A) a citizen or resident of the United States,
• (B) a domestic partnership,
• (C) a domestic corporation, and
• (D) any estate or trust (other than a foreign estate or foreign trust, within the meaning of section 7701(a)(31)).

The Preamble citizen-sovereign is unique -- he is a moral being.

The "citizen of the United States", enjoying only privileges and civil rights conferred at the pleasure of government, is reduced to the status of non-moral legal fictions -- things rather than people.

Thus, the decision in United States v. United Mine Workers, supra,

"In common usage, term 'persons' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so."

See also: U.S. v General Motors 2 FRD 528; U.S. v Cooper 312 US 600

Where a ... court is without jurisdiction over the offense, a judgment of conviction by the court and/or by the jury is void ad initio, on its face, Bauman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1946).

Federal criminal jurisdiction is never presumed; it must always be proven; and it can never be waived, U.S. v. Rogers, 23 Fed. 658 (USDC, W.D. Ark., 1885).

It therefore stands to reason, that criminal jurisdiction is never to be presumed at the state level as well.

This is the reason decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States have the appearance of inconsistency. Decisions are made in the framework of law that comes before the court, and as a matter of practice, those who preside in the courts will not depart the law of the case. The practice is fundamentally dishonest, as those dragged into courts are rarely if ever informed of the nature of the case or what rights they have with respect to electing common law remedies.

"One form of action", "The Law", verses The Constitutions, and Articles/Amendments

The alleged merging of law, equity and admiralty (see Rule 1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) is a virtual and Constitutional impossibility: The English-American lineage common law, based on "the laws of Nature and of God," is distinct from and contrary to the "positive law" system which for all practical purposes duplicates Roman Civil Law in which the State rather than the People is presumed to be sovereign.

Further, the Constitution of the States united, demands three separate and distinct jurisdictional forms. Nothing can violate or change that unless by Amendment to the Constitution which specifically states that change. No "inference" can change it, only the people themselves.

. English-American heritage common law is simply natural law as proven in the lineage over the last thousand or so years. It is based on physical and moral law, neither of which man can author or amend, with physical law operating in the framework of cause and effect, and moral in the framework of cause and consequence.

Positive law rests on written statutes, which originate with man. And as proven throughout history, man-made law nearly always favors one person or class of people above others.

The classic example of positive or civil law is the Royal Statute promulgated by Darius in the book of Daniel, Chapter 6.

After the Medes and Persians over-threw Belshazzar and his kingdom, Darius established the provisional government, naming Daniel as first president. Those opposed to Daniel conspired against him. In order to bring the prophet down, they convinced Darius to sign a Royal Statute which prohibited anyone in the kingdom from petitioning any god or man other than the king for a period of 30 days. No doubt Darius saw the rationale behind the statute as simply being a means to solidify his position and elevate the throne. But the first rattle out of the box was those parties to the conspiracy accusing Daniel because of Daniel's continuing practice of prayer to Jehovah God.

At Daniel 6: 8, the effect of a Royal Statute is articulated: "Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not."

Once the statute was endorsed, Darius was obliged to carry it out. He was compelled to thrown Daniel into the lion's den.

Natural law is universal. It works individually on all people the same. Little boys who jump from trees risk adverse effects -- gravity cares not whether those who ignore the universal force are paupers or kings.

The intent of American founders, and the substance of the "arising under" clause at Article III Sec. 2.1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution, is articulated in Article II of the Ordinance of 1787:
The Northwest Territorial Government:

The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writs of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law ... No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land...

The sovereign American people are not subject to Civil Law, or what is currently described as "positive law", and admiralty courts of the United States or the several States.

In our system, the people are sovereign, not government. This order of power was articulated by American founders in the Declaration of Independence:

First they established the highest authority, being, "... the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," then they made the proclamation of man's relationship to God:

• We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...
• 
  Only then was government addressed:
  
• ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Governments exist for the purpose of securing inherent and in/un-alienable rights vested in man by God himself -- such rights are antecedent to government, they are not conferred by government. Civil rights originate with government, and that which government grants, government can deny. Thus, the system of positive law which deceptively implements Civil Law, Civil Law being of a common lineage and in kind with maritime law (admiralty), elevates man-made law over "the laws of Nature and Nature's God."

