FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

                                  Real.  Educational.  News.

 

 Fort Fairfield Journal     About Us     Contact Us    Advertising Rates      Subscribe       Distribution       Bible Reference     Our Library

A Vision for Fort Fairfield: 

Declare Itself Off Limits to Federal Income Tax

 

Back to Part I

 

Part II:  Jurisdiction

 

Editorial by David Deschesne

Editor/Publisher, FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL, February 10, 2010

What if the Caribou city council sent their police officers to Fort Fairfield to enforce Caribou ordinances and collect property taxes from Fort Fairfield inhabitants? Do you think our local police and town council would have something to say about that? How about if the City of Bangor sent their police officers to Fort Fairfield to summons people in Fort Fairfield for violating Bangor ordinances? Imagine the commotion if the Canadian government sent their Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Fort Fairfield to collect property taxes and vehicle registration fees from Fort Fairfield inhabitants on behalf of Canada. Should we all pay and submit to those police officers?

Those who hold a strict constructionist view of the Bible would mindlessly spew out the “render unto Caesar” verse (Mat. 22:21) as they rationalized paying those organizations since they are all legitimate, duly elected governments and we must pay whatever they demand of us. Of course, that is ridiculous, because the question of jurisdiction is not addressed in that Bible verse.

Jurisdiction is what is being discussed here. It would be unlawful for the City of Caribou, City of Bangor, or government of Canada to come to Fort Fairfield, or any other town or city in the U.S. for that matter, and demand those citizens follow their laws and pay taxes to them because they have never been granted jurisdiction to do so. This is plain to see.

Just as the Bangor city council has specific jurisdiction where it can exercise legislation, the U.S. Congress is limited to where it can exercise its legislative jurisdiction. In my editorial in the last edition of Fort Fairfield Journal, I pointed to Congress’ limited jurisdiction being described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which shows the U.S. Congress has no more authority to enforce their laws inside the town of Fort Fairfield than the city of Caribou, city of Bangor, or government of Canada does.

Just as Bangor, Maine has a certain, limited geographic area where it can send its police to enforce its local ordinances and collect local taxes, the U.S. Congress is also limited.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress only has authority to enforce its laws in the District of Columbia, military installations, navy dockyards, federal buildings and land that is owned by the Federal government. For example, the Federal income tax can only be enforced and collected within those strictly defined areas, just as Bangor property taxes can only be collected on land within the city of Bangor. Is this too difficult to understand? If so, start back at the beginning and read again, more slowly. The rest of the class will wait for you.

Now, what if the city of Bangor made arrangements with the local businesses in Fort Fairfield to require all new employees to sign an agreement to follow Bangor ordinances and made similar arrangements with the local banks to extend to their new customers? That would mean in order to have a job and earn money, or open a bank account, one would have to voluntarily sign an agreement to abide by Bangor city council rules. Does that sound ridiculous? Since there’s no enforceable law that would allow them to mandate it, how many of you would sign on to that agreement?

Well, that’s exactly what the U.S. government has done all across the united States. They have tricked everyone into accepting a Social Security number - which is voluntary - and sign W-4 or W-9 forms before being allowed to work and earn money.

The Social Security number and associated I.R.S. forms are the reason we have to pay income taxes - because we voluntarily signed on to that arrangement. According to a letter I have from Charles H. Mullen, from the Office of Public Inquiries at the U.S. Social Security Administration, there is “no law requiring a person to have a Social Security number to live or work in the United States,” nor is there a law requiring you to have the SSN “merely for the purposes of having one.” It is strictly voluntary.

Just as the Social Security program is voluntary, the disclosure of that number to an employer is just as voluntary. Few people know that when you sign a W-4 or W-9 form with the government, you admit to being a “U.S. Person” which is not a citizen of the united States, but more specifically, a person who exists within the Constitutionally limited jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.

Just as you wouldn’t sign an agreement to be bound to the city of Bangor in order to have a job in Fort Fairfield, you should not sign an agreement with the U.S. government. However, the accounting departments of all U.S. businesses have been erroneously taught by their local colleges and universities that we must sign those agreements because “it’s the law.” What law? Congress doesn’t have the jurisdiction to mandate the use of those forms outside of those aforementioned Constitutionally described areas.

It is for this reason that I suggested in my last editorial that the Fort Fairfield town council declare that they will uphold the U.S. Constitution and not allow those who hold no jurisdiction in Fort Fairfield to exercise law enforcement or tax collecting authority in town - specifically the Federal income tax. We wouldn’t tolerate Bangor police stomping around in Fort Fairfield unlawfully enforcing their ordinances and we shouldn’t tolerate U.S. Marshals or I.R.S. agents for the same reasons --- no jurisdiction!

Businesses should stop mandating new employees sign on to agreements with the U.S. government (which are not mandatory) and people should stop giving their Social Security number. Remember, the Social Security Administration says there’s no law requiring us to use a Social Security number to have a job in the U.S. Without the number, no tax can be assessed against you.

We need to stop volunteering to pay to governmental organizations who have no jurisdiction to enforce tax collecting powers here. The town council needs to remind Congress where its jurisdiction is and assemble a police force to protect us from any who would violate our jurisdiction. To that end, I have already identified seven serious volunteers who have agreed to step forward and assist the town council when they decide to actually protect the people in Fort Fairfield from unlawful tax collections. Since I estimate a police force of at least 1,000 will be needed to repel federal invasions in Fort Fairfield, only 993 more volunteers are needed. If Fort Fairfield were to pass a declaration to uphold the U.S. Constitution and keep the Feds out, I suspect it wouldn’t be too hard to get the rest of those needed volunteers to move to Fort Fairfield and assist us.

 

 

MIL SPEC

Quality, wooden equipment cases and storage totes

 

case_1.JPG (71064 bytes)

Made in U.S.A.

trades exclusively in silver

book_satcount_covr_sm.jpg (62425 bytes)

Discussion on Marriage Licenses, Birth Certificates, 501(c)3 churches, Biometrics and more. With index

32 pages               Staplebound

more info