Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 4 USC Sec. 72 Information

Expand Messages
  • Patrick McKEE
    Based on the examples he uses, it appears to me that Chris Hansen of Family Guardian is arguing a FALLACY & using SOPHISM. Saying that “[a]ll offices
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Based on the examples he uses, it appears to me that Chris Hansen of Family Guardian is arguing a FALLACY & using SOPHISM.


      Saying that “[a]ll offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia , and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law” says NOTHING about the JURISDICTION & AUTHORITY of those offices.  So he is starting with a STRAWMAN premise.


      4 USC § 72 - Public offices; at seat of Government

      All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia , and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.



      CONSTITUTIONALLY, the federal territories & possessions are NOT part of the United States .  The several states of the union & the District of Columbia are.

      “It is sufficient to observe in relation to these three fundamental instruments, that it can nowhere be inferred that the [182 U.S. 244, 251] territories were considered a part of the United States . The Constitution was created by the people of the United States, as a union of states, to be governed solely by representatives of the states; and even the provision relied upon here, that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform 'throughout the United States,' is explained by subsequent provisions of the Constitution, that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state,' and 'no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.' In short, the Constitution deals with states, their people, and their representatives.

      This case may be considered as establishing the principle that, in dealing with foreign sovereignties, the term 'United States' has a broader meaning than when used in the Constitution, and includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, wherever located. In its treaties and conventions with foreign nations this government is a unit.”


      DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)




      That is the reason WHY in HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT the count spoke of the other senses the term 'United States' may be used, WHICH deal with TREATIES & CONVENTIONS with FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTIES.

      "The term ' United States ' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution." HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)



      COMPARE the citation he uses on point 15 on page 5 & point 26 on page 10 on his brief on with WHAT the court was ACTUALLY saying.


      Secretary's Authority in the Several States Pursuant of 4 U.S.C.



      “This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States , and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia , and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”  CAHA v. U.S. , 152 U.S. 211 (1894)



      REALIZE that the Uniform Commercial Code is NOT federal law so the definition of United States used in it is MEANLESS to his point 17 on the same page.


      It appears to be that Hansen has a habit of using MISLEADING & OUT OF CONTEXT cites to try to make his point.  


      Re: Unlawful Practice? State Bar?






      Patrick in California





      "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus


      "Mass mind control was an art in Old Testament times and it is not a lost art, but a perfected one." - Unknown


      "The moral of the story is that words are mankind's greatest weapon; as shown in this quote,"' There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men.'" - Rod Serling, The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street , S01E22 of the TWILIGHT ZONE



      --- In citizensoftheUSofA@yahoogroups.com , "rwtast1" <rwtast1@...> wrote:


      > Recently came across a site which speaks to the required lawful authority of the feds. to be located, physcially, "inside" any of the states. The information on the following site addresses specifically the IRS, but of course it would be applicable to any and all federal offices/agencies. I shall leave it to the reader to discern the information given.


      > The site is, http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/BriefRegardingSecretary-4usc72.pdf


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.