Just as the Royal Statute executed against Daniel was devised to serve the ends of ambitious greedy men, positive law invariably accommodates the interests of entrenched powers at the expense of those who are not postured to benefit from the underlying scheme -- integrity of the system is compromised. Those who perpetrate the fraud quite literally are in rebellion against man, Nature and God.

As example, on the civil side, the common law is hidden but preserved, principally in Rules 38 through 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

These rules preserve the right to trial by jury, with such trial being in accordance with rules of the common law. The method of getting to the common law remedy was addressed in Bennet v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669:

"The common law has been adopted ... but form and rules of pleading in common law cases have been abolished, and the parties are at liberty to set out their respective claims and defenses in any form that will bring them before the court.
As there is no distinction in (common law) courts between cases in law and equity ... (such) practice must not be understood as confounding the principles of law and equity (civil), nor as authorizing legal and equitable claims to be blended together in one suit ... (i.e. one form of action).

The constitution of the United States, creating and defining the judicial Power of the general Government, establishes this distinction between law and equity, and a party who claims legal title must proceed at law..."

Likewise, Congress cannot abridge Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendment and Article III Sec. 2.1 "arising under" clause due process assurances in criminal matters by statute.

. Yet that is precisely what the CIRCUIT COURT and other courts attempt: The judge (or judges), under admiralty-Civil Law rules, assumes complete power to determine law, thereby usurping authority not delegated by the Constitution, and in his legislative rather than judicial capacity, effects bills of attainder any time he deprives any of the sovereign American people of life, liberty or property -- bills of attainder are strictly prohibited by Article I �� 9.3 & 10.1 of the United States Constitution, and Sec. 20 of Kentucky's.

(Webster's Seventh- attainder 1; extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry)

"Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government." American Insurance Do. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511 (1828) [emphasis added].

The de jure American people, most of whom are sovereign Citizens of their respective States, and nationals rather than citizens of the geographical United States and States, have constitutionally-secured rights in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution, all of which contemplate substantive (common law) due process as contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article III Sec. 2.1 of the Constitution.

The prohibition against abridgment of substantive rights at 28 USC Sec. 2072(b) speaks to the matter of what laws and what authority may be exercises in the United States District Court located in the several States party to the Constitution -- the United States territorial court, even within United States jurisdiction in the several States party to the Constitution (18 USC Sec. 7(3)), cannot abridge constitutionally secured rights of the American people. Which is to say, the admiralty-Civil Law rules are of no effect save as pertains to misdemeanor offenses and the like which do not materially affect life, liberty or property.

Since Kentucky's Constitution states "� 1. All men, are by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: �" and sets forth other minimum rights which "� 26. �shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void." There exist no authority by any part of government or officer or official to refuse to provide, destroy, or legislate away any rights, or to harm or damage the sovereigns of the state.

The federal and State: "Police Powers"; "Commerce"; other, verses the Constitutions Amendments/Articles

In his separate opinion in United States of America v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995), 131 L.Ed.2d 626, Justice Thomas addressed the matter:

"If we wish to be true to a Constitution that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government..," thus acknowledging that the Constitution does not delegate such authority to Congress or any other branch of Federal government:

Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer [dissenting] agree in principle: The Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power. Id. at page 64 [emphasis added]

Justice Thomas went on to discuss "a regulation of police" at page 86, as follows:

U.S. v. DeWitt, 76 U.S. 41, 9 Wall. 41, 19 L.Ed. 593 (1870) marked the first time the court struck down a federal law as exceeding the power conveyed by the commerce clause. In a 2 page opinion, the court invalidated a nationwide law prohibiting all sales of naptha, and illuminating oils. In so doing, the court remarked that the commerce clause "has always been understood as limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere with the internal trade and business of the separate states." Id. at page 44

The commerce clause may be at issue where matters at hand are concerned, but the principle is constant, applicable with respect to internal revenue laws as well as other Acts of Congress -- the Constitutions simply do not convey general police powers to the United States or the States so far as the Constitutions are concerned.

Collectively, Federal civil enforcement agencies may exercise "police powers" only in the coalition of Federal States subject to Congress' Article IV Sec. 3.2 legislative jurisdiction, this coalition or political alliance also known as the "United States of America".

This conclusion may be demonstrated by regulations governing "Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance", Chapter 65, Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations. For purposes at hand, it is sufficient to reproduce definitions at 28 CFR, Part 65.70:

� 65.70 Definitions

• (a) Law enforcement emergency. The term law enforcement emergency is defined by the Act as an uncommon situation which requires law enforcement, which is or threatens to become of serious or epidemic proportions, and with respect to which state and local resources are inadequate to protect the lives and property of citizens, or to enforce the criminal law. The Act specifically excludes the following situations when defining "law enforcement emergency":
• (1) The perceived need for planning or other activities related to crowd control for general public safety projects; and,
• (2) A situation requiring the enforcement of laws associated with scheduled public events, including political convention and sports events.
• (b) Federal law enforcement assistance. The term Federal law enforcement assistance is defined by the Act to mean funds, equipment, training, intelligence information, and personnel.
• (c) Federal law enforcement community. The term Federal law enforcement community is defined by the Act as the heads of the following departments or agencies:
• (1) Federal Bureau of Investigation;
• (2) Drug Enforcement Administration;
• (3) Criminal Division of the Department of Justice;
• (4) Internal Revenue Service;
• (5) Customs Service;
• (6) Immigration and Naturalization Service;
• (7) U.S. Marshals Service;
• (8) National Park Service;
• (9) U.S. Postal Service;
• (10) Secret Service;
• (11) U.S. Coast Guard;
• (12) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and,
• (13) Other Federal agencies with specific statutory authority to investigate violations of Federal criminal law.
• (d) State. The term state is defined by the Act as any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Marian Islands. [emphasis added]
  

Further, since Congress never created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, predecessor of IRS and BATF, these entities do not even emerge from a constitutionally legitimate authority. But they aren't the only black sheep -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation stands in very little better stead, as demonstrated in Historical notes for 28 USC Sec. 531:

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Revision Notes and Legislative Reports

1966 Acts. The section [28 USC Sec. 531] is supplied for convenience and clarification. The Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice, the earliest predecessor agency of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was created administratively in 1908. It appears that funds used for the Bureau of Investigation were first obtained through the Department of Justice Appropriation Act of May 22, 1908, ch. 186, � 1 (par. beginning "From the appropriations for the prosecution of crimes"), 35 Stat 236, although that statutory provision makes no express mention of the Bureau or of the investigative function.

Section 3 of Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933, specifically recognized the Bureau of Investigation in the Department of Justice and provided that all that Bureau's functions together with the investigative functions of the Bureau of Prohibition were "transferred to and consolidated in a Division of Investigation in the Department of Justice, at the head of which shall be a Director of Investigation."

The Division of Investigation was first designated as the "Federal Bureau of Investigation" by the Act of Mar. 22, 1935, ch. 39, title II, 49 Stat. 77, and has been so designated in statutes since that date.

Where the Constitution of the United States vests legislative authority in Congress, authority vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution cannot be assumed or even delegated to executive or judicial branches of government. This principle has been confirmed by numerous Federal court decisions -- United States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009 (6th Circuit, 1943), and State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W. 2d 433, 436 (Iowa, 1979), are but a few of the many cases which confirm this conclusion.

Fortunately, the FBI scam doesn't require speculation or constructive arguments as limits to FBI statutory authority are spelled out at 28 USC Sec. 535, reproduced in relative part:
� 535. Investigation of crimes involving government officers and employees; limitations (a) The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate any violation of title 18 involving Government officers and employees...

That's the limit of FBI criminal investigation authority in the Continental United States -- the Bureau has no criminal investigation or enforcement authority in the several States party to the Constitution except as might relate to U.S. Government officers and employees or the several States government officers and employees whom swear an oath to abide by and allegiance to the United States.

The definition of "state" at 28 CFR, Part 65.70(d) confirms both the opinion of Justice Thomas and the absence of a constitutional provision which extends Federal police powers to the several States party to the Constitution of the United States. In fact, 28 CFR, Part 65.70(d) provides one of the more complete lists of "states of the United States" found in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations:
the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands,
Guam,
American Samoa,
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and/or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

These are all Federal states under Congress' Article IV Sec. 3.2 legislative jurisdiction, with Congress having plenary rather than delegated authority over these territories, insular possessions and United Nations trust territories.

Jurisdiction is clarified by way of regulations, which effect "Authorization of Federal Law Enforcement Officers to Request the Issuance of a Search Warrant" at 28 CFR, Part 60:

PART 60 - AUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO REQUEST THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT

� 60.1 Purpose

This regulation authorizes certain categories of federal law enforcement officers to request the issuance of search warrants under Rule 41, Fed. R. Crim. P., and lists the agencies whose officers are so authorized. Rule 41(a) provides in part that a search warrant may be issued "upon the request of a federal law enforcement officer," and defines that term in Rule 41(h) as "any government agent, *** who is engaged in the enforcement of the criminal laws and is within the category of officers authorized by the Attorney General to request the issuance of a search warrant." The publication of the categories and the listing of the agencies is intended to inform the courts of the personnel who are so authorized. It should be noted that only in the very rare and emergent case is the law enforcement officer permitted to seek a search warrant without the concurrence of the appropriate U.S. Attorney's office. Further, in all instances, military agents of the Department of Defense must obtain the concurrence of the appropriate U.S. Attorney's Office before seeking a search warrant.

� 60.2 Authorized categories

The following categories of federal law enforcement officers are authorized to request the issuance of a search warrant:

• (a) Any person authorized to execute search warrants by a statute of the United States.
• (b) Any person who has been authorized to execute search warrants by the head of a department, bureau, or agency (or his delegate, if applicable) pursuant to any statute of the United States.
• (c) Any peace officer or customs officer of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Canal Zone.
• (d) Any officer of the Metropolitan Police Department, District of Columbia.
• (e) Any person authorized to execute search warrants by the President of the United States.
• (f) Any civilian agent of the Department of Defense not subject to military direction who is authorized by statute or other appropriate authority to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.
• (g) Any civilian agent of the Department of Defense who is authorized to enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
• (h) Any military agent of the Department of Defense who is authorized to enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
• (i) Any special agent of the Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation.
• (j) Any special agent of the Investigations Division of the Office of Labor Racketeering of the Office of Inspector General, Department of Labor.
• (l) Any special agent of the office of Investigations of the Office of Inspector General, General Services Administration.
• (m) Any special agent of the Office of Inspector General, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• (n) Any special agent of the Office of Inspector General, Department of Interior.
• (o) Any special agent of the Office of Inspector General, Veterans Administration.

• � 60.3 Agencies with authorized personnel.

  
  

  The following agencies have law enforcement officers within the categories listed in Sec. 60.2 of this part:
  

• (a) National Law Enforcement Agencies:
• (1) Department of Agriculture:
• National Forest Service
• Office of the Inspector General
• (2) Department of Defense:
• Defense Investigative Service Criminal Investigation Command, U.S. Army
• Naval Investigative Service, U.S. Navy
• Office of Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of Defense Inspector General
• Office of Special Investigation, U.S. Air Force
• (3) Department of Health and Human Services:
• Center for Disease Control
• Food and Drug Administration
• Office of Investigations, Office of the Inspector General
• (4) Department of the Interior:
• Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
• National Park Service
• (5) Department of Justice:
• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Immigration and Naturalization Service
• U.S. Marshals Service
• (6) Department of Transportation:
• U.S. Coast Guard
• Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation
• (7) Department of the Treasury:
• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
• Executive Protective Service
• Internal Revenue Service
• Criminal Investigation Division
• Internal Security Division, Inspection Service
• U.S. Customs Service
• U.S. Secret Service
• (8) U.S. Postal Service:
• Inspection Service
• (9) Department of Commerce: Office of Export Enforcement
• (10) Small Business Administration:
• Investigations Division of the Office of Inspector General
• (11) Department of State: Diplomatic Security Service
• (12) Department of Labor: Office of Investigations and Office of Labor Racketeering of the Office of Inspector General
• (13) General Services Administration: Office of Inspector General
• (14) Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Inspector General
• (15) Department of the Interior: Office of Inspector General
• (16) Veterans Administration: Office of Inspector General
• (17) Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Criminal Investigations
• (b) Local Law Enforcement Agencies:
• • (1) District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department
  • (2) Law Enforcement Forces and Customs Agencies of Guam, The Virgin Islands, and the Canal Zone. [emphasis added, cited omitted]

Information conveyed in the above regulation confirms and reinforces the determination of territorial jurisdiction for Federal law enforcement agencies.

Of particular note, "Local Law Enforcement Agencies" include the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, and law enforcement and customs agencies of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Canal Zone. There is no mention of any of the several States party to the Constitution so the Union states are excluded. The list of agencies in 28 CFR, Part 60 also serves as an indictment: IRS and BATF, without mentioning the U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Secret Service, are agencies of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico (successors of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico), the Federal Bureau of Investigation has statutory authority only to investigate officers and employees of United States Government, and quasi-military entities (� 60.2(f)) simply have no authority in the several States party to the Constitution save in the event of invasion or civil uprising (Article I Sec. 8.15 & Article IV � 4, Constitution).

The above must also be construed in the context of territorial limits prescribed for execution of warrants and service of summonses at Rule 4(d)(2), F.R.Cr.P.:
(2) Territorial Limits. The warrant may be executed or the summons may be served at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Where the several States party to the Constitution are concerned, the United States does not have jurisdiction unless (1) the United States has acquired title to land, (2) the legislature of the State where title is acquired has ceded jurisdiction, and (3) the United States formally accepts jurisdiction. (40 USC Sec. 255; State cession laws)

28 CFR, Parts 0.49 & 0.64-1:

� 0.49 International judicial assistance.
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division shall direct and supervise the following functions:

• (a) The functions of the "Central Authority" under the Convention between the United States and other Governments on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, TIAS 7444, which entered into force on October 7, 1972.
• (b) The functions of the "Central Authority" under the Convention between the United States and other Governments on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, TIAS 6638, which entered into force on February 10, 1969.
• (c) To receive letters of requests issued by foreign and international judicial authorities which are referred to the Department of Justice through diplomatic or other governmental channels, and to transmit them to the appropriate courts or officers in the United States for execution.
• (d) To receive and transmit through proper channels letters of request addressed by courts in the United States to foreign tribunals in connection with litigation to which the United States is a party.

� 0.64-1 Central or Competent Authority under treaties and executive agreements on mutual assistance in criminal matters.

...al in charge of the Criminal Division shall have the authority and perform the functions of the "Central Authority" or "Competent Authority" (or like designation) under treaties and executive agreements between the United States of America and other countries on mutual assistance in criminal matters which designate the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as such authority. The Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, is authorized to redelegate this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Criminal Division, and to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division.

The matter of "citizen of the United States" v. "Citizen of the several States party to the Constitution" has already been addressed to some extent by way of Ex parte Knowles, and United States v. Cruikshank, supra, with reference to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, definitions at 8 USC � 1101(a)(21) & (22) (Immigration and Nationality Act), and special applications in the Internal Revenue Code.

The Fourteenth Article/Amendment; Rights; duties: addressed

Since promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there have been two distinct classes of American citizen -- one: the sovereign Citizen of any one of the several States party to the Constitution, this "Citizen" being a member of the "Principal" class, the Sovereign responsible for establishing government to secure God-given unalienable rights, second: being the colorable citizenship vested only with civil or government-granted rights, the Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The latter, by virtue of colorable citizenship which issues as a government grant rather than inherent right, has the same status as non-moral, government-created entities (legal fictions) such as corporations, trusts, etc.

The original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27):

... [A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color ... shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States ... to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as enjoyed by white citizens. [emphasis added]

THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

42 USC 1981

"All persons within jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishments, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and extractions of every kind, and to no other. R.S. Sec. 1977" (emphasis added)

42 USC 1982

"All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. (R.S. 1978)" (emphasis added)

42 USC 1983

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. R.S. Sec. 1979; Pub. L. 96-170, Sec. 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284" (emphasis added)

42 USC 1985

• "(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
• (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness or juror
• (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

42 USC 1986

"Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in Section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action;� . (R.S. 1981)"

Legislatures of most Southern States and several Northern States refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment when it was first proposed, so despite Congress having convened in unity after the end of the Civil War, Northern forces dissolved Congress and effectively over-threw State governments of Southern States at bayonet point. Congressional delegates of Southern States were not accepted until legislatures of Southern State governments approved the Fourteenth Amendment, thus creating the colorable and inferior citizenship, the citizen-subject, known as the "citizen of the United States".

The term "colored" which attached to African Americans therefore had two meanings: The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to extend citizenship to people of color, and the citizenship itself was colored or colorable -- the Amendment created a subject class of citizen known as the "citizen of the United States".

In the 1880s, the "citizenship" franchise was extended to non-moral beings such as corporations, trusts, partnerships, etc., as these legal fictions were incorporated in the term "person" for legal purposes.

Prior to 1868, and even in the present, a Citizen of any given State party to the Constitution was free to travel from state-to-state, and he could take citizenship, or transfer citizenship, from one state to another merely by meeting certain criteria established by legislatures of the several States. For example, establishing permanent abode in one of the several States for three or six months and proclaiming intent is adequate to establish citizenship in a State when someone was or is born or naturalized in any of the several States party to the Constitution. No formal judicial process was or is necessary -- the Citizen of the several States has citizenship in one of the Union states as a matter of inherent right. The sovereign people enjoy an inherent, substantive, and inalienable right in all the several states, to freely travel, inhabit, or otherwise do as they wish within the limits of "nature and natures law".

However, the citizenship right is a matter of convention, which falls in the framework of "municipal law". The matter was addressed in Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912):

Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the possession within the particular state of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications, such as minority, sex, etc. The conditions of which citizenship are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law. There is no such thing as international citizenship nor international law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties) by which citizenship is acquired.

"A person who is a citizen of the United States ... is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens." State v. Fowler, 41 La.Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889).

There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of United States and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia...
Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909)

And in the infamous Slaughter-House Cases: In re, La. 83 US 36, 16 Wall 36,21 Led. 394; the Supreme Court went to great depths explaining the 14^th Article and specifically noted:

"The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit no doubt. The phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

Note how they specifically mention "foreign States". The several States are foreign to the United States per se. However, the "negro" was declared legislatively to be a citizen. Other legislation and court decisions also created other supposed citizens such as women (right to vote), and aliens from foreign nations as naturalized citizens. Note also the deliberate references to citizens and citizenship throughout, while they ignore or overlook the sovereign people and or attempt to infer they are "citizens" somewhere or perhaps everywhere.

Regarding evidence and paperwork: required: disclosures, et cetera; verses the Constitutions.

Under requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC Sec. 3501 et seq.), all Government agencies and independent agencies providing services for Government information-collection activity are required to disclose certain information to the public concerning information-gathering instruments and initiatives. So far as information-gathering forms such as the "W2", "940", "941" and "1040" tax return reporting forms distributed by the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, the information required to be disclosed is listed in Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR, Part 1320.8(b):

• (b) Such office shall ensure that each collection of information:
• (1) Is inventoried, displays a currently valid OMB control number, and, if appropriate, an expiration date;
• (2) Is reviewed by OMB in accordance with the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507; and
• (3) Informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of --
• (i) The reasons the information is planned to be and/or has been collected;
• (ii) The way such information is planned to be and/or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency;
• (iii) An estimate, to the extend practicable, of the average burden of the collection (together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden);
• (iv) Whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit (citing authority), or mandatory (citing authority);
• (v) The nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any (citing authority); and
• (vi) The fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

The Paperwork Reduction Act provides unique public protection in that failure of an agency to comply with these requirements effects administrative and/or judicial estoppel. Provisions to this effect are in OMB regulations at 26 CFR, Part 1320.6, reproduced in relative part:

• � 1320.6 Public Protection
• (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to the requirements of this part if:
• (1) The collection of information does not display, in accordance with �1320.3(f) and �1320(b)(1), a currently valid OMB control number assigned by the Director in accordance with the Act; or
• (2) The agency fails to inform the potential person who is to respond to the collection of information, in accordance with � 1320.5(b)(2), that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
• (b) The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise to the imposition of such penalty at any time during the agency administrative process in which such penalty may be imposed or in any judicial action applicable thereto.
• (c) Whenever an agency has imposed a collection of information as a means for providing or satisfying a condition for the receipt of a benefit or the avoidance of a penalty, and the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number or inform the potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information, as prescribed in � 1320.5(b), the agency shall not treat a person's failure to comply, in and of itself, as grounds for withholding the benefit or imposing the penalty. The agency shall instead permit respondents to prove or satisfy the legal conditions in any other reasonable manner.
• (d) Whenever a member of the public is protected from imposition of a penalty under this section for failure to comply with a collection of information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency directly, by an agency through judicial process, or by any other person through administrative or judicial process. [emphasis added]

The "1040" and other return forms (940, 941, etc.) do not meet requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and are therefore of no legal effect. So far as Internal Revenue Service solicitation of information via these forms is concerned, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stipulated in U.S. v. Smith, 866 F.2d 1092 --

See Legislative History for P.L. 96-511, "Section I. Purpose and Summary", page 2, concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act, 3/4 of the way down the page: "Requires all information requests of the public to display a control number, and expiration date, and indicate why the information is needed, how it will be used, and whether it is a voluntary or mandatory request. Requests which do not reflect a current OMB control number or fail to state why not, are bootleg requests and may be ignored by the public."

In section "II. Need for Legislation", p. 3, second paragraph, the report states as follows: "
Federal paperwork requirements, whether they are tax forms, Medicare forms, financial loans, job applications, or compliance reports, are something such individual touches, feels, and works on..." In other words, the Internal Revenue Service, under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC Sec. 3501 et seq.) and attending OMB regulations (5 CFR, Part 1340), has the same mandate as all other agencies of or which contract services for Federal Government, which is also the case under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 USC Sec. 552 et seq.), the Privacy Act (5 USC � 552a), and the Federal Register Act (44 USC Sec. 1501 et seq.).

Of distinctive note is this:

>In common usage, term "persons" does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so. United States v. United Mine Workers (1947) 330 US 258, 91 L.Ed. 884, 67 S.Ct. 677

In general, this is also a requirement for documents to be construed as legal evidence in Federal courts, as stipulated at 28 USC Sec. 1733, reproduced in relative part:

• (b) Properly authenticated copies of transcripts of any books, records, papers or documents of any department or agency of the United States shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof. [emphasis added]
• 
  

The requirement of authentication is stipulated at Rule 44, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at follows:

Rules for criminal procedure are the same as above, per Rule 27, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Rule 27. Proof of Official Record

An official record or an entry therein or the lack of such a record or entry may be proved in the same manner as in civil actions.

This limitation is necessitated by the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [emphasis added]

The "due process of law" clause in the Fifth Amendment, as the "in Law and Equity" provision construed variously to be in the "arising under" clause, is contemplated as the common law which evolved in the English-American lineage -- in a "trial by jury" setting, the jury determines both law and fact.

Theoretically, then, a trial by jury, whether in a court of the United States or one of the several States party to the Constitution, would be more or less the same in character -- so long as the jury of peers has authority to determine both law and fact, the jury has power to turn back capricious government initiatives. But the Separation of Powers Doctrine, as articulated in Article II of the Articles of Confederation and the Tenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution, is all-important where matters at hand are concerned. The United States Supreme Court, in New York v. United States, 550 US ___, 120 L.Ed. 2d 120, 120 S.Ct. ___ (1992), headnote 6, articulated limitations:

Another indispensable truism relative to matters at hand is articulated in headnote 25 of the New York v. United States decision:

States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States, and state governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the federal government; the Federal Constitution instead leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty, reserved explicitly to the states by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment.

The jurisdictions defined

Now, we will address United States jurisdiction in the several States party to the Constitution. This begins with Article I Sec. 8.17 of the Constitution:

The intent of limiting Federal territory was articulated in the Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government, promulgated by the Confederate Congress on July 13, 1787. Territories beyond chartered borders of the thirteen States in the original Union of States party to the Constitution were given to the United States as a means to terminate residual debt from the Civil War, but only on condition that the surplus territories were to become States party to the Union. If the territories did not become States, they were to revert to the States where ownership was originally vested. Among other things, the Ordinance established the English-American common law as the law of the land in the Northwest Territories, as was the case for the original States party to the Constitution.

The Oklahoma Constitution, at Article I Sec. 3, reflects the effect of the Federal land-grab:

Lands retained in States admitted to the Union since 1870 are for the most part national parks, national forests, and other such lands, many of which are among the richer national resource lands on the North American Continent. There is no constitutional provision which authorized United States retention of these lands, and the Ordinance of 1787 confirms that the intent of American founders to limit United States territorial interest, but the present situation is as it is so there is nothing to immediately be done about it. However, even conceding the post-Civil War land grab, there are limits to United States jurisdiction in the several States party to the Constitution, as articulated at 18 USC Sec. 7:

United States territorial jurisdiction in the several States party to the Constitution is articulated at Sec. 7(3). This subsection must be read in the context of Article I Sec. 8.17 of the Constitution, supra, as articulated in the last portion of the subsection -- forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings -- and the post-Civil War reservation of lands (1) for Native American Indian reservations, and (2) unappropriated public lands such as national parks and forests (Re., Oklahoma Constitution, Article I Sec. 3, supra).

Fort Leavenworth Railway Co. v. Iowa, 114 U.S. 525 at 531 (1885). In the decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held as follows:

Per Article I Sec. 8.17 of the Constitution, the United States may secure jurisdiction in the several States only by consent of the State legislature. The several States are sovereign, save as authority has been delegated to the United States by the Constitution -- Separation of Powers Doctrine, supra. Of special notice, the people/sovereigns are exempted from either of these governmental powers, for their power comes from the sovereigns authority and power.

What appears to be an equivocation isn't, as the term "State" differs from the term, "the several States" -- see definition of "State", per Rule 54(c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, supra. The term "State" used in the first sentence of 18 USC � 3231 refers to the Federal territory, also known as a "State", under Congress' Article IV Sec. 3.2 legislative jurisdiction, where the term "the several States" refers to the several States party to the Constitution of the United States.

The division of territorial jurisdiction between the United States and the several States party to the Constitution follows rules laid down in what is commonly referred to in the "Downes Doctrine" (Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)): While the Constitution protects and provides certain assurances to the several States party to the Constitution of the United States, and the American people who are Citizens of their respective States, it does not extend outward. Which is to say, Congress does more or less as Congress pleases within the scope of Article IV Sec. 3.2 territorial and maritime jurisdiction, but may exercise only power delegated by the Constitution where the several States party to the Constitution are concerned. This was addressed to a limited degree in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, supra. Federal territories under Congress' Article IV Sec. 3.2 legislative jurisdiction enjoy constitutional assurances only as Congress elects to extend them -- Congress has plenary power in Federal territories.

In the framework particularly of 4 USC Sec.s 71, Sec. 72, United States territorial jurisdiction and standing in law must be proven for any agency which supposes to prosecute causes in courts of the United States when jurisdiction is challenged in the several States party to the Constitution. If they aren't, they are presumed not to exist.

Summation

So what we have determined in all these presents, is that:

• 1. I have demanded my inherent and inalienable Rights. I have renounced any purported "benefits" and "privileges", the UCC, and supposed "citizenship".
• 
  
• 2. There are three forms of "people" of America. Those being, the sovereign people, the citizen of the State, the citizen of the United States.
• Two have granted benefits and privileges, and the sovereign has inherent and inalienable rights. At least that is what we are told by the governments.
  >
• 3. The "statute" authority of states and United States is limited to the Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction/municipal statute jurisdiction. The "statutes" must comply with Constitutional provisions to be viable, if not they are void.
• 
  
• 4. The federal government has strictly limited authority to: interfere with several state law; design several state law, or anything of like nature.
• 
  
• 5. The governments derive their sovereignty from a small portion of the sovereignty of the people, who control it.
• 
  
• 6. "Police Powers" are strictly limited to special circumstances.
• 
  
• 7. The Constitutions Rights stand as paramount and unremovable.